Protestants and st paul

[po18guy]

Part of the separation between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is the primacy of Peter. It would be neat to see what Paul would write about it, although I believe he already did a couple of times.

Paul went to Peter to ensure that his Gospel accorded with that of Peter (and the eleven) (Galatians 1). If Peter was simply one of the twelve, why go to him? As to authority, Paul went to Jerusalem to get an answer on the circumcision question. (Acts 15) Note that the scriptures were of no help to Paul. At the first council, Peter spoke and the assembly remained silent. James was also prominent, as he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

 

[dronald]

Paul went to Peter to ensure that his Gospel accorded with that of Peter (and the eleven) (Galatians 1). If Peter was simply one of the twelve, why go to him? As to authority, Paul went to Jerusalem to get an answer on the circumcision question. (Acts 15) Note that the scriptures were of no help to Paul. At the first council, Peter spoke and the assembly remained silent. James was also prominent, as he was the first Bishop of Jerusalem.

I don’t agree with your conclusions you’ve drawn from those two passages. Especially Galatians…

11** When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.** 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

Here we see Paul clearly preaching to Peter.

Also, Acts 15 clearly shows an early separation:

38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.

39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;

40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

They separated over a disagreement and yet later Paul states in his letter 2 timothy 4:11Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.

The same Mark even wrote the Gospel we have today!

You see, we should be allowed to disagree on little things like we do today and not claim that we’re separated brethren just because of our tiny disagreements. I think claiming that this or that person is more important is what separates you and I.

 

[Abu]

dronald #42
we should be allowed to disagree on little things like we do today… I think claiming that this or that person is more important is what separates you and I.

What is of the utmost importance is listening to Jesus and His Church – specifically founded on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar (post #16) which you are unable to dispute historically.

The foolishness of feeling that the factually and vitally important doctrinal decisions of Jesus are “little things” has produced the myriad sects all claming to be self-satisfied and all lacking the fullness of truth.

Thus none of these multitudinous sects have the Priesthood with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Holy Communion with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, all seven sacraments, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture of 27 books of the New Testament, and Christ’s Magisterium.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t agree with your conclusions you’ve drawn from those two passages. Especially Galatians…

Are you claiming that Paul did not go and spend 15 days with Peter? (Galatians 1:18) I think you are focused on the “opposed him to his face” red herring, while failing to notice that Paul went to Peter. Facts are facts.

Here we see Paul clearly preaching to Peter.

I think this is quite a stretch. This is a rebuke for hypocrisy in behavior, not a doctrinal disagreement. The Jews and converted Gentiles were not well assimilated in the early years - that is clear from the scriptures. Remember also that Paul was writing this partially to justify his apostleship, being criticized in various locations for not being “one of the twelve.” (2 Corinthians 11:1, Galatians 1:11).

Do you also forget that some of Peter’s first words to our Lord were “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man” (Luke 5:8)? Jesus chose him anyway (Matthew 16:18). Gave him the keys to heaven (Matthew 16:19). Gave him the power of binding and loosing (Matthew 16:19). Predicted his threefold denial (Matthew 26:34) yet restored him to grace threefold (John 21:15-18). Told him to “strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:21-22). There are many more examples of Peter’s special role.

Are you second-guessing the Lord?

Also, Acts 15 clearly shows an early separation

Is that really what you see in Acts 15? Most see Paul being unable to answer a question of doctrine. It shows him going to Jerusalem for a ruling of the Church council.

The fact that Paul separated from John Mark only shows that he may have had quite a temper. That old “thorn in the flesh”? Maybe Peter should have opposed Paul to his face for his temper.

The same Mark even wrote the Gospel we have today!

Mark’s Gospel is widely held to be Peter’s Gospel. Should we discard it because Paul split from John Mark? Not!

You see, we should be allowed to disagree on little things like we do today and not claim that we’re separated brethren just because of our tiny disagreements. I think claiming that this or that person is more important is what separates you and I.

