What must be believed?

[gtrenewed]

I’m aware of what Paul wrote. What Paul might have seen as fear of the Jewish Christians, Peter might have seen as simply being respectful to them in order to win their souls for Christ.

They were already Christian, the only thing they needed was their doctrine adjusted. You are reading into scripture trying to justify Peter actions.

Again, This is only Paul’s point of view at the time. Note that Paul didn’t note Peter’s response.

More than that, it was about the doctrine of justification. That is why Paul was so forceful. It wasn’t a fleeting point of view. If you really are aware of what Paul wrote you would see the gravity of the situation if not corrected. Gal 2:21 “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

I don’t think the difference was as big as you do. Peter didn’t want to offend Jews who were Christians. Paul didn’t want to offend Jews who might become Christian

That is a big difference. One is in the kingdom of light and the other in the kingdom of darkness. One is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, the other is trying to justify himself through works of the Law.

you added to scripture here…

I tried to make evident my commentary on scripture by enclosing it with ( ). My apologies if that wasn’t clear. But it seems you are getting a bit “snarky” by pointing that out since it was evident to you.

 

[gtrenewed]

Thank you to everyone who answered my original question, I am happy that the world has people who actually believe in something besides their own judgment – people who admire and adhere to the Church for what it claims to be / is, rather than trying to make it into something else.

Now you are all discussing something else, which is interesting but which I do not understand very well, so I won’t try to respond to it.

Sorry Michael, that happens on this forum from time to time. We get debating with each other’s responses that we forget the original post.

God Bless on your journey

 

[paul_c]

They were already Christian, the only thing they needed was their doctrine adjusted. You are reading into scripture trying to justify Peter actions.

More than that, it was about the doctrine of justification. That is why Paul was so forceful. It wasn’t a fleeting point of view. If you really are aware of what Paul wrote you would see the gravity of the situation if not corrected. Gal 2:21 “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

That is a big difference. One is in the kingdom of light and the other in the kingdom of darkness. One is justified by faith in Jesus Christ, the other is trying to justify himself through works of the Law.

I tried to make evident my commentary on scripture by enclosing it with ( ). My apologies if that wasn’t clear. But it seems you are getting a bit “snarky” by pointing that out since it was evident to you.

Peter wasn’t trying to justify himself by works of the law. Where does it say that? He was simply respecting the Jewish ceremonial laws when dealing with the Jewish Christians. And Keep in mind that the Jewish Christians may have been simply showing love for God through those actions as well. You can’t see into their souls. It would be wrong to automatically assume that those continuing to devoutly follow the laws fo the Old Testament failed to understand that they would be saved through baptism, not by being circumcized.

 

[po18guy]

Thank you to everyone who answered my original question, I am happy that the world has people who actually believe in something besides their own judgment – people who admire and adhere to the Church for what it claims to be / is, rather than trying to make it into something else.

Now you are all discussing something else, which is interesting but which I do not understand very well, so I won’t try to respond to it.

Since you are interested in the Church, please have a look at Catholicism for Dummies , written by two very well educated Priests. It is written in plain English and is easily understood. It tackles all of the hard questions about the faith in a straight forward manner. I have a copy myself and highly recommend it.

 

[Michael_N_1]

Since you are interested in the Church, please have a look at Catholicism for Dummies , written by two very well educated Priests. It is written in plain English and is easily understood. It tackles all of the hard questions about the faith in a straight forward manner. I have a copy myself and highly recommend it.

Thank you for your recommendation of Catholicism for Dummies. I will consider finding a copy of that book. Right now, though, I am working my way through the Catechism and the New Testament (which, though a Christian, I have never really read all that much of), and I just borrowed “The Catholic Controversy”, papers by St. Francis de Sales. (I got that because it was recommended on one of the forums here; interestingly, I had just recently been to a weekday Mass [in the last few weeks] and found out that it happened to be St. Francis de Sales’ feast day, of whom I had never heard.)

 

[theden]

Thank you for your recommendation of Catholicism for Dummies. I will consider finding a copy of that book. Right now, though, I am working my way through the Catechism and the New Testament (which, though a Christian, I have never really read all that much of), and I just borrowed “The Catholic Controversy”, papers by St. Francis de Sales. (I got that because it was recommended on one of the forums here; interestingly, I had just recently been to a weekday Mass [in the last few weeks] and found out that it happened to be St. Francis de Sales’ feast day, of whom I had never heard.)

Michael,

I’ll pray for you. Keep following Christ and let Him lead you to where you need to be. Just trust in Him and ask questions if you need clarification.

God Bless,

Dennis

 

[po18guy]

Thank you for your recommendation of Catholicism for Dummies. I will consider finding a copy of that book. Right now, though, I am working my way through the Catechism and the New Testament (which, though a Christian, I have never really read all that much of), and I just borrowed “The Catholic Controversy”, papers by St. Francis de Sales. (I got that because it was recommended on one of the forums here; interestingly, I had just recently been to a weekday Mass [in the last few weeks] and found out that it happened to be St. Francis de Sales’ feast day, of whom I had never heard.)

