I was in mass this Sunday fairly bored by the sub-par preaching of an ESL priest who tends to think every biblical passage is about Abortion and Spiritual Warfare where the armies of Lucifer are led by - as he says - "Barrack HUSSIEN! obama".
But amidst all the arch-conservatism and superstition I was still able to experience what one theologian called the most "inspired" (pun-intended) part of the service - Sacred Scripture. We read:
"When he (Paul) had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. ...He (Paul) spoke and argued with the Hellenists; but they were attempting to kill him. When the believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus." (Acts of the Apostles chapter 9, verses 26, 29, and 30)
The Early Church was not as nice to Paul as we'd imagine. We have to remember what a terrible person Paul was, he was a mass murderer. He did it for religious reasons as well. He'd be the 1st century equivalent to a modern Islamo-Fascist Suicide Bomber, a local head of Al-Queda as it were. That's Paul. And he converts to the religion he has been persecuting (Christianity). Now when he comes to the church to tell them of his "decision for Christ" (to use 20th century language), where do they sent him? Tarsus. Saul of Tarsus was his Jewish name. He was from Tarsus, his friends and family would probably be there. He was the prodigy, rabbi, boy-wonder. He had been educated as a "hebrew of the hebrews", and sat at the foot of Gamaliel, one of the most famous Rabbis of the century, and was known as a zealous Jew, because of his persecution of the Christians.
So only after they see Paul arguing with one group of Jews that starts planning to kill him, did they send him away (apparently they recognized the signs of conspiracy to commit murder now, after it already happened to Jesus). So where do they send him? Where's the next worst place in the world? Tarsus. Home. His old Stomping grounds. This was Paul's great tour of duty for the church, 'out of the frying pan into the fire' to quote Tolkien.
As a convert myself, I wonder what it would've been like for Paul to face his parents (if they were still alive), and to tell them about his change of heart and mind. To hear his father say "I have no son" as his mother cried and his brothers and sisters were too hurt to say anything at all. To be barred from his home synagogue. For him to walk down the familiar streets, meeting old friends who would ask how his Rabbinic ministry was going and how many heretics he'd killed, only to begin the embarrassing story about how he was now serving the church he persecuted. Instead of lofty appointments, he would be telling them about how he was beaten, and attacked, and hated. I think of the scene from Jaws where all the men are on the boat showing off their scars from various shark attacks, etc, and think that if Paul was there, he would've been able to beat Captain Quint. Paul would now have jail appointments rather than clerical appointments, and Paul describes his life very accurately when he says:
"whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him...I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead." (Philippians 3)
So the next time you are ridiculed for your faith, just remember the story of St. Paul the first great theologian and preacher of the Church, and remember "they sent him off to Tarsus", maybe you too are being called to speak the truth in love where you least want to.
I was reading a collection of the writings of Pope Benedict XVI and he quotes Augustine at length on the issue of martyrdom in the early church:
"the blessed apostles, saw the Lord Jesus himself hanging on the cross; they grieved at his death, were astounded at his resurrection, loved him in his power, and shed their own blood for what they had seen. Just think, brothers and sisters, what it meant for men to be sent throughout the wide world, to preach that a dead man had risen again and ascended into heaven; and for preaching this to suffer everything a raving, raging world could inflict: loss of goods, exile, chains, tortures, flames, wild beasts, crosses, painful deaths. All this for heaven knows what! I mean, really, my brothers and sisters, was Peter dying for his own glory, or proclaiming himself? One man was dying that another might be honored, one being slain that another might be worshiped. Would he have done this, if he hadn't been on fire with love, and utterly convinced of the truth?" - St. Augustine, from sermon 311, 2, "Preaching that a dead man had risen!"
St. Paul the Apostle, pray for us that we too might find the righteousness that comes not from the law, but Jesus Christ, that our hearts would burn as yours did and that we would gladly suffer the loss of all things for the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul our brother in the Lord, pray that even in our shaking faith, we would be able to do small things with great love, all to the Greater Glory of God, Amen.
