(Blog) Jesus vs. Paul?: Online Influencers Making a Mess! - Ep. 999 - October 20, 2026

Jesus vs. Paul? The Question of Biblical Authority

Setting Jesus against Paul raises a question about the authority of Scripture: can Christians accept the Bible as God's Word while rejecting the letters of one of its central New Testament writers? Our conviction is that Paul's writings belong to the same inspired Scriptures that testify to Jesus Christ.

In Episode 999 of The Smith and Rowland Show, we examine a Prophecy News Watch article about online claims that Paul corrupted Jesus' message, especially on sexual morality. The argument begins with what the Gospels record, but it soon reaches the larger question of who decides which parts of the Bible carry authority.

What the Jesus vs. Paul Argument Claims

The online argument described in the article portrays Paul as a false teacher whose writings conflict with Jesus' teaching. Its supporters therefore claim that Christians should trust Jesus and set Paul aside.

Sexual morality is a central point of dispute. The reasoning runs like this: the Gospels don't record Jesus directly condemning homosexuality by name, while Paul condemns homosexual conduct. Those advancing the argument treat that difference as evidence of a contradiction.

Some people focus on removing Paul's authority. Others take the reasoning further and question the authority of the twelve apostles, leaving only selected recorded sayings of Jesus.

We see that approach as an attempt to remove portions of God's Word one author at a time. Paul becomes an obvious target because his letters make up such a substantial part of the New Testament.

The question we raise is whether Paul's writings are reliable Scripture. Once someone claims the authority to exclude those letters, the discussion becomes a debate about the biblical canon itself.

Why Gospel Silence Doesn't Establish Approval

The claim that Jesus didn't address a subject by name can't, by itself, establish his approval of it. As the Prophecy News Watch article puts it:

"A subject does not become morally acceptable simply because the gospels do not record Jesus addressing it by name."

The article summarizes that point with the phrase "Silence is not a veto." Jesus didn't need to repeat every commandment or deliver a separate sermon answering every future moral argument.

Jesus' teaching on marriage and sexual immorality

When Jesus addressed marriage, he pointed back to Genesis. He affirmed that God made humanity male and female and described a man and a woman becoming one flesh.

We understand that teaching as an affirmation of marriage between a man and a woman. Jesus also spoke against sexual immorality more broadly. Our reading is that those teachings establish a moral framework that can't be dismissed because the Gospels don't record him naming every form of sexual conduct.

Jeff therefore rejects the conclusion that an absence of a direct quotation proves a disagreement between Jesus and Paul. Jesus' teaching on marriage belongs in the same Bible as the apostolic teaching on sexual morality.

Paul's Commission and Message Came From Christ

The article also addresses the source of Paul's authority. Paul described his gospel as something he received through a revelation of Jesus Christ. In Acts, the risen Christ commissions him to carry the gospel to the nations.

That matters because Paul's claim wasn't that he had developed a competing religious message. He understood his calling and teaching to come from Christ himself.

The New Testament also presents a broader understanding of authority than the idea that only Jesus' recorded sayings count as Scripture. Jesus commissioned apostles to teach, and those apostles understood themselves to be witnesses speaking under his authority.

For us, accepting Paul's letters rests on confidence that God gave his Word through the people he chose. Our faith reaches beyond the reliability of a human author to the God who directed that author.

Why Peter's Recognition of Paul Matters

One of the strongest passages discussed in the episode is the closing portion of 2 Peter 3. Peter refers to Paul's letters, acknowledges that some things in them are difficult to understand, and warns that people distort them as they do the other Scriptures.

Peter's response to difficulty is important. He warns against twisting Paul's writings; he doesn't tell believers to discard them.

We understand Peter's reference to "the other scriptures" as recognition that Paul's letters belong within Scripture. A difficult passage still carries divine authority, even when a reader struggles to understand it.

That also creates a problem for an argument built around trusting Jesus while rejecting Paul. Jesus chose Peter, and Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. Anyone appealing to Jesus' relationship with Peter has to account for what Peter says about Paul.

In our discussion, this is a direct biblical reason for receiving Paul's letters. Peter's acknowledgment connects Paul's teaching with the authority of the apostolic witness.

Peter and Paul Had Different Stages of Revelation

Recognizing Paul's authority doesn't require pretending that Peter and Paul expressed everything in the same way at every point in Acts. Our discussion approaches those differences through a dispensational understanding of Scripture.

