St. Paul's Challenge for Today: Living by the Spirit

"Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." - Galatians 5:16-21 (NRSV)

We are called through our baptism to 'fight under the banner of Christ' (as Rowan Williams likes saying) against the world, the flesh, and the devil. The apostle actually outlines the 3 ways of living presented to us today.

1. The works of flesh: sin. I like that St. Paul is translated here "to prevent you from doing what you want". He knows the struggle against the flesh and that it is what we want.

2. The Law. God's moral precepts without grace and Christ's merit, without the work of the Spirit, basically to be left alone in Original Sin without the possibility of obedience.

3. The Spirit. The solution of St. Paul is life in the Spirit, against the flesh and the law. The freedom to follow Christ in loving God, and bearing one another's burdens. This the apostle calls "the torah of Christ" (Gal. 6:2)

and if that wasn't enough motivation St. Paul's call for imperfect contrition at the end still rings true:

If you do these, you will not inherit the kingdom.

St. Paul the Apostle in the Catholic Church

Someone asked me to clarify St. Paul's role in Catholicism and how he fits into their ecclesiology. One argument I tried to use as a Protestant was that Paul wasn't 'authorized' by the Church and yet he was an apostle, and so our churches though not 'authorized' by the descendants of the apostles (bishops in apostolic succession in communion with the bishop of Rome) we were still a valid church.

Here's an honest look at the situation. I've dealt with Galatians 2 before and Paul's confrontation of Peter and defended the Catholic view that St. Peter had fallen into sin but not false teaching:http://theologyofandrew.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-i-cannot-be-protestant-christian.html , and likewise I used Pope Benedict's biblical defense of Petrine Supremacy among the apostles to reaffirm the traditional view of Peter as prince of the apostles or first among them here:http://theologyofandrew.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-i-cannot-be-protestant-christian_01.html.

So with those two issues out of the way, what about Paul for example in Galatians 1:1 saying "Paul an apostle—sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ "

There is infallible proof aha! some will say. Furthermore Paul writes: "I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him for fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." But let me note a few things:

1. Paul had indeed met with Ananias and other Christians and eventually went to Peter and James and the Church in Jerusalem, so he wasn't completely alone.

2. Paul was 'merely' preaching his gospel, he didn't have any authorization from the Church that his calling from Christ was indeed true at that point, but we know from later verification by the rest of the Church that it was true, so it didn't end up mattering, there was no dicotemy between Paul and the other apostles' messages.

3. Paul was an apostle. He was appointed by Christ as an apostle, just as John and James had been. So Paul shared the same calling they had. The Catholic Church teaches that it has no authority except that which Christ gives her, and that though she is limited to the sacraments, God is not. Therefore, from a Catholic perspective, even if St. Paul didn't lack any authority, he had authority from God himself. He continually notes that "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you" (1 Cor 11:23).

4. Look what he says later in Galatians 2:1-2 "I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain." So actually if Paul was trying to empasize earlier that he didn't get any endorsement from the Church but he's an apostle, then why would he write this.

It must mean that he wasn't trying to convince the Judaizers in Galatia that he was authentically from the Church in Jerusalem, but rather authentically from Christ. This makes much more sense as a hermeneutic for Galatians 1-2 in my opinion.

In short, St. Paul is one of the most important figures in all of salvation history and the Church of Rome was traditionally called "the Church of Ss. Peter and Paul". As well it is the year of St. Paul in the Catholic Church. And to close with St. Paul's own words:

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. " - 1 Corinthians 11:2

Observations In The Church of Rome (Pt. 1) - The Gospel

This last week I was very frustrated as I tried to explain to my Evangelical friend why I was still becoming Roman Catholic. She asked me if the Church was energized about evangelism. No, was my honest answer. Do they understand they're saved by Grace? No, for the most part. Do they preach Christ above all else? Not at my current Church (The city Cathedral) but in my parish Church, more often than not. All this to say she was quite confused as to why anyone would remain in such a place. I also told her that I couldn't use any of my spiritual gifts of teaching and preaching there, and that because of these classes I'd been unable to receice the Eucharist for almsot a year now. I tried telling her about the indivisibility of the Church, I tried to explain Transubstantiation and Eucharistic Adoration, I tried to explain the infallibility of the Church/Pope. It wasn't as substantial. For the Protestant mind - especially the Evangelical mind, it's a living faith that matters, it's evangelism even if there's no depth in what is evangelized, as long as people are reached for Jesus. So I decided to put my observations of the Roman Catholic Church up here, more for myself probably than anyone (I think only 2 people read this blog anyway these days).

