Calvinism and Orthodoxy

[Oblio]

I just found out about "Little Christmas" on the sixth of January. I was given a link earlier to research about this holiday. I want to know about these things. I just know what I know.

One of the greatests feasts of the Christian Church, as this was when the Holy Trinity was first made manifest to all.

Discourse On the Day of the Baptism of Christ - St John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople

 

[Maximus]

folk_rocker_4jc: I'm going to go ahead and give you my resources on early church history and let you decide what to make of them:


Erasmus, the Anabaptists, and the Great Commission
by Abraham Friesen



An Introduction to Mennonite History: A Popular History of the Anabaptists and the Mennonites
by Cornelius J. Dyck


Spiritual Life in Anabaptism
by Cornelius J. Dyck (Translator)


These pretty mush speak for themselves. From a noted Anabaptist historian and scholar, their history & theology as Anabaptists today understand their heritage, is detailed in these two books. The second one is my favorite because it gives a cursory read of their teachings by citing from the Anabaptist leaders themselves.


Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey and Critical Re-evaluation
by Roland H. Bainton


This details the early church’s development from the earliest post-new Testament writers up through Augustine. It drives you to the conclusion that the Catholic and Protestant churches followed a different path from that of Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, etc., who were following what Christ taught. (Bainton is a Lutheran historian!)


How Christians Made Peace With War: Early Christian Understandings of War
by John Driver





The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster
by John Howard Yoder


Christian Attitudes Toward War, Peace, and Revolution: A Companion to Bainton;

John Howard Yoder


Yoder was for many years a prof. of theology at Notre Dame. I’m sure few men were as familiar with the devisersity between Roman Catholic claims to historicity vs. the Anabaptist understanding of NT ethics & how they were changed by the time of Augustine. The second book is harder to find, but well worth it.



Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity
by David W. Bercot


A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs
by David W. Bercot (Editor)


From a student of the Early Church who was Anglican, but as I understand, is now a Mennonite!


It Is Not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes Toward War, Violence, and the State
by Jean Michel Hornus

Anyhoo, I think these works should be sufficient enough to refute you assertion that “none of the early Christians held the distinctive beliefs of the Anabaptists.” Quite to the contrary. Also, I think you need to take back your claim that study of the Early Church leads us to Catholicism. It hasn’t for many noted authors & scholars.

Sorry I did not quote your entire post. I did, however, quote enough to show that all your resources (all secondary) are Evangelical Protestant. In fact, most of them are Mennonite.

Hardly a balanced approach to Church history.

I am familiar with the Mennonite argument relative to ecclesiastical history. It goes something like this:

Our beliefs are those of the New Testament, therefore, the
early Christians must have believed just as we do. However,
outside of the New Testament, there is no written evidence
prior to the Reformation of any Christians who thought as we
do. Therefore, we believe the "true Church" went under -
ground as a result of persecution by the established
Catholic Church. This clandestine Church continued to pro-
claim the true Gospel despite Catholic persecution. In the
fullness of time God brought about the Reformation and the
light of the Gospel (i.e., the Anabaptist version) was able to
once again shine forth to the world, etc.

The problem with this Anabaptist scenario is that there is absolutely no evidence of such a clandestine, parallel church.

We have the writings of the Catholic Church Fathers, and we have the writings of heretics.

What we don't have are any writings - prior to the Reformation - by anyone who thought and taught like an Anabaptist.

Read the Apostolic Fathers for yourself. Not an Anabaptist in the crowd. And the Apostolic Fathers were men who knew the Apostles.

Why, after the first century, if the New Testament is so Anabaptist, did Anabaptist beliefs suddenly disappear from the face of the earth, only to resurface in the 16th century in Central and Northern Europe?

Besides, none of the 16th-century Anabaptist leaders received the "true Gospel" from a band of primitive "true believers." They were all disaffected Roman Catholics. Menno Simons himself was a Roman Catholic priest.

Check it out for yourself.

Read the early Church Fathers for yourself.

And try some secondary sources that are not Protestant or Mennonite.

 

[Photini]

St. Theophan the Recluse was a convert from Calvinism. I'm sure some of his writings would be helpful on this subject.

 

[geocajun]

Would you be willing to discuss these differences here or in a new thread? I was having a discussion with geocajun and I think he may be confused with justification as he is a recent convert to Catholicism. He seems to have a problem with good works. Anyway that is a topic which I have avoided because I'm also confused.