This opposes Christ’s fervent prayer to the Father that they all be of one accord (John 17:11, 17:21). Paul himself taught that Christians should be of one accord (Romans 15:15, Philippians 2:2). The early Church was indeed of one accord (Acts 2:46, 4:24, 5:12, 8:6).

“Disagree on little things”? Denying that Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist, denying that it is a sacrifice, or denying that the priesthood is needed are not little things. Claiming that the bible is all one needs is not a little thing. Acts 15 is impossible in the protestant world - there is no authority. The divisions are huge. The problems in the early Church seem to fade in comparison to the rampant division in the Body of Christ today. For that same reason, evil advances.

 

[dronald]

What is of the utmost importance is listening to Jesus and His Church – specifically founded on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar (post #16) which you are unable to dispute historically.

The foolishness of feeling that the factually and vitally important doctrinal decisions of Jesus are “little things” has produced the myriad sects all claming to be self-satisfied and all lacking the fullness of truth.

Thus none of these multitudinous sects have the Priesthood with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Holy Communion with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, all seven sacraments, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture of 27 books of the New Testament, and Christ’s Magisterium.

You obviously have never spoken with an Orthodox Church then have you? Again, such is my premise that your dispute over “Peter being number one” is the biggest separation between Churches there is, ever was and ever will be. Paul clearly said that they are nothing.

 

[dronald]

Are you claiming that Paul did not go and spend 15 days with Peter? (Galatians 1:18) I think you are focused on the “opposed him to his face” red herring, while failing to notice that Paul went to Peter. Facts are facts.

I think this is quite a stretch. This is a rebuke for hypocrisy in behavior, not a doctrinal disagreement. The Jews and converted Gentiles were not well assimilated in the early years - that is clear from the scriptures. Remember also that Paul was writing this partially to justify his apostleship, being criticized in various locations for not being “one of the twelve.” (2 Corinthians 11:1, Galatians 1:11).

Do you also forget that some of Peter’s first words to our Lord were “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man” (Luke 5:8)? Jesus chose him anyway (Matthew 16:18). Gave him the keys to heaven (Matthew 16:19). Gave him the power of binding and loosing (Matthew 16:19). Predicted his threefold denial (Matthew 26:34) yet restored him to grace threefold (John 21:15-18). Told him to “strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:21-22). There are many more examples of Peter’s special role.

Are you second-guessing the Lord?

Is that really what you see in Acts 15? Most see Paul being unable to answer a question of doctrine. It shows him going to Jerusalem for a ruling of the Church council.

The fact that Paul separated from John Mark only shows that he may have had quite a temper. That old “thorn in the flesh”? Maybe Peter should have opposed Paul to his face for his temper.

Mark’s Gospel is widely held to be Peter’s Gospel. Should we discard it because Paul split from John Mark? Not!

This opposes Christ’s fervent prayer to the Father that they all be of one accord (John 17:11, 17:21). Paul himself taught that Christians should be of one accord (Romans 15:15, Philippians 2:2). The early Church was indeed of one accord (Acts 2:46, 4:24, 5:12, 8:6).

“Disagree on little things”? Denying that Christ is present in the Holy Eucharist, denying that it is a sacrifice, or denying that the priesthood is needed are not little things. Claiming that the bible is all one needs is not a little thing. Acts 15 is impossible in the protestant world - there is no authority. The divisions are huge. The problems in the early Church seem to fade in comparison to the rampant division in the Body of Christ today. For that same reason, evil advances.

I don’t see any of these arguments as strong. You’re claiming that because Paul went to Peter, Peter is somehow special and yet Paul opposes him to his face. You’re able to say that Paul going to Peter is conclusive proof and yet you so easily brush away evidence against such.

You justify anything positive about Peter and dismiss everything negative to suit your belief that he’s supreme. My argument remains the same that Paul would have never considered him so special.

 

[CatholicServant]

Hi Dronald,

You seem to put much emphasis on Paul properly rebuking Peter for acting like a hypocrite by refusing to eat with the Gentiles out of concern for turning away some Jews.

What do you take from Paul acting like a hypocrite in Acts by having Timothy circumcised for the same reasons Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles?