Showing posts with label St. Paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label St. Paul. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
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
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
Friday, January 9, 2009
The Just Condemnation of Humanity (Romans 1)
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art" - Romans 1:16-2:1a King James Version
I was listening to Charles Price preach on this today, he was a former principal at Capernwray Hall where I studied for a year in the 'simple precepts of the gospel'. He really preached this morning and I really listened to the message of Romans 1, even if some areas of scripture are very confusing, I've been listening to Romans my whole life, and I think I get the just of the message.
I love how St. Paul writes in this Epistle with his Rhetorical style. He makes it clear that the world has made manifest the existence of God, and here appeals to what we call Natural Theology (in Catholicism) or Common Grace/Common Revelation? in Reformed theology (i think I got that one wrong).
Price quoted Abraham Lincoln who was not a Christian but once said
I used this passage three times today when talking with people. Two of the discussions were on Homosexuality and I had to say that I thought it was immoral, and I must say that St. Paul makes it abundantly clear here when he writes, "burned in their lust one toward another; men with men" - no matter what the liberal commentators in my NRSV say about Judaic understandings of Idolatry leading to immorality, it seems clear to me right here that St. Paul is painfully spelling out the fact that homosexuality was a sin. There's too much theological gymnastics I would have to do to get out of it, and I'm going to need all the theological gymnastics I can muster to dodge Romans 4:5 like the plague to make my Catholic hermeneutic fit.
Anyway I just thought it was good to remember that under God's declaration all stand guilty and sinful. This is the first precept of the Gospel, the sinfulness and just condemnation of mankind.
God is just, and justifier. If it were not for the grace of his unconditional election, we would have no hope.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art" - Romans 1:16-2:1a King James Version
I was listening to Charles Price preach on this today, he was a former principal at Capernwray Hall where I studied for a year in the 'simple precepts of the gospel'. He really preached this morning and I really listened to the message of Romans 1, even if some areas of scripture are very confusing, I've been listening to Romans my whole life, and I think I get the just of the message.
I love how St. Paul writes in this Epistle with his Rhetorical style. He makes it clear that the world has made manifest the existence of God, and here appeals to what we call Natural Theology (in Catholicism) or Common Grace/Common Revelation? in Reformed theology (i think I got that one wrong).
Price quoted Abraham Lincoln who was not a Christian but once said
"I never behold them (the universe filled withstars) that I do not feel I am looking in the face of God. I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist - but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say 'There Is No God.'"- And as much as I believe the Confederacy was right (just my historical/political view), I still have to say that honest Abe seems to make my point well for me.
I used this passage three times today when talking with people. Two of the discussions were on Homosexuality and I had to say that I thought it was immoral, and I must say that St. Paul makes it abundantly clear here when he writes, "burned in their lust one toward another; men with men" - no matter what the liberal commentators in my NRSV say about Judaic understandings of Idolatry leading to immorality, it seems clear to me right here that St. Paul is painfully spelling out the fact that homosexuality was a sin. There's too much theological gymnastics I would have to do to get out of it, and I'm going to need all the theological gymnastics I can muster to dodge Romans 4:5 like the plague to make my Catholic hermeneutic fit.
Anyway I just thought it was good to remember that under God's declaration all stand guilty and sinful. This is the first precept of the Gospel, the sinfulness and just condemnation of mankind.
God is just, and justifier. If it were not for the grace of his unconditional election, we would have no hope.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Jansenism Pt. 2 and Emphasis in Theology
Emphasis is important in theology. A church can believe in a doctrine but not emphasize it over a period of time. An example is 'sola gratia' - grace alone. Dr. R.C. Sproul is a very honest Reformed theologian and he says in his book "Faith Alone" that the Catholic Church has always fought to maintain that salvation is by the grace of God alone (though obviously not by faith alone, hence the Reformation). Louis Bouyer writes that if the Church focussed more on Grace Alone during the time of the Reformation, it is probable that the issues would have been settled. This is quite a claim of course, and easily debatable, but the general principle is that emphasis matters.
