![\"Paul7\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2011\/10\/Paul7.jpg\")
<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n***<\/p><\/div>\n
We\u2019ve discussed how in Gal. 1:8-9 Paul tells the Galatians to reject his own teaching if it departs from the words of God that he had preached to them. And precisely the same argument applies even if he was speaking only to the judaizers; he was telling clearly telling someone to reject his teaching if it strayed from God\u2019s word. Paul wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cBut even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God\u2019s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God\u2019s curse!\u201d (Gal. 1:8-9)<\/span><\/p>\n We could also consider how Paul rebukes Peter in Antioch because he \u2018stood condemned\u2019 for \u2018not acting in line with the truth of the gospel.\u2019 Here Paul rebukes a fellow apostle for not conforming his practice to God\u2019s word. Again, God\u2019s word has authority over even the apostles:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWhen Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 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\u2026 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, \u201cYou 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? \u201cWe who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 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 Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. \u201d Gal 2:11-16<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cTo the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.\u201d Is. 8:20<\/span><\/p>\n Finally, Jesus condemned the religious leaders of his day, saying \u201cYou have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men\u2026.Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.\u201d (Mark 7:8,13)<\/span><\/p>\n I said that my questions were compatible with the idea that tradition is also in some sense authoritative. In fact, the traditional Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura has never held that the Bible<\/span> is the only authority that exists, but that it is the only infallible and ultimate authority the exists. Anyway, as I said, my point is that the argument does not depend on the rejection of all other authority, it simply asks whether Paul held his apostolic authority under the authority of God\u2019s words and commanded the Galatians to do the same. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u201cPaul, an apostle\u2014sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead\u201d \u2013 Gal. 1:1<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.\u201d \u2013 Gal. 1:11-12<\/span><\/p>\n Or consider:<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 15:2 states: \u201c. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.\u201d The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas \u201cbeing sent on their way by the church.\u201d Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role), and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: \u201c. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem\u201d (Acts 16:4).<\/p>\n The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don\u2019t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Both. Why do you feel compelled to make a choice? It\u2019s the usual Protestant \u201ceither\/or\u201d dichotomous mentality. Calvin does the same thing repeatedly.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n And actually, why do you say that \u201cfourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9)\u201d? But you leave out the intervening verses where Paul claims that these men \u201cadded nothing to his message\u201d and that their high esteem \u201cmakes no difference\u201d to Paul or to God. There is also the interesting incident in Gal. 2 where Paul rebukes Peter \u201cto his face\u201d for his \u201chypocriosy\u201d because he was \u201cnot walking in line with the gospel\u201d (Gal. 2:11-15)<\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n So what? Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn\u2019t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n You\u2019re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that. I\u2019ve already given the example of the Jerusalem Council, which plainly shows the infallibility of the Church.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God\u2019s promised protection.<\/p>\n What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).<\/p>\n But again, none of this has direct relevance to the question of whether, in Gal. 1:8-9, Paul says that his authority is derived from preaching the words of God and is to be rejected if he strays from it. Here are the three questions I asked Alan:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n 1. Do you agree that Paul told the Galatians that his own apostolic authority was derived from preaching God\u2019s words and was to be rejected if he departed from God\u2019s words (1:8-9)?<\/span><\/p>\n 2. Do you agree that the Bible contains God\u2019s words?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n *<\/p>\n How would you answer these questions? . . . <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Right now, my main questions involve Gal. 1:8-9 and the nature of apostolic authority. . . . they underlie all subsequent questions since they determine whether or not all teachings of any church have to be tested against the words of God. Is the church under the authority of God\u2019s words or not?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The one true Church is and always will be in harmony with God\u2019s inspired revelation, the Bible; yes. Thus, we reject any form of Protestantism, because they fail this test. It\u2019s not a matter of one thing being \u201cunder\u201d the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola Scriptura<\/i>. The Bible presents Scripture-Tradition-Church as a \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d: the rule of faith. All are in harmony; all work together.