The Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth

[jericho777]

Then this seems something worth pondering.

How does one know that it is truly the Lord speaking truth to them?

In the Christian community today there are those who believe that the Lord has told them what the truth is and they hold to…

1. The Bread and Wine ARE the Body and Blood
2. The Bread and Wine are NOT of the body and blood - but only symbols.
3. Water Baptism is necessary for salvation
4. Water Baptism is not necessary for salvation
5. Salvation can be lost after baptism
6. Salvation cannot be lost after baptism
   etc…

So if, when God speaks truth to a person, they do not need to “gain approval”…How does one determine which of these scripturally supported but opposing views are from God and which are not?

Peace
James

I think we should focus on the scripture at hand. We know God gave Paul the divine revelation of doctrine. Do you believe he had divine revelation? Why did he need approval from anyone if that’s what he was seeking in the first place?

 

[JRKH]

I think we should focus on the scripture at hand. We know God gave Paul the divine revelation of doctrine. Do you believe he had divine revelation? Why did he need approval from anyone if that’s what he was seeking in the first place?

I just responded to what you wrote - which was not about Paul but about “someone” who God tells something to. I see this as an important question.
Why do you decline to answer?

I have no problem with addressing the Gal Scripture further…Paul tells us why he went to Jerusalem - by revelation - God sent Him. He also tells us why he laid out his teachings for Peter and James and other Pillars of the faith. Paul Himself says that he did so “lest he was running in vain”.
So tell me - what do you think that Paul means here?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Abu you correctly interpret “church” as being people, the body of Christ centered as opposed to an organizational interpretation. Then immediately turn the meaning to an organization. Why when scripture says just the opposite?

Except that Scripture does NOT say the opposite…At least not that I can see.
Can you offer some Scripture that clearly “says the opposite”?

I don’t understand why you are so hung up on this idea that the community and the organization are somehow mutually exclusive…

EVERY community has an organization - even yours. Civil communities have government. Churches large and small have elders and teachers that go by various titles. Social clubs - the Kiwanis, Lyons clubs Oddfellows etc…all are primarily communities but ALL have this thing called “organization”…
Organization grows out of community - Organization is not separate from community.

Peace
James

 

[Porknpie]

Abu you correctly interpret “church” as being people, the body of Christ centered as opposed to an organizational interpretation. Then immediately turn the meaning to an organization. Why when scripture says just the opposite?

Actually James gave his approval to what Peter had said about the gentiles. Giving him the final say. Acts 15:13-14. Then James makes the final declaration Acts 15:19-21.
This shows him as the leader in Jerusalem.

Jericho,

Have to wonder about St. John’s teachings to St Ignatius of Antioch … you do understand that St Ignatius was a disciple of St. John, yes? Christ established a visible Catholic Church with a organization and authority.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

You haven’t answered my previous post on “how do you know” the bible that you read from is the inspired and inerrant Word of God?

Charity,

Pork

 

[Abu]

jericho777 #40
Abu you correctly interpret “church” as being people, the body of Christ centered as opposed to an organizational interpretation. Then immediately turn the meaning to an organization. Why when scripture says just the opposite?

The dichotomy you fantasise is totally illusory. Christ Himself established His Church on St Peter which you try to deny:
All four promises to St Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Actually James gave his approval to what Peter had said about the gentiles. Giving him the final say. Acts 15:13-14. Then James makes the final declaration Acts 15:19-21.
This shows him as the leader in Jerusalem.

On the Council of Jerusalem, the Council took place on the eve of the dispersion of the apostles on their mission to “all the world.” St. James seems to have been designated as the future Bishop of Jerusalem, but there is no indication that Jerusalem itself had been designated as the “chief See”. At the Council, St. Peter manifested his superior authority by speaking first, giving his decision and declaring that, by means of a vision, the course to be adopted had been indicated to him by God. His verdict did not need the approval of the assembly, and it left no room for discussion. “All held their peace” once Peter had spoken (Acts, 15:11).

The Anglican scholar, Dr. Trevor G. Jalland, in his book The Church and the Papacy, says of the subsequent speech of St. James: “It is the summing up of a chairman, not the verdict of an arbiter. If anything, the narrative suggests that it was the evidence of Peter which turned the scales of decision.” The same Dr. Jalland says of St. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (Galatians, 1:18) that Paul “admits that he did encounter James . . . but makes it clear that this meeting was purely accidental. Why was it so important to introduce himself to St. Peter? Can we exclude the possibility that St. Paul had some problem of a pastoral or administrative nature, regarding which he had reason to think that St. Peter’s opinion would not only be valuable, but decisive?” At most it can be said, as regards the Council itself, that St. James acted as local host, not as supreme ruler of the whole Church.