The Gospel
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" - Galatians 3:26 NIV

Throughout my life as an Evangelical Protestant the most important thing in the world was spreading the Gospel. The Gospel was humanity's only hope, and salvation came by hearing the Gospel preached and the word proclaimed, as St. Paul said "faith cometh by hearing" (Rom 10:17). So when I went to the Catholic Church I wondered what the gospel would be like. To my surprise it was actually there in part being preached. "Swimming in God's Abundant Grace" was a homily given by Fr. Peter at my parish and it was a lovely Lutheran understanding of justification (Trent would've anathemized it). It was good to see some of the message there. When I read my Catechism I found it much more clearly with sections like:

"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life" - CCC 1992

... for the most part that sounded right to me, it was different than Imputed Righteousness -but in my Baptist Church I was never taught Protestants believed in the Trinity, let alone Imputed Righteousness - so it wasn't as shocking to me. For the most part things sounded ok... until baptism came in.

Well the first verse I quoted was Galatians 3:26, a verse I'd heard alot: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus", but then I realized I had never read the next sentence with much thought. "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." (Gal 3:27) ... Uh Oh , Regenerative (Saving) Baptism, not good, Lutheran and Catholic alert! I always got angry with the Catholic Church because of their emphasis on the 'dead works of the law' like Baptism, but then I realized that the gospel is twofold, it comes by faith certainly but grace is also conferred sacramentally.

One East Orthodox blogger I read said "Protestantism makes salvation a mental exercise, the sacraments make salvation possible for all, even the mentally handicapped, and go beyond the sort of gnostic salvation whereby knowledge merits grace"... or something to that effect.

So the reason I will sometimes tell people the Church of Rome needs to get real and start preaching about Justification, I keep forgetting that in their theology all of it is linked together, and that whenever a priest reminds us of our baptism, or exhorts us to partake of the sacraments he is simply echoing the other side of grace.

The 2-Lane Road to Redemption
If Salvation is a two way highway I would say that the lane on the right is Salvation by Grace alone, through faith, producing good works, it would have signs saying things like "Believeth on the Lord Jesus" and "Trust in God, trust also in me" (Jn 14.1). But I would say the left lane could be the Sacraments, it would have signs like "baptism that now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21) and "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." (Jn 6:51 - Eucharist).

So yes, there are many 'lost' Catholics who without understanding take the good gift each week without a full understanding of Grace and Justification, but maybe in some way God glances on it as the Quakers profess their faith in God and refuse to baptize or break bread together. Maybe God is leading people through the Word and the Sacraments - as the Reformers taught.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong. (*Presbyterians Nod Enthusiastically*)

In all my frustration with the Church of Rome I perpetually repeat my Augustinian Mantra, "The Church is a whore, but she's my mother"

Why I Cannot Be A Protestant Christian (Part 2) Galatians 2 Response

I would like to offer a defence of the Papacy and another explanation of Galatians 2.

"...when James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship" - (2.9)

clearly St. Paul who although he had been given a gift from God, also had to have it acknowledged by the Church.

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate FOR FEAR of the circumcision faction. And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel"- (2.11-14)

These are the key words. St. Peter was not TEACHING in contradiction with the gospel, but was acting in contradiction to it. And why? because of a temporary fear, he made a mistake (sin). Nowhere in Roman Catholic teaching does it say the popes will be sinless. Lest we forget that St. Paul was a murderer before his conversion, and struggled with the 'thorn in the flesh' for all his life.

"We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is justified* not by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.* And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ,* and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law." (2.15-16)

Now this is the 'nail in the coffin' of Catholic Justification in the view of many Protestants. However the great Protestant New Testament scholar and Bishop of the Church of England Dr. N.T. Wright reminds us that the phrase 'works of the law' means ceremonial jewish law observances, sacrifices, circumcision, etc. NOT good works. Furthermore I know nothing about Greek, and only know a little latin, and the question could be answered if 'faith' in verse 16 is in the Genetive/Possessive or another case. BUT my NRSV study notes say that an alternative reading can be "we might be justified by the faith of Jesus Christ" ie. Christ's obedience to God's will. NOT a personal faith in him apart from good works. This phrase 'faith in Jesus' or 'faith of Jesus' appears also in Gal 2:20, 3:22; Rom 3:22, 26; Phil 3:9, and the scholars in my NRSV commentary say that this phrase emphasizes Jesus' faithfulness and obedience to God on the cross.

In Short, nowhere does Roman Catholic theology say that Popes are not allowed to make mistakes, or to act in contradiction to the gospel. Once again Galatians 2 has been used to contradict a twisted version of papal infallibility.