Peter's early preaching to Israel

In Acts 2 and 3, Peter addresses Israel concerning the rejection and death of the Messiah. We describe his message as a call for the nation to repent for rejecting its King, with the expectation of Christ's return.

In that early preaching, Peter emphasizes Israel's responsibility for what happened to Jesus. We distinguish that emphasis from Paul's later declaration that he glories in the cross of Christ.

Paul's emphasis on the cross and atonement

Paul preaches the revelation of Christ's cross and the blood of Christ as the atonement for sin. Our position is that Peter didn't yet express that understanding in the same way in Acts 2 and 3.

However, Peter's later writings come decades after those early sermons. By then, he had also interacted with Paul and recognized his writings as Scripture.

We therefore understand the differences in terms of revelation, timing, and the roles God gave these men. Peter's later recognition of Paul is part of that account.

Jesus Affirmed the Old Testament

The effort to limit Scripture to selected words of Jesus also runs into Jesus' own use of the Old Testament. He affirmed its authority and said he came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets.

His teaching on marriage is one example: he returned to Genesis as the basis for his answer. Throughout his ministry, Jesus quoted the Old Testament and treated it as Scripture.

For that reason, rejecting the Old Testament while claiming to follow Jesus creates another inconsistency. The Scriptures Jesus affirmed can't be dismissed without confronting his own teaching about them.

Jeff also briefly criticizes replacement theology in this connection. He describes it as setting aside the Old Testament's continuing significance. The episode doesn't develop that subject further, but it belongs to the same concern: removing biblical teaching that doesn't fit a preferred interpretation.

Our Confidence in Scripture Rests on God

A recurring question in the conversation is how anyone can trust writings produced by so many different people. Our answer begins with faith in God.

We believe God guided those writers to record what he wanted. The existence of human authors doesn't, in our understanding, reduce the Bible to a collection of merely human opinions.

The unity of the Bible

We point to the Bible's unity across many writers and a long span of time as evidence of divine inspiration. Its books continually connect with one another in ways we don't believe human planning alone can explain.

Jeff recalls a saying associated with Chuck Missler:

"The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed. The Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed."

That relationship is central to how we read Scripture. The Testaments illuminate one another rather than functioning as unrelated collections.

The confidence that comes through study

Alan also describes a personal dimension of that conviction. As he studies Scripture, he finds that it reveals the heart of God and produces peace and confidence in its truth.

He argues that sustained time in the Word changes the reader's understanding of it. For him, confidence in biblical inspiration grows through engagement with the text, alongside the evidence of its unity.

Our conviction therefore involves both the Bible's internal relationships and the spiritual work we believe God does through it.

How We Understand the Preservation of Scripture

The discussion also addresses a separate but related issue: how God's Word has reached us.

We acknowledge that the original biblical manuscripts are no longer available. The texts we have come through copies, so preservation is part of the question of biblical authority.

Copies and careful transmission

Alan describes a principle he learned in dispensational teaching: God works through multiplication and copies. He connects that idea with humanity being made in God's image and believers being called to reflect Christ.

He applies that understanding to the preservation of Scripture through many copies. He also emphasizes the care copyists took in checking their work and preserving the wording.

Both of us use the King James Bible, while also acknowledging that other translations can be good. In explaining that preference, we emphasize the body of manuscript copies behind the text rather than treating the oldest surviving manuscript as the only consideration.

The meaning of "jot and tittle"

The phrase "jot and tittle" comes up as an expression of confidence in even the smallest details of Scripture.

Jeff recalls hearing a preacher describe his belief as extending beyond verbal inspiration to "jot and tittle" inspiration. The point is that the wording matters down to its smallest written details.

That level of confidence explains why we regard a proposal to remove an entire biblical author as such a serious claim.

The Temptation to Remove Uncomfortable Passages

We also discuss the motives that can shape someone's treatment of Scripture. Our concern is that a desire to defend a particular behavior can become a reason to reject the passages that challenge it.

Although homosexuality is the immediate subject of the article, we apply that concern more broadly. People in any area of sin can be tempted to remove an uncomfortable command rather than submit to it.

Paul's teaching makes him a frequent target because he addresses conduct directly. In the conversation, we point to his instruction to abstain even from the appearance of evil as an example of the seriousness with which he treats holy living.