My dad was a jansenist -- and they bordered on Calvinistic teachings.

Chanter I went ahead and started a thread for you in OBOB titled :Catholic teaching: Justification and Works"

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Maximus, I'm not allowed to debate you but I will pretty much post enough to say I have studied these issues and have looked into the Patristics myself, and also have close associates who have done the same thing, and I stand by what I say re the character of the early church being best represented in the Anabaptists.

And please spare me your "caricature" of our position ...you wouldn’t want someone to go around doing the same about Orthodoxy...

 

[Maximus]

Well, that was not a caricature of the Anabaptist position, folk_rocker_4jc. It was the real deal.

If you are really reading the Church Fathers, then I am content.

You will not long be able to hold onto the idea that they were anything like Anabaptists!

 

[Maximus]

folk_rocker_4jc -

Hey! Here's a suggestion.

Why not start a thread over in IDD on how the early Church most nearly resembled the Anabaptists?

I don't visit this web site that much anymore, but I'm sure you will get plenty of takers who will be glad to discuss that with you. They might bring a perspective not derived primarily from Mennonite and other Protestant sources.

If I get the time I might even peek in on it and make a comment or two.

Have you read the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (the men who knew the Apostles)?

How about St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred in Rome in A.D. 107?

You can get the writings of the Apostolic Fathers in Penguin Books' Early Christian Writings or in The Apostolic Fathers (Thomas Nelson, 1978; reprint 6th edition by Light and Life Publishing).

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Irenaeus' theory of atonement...known as "recapitulation" would have been applauded by the Anabaptists. Very "Christ-centered" in it's view- it' simply takes what Christ did and puts it front and center to theology- as opposed to the forensic option which was followed by the church at large after Tertullian,Anselm, Augustine, and those are what Catholicism & Protestantism are based on (Anabaptists being neither Catholic nor Protestant). Add to that the point that peadobaptism wasn't really present until after 200 AD ( at least there is no unambiguous mention of it).



Please take your own advice and study Anabaptism for yourself. Start with Harold Bender's book. Bender breaks down Anabaptism into 3 basic concepts: Community, Discipleship, Non-violent witness. Exactly what the New Testament view of the Christian life is all about.



And I think one other presupposition here needs to be addressed. Yes, knowing the outlook of the early chruch fathers is important, but don't think this puts them above error. An apostle by the name of Peter fell into the heresy of the Judaizers (Galatians 2). Yes, he was corrected for this. What happens 200-300 years later when the hierarchical vision of the church made leaders above correction? The point is, if an Apostle can err, so can his "successors."

I think I can start a new thread after I reach 100 posts...

 

[Philip]

Irenaeus' theory of atonement...known as "recapitulation" would have been applauded by the Anabaptists.

How do the Anabaptists feel about the rest of St Irenaeus's theology? In particular, his teachings on the Holy Eucharist?

(Anabaptists being neither Catholic nor Protestant).

This should be fun.

Please take your own advice and study Anabaptism for yourself. Start with Harold Bender's book.

Maximus,
Didn't you used to be a Baptist?

 

[Oblio]

The point is, if an Apostle can err, so can his "successors."

But the Church, the Pillar and foundation of all Truth, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit cannot !

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Every time the church killed & persecuted the innocent, and walked hand in hand with Caesar, the church erred. (Sermon on the Mount/Plain) Every time baby carcasses were found in catacombs & young children were molested...the church erred. (Matt 18) Every time she oppressed the poor, the church erred (Matt 25).

When the church split between East & West over the Filioque, there was error. Who erred? One or the other? Both? One thing is for certain, one of them was wrong!


There is no guarantee of "infallible" human interpretation of guidance by the Holy Spirit. A certain "Apostle" named Peter fell into the heresy of the Judaizers (Gal 2). So much for the notion that they "knew the apostles" meaning anything. Some guy names Judas knew Jesus pretty well, too.



Yes- Peter was corrected…but what happens 200-300 years later when the leadership is above correction?



And yes, there is value in studying the Patristic period...to see the development of doctrines. At the same time, a deviation from the teachings & character of Christ is a deviation, period.