Does this somehow reduce your esteem for Paul? If it was recorded that Peter rebuked Paul to his face for having Timothy circumcised, when throughout Paul’s letters he is emphatic that circumcision now is meaningless, would that somehow raise your esteem for Peter? Or would that help you to see more clearly that those actions were sinful actions of humans doing the best they can to further their mission while still making mistakes? Again, not mistakes in doctrine/dogma - just sinful actions.

For me, when I see that more clearly, I can focus on Jesus’ interaction with Peter in the Gospels and the overwhelming evidence of Peter’s special place among the Apostles - even the Orthodox state Peter is the first among equals. To say that Peter is nothing is to ignore the weight of the evidence due to a predetermined belief versus reading with an open mind to the Truth. Further, your posts seem to try and find a schism between Peter and Paul where none exists - they were on the same team furthering the same mission.

Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter and tells of a future event - building His Church on the foundation Peter - it has to be a future event because Jesus is still with them. Jesus tells Peter that the Devil wants Peter (as well as the others) and tells Peter he specifically prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren after Peter turns back. We all know about the Keys and its significance with Isaiah. Then after Jesus’ resurrection centered around the fishing scene (Peter’s boat - Peter’s haul - clear reference to building the Church) Jesus institutes the Church on the foundation Peter by asking Peter 3 times, “do you love me?” and after Peter’s affirmative, Jesus’ command to feed and tend His sheep.

If you don’t dismiss the above out of hand, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts from a Protestant perspective. Thank you in advance.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t see any of these arguments as strong. You’re claiming that because Paul went to Peter, Peter is somehow special and yet Paul opposes him to his face. You’re able to say that Paul going to Peter is conclusive proof and yet you so easily brush away evidence against such.

Your arguments here are clear evidence of the thread’s assertion. Your opinions are neither biblical, nor historical.

You have so grossly inflated this single act of opposition (out of 34 YEARS of Peter’s preaching) that it has become almost surreal.

Tell us: Where did Paul oppose Peter’s doctrine? Where did Paul teach to ignore everything that Peter said?

He did not! Paul himself says, in the bible - if you actually read it and believe it - that he went to Peter and remainedf with him 15 days. Paul went to ensure htat his Gospel accorded with that of the twelve.

Do you ignore the fact that Peter and Paul were working together? Yes. If they were not in opposition, why do you pit them against one another?

You justify anything positive about Peter and dismiss everything negative to suit your belief that he’s supreme. My argument remains the same that Paul would have never considered him so special.

The Savior that you claim chose sinful Peter and gave him unprecedented and unlimited powers, and the keys to heaven. Christ did that for no one else. Yet, you trash Peter and exalt Paul. Christ did no such thing - He chose and used both sinful men - but for different purposes.

That is the Catholic Church. Both Peter and Paul. Both were martyred in Rome. Both are foundations of the Catholic Church. Both forever honored as Saints.

You appear to have divided them up and chosen one over the other. I must remind you that Christ did no such thing.

 

[po18guy]

Hi Dronald,

You seem to put much emphasis on Paul properly rebuking Peter for acting like a hypocrite by refusing to eat with the Gentiles out of concern for turning away some Jews.

What do you take from Paul acting like a hypocrite in Acts by having Timothy circumcised for the same reasons Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles?

Ouch! uch: Great point. So, maybe Paul was a sinful man, too?

 

[Abu]

dronald is unable to see the wood for the trees for he is heavily biased against the reality and truth of the Gospels.

The Orthodox are obviously not included in Protestant sects which don’t have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Body and blood of Christ and all seven sacraments.

He cannot refute the Gospels which also factually relate that Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

 

[po18guy]

dronald is unable to see the wood for the trees for he is heavily biased against the reality and truth of the Gospels.

The Orthodox are obviously not included in Protestant sects which don’t have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Body and blood of Christ and all seven sacraments.

