(Blog) Jesus vs. Paul?: Online Influencers Making a Mess! - Part 2 - Ep. 1000 - October 21, 2026

Jesus vs. Paul? When Influencers Become Bible Authorities

A large online following doesn't make someone a trustworthy authority on Scripture. When you hear a confident teacher dismiss Paul's writings, the size of that person's audience tells you nothing about whether the claim is true.

In Part 2 of our discussion on The Smith and Rowland Show, we examined how online personalities become a Christian's default source of theology, sometimes without accountability to a local church. That concern begins with a distinction between attracting an audience and faithfully teaching the Word of God.

Popularity Doesn't Establish Theological Authority

An article from Prophecy News brought our attention to the danger of treating influencers as theological authorities. Social media gives someone with a camera, a confident delivery, and a large following the opportunity to become a viewer's primary source of biblical interpretation.

A short clip can quote a verse, announce that an apostle is a fraud, and end before viewers have examined the claim. The speaker's confidence can carry more weight than the passage itself.

Online teachers can raise worthwhile questions and point people toward Scripture. We recognize that as a positive contribution. However, the article makes a distinction we strongly affirm:

"Popularity does not establish theological authority."

Presentation can't establish sound doctrine

Several things can attract an audience without proving that a person teaches Scripture faithfully:

• A compelling personal story can make a speaker persuasive.
• Polished production can give a presentation an appearance of credibility.
• Claims of uncovering something pastors or churches have hidden can draw attention.

None of those qualities establishes the truth of an interpretation.

Jeff described reaching a place where fame and large followings no longer intimidated him. Alan, who has known him for roughly 40 years, joked that Jeff had always been that way. Their exchange returned to a serious concern: the church can adopt the world's habit of measuring success by visibility and numbers.

Local Church Accountability Matters

We believe God established the local church as a place of spiritual authority and accountability. Ministry should operate under that authority rather than depend entirely on a person's decision to appoint himself as a teacher.

In the discussion, we made that personal. Alan is the chief elder at New Life, and Jeff is an elder at the Grace Place. Those relationships provide a structure under which we minister.

An online following doesn't provide spiritual covering

Our concern is that many influential online voices operate without meaningful local church accountability. We also acknowledged that some online teachers are pastors with churches of their own.

The term "influencer" describes someone who influences others. However, it isn't one of the fivefold ministry gifts. When someone uses Scripture as the substance of a message, the biblical activity is preaching or teaching, whatever label the platform gives it.

That makes questions about authority important. A following doesn't explain who recognizes a person's ministry, who holds that person accountable, or under what church authority the work takes place.

Physical fellowship has a place online teaching can't fill

We also emphasized physically assembling with other believers. Online resources can carry teaching, but gathering together has a value we connect to the biblical instruction not to forsake assembling.

Our concern is the growing habit of looking first to whoever has the largest online audience for theological understanding. That habit can displace the relationships and accountability of a local congregation.

Exposing Failure Doesn't Prove Someone Can Explain Scripture

Alan distinguished between influence built around positive work and influence built around criticism. He named Billy Graham as an example of someone whose influence had a healthy purpose.

By contrast, much of the Christian commentary we encounter online centers on taking another Christian, preacher, or church to task. A commentator may include Bible verses while building an audience around someone else's failures.

The question we raised was direct: revealing another person's sin doesn't establish the ability to explain the mysteries of Scripture.

The Mike Winger and Bethel example

Alan brought up Mike Winger as an example of someone many viewers regard as an authority on evaluating preachers and churches. He referred to a six-hour investigation concerning alleged wrongdoing at Bethel, which he said appeared in January, and quoted its title as "The Skeletons in Bethel's Closet Are Now Going to Speak."

We didn't claim to know how many churches Winger had built. Alan also acknowledged that Winger could be a good man. The concern was the authority viewers assign to someone because of an exposé.

We acknowledged that churches can do things wrong. An investigation's existence, however, doesn't by itself establish its creator as a theological authority.

The tractor that stays in the shed

Alan illustrated his point with a tractor: the one that never leaves the shed may never break down. A tractor doing regular work will encounter wear and mechanical problems.

He used that comparison to explain why visible work brings visible problems. Likewise, the absence of an online scandal doesn't prove that a church or person has never experienced failure.

Political Judgment and Church Life Involve Different Questions

Alan briefly compared the demand for scandal-free churches with the expectation that political candidates should be without sin.

In discussing an approaching election, he emphasized a candidate's policies, record, and stated positions. He also observed that a person can be an unbeliever and still be honest. Political judgment, in his view, shouldn't depend on imagining a flawless candidate.

Then he distinguished that discussion from life in the church. A profession of faith in Christ places someone in a different category, where the person's relationship with Christ belongs at the center.

The comparison returned to the problem of judging people through public impressions alone, whether those impressions come from political campaigns or online Christian commentary.

A Favorite Teacher Can Become the Lens for Every Passage

The danger grows when a viewer accepts an influencer's interpretation without checking it against Scripture. Over time, that interpretation can become the standard by which the viewer judges the Bible.

A difficult passage then becomes a problem to remove because it conflicts with the trusted teacher. The question shifts away from what Scripture teaches toward which passages a person can retain while keeping the approval of favored voices.

We also discussed the temptation to dismiss passages that challenge a desired way of life. Faith can become a collection of verses and voices that affirm what someone already wants to believe.

Someone promising freedom from Paul's teaching can therefore take Paul's place as the viewer's authority. That person now decides which parts of the Bible still count.

John Rich and teaching about the last days

We discussed country music artist John Rich and his conversation with Tucker Carlson as another example of influence carrying over into theology.