There is no more guarantee of infallibility than Aaron & Miriam had a guarantee that they wouldn’t oppose Moses. Or that the children of Abraham wouldn’t serve a golden calf. What the real guarantee was that Yahweh staid with them in spite of their rebellion. That’s the blessing we all enjoy.



Anabaptism : neither Catholic nor Protestant
by Walter Klaassen


Availability: Usually ships within 1-2 business days


4 used & new from$5.50

 

[Maximus]

folk_rocker_4jc -

Have you actually read St. Irenaeus or are you simply regurgitating arguments from Mennonite sources?

No one who reads St. Irenaeus could have any illusions about his having been anything even remotely like an Anabaptist!

Don't take my word for it, read what he wrote for yourself.

BTW, there is plenty of biblical evidence for "paedobaptism," not to mention the fact that first century Jews baptized the infant children of their converts.

Philip: Maximus,
Didn't you used to be a Baptist?

Yes, I was, as a matter of fact.

And I have studied Mennonite writings, including some of what Menno Simons himself wrote.

I live about 30 minutes north of Eastern Mennonite University, in the land of buggies, chin beards, and little women in lace caps.

The godfather of my daughter Anna, now an Orthodox priest, used to be a Mennonite. I should shoot him an email and see if he might be interested in discussing this topic. He's pretty busy overseeing his church in Maryland these days, however.

 

[Maximus]

folk_rocker_4jc -

I think you should follow my advice and start a debate thread on this topic in IDD.

You could argue the filioque there all day long, if you wish.

You know what else might be fun?

A good, thorough discussion of the Anabaptist take-over of the German city of Muenster in the mid-1530s.

 

[Philip]

Every time the church killed & persecuted the innocent, and walked hand in hand with Caesar, the church erred. (Sermon on the Mount/Plain) Every time baby carcasses were found in catacombs & young children were molested...the church erred. (Matt 18) Every time she oppressed the poor, the church erred (Matt 25).

You are confusing the actions of some members of the Church with the Church.

There is no guarantee of "infallible" human interpretation of guidance by the Holy Spirit. A certain "Apostle" named Peter fell into the heresy of the Judaizers (Gal 2). So much for the notion that they "knew the apostles" meaning anything. Some guy names Judas knew Jesus pretty well, too. [/size]

We do not claim that any individual is infallible. We claim that the Church as a whole is infallible.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

folk_rocker_4jc -

Have you actually read St. Irenaeus or are you simply regurgitating arguments from Mennonite sources?

In point of fact, my theology Prof in seminary was Free Methodist, and an advocate of covenantal atonement theology. It was his enthusiasm for Irenaeus' & recapitulation that influenced me. Another broad presupposition by Maximus hits the floor!

Also, I might add...my Pastor studied under Thomas Oden, who is a United Methodist historical theologian. Oden supports infant baptism. My pastor left the United Methodists over that issue among others. But you will go far and long to find a better scholar of the Patristics than Oden. We've had our education, thank-you.

And let me remind you of my original assertion on this:

My own looking into Church history has led me to the Anabaptists. This has to do with seeing evidence by scholars who have demonstrated that the early church fathers (Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, etc) were almost uniformly pacifist in their doctrine. To me Augustine got us off the track when he justified Christian participation in war. And of course, the Reformation didn't exactly get us back to the Sermon on the Mount ...unless you mean the "Radical Reformation." ;-)

I listed pacifism as a determining factor, not issues related to communion, infant baptism, or a general similarity between the Patristics & the Anabaptists. And as I also stated:

There is no guarantee of "infallible" human interpretation of guidance by the Holy Spirit. A certain "Apostle" named Peter fell into the heresy of the Judaizers (Gal 2). So much for the notion that they "knew the apostles" meaning anything. Some guy names Judas knew Jesus pretty well, too.

And I think one other presupposition here needs to be addressed. Yes, knowing the outlook of the early church fathers is important, but don't think this puts them above error. An apostle by the name of Peter fell into the heresy of the Judaizers (Galatians 2). Yes, he was corrected for this. What happens 200-300 years later when the hierarchical vision of the church made leaders above correction? The point is, if an Apostle can err, so can his "successors."

So the standard is Christ, and any deviation from him, whether in the Apostolic age, after the Apostles, or wherever you find it, is wrong and it doesn't matter if it happened 2 minutes or 2,000 years after the last apostle died!