He cannot refute the Gospels which also factually relate that Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

Patrick Madrid has a great little booklet that addresses, among other things, Peter’s primacy: A Pocket Guide to Catholic Apologetics. He mentions that Peter is named 195 times, while Saint John, the next, is named only 29 times. The others are named even less. Peter is always listed first, and Judas last. ‘Peter and the rest" or “Peter and his companions” is the form used. John deferred to Peter when entering the empty tomb. Jesus preached from Peter’s boat. Patrick goes on to list at least 73 verses that all point to Peter’s primacy. I guess it’s kind of easy to ignore those 73 verses, those 195 mentions of Peter by name, Jesus Himself changing Peter’s name, the power of binding and loosing, the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, the walking on water, Peter’s shadow healing people, Jesus telling Peter to find the coin in the fishes’ mouth to pay the temple tax only for Him and Peter, telling Peter to strengthen your brothers, Peter’s words silencing the first Council, Paul going to and consulting with Peter and all those other unimportant things in scripture.

In truth, it is Peter’s words in 2 Peter 3:15-17 that both destroy all mutations of sola scriptura as well as scripture being the final authority. It is those same words that reveal why so many non-Catholics seize upon Paul’s words: they are easily twisted. But, who likes to admit that they might be following the “ignorant’ or 'unstable”?

The true blessing of being Catholic is that we have a complete bible (not 91% of scripture like others), an authoritative “Acts 15” Church, the Apostolic truth that was handed on to us, as well as both Peter and Paul. Each Catholic Priest can trace his ordination back to one of the twelve, or to Paul. Amen.

 

[CatholicServant]

Excellent post

 

[Darryl_B]

Why do protestants seem to focus almost completely on st Paul? It almost sometimes seems as though they hold him in higher regard than the rest

Rob Peter to pay Paul.

 

[acacia12]

Rob Peter to pay Paul.

 

[dronald]

Hi Dronald,

You seem to put much emphasis on Paul properly rebuking Peter for acting like a hypocrite by refusing to eat with the Gentiles out of concern for turning away some Jews.

What do you take from Paul acting like a hypocrite in Acts by having Timothy circumcised for the same reasons Peter refused to eat with the Gentiles?

Does this somehow reduce your esteem for Paul? If it was recorded that Peter rebuked Paul to his face for having Timothy circumcised, when throughout Paul’s letters he is emphatic that circumcision now is meaningless, would that somehow raise your esteem for Peter? Or would that help you to see more clearly that those actions were sinful actions of humans doing the best they can to further their mission while still making mistakes? Again, not mistakes in doctrine/dogma - just sinful actions.

For me, when I see that more clearly, I can focus on Jesus’ interaction with Peter in the Gospels and the overwhelming evidence of Peter’s special place among the Apostles - even the Orthodox state Peter is the first among equals. To say that Peter is nothing is to ignore the weight of the evidence due to a predetermined belief versus reading with an open mind to the Truth. Further, your posts seem to try and find a schism between Peter and Paul where none exists - they were on the same team furthering the same mission.

Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter and tells of a future event - building His Church on the foundation Peter - it has to be a future event because Jesus is still with them. Jesus tells Peter that the Devil wants Peter (as well as the others) and tells Peter he specifically prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren after Peter turns back. We all know about the Keys and its significance with Isaiah. Then after Jesus’ resurrection centered around the fishing scene (Peter’s boat - Peter’s haul - clear reference to building the Church) Jesus institutes the Church on the foundation Peter by asking Peter 3 times, “do you love me?” and after Peter’s affirmative, Jesus’ command to feed and tend His sheep.

If you don’t dismiss the above out of hand, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts from a Protestant perspective. Thank you in advance.

I appreciate the charity found within your posts. You really are an example for the other members of this forum. I hope I appear as charitable as yourself even if I come across as bold sometimes. (which is often necessary)

There are plenty interpretations for each passage but it’s for another thread, I would actually post it in the “non-Catholic Religions” thread. You’ll get plenty of responses and I’ll type up some as well.

I don’t want to do it here because as you can see above my post here, the Catholics all gang up, agree with each other, ignore points and can come across as very arrogant.

