Paul's success as an organizer was crucial, and his influence on the other, later New Testament authors (whether they agree or disagree with him) is
undeniable. Paul provides the foundation for a Gentile's participation, as a Gentile, in any sort of following of the Jewish Messiah in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth.
On the other hand, Paul's theory is unremarkably Pharisaic, plus the personal and revolutionary assumption that "the end of days" began with Jesus'
Resurrection. So what Paul contributed to the living theory could be recovered well enough even if there were no letters from Paul, just the
discussions of a gradual acceptance of Gentile participation told about in Acts
It is also obvious that living Christians do not generally share Paul's view about the end of days having already begun almost two millennia ago. So
in some sense, you have your answer. Christians already do very well taking from Paul what they like, and leaving the rest. Add to that, different
Christians visibly take different things from Paul than others.
It's fairly clear, then, that as important as his contribution was, a living Christian could reject Paul in some parts, because there are damned few
living Christians who accept all of authentic Paul, and also only a few who rely exclusively on real Paul for any particular thing they do believe.
Off hand, I see nothing in the Apostles' or Nicene creeds that relies exclusively on Paul, and that's about all that the two billion living Christians
share in common. BTW, if anybody does know of a creedal provision that is unique to Paul, I'd be delighted to be corrected on that.
None of the above is to be read as proposing that Paul was in any way less than the giant that he was. The questiion is specific, however, and even
giants can be rejected in light of later developments, including later developments that wouldn't ever have happened without the giant launching the
search for improvement.
edit on 27-3-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)