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 9:36-41). 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).

It is high time to face the facts of reality and listen to Christ who founded His Church on St Peter – His Supreme Vicar with His authority to teach on faith and morals.

 

[jericho777]

I just responded to what you wrote - which was not about Paul but about “someone” who God tells something to. I see this as an important question.
Why do you decline to answer?

I have no problem with addressing the Gal Scripture further…Paul tells us why he went to Jerusalem - by revelation - God sent Him. He also tells us why he laid out his teachings for Peter and James and other Pillars of the faith. Paul Himself says that he did so “lest he was running in vain”.
So tell me - what do you think that Paul means here?

Peace
James

If I said someone that was a mistake. I don’t want to drag other issues into the discussion. Would you agree that God gave Paul his doctrine by divine revelation? Gal 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I don’t see Paul seeking approval from those in Jerusalem based on this verse. It doesen’t make sense.

 

[JRKH]

If I said someone that was a mistake. I don’t want to drag other issues into the discussion.

Well I don’t really see it as being another issue. It connects quite strongly with the issue of how Paul knew is revelation was from Christ.

Would you agree that God gave Paul his doctrine by divine revelation?

Yes I do agree with this. Do you know why I believe this? Because Christ’s own Church, the Church who assembled the inspired Scriptures into the bible canon, tells me that it is true.

Gal 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I don’t see Paul seeking approval from those in Jerusalem based on this verse. It doesn’t make sense.

Sure it does.
When did Paul write Galatians. It had to be after the events he relates in the letter right? So it was AFTER he went up to Jerusalem as related in Gal 2:1-10.
Read Gal 1:11 and onwards and you will find that Paul is so confident precisely **because **he had been up to Jerusalem and conferred with Peter, not once but twice. In Gal 1:18-19 we see him going up and staying with “Cephas” (Peter) for 15 days. You can bet they prayed together talked about the faith Then he goes off on further missions. After fourteen years he returns to Jerusalem to again confer with the pillars of the Church to make sure that he had not been running in vain (Paul’s own words).

Paul speaks with such confidence in verse 11 and 12 precisely because of these previous events that he relates. He knows that He has the truth, not just because of what happened on the Road to Damascus, but because He had “tested the spirits” and further, he “told it to the Church” and the pillars of the Church affirmed it. They affirmed that he had not been running in vain.

Can you not see the blessed glory of the Holy Spirit shining through in this?
An individual can be easily deceived. It is much harder for a group to be deceived.

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

But that says God depends on the Church to prop Him up, which surely isn’t the case!

Didn’t the Holy Spirit come to rest upon the early Church at Pentecost?

Acts 2
2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I could easily see a SS adherent say that we are misinterpreting 1 Tim 3:15 and that it’s really saying that God is the pillar and foundation of Truth. They might base this on the idea that “church” is from “ekklesia” which means, “a community called out”, in this case “the body of believers”, but that any such community is comprised of fallible human beings and that fallible humans cannot be a reliable pillar and foundation for God’s Truth.

Such a position stems from how differently Catholics and (many) protestants understand the word “church”. This is another of those cases where each side can be using the same word but have a very different concept attached to it.

Interestingly, Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch provide a counter to this argument in the footnotes of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

3:15 pillar and bulwark The terms refer to structural supports that hold up a building. The Church is set in place to support the edifice of gospel truth. The Spirit makes this possible by enabling the successors of the apostles to preserve the apostolic faith from corruption and distortion as the centuries pass. Without this protective grace, the bishops of the Church would be no more than fallible human teachers unequipped to fulfill the mission granted to them by the Lord.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First my insight into the catholic church/faith comes from being born and raised catholic. I’m just making observations from firsthand experiences.

Here we go…

As you said the epistles are addressed to the general assembly except for Timothy. That says a lot in of itself because it recognizes the people themselves as the church organization not an organization apart from the body of Christ. Paul received his doctrines directly from God in a personal revelation, not from anywhere else. Paul himself was giving instruction to the body of Christ without “church” direction or preview of them. Paul also was given the mission to evangelize the gentiles and establish their churches by God personally.

Actually, Paul says that he did not receive it from anyone…but then he went to Jerusalem twice to confer with Peter to make sure that he had it right. Needless to say, I think Paul learned much from Peter during their time together.

It is true since Vatican II the laity has been allowed a greater role in the church but there is still a separation mentality between the clergy and laity. I have witnessed this personally. You say Catholics make their voices heard but their cries pretty much go unanswered.