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n And is any church and any teacher to be rejected who strays from God\u2019s words, as Paul commands? That is the fundamental issue.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Sure; this is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God\u2019s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can\u2019t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.<\/p>\n Dave, where does Paul say that he derived his apostleship in any way from Peter or the other apostles?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I gave several passages showing that Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God (Paul was called before he was born: Gal 1:15). It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don\u2019t like human, institutional authority and don\u2019t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n No doubt you aren\u2019t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it\u2019s like breathing. It\u2019s like the fish that doesn\u2019t know it\u2019s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura<\/i> always entails).<\/p>\n Aren\u2019t the whole first two chapters of Galatians a very exhaustive and emphatic statement by that he did not receive the gospel he preached \u201cfrom any man, nor by the agency of men\u201d? \u201cPaul, an apostle\u2014sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead\u201d (Gal. 1:1) \u201cI want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.\u201d (Gal. 1:11-12). How can it be \u201cboth\u201d when Paul says \u201cNo, not from man or through man. Only from Jesus himself.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Anyway, as I said, I\u2019m more interested in those three questions, and I\u2019m curious how you\u2019d answer them.<\/p>\n In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16). He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn\u2019t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Protestants don\u2019t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.<\/p>\n We simply have more faith than you guys do. It\u2019s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God\u2019s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn\u2019t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.<\/p>\n Exactly. Yo<\/span>u are not really saying \u201cyes\u201d. You are trying to say \u201cboth.\u201d But that is not what Paul is saying in Gal. 1:8-9. He says that he -even as an apostle- is to be rejected if he strays from God\u2019s word. If he strays from God\u2019s words then he is \u201caccursed\u201d and he commands the Galatians to reject him. Why would he issue such a command unless his own authority -apostle though he was- is derivative from God\u2019s words?<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s \u201cunder\u201d the authority of the Bible in the sense that it will not contradict<\/i> what is in the Bible. It is not \u201cunder\u201d it in terms of the authority of the Bible being intrinsically superior to the authority of the Church. The Bible presents both and never implies that one is \u201chigher\u201d than the other.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n It\u2019s a matter of definition and meaning. I know what you are driving at, because I used to believe the same thing myself. But I also have to show where your thinking is unbiblical, and must dispute the premises that underlie your questions. The whole thing is a far more complex matter than Protestants usually comprehend, because they have been taught only one way of looking at things: sola Scriptura <\/i>and anti-institutionalism, and anti-Catholicism (either subtle or more pernicious opposition).<\/p>\n What is straying from God\u2019s word is the very notion of denominationalism, which is always considered an outrage in the NT; the rejection of apostolic succession, and of, e.g., bishops (plainly present in the NT), or belief in a non-literal Eucharist, or a baptism that doesn\u2019t regenerate, or sola Scriptura<\/i> or faith alone (separation of justification and sanctification): all the host of unbiblical teachings that are in Protestantism. That\u2019s why I left the system; wanting to follow biblical teachings more closely, traditional moral teachings, and the historic Christian Church.<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Dave, are are claiming that Paul\u2019s statement in Gal. 1:8-9 is purely hypothetical? In other words, is he not actually telling the Galatians that they should test his words against the words of God because his words and the words of God will never conflict?<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n If so, you should consider that Paul writes \u201cif we or an angel from heaven<\/b>\u2026 If anyone<\/b> is preaching a gospel other than what you accepted.\u201d Note that Paul is putting himself in the same class as \u201can angel from heaven\u201d or \u201canyone\u201d in terms of his condemnation if he strays from God\u2019s word. As Alan rightly noted, Galatians is written specifically to convince the Galatians to reject the false gospel of the judaizers which was under God\u2019s curse. Paul is calling for a real rejection of real false teachers and then includes himself in the list. He says that all teachers and all people claiming authority are subject to God\u2019s words. So the command here cannot possible be purely hypothetical. It is real and it is a command to all Christians.<\/p>\n There is such a thing as a false church and false gospel, that must be rejected, and there is also the one true Church that cannot fail doctrinally, based on God\u2019s protection. You assert the first thing but reject the second, which is your difficulty (accepting one part of the Bible but not another). We accept both things and have no difficulty.