Jansenism is intriguing to me because I like it's emphasis, in only a few ways does it contradict Church teaching (possibly teaching limited atonement, and irresistible grace), but it places great emphasis on Election and the sovereign grace of God and faith in the work of Christ. It never denies that works justify or the nature of the communion or anything else like that (from the little of what I've read), but it does emphasize what I think at least is the 'best' of Protestantism and Catholicism.
Jansen himself wrote that if his doctrines were offensive to the Church that they should of course be disposed of and that he wished to be faithful to the Church, and I believe that is the point. The point is that emphasis needs to be reformed at times or shifted depending on the situation. Baptists for example believe in an eternally Hell for all believers which they will be conscious during, but I've never heard a sermon on it, because it's just alluded to briefly or like an 'unwritten law' that it exists. Thus if their churches start to doubt Hell, they should emphasize it.
Thus while I am not a Jansenist because it has been declared heretical, I definately agree with the emphasis and that the good parts of it's theology should be emphasized more. I don't know why people think Election is such a horrific doctrine, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and alot of others are in agreement that it is a beautiful thing. Active reprobation...is another story.
Jansenism is intriguing to me because I like it's emphasis, in only a few ways does it contradict Church teaching (possibly teaching limited atonement, and irresistible grace), but it places great emphasis on Election and the sovereign grace of God and faith in the work of Christ. It never denies that works justify or the nature of the communion or anything else like that (from the little of what I've read), but it does emphasize what I think at least is the 'best' of Protestantism and Catholicism.
Jansen himself wrote that if his doctrines were offensive to the Church that they should of course be disposed of and that he wished to be faithful to the Church, and I believe that is the point. The point is that emphasis needs to be reformed at times or shifted depending on the situation. Baptists for example believe in an eternally Hell for all believers which they will be conscious during, but I've never heard a sermon on it, because it's just alluded to briefly or like an 'unwritten law' that it exists. Thus if their churches start to doubt Hell, they should emphasize it.
Thus while I am not a Jansenist because it has been declared heretical, I definately agree with the emphasis and that the good parts of it's theology should be emphasized more. I don't know why people think Election is such a horrific doctrine, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and alot of others are in agreement that it is a beautiful thing. Active reprobation...is another story.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
God is good - a simple observation
God is good. Among every other attribute the scriptures tell us this fact. They even implore us “taste and see that the Lord is good”. Today in mass everyone around me was doing just that (partaking in the Eucharist), and as I walked up I grudgingly wondered how much longer it would be till I was ‘in the club’ so to speak, until I got to join in, until I could taste and see that the Lord is good myself. But as I approach Fr. Peter he put down the Jesus/wafer and smiled while giving me a blessing. “The Lord be with you Andrew” and he signed the cross on my forehead. As I walked back to my pew I felt so much better, I don’t know how to describe it, it was like when I was baptized at my Baptist Church and I felt this overwhelming feeling of grace, today I felt some sort of grace. It was for me a beautiful image of a priest acting in persona Christi. I was always taught that the curtain ripping in the temple meant that we never needed a priest again, that any man who tried to claim spiritual authority was a heretic or worse a Catholic. But today I saw the beauty of spiritual fatherhood and it coincided perfectly with a verse I read in the bible.
“Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15).
I understood what St. Paul was to the Corinthians now, he was an example in faith, a Bishop who corrected their errors, but more than that, a father in the gospel who showed them in some small way the Fatherhood of God. Of course if a person abused this position (as has occurred in many sex scandals, etc) the image could be the exact opposite, but it can also be of great encouragement. I guess I was just writing this story to say that the Lord is good, and is teaching me this through his servants.
God is good, and I will live with that. In the triumphal entry in St. Luke’s gospel it describes Jesus entering the town, and the Pharisees are upset, the people are crying out hosanna (‘save us’) and other cries that anticipated the messiah, and this would probably not escape the notice of the Roman guards. Jesus has this entry in fulfillment of Jewish scriptures (Zechariah) and people are crying to them as their king. This is when the pharisses say “Teacher, rebuke your disciples” (Lk. 19:39) and this I guess was a reasonable request, for if he did not rebuke them he risked causing a riot and a rebellion with Roman force to crush it. But the Pharisees miss the cosmic significance, they miss the God they worship, even though he is standing in front of them (and we probably would too). But Jesus says this classic line to them, “If they kept quiet, the stones will cry out.” (Lk. 19:40). It’s as if Jesus is saying: ‘I am Good, I am God, this is the day Israel has been waiting for since God first called Abraham, but if you miss this, if you refuse to recognize the significance of this, Creation itself will speak be your witness’.