I’m sorry that you had a bad experience, and it’s hard to refute your anecdotal evidence. You can understand, I hope, how others have experienced the exact opposite.

The abuse scandal which was very large in my area is one example. Those crying out were called trouble makers and worse.

Mistakes were made; however, how is this relevant to the topic at hand?

 

[Randy_Carson]

James Although I don’t know the exact reason Gal 2:2 is worded the way it is I know with utmost certainty when God tells someone directly what the truth is He does not have to gain approval from anyone. No one councils the Lord.

If there is no need for councils, then why did Paul travel to Jerusalem in Acts 15 to get the Church’s ruling on circumcision of the Gentiles?

I think you are forcing an either/or approach when both/and is perhaps more likely.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually James gave his approval to what Peter had said about the gentiles. Giving him the final say. Acts 15:13-14. Then James makes the final declaration Acts 15:19-21. This shows him as the leader in Jerusalem.

YES! James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem! :clapping:

And once Peter had spoken, James, as head of the local church which supported circumcision, spoke in acceptance Peter’s decision. Here’s how it went down:

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14)
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)​

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before 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.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I said someone that was a mistake. I don’t want to drag other issues into the discussion. Would you agree that God gave Paul his doctrine by divine revelation? Gal 1:11-12 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I don’t see Paul seeking approval from those in Jerusalem based on this verse. It doesen’t make sense.

It happened.

Galatians 2:1-2
2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.** I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. **

Paul received the gospel by revelation, but when he doubted whether he had been running “in vain”, he went to the leaders of the Church to check himself.

They approved not only his message but his mission to the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:9-10
They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

 

[JRKH]

James Although I don’t know the exact reason Gal 2:2 is worded the way it is I know with utmost certainty when God tells someone directly what the truth is He does not have to gain approval from anyone. No one councils the Lord.

Jer…Something I meant to mention earlier…
You wonder why it is worded this way…Well it’s Scripture is it not? Then it is worded this way because the Holy Spirit wants it worded this way…

If there is no need for councils, then why did Paul travel to Jerusalem in Acts 15 to get the Church’s ruling on circumcision of the Gentiles?

Randy - Great set of responses this morning,

Just picking up on the comment above, this is a very important point that seems lost on a good number of our protestant brothers and sisters. Especially those in the more evangelical and fundamentalist groups.
If we apply their “church model” to the events in Antioch at the beginning of Acts 15 how differently would it have played out?
Paul sets up a Christian community in Antioch.
Folks from the Christian community in Jerusalem come down and say that the Gentiles are holding false beliefs
Paul declares that they are NOT holding false beliefs.
The Judaizers pull out Scripture in support of their position…
Paul debates with them
And on it goes…

So far we have the events as related here in Acts 15:1-2:
1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
So we know from Scripture that they could not settle the matter amongst themselves - hence they went to “The Church” in council…(in accordance with Christ’s own instructions in Mt 18:15-18
Now let us apply Jericho’s evangelical “church model” to verse 2…
We would likely get something quite different…
1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, no solution was found. Thereafter the Gentile Christian community met in one place and the Jewish Christian community met in another…Each one believing the other to be in error.



Peace
James

 

[jericho777]

Well I don’t really see it as being another issue. It connects quite strongly with the issue of how Paul knew is revelation was from Christ.

Yes I do agree with this. Do you know why I believe this? Because Christ’s own Church, the Church who assembled the inspired Scriptures into the bible canon, tells me that it is true.

Sure it does.
When did Paul write Galatians. It had to be after the events he relates in the letter right? So it was AFTER he went up to Jerusalem as related in Gal 2:1-10.
Read Gal 1:11 and onwards and you will find that Paul is so confident precisely **because **he had been up to Jerusalem and conferred with Peter, not once but twice. In Gal 1:18-19 we see him going up and staying with “Cephas” (Peter) for 15 days. You can bet they prayed together talked about the faith Then he goes off on further missions. After fourteen years he returns to Jerusalem to again confer with the pillars of the Church to make sure that he had not been running in vain (Paul’s own words).

Paul speaks with such confidence in verse 11 and 12 precisely because of these previous events that he relates. He knows that He has the truth, not just because of what happened on the Road to Damascus, but because He had “tested the spirits” and further, he “told it to the Church” and the pillars of the Church affirmed it. They affirmed that he had not been running in vain.

Can you not see the blessed glory of the Holy Spirit shining through in this?
An individual can be easily deceived. It is much harder for a group to be deceived.