Oh, & btw, you still haven't dealt with the fact that Bercot was in a non-evangelical, baby-baptizing denomination, and (based on his study of church history) left it to become a Mennonite!

BTW, there is plenty of biblical evidence for "paedobaptism," not to mention the fact that first century Jews baptized the infant children of their converts.

Excuse me, you are a bit confused. That would be a piece of historical evidence (if true), not biblical. You are quoting a historical source to make an inference about a biblical issue. It's also not a piece of evidence that may make a lot of difference Biblically speaking, even if true.

And you know, I've read some of the arguments for baptizing babies put forth by Protestants as well as Catholics. They are pretty much drenched in "wishful thinking" and wanting to make passages say what they really don't.

I think you should follow my advice and start a debate thread on this topic in IDD.

I think this has already been addressed- that I need 100 posts to be able to do this?

You could argue the filioque there all day long, if you wish.

I could so care less about that, My point in bringing it up was to show that somebody had to be wrong.

You know what else might be fun?

A good, thorough discussion of the Anabaptist take-over of the German city of Muenster in the mid-1530s.

That's part of your lazy approach to Anabaptist history that I objected to earlier on...calling them a "multifarious lot" and blurring the lines between Anabaptism as a whole and different fringe groups. There was also a group of "spiritualists" who held to views that more anticipated the Quakers. Their presence hardly changes the general complexion of Anabaptism any more than the presence of the Muensterites

That's why I recommended that resource on Erasmus, plus resources on Anabaptist history so you could get you facts straight. You also still haven't dealt with the fact that Erasmus was a Catholic and who held to the same model of the purity of the pre-Constaninian church as we do.


Allow me to quote again from one of the reviews of that book, to refresh your memory:

This book challenges much of the poly-genesis consensus regarding the origins of the Anabaptist or Wiedertaufer movement. It focuses primarily on the intellectual origins of the movement and points to Erasmus as the progenitor of the Anabaptists' teaching on baptism.

It's clear that the mish-mash view you gave me of Anabaptism is hardly universally held, especially by anyone who has actually studied the movement, anyway.

You are confusing the actions of some members of the Church with the Church.

So when almost every Church member who could made the trek towards Jerusalem to fight Jews & Muslims, was that "the Church" or "the actions of a few." Seems like it was almost anybody who could breathe joined that movement. And wasn't it sanctioned by a certain Pope?

Actually, what you have just said perfectly fits in with "remnant theology", a cornerstone of Anabaptism. Just like God saved a faithful remnant for himself, and raised up prophets to condemn the leadership of the nation, he continues to keep a faithful few unto himself. so which is it? The whole church fell away, or God kept a few around with there heads on straight? Seems to me like you can't have both.

This should be fun.

Anabaptism is neither Catholic nor Protestant in that if you accept that Luther & Calvin were pure Protestants, then we cannot be. We are closer to the Catholics on co-operative grace, but reject the ritualism and use of the sword common to Medieval Catholicism.

 

[Philip]

So when almost every Church member who could made the trek towards Jerusalem to fight Jews & Muslims, was that "the Church" or "the actions of a few." Seems like it was almost anybody who could breathe joined that movement.

"[A]lmost every Church member" is a bit of hypebole, isn't it? Even so, this proves nothing. No one claims that the actions of the members of the Church are morally infallible. The Church is infallible when she, guided by the Holy Spirit, speaks on matters of faith.

And wasn't it sanctioned by a certain Pope?

The Pope is not the Church, just one member of it.

Anabaptism is neither Catholic nor Protestant in that if you accept that Luther & Calvin were pure Protestants, then we cannot be.

I define Protestantism as any belief system that can be traced back to Catholicism after the Church of Rome split from the Orthodox Church. Would this include Anabaptists?

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

No one claims that the actions of the members of the Church are morally infallible. The Church is infallible when she, guided by the Holy Spirit, speaks on matters of faith.

This is where you and I differ in our presuppostions. I don't separate theology from it's pracical expression in terms of how the gospel is or isn't properly lived out. An error in ethics is an error in doctrine, from my point of view. Thus -as an example- Luther was in error for his tract on the Jews, and we should look back into his ideas on predestination to see if ther's a connection between faith and ethics there.

I define Protestantism as any belief system that can be traced back to Catholicism after the Church of Rome split from the Orthodox Church. Would this include Anabaptists?

