"I DON'T BELIEVE IN PAUL'S WRITINGS!"
"I DON'T BELIEVE IN PAUL'S WRITINGS!"
When the New Testament is measured bookwise rather than by verse count, Paul’s presence is impossible to minimize. Of the twenty-seven books in the New Testament, thirteen are explicitly attributed to Paul. That means nearly forty-eight percent of the New Testament books bear his name. If Hebrews is included, as it was by much of the early body of believers, that number rises to fourteen books, or just over fifty-one percent. Even using the most conservative count, nearly half of the New Testament is Pauline in authorship. Denying Paul is not trimming excess; it is removing the backbone of the New Testament witness.
What is often overlooked is that removing Paul does not stop with Paul. Once his letters are rejected, the authority of other New Testament writers collapses alongside him, because they explicitly affirm Paul’s calling, message, and writings. Peter is the clearest example. In his second letter, Peter refers to Paul as “our beloved brother” and places Paul’s letters in the category of “Scriptures,” warning that the unstable distort them to their own destruction. If Paul is a false teacher or corruptor, then Peter either lacked discernment or endorsed error. Removing Paul therefore requires removing Peter’s authority as well.
Luke must also go. Luke is not merely a neutral historian. He is Paul’s companion and biographer. The book of Acts which was written by Luke, devotes the majority of its narrative to Paul’s conversion, calling, missionary work, trials, and defense before rulers. Luke repeatedly presents Paul as guided by the Holy Spirit, affirmed by prophetic revelation, and defended by divine intervention. Acts does not portray Paul as a fringe figure but as a chosen instrument of God, specifically appointed to bear the name of the Lord before nations and kings. If Paul is rejected, Acts becomes a misleading or deceptive document, and Luke’s credibility as an inspired writer is destroyed. This effectively removes the Gospel of Luke as well, since the same author wrote both volumes.
James, Jude, and John do not contradict Paul, but their writings exist within the same apostolic framework that recognized Paul’s legitimacy. The early body of believers did not operate as isolated voices competing for authority. They functioned as witnesses who recognized the same Spirit at work in one another. To deny Paul is to claim that nearly the entire apostolic community failed to detect a massive doctrinal corruption in their midst, even while affirming that the Spirit guided them into all truth. That position quietly denies the Spirit’s role in preserving the message itself.
Once Paul, Peter, and Luke are removed, what remains is a fragmented and hollow New Testament. Matthew and Mark remain as historical accounts of Jesus’ life and sayings, but with little inspired explanation of how His death, resurrection, and Lordship are to be lived out in daily obedience. The teachings on justification, sanctification, suffering, discipline, submission, endurance, spiritual warfare, and the death of the self are drastically reduced or left unexplained. The cross becomes an event rather than a way of life.
This is precisely why Paul is targeted. His letters do not allow Jesus to be admired without being obeyed. They do not allow grace to exist without transformation. They do not allow faith to coexist with self-rule. Paul takes the words of Jesus and drives them into the soil of real life, where pride must die, the flesh must be crucified, and allegiance to Christ must override every personal desire.
In the end, denying Paul is not an attempt to protect Jesus; it is an attempt to protect the self. Removing Paul removes nearly half the New Testament books, dismantles the authority of Peter and Luke, and leaves behind a Jesus who can be quoted but not followed. What remains is not the faith once delivered, but a carefully edited version that no longer requires dying to oneself.