Sharp; The liberals are onto something...

[Polycarp1]

-I don't think it's quite that simple, not in the way present your point, not what you are trying to allude to. Major differences? It appears in Galalations that the dispute was not about doctrine, but about the conduct of St. Peter. St. Paul might have well said, you know what the doctrine is, why by your conduct are you appearing to say otherwise?

And after St. Paul's revelation, where did Christ send him? To the Church to be baptised and confirmed in his calling by the Apostles most especially, who are the foundation of the Church with Christ the chief cornerstone? Not St. Paul, he only is so at the confirmation of the Apostles and St. Peter says that St. Paul does not contradict them, people misunderstand St. Paul "the unlearned and unstable twist his words to their own destruction."

If in fact, St. Paul and the Apostles teaching were so very different, the Bishops of the Church would not have included his writings in the New Testament. Doctrinally they are the same, each Gospel and insights by St. Paul, St. John and others just are different highlights and perspectives that emphasize the same truth.

Rom 16:17 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
1Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one
1Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we are baptized into one body
Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to be one hope
Col 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body

Interesting point, but I think you take what jgarden is saying in a different sense than he presumably meant it. Consider, from Catholic tradition, Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. They taught quite differently, even though both were unquestionably orthodox -- they had different pieties, different emphases in preaching, different understandings of their relationship to God. Many scholarly teachers have disputed questions not yet settled over the centuries, and brought themselves under the Magisterium when the issues were settled. This is precisely what Paul and Peter did as recorded in Scripture.

 

[redheadmt]

Thanks, Arkanin, for confirming a truism. Many liberals have never had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

This is the point when I knew that you are on the wrong path. You don't know about anyone's personal relationship with Christ, and for you to think that you do is blasphemous.

I just read your comment to my husband, and though he may say things about liberalism that rub me the wrong way, he thinks that what you just said is obnoxious and dangerous.

 

[PastorFreud]

This is the point when I knew that you are on the wrong path. You don't know about anyone's personal relationship with Christ, and for you to think that you do is blasphemous.

I just read your comment to my husband, and though he may say things about liberalism that rub me the wrong way, he thinks that what you just said is obnoxious and dangerous.

Your husband is a wise man.

 

[jgarden]

-I don't think it's quite that simple, not in the way present your point, not what you are trying to allude to. Major differences? It appears in Galalations that the dispute was not about doctrine, but about the conduct of St. Peter. St. Paul might have well said, you know what the doctrine is, why by your conduct are you appearing to say otherwise?

And after St. Paul's revelation, where did Christ send him? To the Church to be baptised and confirmed in his calling by the Apostles most especially, who are the foundation of the Church with Christ the chief cornerstone? Not St. Paul, he only is so at the confirmation of the Apostles and St. Peter says that St. Paul does not contradict them, people misunderstand St. Paul "the unlearned and unstable twist his words to their own destruction."

If in fact, St. Paul and the Apostles teaching were so very different, the Bishops of the Church would not have included his writings in the New Testament. Doctrinally they are the same, each Gospel and insights by St. Paul, St. John and others just are different highlights and perspectives that emphasize the same truth.

Rom 16:17 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
1Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may be one, as we are one
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one
1Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we are baptized into one body
Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to be one hope
Col 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body

James (Head of the Jerusalem Church) - "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if people claim to have faith but have no deeds? Can such faith save them? .......... In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action is dead." (James 2:14,17)

Paul - "The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness can be gained through the law (deeds), Christ died for nothing .......... Clearly no one is justified before God by the law (deeds), because 'the righteous will live by faith.'" (Galatians 2:20,21, Galatians 3:11)

Peter's decision that a Jewish Christian should not eat with a fellow Gentile Christian was a reflection of the beliefs of the Jerusalem Church, which believed that non Jews must be circumcized before converting to Christianity. Otherwise, how do we explain the existance of the Godfearers.

The Jerusalem Council was supposed to reconcile these differences between Paul and the Jerusalem Church (James, Peter). Despite an agreement, Paul's ministry was continuously "plagued" by Judaizers, supposedly linked with the Jerusalem Church.

In addition, Paul's emphasis on faith stands in marked contrast to James' emphasis on works. Circumcision, faith and works represent fundamental differences in the gospels taught by these different interpretations of Christ's message.

 

[Theresa]

Lol, sorry jgarden, you're starting a whole faith/works, Peter/Paul discussion I just....am tired of, don't feel like having right now.

 

[The Pinata]

Thanks, Arkanin, for confirming a truism. Many liberals have never had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The liberal theology forum needs a thread about what God's Word says about how to recieve God's forgiveness for sins and how to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Thanks for suggesting this, Midge.

How arrogant of yourself. A fellow human is trying to come into the presence of God, and you use him as an example to further your own political (religious political) agenda. That is as bad as what was done by Michael Moore to the soldier's mom - you may make an encouraging statement to him, but you demonize everyone around him.

I don't oppose all your interaction here, but you are often very critical of the fact that many of us rationalize. Why can't Christianity be rationalized? Simply because you don't want it to be rationalized and have found a handful of Bible verses that support that? I could find a handful of Bible verses that say that the ultimate of God's creation is the pig - if I interpreted them right.

Liberal theologians have just as much of a relationship with God as you do - many even more. The difference is that many of us don't choose to wear it on our sleeves, or parade ourselves about the forums like the hypocrites mentioned in the Bible.

 

[The Midge]

James (Head of the Jerusalem Church) - "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if people claim to have faith but have no deeds? Can such faith save them? .......... In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action is dead." (James 2:14,17)

Paul - "The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness can be gained through the law (deeds), Christ died for nothing .......... Clearly no one is justified before God by the law (deeds), because 'the righteous will live by faith.'" (Galatians 2:20,21, Galatians 3:11)

Peter's decision that a Jewish Christian should not eat with a fellow Gentile Christian was a reflection of the beliefs of the Jerusalem Church, which believed that non Jews must be circumcized before converting to Christianity. Otherwise, how do we explain the existance of the Godfearers.

The Jerusalem Council was supposed to reconcile these differences between Paul and the Jerusalem Church (James, Peter). Despite an agreement, Paul's ministry was continuously "plagued" by Judaizers, supposedly linked with the Jerusalem Church.

In addition, Paul's emphasis on faith stands in marked contrast to James' emphasis on works. Circumcision, faith and works represent fundamental differences in the gospels taught by these different interpretations of Christ's message.

There is a substantive difference about what the two authors are talking about. Paul is addressing how we become Christians (through Grace) James is discussing how we respond to salvation (evidence of Grace through a transformed live. Indeed parts of the epistle of James have a distinctly liberal agenda of caring for widows and orphans and of love and forgiveness. Circumcision has never been a part of Christianity for gentile converts.

Some beligerent forms of conservative Chrisitanity seem to belittle any other expression of faith because it does not conform to their interpretation of the Bible. My concern is that they may also be putting stumbling blocks in front of crititics by putting untenable doctrines and practices before them and then saying that true Christianity is taking on board all that extraneous baggage. Liberal Christians seem to be much better at addressing enlightenment and postmodern pradigms than the literalist conservative pradigm.