This thread is about why Protestants focus on Paul so often and I gave my reason, it’s that Paul was very firm that the Apostles are nothing. Focusing on this or that Apostle as superior has caused the greatest separation in the Church and will continue to do so. Paul always took the emphasis off of himself or any other Apostle and placed it on God.

As for Peter (and Mary) I love and respect them very much. I don’t know how people interpret “Paul and Peter are the same” as “I hate Peter.”

 

[CatholicServant]

Thank you dronald,

I enjoy our discussions very much and look forward to many more in the future. It is tough on this website being an outspoken protestant and I applaud your courage, conviction, and intelligence. God Bless you my Brother in Christ.

 

[po18guy]

I appreciate the charity found within your posts. You really are an example for the other members of this forum. I hope I appear as charitable as yourself even if I come across as bold sometimes. (which is often necessary)

Can Catholics be bold also?

I don’t want to do it here because as you can see above my post here, the Catholics all gang up, agree with each other, ignore points and can come across as very arrogant.

Confident, not arrogant. There is a very important distinction. Paul was very confident, as were all of the Apostles after the Pentecost. Did not Jesus appear arrogant to the Sanhedrin? The Church is a reflection of that confidence.

This thread is about why Protestants focus on Paul so often and I gave my reason, it’s that Paul was very firm that the Apostles are nothing.

Well then, Paul also considered himself as the least of the Apostles.

Focusing on this or that Apostle as superior has caused the greatest separation in the Church and will continue to do so. Paul always took the emphasis off of himself or any other Apostle and placed it on God.

Actually it was the 16th century rebellion that did - and does - that. Can anyone argue otherwise?

As for Peter (and Mary) I love and respect them very much. I don’t know how people interpret “Paul and Peter are the same” as “I hate Peter.”

Go back and read your own posts. You have implied that Paul discredited Peter because of a single rebuke over behavior in 34 years. Is that realistic?

We must not tear one down to build the other up. Both are irreplaceable, according to Christ. There is a lesson there for all of us.

You may love or hate my questions, but they are intended to provoke thought. As much truth as your community contains - and it contains much truth - it cannot contain all of God’s revealed truth, as God did not commit all of it to writing. I wanted more. I found more.

 

[CatholicServant]

Exactly.

I too am an RCIA convert (1999) as I was raised Baptist, but had many questions and finding the whole Truth is so spiritually and intellectually satisfying. Us converts pray our separated brethren search for Truth with an honest and open heart/mind.

 

[po18guy]

Exactly.

I too am an RCIA convert (1999) as I was raised Baptist, but had many questions and finding the whole Truth is so spiritually and intellectually satisfying. Us converts pray our separated brethren search for Truth with an honest and open heart/mind.

I can only ask their forgiveness for being bold in response to boldness. We know that we are home, yet others constantly tell us that somewhere else is actually home. We are not arrogant - as is often the accusation - we are confident.

 

[dronald]

Can Catholics be bold also?
Confident, not arrogant. There is a very important distinction. Paul was very confident, as were all of the Apostles after the Pentecost. Did not Jesus appear arrogant to the Sanhedrin? The Church is a reflection of that confidence.
Well then, Paul also considered himself as the least of the Apostles.
Actually it was the 16th century rebellion that did - and does - that. Can anyone argue otherwise?

Go back and read your own posts. You have implied that Paul discredited Peter because of a single rebuke over behavior in 34 years. Is that realistic?

We must not tear one down to build the other up. Both are irreplaceable, according to Christ. There is a lesson there for all of us.

You may love or hate my questions, but they are intended to provoke thought. As much truth as your community contains - and it contains much truth - it cannot contain all of God’s revealed truth, as God did not commit all of it to writing. I wanted more. I found more.

I take issue with more than just your posts in trying to discuss beliefs. You do specifically draw random conclusions that have nothing to do with what I’m saying:

Are you claiming that Paul did not go and spend 15 days with Peter?

Are you second-guessing the Lord?

! Paul himself says, in the bible - if you actually read it and believe it

why do you pit them against one another?

[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]