That's about as lazy as Maximus' views on Anabaptism. Would you call the "spritualists"- who were bent on dreams and visions and an inward revelation "Protestant"?

 

[prodromos]

A certain "Apostle" named Peter fell into the heresy of the Judaizers (Gal 2). So much for the notion that they "knew the apostles" meaning anything.

Yes- Peter was corrected?but what happens 200-300 years later when the leadership is above correction?

I thought the topic was Calvanism and Orthodoxy, not Calvanism and Catholicism

If the Apostle Peter erring is foundational to your particular beliefs then I apologise if the following causes your house to start leaning precariously.

Saint John Chrysostom commentary on the epistle of St. Paul to the Galations.

Galations ii:11-12. "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision."

Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it;51 we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers. But first a word must be said about Peter's freedom in speech, and how it was ever his way to outstrip the other disciples. Indeed it was upon one such occasion that he gained his name from the unbending and impregnable character of his faith. For when all were interrogated in common, he stepped before the others and answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mat. xvi: 16.) This was when the keys of heaven were committed to him. So too, he appears to have been the only speaker on the Mount; (Mat. xvii: 4.) and when Christ spoke of His crucifixion, and the others kept silence, he said, "Be it far from Thee." (Mat. xvi: 22.) These words evince, if not a cautious temper, at least a fervent love; and in all instances we find him more vehement than the others, and rushing forward into danger. So when Christ was seen on the beach, and the others were pushing the boat in, he was too impatient to wait for its coming to land. (John xxi: 7.) And after the Resurrection, when the Jews were murderous and maddened, and sought to tear the Apostles in pieces, he first dared to come forward, and to declare, that the Crucified was taken up into heaven. (Acts ii: 14, Acts 2:36) It is a greater thing to open a closed door, and to commence an action, than to be free-spoken afterwards. How could he ever dissemble who had exposed his life to such a populace? He who when scourged and bound would not bate a jot of his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger,-how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews? How could he, I say, who at the very first and in their chief city feared not the Jews while Jews, after a long time and in a foreign city, fear those of them who had been converted? Paul therefore does not speak this against Peter, but with the same meaning in which he said, "for they who were reputed to be somewhat, whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me." But to remove any doubt on this point, we must unfold the reason of these expressions.

The Apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him. For had he, having allowed circumcision when preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul's exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter's disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul's sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul's careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, (oixonomiaj) and not from anger.

His words are, "When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned;"that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, "I resisted him to the face," imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumblingblock to them. But now this apparent contest was much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch. The cause of censure is this, "For before that certain came from James," who was the teacher at Jerusalem, "he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing them that were of the Circumcision:" his cause of fear was not his own danger, (for if he feared not in the beginning, much less would he do so then,) but their defection. As Paul himself says to the Galatians, "I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain:" (Gal. iv: xx.) and again, "I fear lest by any means as the serpent beguiled Eve, ...so your minds should be corrupted." (2 Cor. xi: 3.) Thus the fear of death they knew not, but the fear lest their disciples should perish, agitated their inmost soul.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-13/npnf1-13-06.htm#P314_88493

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

The Apostles, as I said before, permitted circumcision at Jerusalem, an abrupt severance from the law not being practicable; but when they come to Antioch, they no longer continued this observance, but lived indiscriminately with the believing Gentiles which thing Peter also was at that time doing. But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him.

His words are, "When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned;” that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, "I resisted him to the face," imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumbling block to them.

What a complete idiot!



Thank-you, THANK-you for proving exactly what I’ve been saying all along! Crysostom was after AD. 300. What those of us in the camp of Erasmus, The Anabaptists, Bainton & Bercot have been saying all along is that the corruption of doctrine & morals of the church came WITH and AFTER the time of Augustine. The century or so BEFORE Augustine showed things on a downhill slide! Most of what we are referring to is previous to about AD. 200. This example does nothing more than to show me how fast and how FAR people had fallen in there propensity to try and make the Bible say what they wanted it to say!



Hee-hee hee! I love this: “But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him.” Riiiigghhhhhtttt! Let’s just invent a pretext out of thin air and cover over an embarrassing passage that doesn’t say what we want it to say! Better get the white-out (or is that “whitewash”) while supply’s last.



