Replies

Peter, James and John decided that Peter would breach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.

I have no problem with you saying this is Catholic dogma...But let's not pretend that it is bible dogma...

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

When they saw...NOT when anyone determined...

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

The 'he' in the verse is clearly Jesus Christ...Jesus decided who would be an apostle to whom...It's there in black and white...

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

The declaration came from God...You couldn't miss it if it was tie-dyed and 40 feet tall...

Yes, Paul had been preaching to the Gentiles prior to his conference with Peter, James and John, because he received the call from Christ. We don't need Gal 2:7-8 to know that, we have entire Acts 9, where Paul's call to preach to the Gentiles is mentioned before he was even baptized. However, he felt the need to seek the approval of the "pillars", he received it, and now it is important for him to establish his credentials with the Galatians with it. It is that latter point that I am making: that prior to the conference Paul could preach but he had nothing but his private revelation to establish himself as a preacher; his apostolship had not been publicly established till the episode described in Gal 2:9. In the letter to the Romans he speaks to the need of a publicly acknowledged mission as a general rule: "how shall they preach unless they be sent" (Rom 10:14).

Likewise, Peter was preaching to Gentiles prior to the division of effort mentioned in Gal 2:8-9.

This is similar to any vocation: the future cleric receives the call of the Holy Ghost inwardly and then seeks ordination into the vocation. Whatever preaching he does prior is his personal opinion; following the ordination he speaks for the Church.

LOL.

I appreciate your documentation and sovereign argument. But there are some things that finally occurred to me last time I debated any the points of Catholic dogma.

You know what you're up against, don't you? A person who believes in his or her heart that he or she is doomed to hell fire and damnation outside the Catholic church, has to accept all Catholic dogma as absolute truth because the perception of the churche's primacy collapses if any one of the conceptual piers upon which it rests is credibly destroyed.

Such a person's security of destination, sense of themselves, foundation of personal faith and integrity of soul is bound up in the groupthink and is protected thereof.

That, by any argument, any cite of scripture regardless of how clear and unambiguous it is, will make a person so bound say to themselves, "Well, gosh, it seems I've taken the wrong approach, so I need to rethink my entire life in faith." is not possible, I'm afraid.

Note you posted three utterly unarguable passages, still you got the argument. You're debating not about scripture and facts; you're debating conditioning based on fear.

So, it's a waste of time. But it's your duty as a Christian brother to warn other brothers of false paths, and you've done your duty, and well, too.