I have some quotes of Saint Francis de Sales posted over my computer. He is one of the heavyweights. The catechism can be pretty heavy-duty in sections, as can the writings of the Saints. Have a look at the Dummies book. It is much easier reading and is a resource that you can refer to for years to come.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[gtrenewed]

Peter wasn’t trying to justify himself by works of the law. Where does it say that?
He was simply respecting the Jewish ceremonial laws when dealing with the Jewish Christians.

I never said that. Scripture says that he feared those that did want to include works of the Law with faith in Jesus. That he separated himself from fellow christians just because they were gentiles, that this was hypocrisy because he did not separate himself before they arrived, and his actions caused others to act hypocritically.

And Keep in mind that the Jewish Christians may have been simply showing love for God through those actions as well. You can’t see into their souls. It would be wrong to automatically assume that those continuing to devoutly follow the laws fo the Old Testament failed to understand that they would be saved through baptism, not by being circumcized.

Scripture says that Jews from Jerusalem went to Antioch and troubled them with wrong doctrine, they wanted to include works of the Law with faith in Jesus in order to be saved. It is you who are assuming.

What must be believed? Scripture says we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism is just one step in that faith journey that must persevere until the end. That faith has been passed down from Jesus through the Apostles, of which Peter was given special honor, through the bishops they taught, who comprise the teaching body of the Catholic Church to this day.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c

You are extending scripture a bit here. It doesn’t say that Peter feared those that wanted to include works of the law with faith in Jesus. It wasn’t about works, it was about circumcision. This is Peter’s position at the Council of Jeruasalem:
1 Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.”
2 Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
3 They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.
5 But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.”
6 The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
And Keep in mind that the Jewish Christians may have been simply showing love for God through those actions as well. You can’t see into their souls. It would be wrong to automatically assume that those continuing to devoutly follow the laws of the Old Testament failed to understand that they would be saved through baptism, not by being circumcized.

I agree. They did want to include follwoing the Mosaic law with the new Covenant. But as shown above, Peter denied that this was required at the council of Jeruaslem. Its impossible to know exactly what went on in Antioch. Perhaps Peter did indeed favor the Jewish Christians inappropriately. But we don’t know. All we have is Paul’s perspective.

What must be believed? Scripture says we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism is just one step in that faith journey that must persevere until the end. That faith has been passed down from Jesus through the Apostles, of which Peter was given special honor, through the bishops they taught, who comprise the teaching body of the Catholic Church to this day.

I agree with all this.

 

[gtrenewed]

You are extending scripture a bit here. It doesn’t say that Peter feared those that wanted to include works of the law with faith in Jesus. It wasn’t about works, it was about circumcision.

Circumcision is a work of the Law. If you put acts together with galatians you get a more complete picture of the event.

I agree that Peter never verbally taught this but Paul considered his action so grave that he had to correct him in front of everyone there.

I agree. They did want to include follwoing the Mosaic law with the new Covenant. But as shown above, Peter denied that this was required at the council of Jeruaslem. Its impossible to know exactly what went on in Antioch. Perhaps Peter did indeed favor the Jewish Christians inappropriately. But we don’t know. All we have is Paul’s perspective.

True but since it is part of inspired scripture, I take it at face value. I don’t feel that it takes anything away from Peter though, as a Protestant might think. Peter’s personality recorded in the Gospels is consistant with this behavior and so is his defense at the council. We know that Paul had a fiery personality but I don’t think he over-reacted because as we see throughout his epistles, he diligently fought against the thought that works of the law are needed in addition to faith and a life of charitable works.

We have two different perspectives on this event and it seems that after giving each other our best shots we are still holding firm.

So I say God Bless and since we both hold to the Apostles Creed, I will agree to disagree.

 

[paul_c]

Circumcision is a work of the Law. If you put acts together with galatians you get a more complete picture of the event.

I agree that Peter never verbally taught this but Paul considered his action so grave that he had to correct him in front of everyone there.

True but since it is part of inspired scripture, I take it at face value. I don’t feel that it takes anything away from Peter though, as a Protestant might think. Peter’s personality recorded in the Gospels is consistant with this behavior and so is his defense at the council. We know that Paul had a fiery personality but I don’t think he over-reacted because as we see throughout his epistles, he diligently fought against the thought that works of the law are needed in addition to faith and a life of charitable works.

We have two different perspectives on this event and it seems that after giving each other our best shots we are still holding firm.

So I say God Bless and since we both hold to the Apostles Creed, I will agree to disagree.

Well, it was kind of an extraneous discussion to the main point ot this thread, anyway. Actually, I don’t really have a strong opinion about it but I always found it curious that Paul would need to bring this point up to the Galatians. Why did he find it necessary to “throw Peter under the bus?” What was he gaining by doing so? This is one of those parts of scripture that bring out the humanity of the apostles. Anyway, I think we should just let this go in deference to the OP…

 

[po18guy]

What was this thread originally about???

 

[paul_c]

What was this thread originally about???

Yes, its easy to get pulled off on tangents. The original purpose of the discussion was to identify what a Catholic is required to believe.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, its easy to get pulled off on tangents. The original purpose of the discussion was to identify what a Catholic is required to believe.

Yeah, it is quite tough to stay on target in some threads.