And I thought the revisionism of the book of Jubilees was bad…!



I hope any further “proofs” you’ll be offering me are as enjoyable as this one…I’ll be having converts leaving Orthodoxy for Anabaptism in DROVES!



Adam Clarke’s Commentary:



Gal 2:12 -

Before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles - Here was Peter’s fault. He was convinced that God had pulled down the middle wall of partition that had so long separated the Jews and Gentiles, and he acted on this conviction, associating with the latter and eating with them; but when certain Jews came from James, who it appears considered the law still to be in force, lest he should place a stumbling-block before them he withdrew from all commerce with the converted Gentiles, and acted as if he himself believed the law to be still in force, and that the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles should still be kept up.



(WEB) Gal 2:13 “And the rest of the Jews joined (Peter) in his hypocrisy; so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy”



Gal 2:14 -

That they walked not uprightly - Ουκ ορθοποδουσι· They did not walk with a straight step - they did not maintain a firm footing.

According to the truth of the Gospel - According to that true doctrine, which states that Christ is the end of the law for justification to every one that believes; and that such are under no obligation to observe circumcision and the other peculiar rites and ceremonies of the law.

If thou, being a Jew, livest - This was a cutting reproof. He was a Jew, and had been circumstantially scrupulous in every thing relative to the law, and it required a miracle to convince him that the Gentiles were admitted, on their believing in Christ, to become members of the same Church, and fellow heirs of the hope of eternal life; and in consequence of this, he went in with the Gentiles and ate with them; i.e. associated with them as he would with Jews. But now, fearing them of the circumcision, he withdrew from this fellowship.

Why compellest thou the Gentiles - Thou didst once consider that they were not under such an obligation, and now thou actest as if thou didst consider the law in full force; but thou art convinced that the contrary is the case, yet actest differently! This is hypocrisy.



John Gill’s Commentary:



Gal 2:12 - For before that certain came from James,.... The Lord's brother, mentioned before with Cephas and John, who resided at Jerusalem, from whence these persons came; and who are said to come from James, because they came from the place and church where he was, though, it may be, not sent by him, nor with his knowledge. They were such as professed faith in Christ; they were "judaizing" Christians believing in Christ, but were zealous of the law. Now before the coming of these persons to Antioch,



he, Peter,



did eat with the Gentiles; which is to be understood, not of eating at the Lord's table with them, but at their own tables: he knew that the distinction of meats was now laid aside, and that nothing was common and unclean of itself, and that every creature of God was good, and not to be refused if received with thankfulness; wherefore he made use of his Christian liberty, and ate such food dressed in such manner as the Gentiles did, without any regard to the laws and ceremonies of the Jews; and in this he did well, for hereby he declared his sense of things, that the ceremonial law was abolished, that not only the Gentiles are not obliged to it, but even the Jews were freed from it, and that the observance of it was far from being necessary to salvation: all which agreed with the preaching and practice of the Apostle Paul, and served greatly to confirm the same, and for this he was to be commended: nor is this mentioned by way of blame, but for the sake of what follows, which was blameworthy:



but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself; not from the church, and the communion of it, for then he had been guilty of schism, but from private conversation with the Gentiles: he did not visit them in their own houses, and sit down at table and eat with them, as he was wont to do; which argued great inconstancy and instability, very unbecoming one that seemed to be, and was a pillar in the church of God, as well as much dissimulation, for he knew better than he acted; his conduct did not agree with the true sentiments of his mind, which he covered and dissembled; and which must be very staggering to the believing Gentiles, to see so great a man behave in such a manner towards them, as if they were persons not fit to converse with, and as if the observance of Jewish rites and ceremonies was necessary to salvation. What induced him to take such a step was, his



fearing them which were of the circumcision: that is, the circumcised Jews, who professed faith in Christ, and were just now come from Jerusalem; not that he feared any danger from them; that they would abuse his person, or take away his life; but he might either fear he should come under their censure and reproofs, as he formerly had for going to Cornelius, and eating with him and his; or lest that they should be offended with him, and carry back an ill report of him, as not acting up to his character as an apostle of the circumcision. This led him into such a conduct; so true is that of the wise man, that "the fear of man bringeth a snare", Pro_29:25.

 

[Photini]

What a complete idiot!

You have no idea what you're talking about.
This thread needs to be moved.