Galatians 1:1-9 Because he was not among the original twelve, Paul needed to defend his apostleship in ways that they did not. In I Corinthians 15:6-8 he states that he met the same requirement for seeing the risen Lord as they. However, in Gal. 1 he adds other arguments because his attackers, the Judaizers, were undermining his ministry in the Galatian churches. They claimed that he was a spurious, self-appointed preacher and therefore, his "strange teachings" needed not to be listened to. Contemporary liberal Bible scholars and theologians join them in maintaining that none of the apostles were special. Like other humans what they taught and wrote was based on their own human insight and understanding. Every believer has his own experiences of what is often called “the Christ event.” The Roman Catholics join evangelicals in denying that liberal teaching. However, Roman Catholic dogma adds a different and equally damaging doctrine. It maintains that the church wrote the Bible and is therefore a higher authority than the Bible. The church can therefore add to or modify Scripture as it sees fit, and its ecclesiastical pronouncements are held to have the same spiritual and moral authority as Scripture-even when they clearly contradict scriptural teaching.
Questions to Ponder:- How do you think Paul would answer the liberals of today who deny any special divine inspiration and authority to the writings of the apostles?
- How do you think Paul would answer Roman Catholic dogma who claim that the apostles spoke to the church on behalf of the church?
4 comments:
Gale says, Good morning Dick, in summarizing some of my thoughts on your excellent blogs I think of two rather recent words "pluralism" the belief that all religions lead to God and heaven and "humanism" the doctrine that tries to lower God to man's level and elevates man to God's supreamity....both act to, as Paul says in Gal.2:21 to frustrate the Grace of God, or to cause it to have no effect.
Paul answers the first question himself, in V. 1--He, Paul, has been sent not from men, but from God the Father, so his apostleship is from God.
Since the Catholic Church does not agree with the doctines Paul is presenting, he could not have been writing for them.They would be included in the ones to be condemned, (v. 7-9).
ruth gelina
Hi Dick;
It matters not in the least what I think. It only matters what the Word of God says. The gospel is explicit in regards to the requirements of salvation and for the perseverance of the saints. It matters not what the liberals say, only the truth of the Word matters. And we, you and I, are required to speak the truth in love. (Eph. 4:25)
Hello,
In answering your question, I would be weary of trying to place myself in any of the original 12's shoes. That aside, being Jesus' clear distinction towards Peter as his rock upon which to build the Church, Jesus affirms one of the Apostles as his earthly successor. The confusion comes when people see 'petra' and 'petros' in the Greek translation, as if there is a separation between the Rock Jesus talks of and Peter as a rock. In fact, unlike English, most languages, including Greek, have gender-defined terminology. So while 'petra' was best used to define the rock, when said again, Jesus used the masculine form, 'petros' to describe Peter. It was simply courtesy in addressing Peter by his correct gender.
Next, I would find it hard for anyone who believes in the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, etc, to have trouble with the Church's authority, being that these ideas were well defined in the Original Church during the 4th Century AD. Those who disagree with the Trinity and the Nicene Creed are predominantly Jehova Witnesses who cite no biblical use of the word 'trinity.' So unless one abandon's the Trinity, one cannot go (without hypocrisy) and admonish the Church Jesus built.
I hope this clears up any misconception.
Post a Comment