Our criticism was that Rich took passages out of context in his teaching about the last days. In our assessment, a brief presentation moved viewers toward a different position on a doctrine that takes substantial time to study and understand.

His public recognition brought an audience to the discussion. It didn't settle whether his interpretation was sound. This was a separate example of the broader concern about treating a familiar public voice as a biblical authority.

Why We Reject the Jesus-versus-Paul Framing

At the center of the conversation was the claim that Christians should follow Jesus while setting aside Paul's writings.

We reject that division. We understand Paul's writings as Scripture and as part of God's progressive revelation following Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Paul's teaching belongs within God's revelation to the church, the Gentiles, and the world.

We also connected this to the "dispensation of the grace of God." From our theological position, dismissing Paul removes teaching God gave to the church concerning that dispensation.

Paul's conversion belongs in the discussion

Alan pointed out that Paul followed Jesus. Although Paul had persecuted Jesus' followers, Christ confronted him on the road to Damascus, where he was struck blind and converted.

Paul then gave the rest of his life to Christ. His earlier persecution doesn't erase that conversion or establish a reason to discard his letters.

For that reason, Alan called the demand to choose between Jesus and Paul blasphemous. We regard it as a challenge to the authority of Scripture.

Fifty years of preaching without considering Paul expendable

Jeff recalled preaching his first sermon at 13. At the time of the discussion, he was 63 and had preached for 50 years.

Those decades included personal failure and sin, along with victory, revival, and precious experiences with God. Through all of it, removing Paul's writings from Scripture had never entered his mind.

To Jeff, cutting out Paul was as arbitrary as deciding to remove the book of Nahum. He had always received Paul's writings as Scripture within God's unfolding revelation.

The Bereans Examined the Scriptures

Acts 17:11 provides the model we returned to throughout the discussion. The Bereans received the word with readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily to determine whether the things Paul taught were so.

Their example brings together a willingness to listen and a commitment to examination. They didn't substitute a speaker's reputation for the work of reading Scripture.

That model also doesn't grant permission to reject biblical books whenever they challenge an assumption. Examining a teaching against Scripture is different from deciding in advance that an inconvenient part of Scripture must be discarded.

We include our own teaching in that standard

We explicitly included ourselves in this responsibility. Listening to Alan and Jeff doesn't remove anyone's need to examine what we say.

Our listeners shouldn't accept a claim simply because it comes through our program. We welcome questions about our teaching and recognize the importance of testing it.

That position follows the same principle we apply to other online voices: the teacher's interpretation must remain subject to Scripture.

Paul's Journey to Jerusalem Shows Why Warnings Need Discernment

The conversation also turned to Paul's journey toward Jerusalem in Acts 20 and 21. The warning involving the prophet Agabus appears in Acts 21.

Agabus took Paul's belt and bound his own hands and feet. He declared that the owner of the belt would be bound in Jerusalem and handed over to the Gentiles.

Those around Paul responded by urging him not to go. However, we emphasized a distinction in the account: Agabus described what would happen. He didn't directly command Paul to stay away.

Paul went despite the danger

Paul continued toward Jerusalem and said he was willing to die there for the name of the Lord Jesus.

In our reading of the passage, he went because God wanted him to go. The danger described in the prophecy didn't cancel his calling.

This challenges the assumption that obedience always produces smooth circumstances. A difficult road doesn't automatically mean someone has missed God's direction. In Paul's case, suffering accompanied the path he understood God had called him to follow.

Caring advice can carry another person's fears

The people urging Paul to stay were concerned for him. We also considered how their advice could reflect their fear of losing him.

Their perspective was sincere, but they couldn't experience Paul's calling from inside his relationship with God. As we discussed it, Paul had also become a source of security for those around him.

That doesn't make all counsel wrong. It does explain why another person's concern can't, by itself, settle what God has called someone to do.

Personal Discernment Belongs With Church Accountability

Jeff recalled occasions when people urged him not to do something, yet he knew he had to proceed. He also remembered listening to others because he assumed they knew better, only to discover later that they didn't.

Those experiences supported our emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Other people can offer counsel, but they cannot have that relationship on someone else's behalf.

We connected this to the priesthood of the believer. Each believer has a responsibility to know God's direction for his or her life.

Local church authority and personal discernment both appeared in our discussion. We affirmed accountability while also recognizing that neither a popular teacher nor a concerned friend can replace a believer's own relationship with God.

Further Direction Comes While Doing What God Has Revealed

Jeff described something he had recently addressed while preaching: the habit of taking time off to discover God's will.

He recalled a preacher's challenge to take "time on" instead, doing the will of God already revealed. His concern was with stopping all activity and waiting for direction while neglecting what was already understood.

"More revelation of what the will of God is for your life comes as you do the revealed will of God for your life."

This connected with our discussion of Paul. Following God doesn't guarantee an easy path, and opposition can accompany obedience.

We applied that point to people who feel heavily opposed while doing what they believe God has called them to do. Paul's experience gives reason to question the assumption that difficulty alone means a person is outside God's will.

Scripture Remains the Standard

A teacher's audience, presentation, or ability to expose wrongdoing doesn't establish the truth of a biblical interpretation. Those qualities can't settle the claim that Christians must choose between Jesus and Paul.

We receive Paul's writings as Scripture. The Bereans' example expresses the standard we affirm: a ready mind joined to careful examination of the Word.

Our concern is that a favored online voice can become the person who decides which passages still count. Scripture must remain the standard by which the teaching is examined.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Jesus vs. Paul?: Online Influencers Making a Mess! - Part 2 - Ep. 1000 - October 21, 2026"