<\/p>\n Incidentally, note the criterion that Paul gives the Galatians for determining false teachers. He does not say \u201cIf anyone comes to you and is not authorized by the other apostles\u201d or \u201cIf anyone comes to you and is not under the auspices of the official Church\u201d. He is very clear. He says \u201cif anyone preaches a gospel to you other than the one that you accepted.\u201d That is his criterion. And it is by this criterion that he appeal to the Galatians to reject the judaizers and even himself, if he strays from God\u2019s words.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n So what<\/i>? It depends on what he is writing about at the time. In Acts 16:4 he appeals to an infallible Church council: telling his followers to obey it as he does himself. <\/span><\/span>Again, you insist on pitting one thing against another (Paul\u2019s authority vs. the Church\u2019s): a thing that the Bible doesn\u2019t do. In Gal 1:8-9 Paul tells the Galatians to reject any gospel that is different from what he presented to them. Duh<\/i>! Of course<\/i> he would say that! He preached the truth to them. In the same book he says how this gospel had been confirmed as true by the Church (Gal 1:18; 2:1-2, 9). No opposition. The Church is guided by God to preserve apostolic truth.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n So you reject Protestantism because \u201cit departs from God\u2019s word.\u201d But do you test Roman Catholic teaching by the same standard? No, because \u201cThe Bible teaches that the true Church is infallible and indefectible\u2026there is also the one true Church that cannot fail doctrinally, based on God\u2019s protection..\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n So wait a minute, aren\u2019t you just rejecting Protestantism because it is not Roman Catholicism?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Again, this goes directly back to ultimate authority. Are we really going to test all claims against Scripture. Or only the claims of non-Roman Catholics? And what does Paul say? Was he an apostle of the one true Church? And does he command the Galatians to reject his authority if he strays from God\u2019s word despite the fact that he is an apostle of the true Church?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I\u2019ve been playing your game all along. You want Scripture; I am giving it to you. Protestantism fails that test. I keep talking about the Jerusalem Council: a very \u201cbiblical\u201d thing. You have consistently ignored it because it doesn\u2019t fit in with your preconceived notions of authority, that come from man-made traditions. I have given you plenty of Scripture. All you can do is repeat Gal 1;8-9 over and over. After I answer that in ten different ways, it gets old when you repeat it for the eleventh time.<\/span><\/span><\/span>If you want to cry \u201cBible, Bible\u201d then at least give us more of it than one passage! If all you can do is repeat your mantra, and you refuse to interact with opposing arguments, then the dialogue will soon be over.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Look at Galatians chapter 1.<\/span><\/p>\n *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Just as I said. I\u2019m a prophet. I wrote: \u201cAll you can do is repeat Gal 1:8-9 over and over.\u201d Eleven minutes later you did precisely that. I have provided maybe 25 Bible passages or more. You give one 25 times: Galatians 1. We answer 25 times, then you give the same passage again, as if repeating a falsehood (no infallible Church; St. Paul as a lone ranger) makes it more true. This is supposed to impress anyone who loves the Bible?<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It is God\u2019s understand[ing] of the gospel <\/span>that has authority and God\u2019s words that have authority. That is the point that Paul is so clear to make in Gal. 1. The Galatians received the gospel through Paul\u2019s preaching, but the message was from God. That is why Paul can say that even he or an angel from heaven is to be rejected if he preaches a different message. Because the different message would not be God\u2019s message if you believe (as all of us do) that the message Paul preached to them originally was the true gospel. And that is why Paul states that his authority is derivative and is to be emphatically rejected if he strays from the gospel. He is saying \u201cI entrusted you with the words God gave me. Now you have them. And now you are to reject anyone, even me<\/b>, if they teach something different.\u201d<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Why is this \u201cnews\u201d to you, as if it were some big discovery? All this is saying is that the gospel is the gospel<\/i>. A=a. Did you think anyone would think otherwise? So if even Paul came back and preached a false gospel (because we believe people can fall away from faith, based on the Bible, whereas Calvinists do not), then folks are to reject it and him.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n We believe that the Church preserves this true gospel in perpetuity, because it is infallible and indefectible. Even disciples can fall away (Judas is described as \u201celect\u201d yet fell away). But the one true Church cannot. False claimants of supposed \u201ctrue Church\u201d status can fall away if they are not the Church established by Jesus Christ, with St. Peter as the first pope.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThrough him [Jesus] and for his name\u2019s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.\u201d \u2013 Rom. 1:5<\/span><\/span><\/span>*\n<\/div>\n
\nThe attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.<\/span><\/span>*\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n