Peace
James

Hi james and all this is an attempt to put the verses in question into context and perspective. I do not have the hours needed to answer all individually since my days are long. Thank you for bearing with me.

Yes the whole book of Galatians was written after the events occurred. I went back and read the preceding text to put everything into context.

Let’s start with Gal 1:1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. This does not sound like someone who is uncertain about whom he is and who called him to his ministry.

If we look at Gal 1:12 Paul’s tells where his doctrine came from. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Again he is citing the source for the doctrine he is preaching. Does this sound like he is questioning what he is preaching?

Now in v. 17 immediately after his conversion he preached the gospel by the authority he was given by God for three years in v. 18 before he went to Jerusalem. 17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days. If he was uncertain of his doctrine why wait three years to go to Jerusalem?

Let’s look at Gal 2:1-2 the text in question.1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Paul was preaching his gospel of grace to sans keeping the law as was apparently being done by those in Jerusalem. He was preaching the full gospel to them. Privately to those who were of reputation. It is clear they were mixing law with works. Paul was freeing them from that bondage. He was fulfilling his ministry and not seeking approval for the gospel he was preaching. Verse 3 and 4 confirm this fact. When Peter, James s and John saw the grace that was given to Paul, they gave Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.

 

[JRKH]

Hi james and all this is an attempt to put the verses in question into context and perspective. I do not have the hours needed to answer all individually since my days are long. Thank you for bearing with me.

No Problem

Yes the whole book of Galatians was written after the events occurred. I went back and read the preceding text to put everything into context.

Fair enough…

Let’s start with Gal 1:1Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. This does not sound like someone who is uncertain about whom he is and who called him to his ministry.

Agreed - it does not sound like one uncertain - nor should it given that, a) he was confident in who had had received his commission from and b) he had already been up to Jerusalem to consult with the Pillars of the Church.
Thus, by the time He wrote his letter, to the Galatians he had been confirmed in his mission, not only by his own heart but by the approbation of the other leaders of the Church.

If we look at Gal 1:12 Paul’s tells where his doctrine came from. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Again he is citing the source for the doctrine he is preaching. Does this sound like he is questioning what he is preaching?

Not at all. but again - he is relating this confidence AFTER having gone to Jerusalem to make sure that he was not running in vain.

Now in v. 17 immediately after his conversion he preached the gospel by the authority he was given by God for three years in v. 18 before he went to Jerusalem. 17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days. If he was uncertain of his doctrine why wait three years to go to Jerusalem?

Yes I see this. Of course he is not entirely clear as to when the three years commenced from…How long he was in Arabia and how long in Damascus before going up to see Peter in Jerusalem. Was it three years inclusive from the date of his conversion? Was it three years since he returned from Arabia? He is not clear.

In any event you are quite right that it was some time - at least three years - before he went to stay with Peter.

And by the way - I don’t recall ever saying that I thought Paul was uncertain of his doctrine, though Paul himself certainly indicates this in Gal 2:2

Let’s look at Gal 2:1-2 the text in question.1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Paul was preaching his gospel of grace to sans keeping the law as was apparently being done by those in Jerusalem. He was preaching the full gospel to them. Privately to those who were of reputation. It is clear they were mixing law with works. Paul was freeing them from that bondage. He was fulfilling his ministry and not seeking approval for the gospel he was preaching. Verse 3 and 4 confirm this fact. When Peter, James s and John saw the grace that was given to Paul, they gave Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.

It seems here that you are reading a lot into the text that is not there and the line you are pursuing here does not mesh at all with Paul’s own concern that he may have been running in vain.
Note that nowhere in the passage does he express concern that the others are running in vain - but that he might be running in vain.

I realize that this is hard for you to accept, but the text itself is actually quite clear. In Galatians, in Matthew, in Acts we see authority given and exercised. We see communication among the Church leadership and calls to the faithful to be of one mind and one faith.
The Apostles communicated with each other. They checked with each other and sought resolutions when differences arose.
Because they did this, and because they realized the importance of this - since they were guided by the Holy Spirit - and organization, arose to foster communication, collect the teachings together and to disseminate the across the universal Church.

This is as Christ desired and the Holy Spirit inspired…as recorded in Scripture itself…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Jericho…

I image that you might be getting a bit frustrated with me - I’ve been known to have that effect at times……but at the risk of making you even more frustrated I feel I must share this.

In your posts above you have repeatedly asked, and I paraphrase, “does Paul sound like one who is not confident in his teaching, his doctrine, or who gave him his commission?”