Even in the bad times of life I must always remember the simple truth I sung to kids in Church of England schools over and over again during outreach: “our God is a good God, he’s a good good good good God”.
“Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15).
I understood what St. Paul was to the Corinthians now, he was an example in faith, a Bishop who corrected their errors, but more than that, a father in the gospel who showed them in some small way the Fatherhood of God. Of course if a person abused this position (as has occurred in many sex scandals, etc) the image could be the exact opposite, but it can also be of great encouragement. I guess I was just writing this story to say that the Lord is good, and is teaching me this through his servants.
God is good, and I will live with that. In the triumphal entry in St. Luke’s gospel it describes Jesus entering the town, and the Pharisees are upset, the people are crying out hosanna (‘save us’) and other cries that anticipated the messiah, and this would probably not escape the notice of the Roman guards. Jesus has this entry in fulfillment of Jewish scriptures (Zechariah) and people are crying to them as their king. This is when the pharisses say “Teacher, rebuke your disciples” (Lk. 19:39) and this I guess was a reasonable request, for if he did not rebuke them he risked causing a riot and a rebellion with Roman force to crush it. But the Pharisees miss the cosmic significance, they miss the God they worship, even though he is standing in front of them (and we probably would too). But Jesus says this classic line to them, “If they kept quiet, the stones will cry out.” (Lk. 19:40). It’s as if Jesus is saying: ‘I am Good, I am God, this is the day Israel has been waiting for since God first called Abraham, but if you miss this, if you refuse to recognize the significance of this, Creation itself will speak be your witness’.
Even in the bad times of life I must always remember the simple truth I sung to kids in Church of England schools over and over again during outreach: “our God is a good God, he’s a good good good good God”.
Monday, September 1, 2008
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.
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.
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.
"...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.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Dinner Table In Heaven
So I made a new banner for this blog, and I was just thinking, if I had one wish when I got to Heaven, it's that I'd get to sit at a table for dinner one night (if there is food, and night) with Ravi Zacharias, St. Augustine, St. Paul, John Wesley, C.S. Lewis, and J.R.R. Tolkien. They're my heroes, and have contributed so much to my faith. I also hope Philip, Jared, and I will be able to finally figure out who is right in our debate and be able to sit in fellowship as well.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
The Good Gift
Holy Communion, the Eucharist, the Good Gift, is extremely important. For example, Christ says of it 'this is my body - this is my blood' and in John 6 Jesus says:
To me the most amazing thing is that St. Paul or any other NT epistle rarely ever quotes Christ, there is probably only a handful of phrases St. Paul even knew from Jesus, he most likely did not ever read the gospels (maybe mark - which I don't think includes these phrases). This means that the early church had such a high view of the Eucharist that it passed on the exact or near exact words of Jesus. St. Paul says he received it from the Lord (does this mean in his vision? maybe). All in all, it goes to show me that the early christians were very reverent when it came to communion - or rather were not, and thus invoked the wrath of St. Paul.
"Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink."As well, I read this passage the other day and was astonished again, it's St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 discussing the abuses of the Eucharist (to Protestants, no this does not mean the Corinthians weren't using Welch's Grape Juice and Goldfish crackers, and to the Catholics no this does not mean they were using a priest from SSPX)
"For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against
themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some
have died."
To me the most amazing thing is that St. Paul or any other NT epistle rarely ever quotes Christ, there is probably only a handful of phrases St. Paul even knew from Jesus, he most likely did not ever read the gospels (maybe mark - which I don't think includes these phrases). This means that the early church had such a high view of the Eucharist that it passed on the exact or near exact words of Jesus. St. Paul says he received it from the Lord (does this mean in his vision? maybe). All in all, it goes to show me that the early christians were very reverent when it came to communion - or rather were not, and thus invoked the wrath of St. Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)