That prompts a lighthearted comparison of Paul to an independent fundamental Baptist, with references to Lester Roloff and John R. Rice. The joke reflects our appreciation for Paul's directness.

We connect the larger issue to the temptation in the Garden of Eden: questioning what God said and undermining confidence in his Word. In our view, challenging Scripture's credibility remains a way to draw people away from hearing and obeying God.

The Bakker Family Story and the Cost of Division

The conversation then turns to the strain disagreements over faith and sexuality can place on families.

Alan recounts a video by Jay Bakker, whom he also calls Jamie, that he describes as a response to his father Jim Bakker's death. According to Alan's recollection, Jay said he'd visited his father about three weeks earlier and wouldn't attend the funeral.

Alan understood Jay's comments to describe a long estrangement involving opposing views on LGBTQ+ issues. The discussion also notes their political differences: Jay opposed Donald Trump, while his father supported him.

We treat that story as an example of how a dispute can divide family members even when neither person identifies as gay. The disagreement can involve the convictions people hold about others, rather than their own sexual conduct.

A moment of affection amid disagreement

Alan also recalls Jay describing an agreement with his father. Both believed they would see one another in heaven, so they joked that whoever was wrong would mow the other's yard for a thousand years.

According to Alan's account, Jay said through tears, "I got a feeling I'm going to have a good-lookin' yard."

We welcome that moment of affection. Alan hears considerable hurt in Jay's words, along with grief over the relationship. The story shows that disagreement hadn't erased the emotional importance of father and son to one another.

Church Attendance Doesn't Mean Shared Belief

The family discussion leads to a related concern about congregations. People can attend the same church while holding substantially different beliefs about salvation, Scripture, and moral conduct.

Jeff recalls Tammy Sue Bakker singing at the church and Tammy Faye Bakker visiting one Sunday. His broader point is that a pastor doesn't automatically know what everyone in the pews believes.

We can assume that everyone trusts Christ, understands the gospel the same way, or shares the same goal. Yet disagreements can expose how fragmented those beliefs are.

God's love and the acceptance of behavior

Alan understood Jay's remarks about God's love as suggesting that divine love makes every person's behavior acceptable. He makes clear that this was his interpretation of what he heard, rather than a direct quotation of Jay stating that conclusion.

We reject that understanding of love. God's love doesn't, in our reading of Scripture, erase the distinction between obedience and sin.

Jeff calls such an approach a "psychological gospel" and connects it to an earlier discussion of moralistic therapeutic religion. His concern is that the desire to reassure people can displace what Scripture teaches.

Compassion Without Treating Every Behavior as Acceptable

Alongside our convictions about sexual morality, we state plainly that people shouldn't be rejected because of their sin.

We recall ministering to many gay people during revival meetings. Our account of that ministry is one of compassion and an open door, without treating agreement about conduct as a condition for hearing the gospel.

The approach we describe includes sharing the gospel, calling people toward repentance and forgiveness, and walking with them as they seek cleansing and deliverance. We believe Scripture requires that response.

Love, disagreement, and family relationships

Alan also distinguishes allowing someone room to hold a belief from agreeing with that belief. A disagreement doesn't require ending every conversation or breaking a family relationship.

Jeff stresses the biblical duty to honor parents. He objects to allowing support for conduct he regards as sinful to displace a relationship with one's father.

At the same time, both of us recognize the hurt involved in the Bakker family story and express hope about the affection evident in the final visit Alan describes.

Our position holds these convictions together: we regard homosexual conduct as sin, and we believe Christians must treat people with compassion. Love doesn't require approval of every behavior, and disagreement doesn't remove the responsibility to care for a person.

The Central Question Is the Authority of God's Word

The Jesus vs. Paul debate ultimately asks whether the whole Bible carries divine authority. We receive Paul's letters as Scripture because we trust the God who gave them and recognize the apostolic testimony supporting them.

For us, Jesus' teaching, Peter's recognition of Paul, and Paul's commission belong to one biblical witness. Difficult passages call for faithful understanding rather than removing the author who wrote them.

That is the conviction at the center of this episode: God's Word has authority over our conclusions, including when its teaching challenges what we want to believe.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Jesus vs. Paul?: Online Influencers Making a Mess! - Ep. 999 - October 20, 2026"