I readily agree that he sounds supremely confident in these things. However - I’m sure that we have both heard people who were likewise confident - but in our view were supremely wrong. Some obvious examples might be people who have predicted the end of the world. Likewise I’m sure you and I would agree that Joseph Smith - though supremely confident - was also supremely wrong and misled. Surely we could name others.

Earlier you said, in relation to Paul’s conversion and commission:
when God tells someone directly what the truth is He does not have to gain approval from anyone. No one councils the Lord.
I have no problem agreeing with this statement…but I still ask the same question that I asked earlier…"How does one determine if the message they receive actually IS from the Lord?

I ask this again for two reasons.

1. I feel we have explored the specific texts in Galatians about as far as we can.
2. This question of how does one determine…is an important component, not only in Paul’s case, but in relation to the subject of this thread - the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth"…

Of course, as you say, your days are busy. So if you take your time before answering I completely understand - but I wish to reiterate - that I think this is an important aspect to our discussion.

Have a great day…

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let’s look at Gal 2:1-2 the text in question.1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. Paul was preaching his gospel of grace to sans keeping the law as was apparently being done by those in Jerusalem. He was preaching the full gospel to them. Privately to those who were of reputation. It is clear they were mixing law with works. Paul was freeing them from that bondage. He was fulfilling his ministry and not seeking approval for the gospel he was preaching. Verse 3 and 4 confirm this fact. When Peter, James s and John saw the grace that was given to Paul, they gave Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.

So, Paul went to Jerusalem to teach Peter, James, and John the gospel?

:nope:

Concerning v. 2:2, Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch put it this way: “Paul received his gospel directly from Christ, yet he submitted it for approval to the senior apostles in Jerusalem. This was to confirm that his message was in line with the doctrine of the Twelve and to remove suspicions that his missionary efforts were at odds with the authority of the Church’s recognized leaders. In the end, the pillar apostles “added nothing” to his message and openly affirmed his ministry…”

 

[JRKH]

So, Paul went to Jerusalem to teach Peter, James, and John the gospel?

:nope:

Concerning v. 2:2, Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch put it this way: “Paul received his gospel directly from Christ, yet he submitted it for approval to the senior apostles in Jerusalem. This was to confirm that his message was in line with the doctrine of the Twelve and to remove suspicions that his missionary efforts were at odds with the authority of the Church’s recognized leaders. In the end, the pillar apostles “added nothing” to his message and openly affirmed his ministry…”

While I appreciate Jericho’s concerns - after all, to us Paul too is a pillar of the Church -
What see in the Galatians passage is not a Paul that comes “grovelling” (I’m being hyperbolic here) to Peter for approval, but rather a Paul who wishes to check his understandings with those who (unlike himself) actually walked with Christ incarnate.
I don’t think there can be no doubt but that the exchange between Paul and Peter and James et-al was highly beneficial to all concerned. Such communication is nearly always helpful to everyone.

In the end, Paul was affirmed in that he was not “running in vain” and the others had a better idea what and how Paul was preaching…and each likely picked up some good ideas from the other.
I see a similar exchange having likely occurred when Paul visited with Peter for 15 days earlier in his ministry.

It really is about communication and humble submission of ourselves ad individuals to the collective wisdom of the Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ (Church).

Peace
James

 

[jericho777]

Hi James and Randy,

James you have been very kind. I’m trying to avoid arguments and the such. I have no time nor desire for it. Just nice conversation.

Paul’s confidence came from his personal experiences with God. Starting with the Damascus road experience and how it was a life changing event, to go from persecuting Christians to boldly preaching the gospel. Paul had a deep personal relationship with God. He saw Him and heard His voice and lived by faith through his stonings, beatings, shipwrecks and the likes. It is my personal opinion based on scripture Paul knew God, His voice and His ways just as Moses did and was fully confident in God’s instruction to him. I don’t think the other apostles doubted their calling either. They boldly and confidently carried out the Lords instruction to them. Lastly I don’t think Paul had to ask for approval on penning any of his epistles and neither did any of the other authors the Holy Spirit inspired to write scripture. It is very unwise to seek approval from men for that which God has revealed to you. It subjugates your faith and God’s authority to men.

Randy I did not say Paul was preaching to Peter James and John. Galatians is about grace apart from the works of the law. It is clear Paul was preaching the gospel of grace apart from the law. He was countering the false brothers who were preaching people must keep the law see Gal 2:3-6 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4And that because of false brothers unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. 6But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man’s person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: . When James, Peter and John perceived the grace that was given to Paul, they gave to him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.