"Cartoon Central"

Suffering for someone else's sake . . .

One Man's Opinion by Jim Roane, Ph.D. Dear friends and faithful supporters:  Cancer? Even the word just about scares the pants off some people—me included! And, believe me, as a cancer survivor I can testify to how sobering it is to hear your doctor say, “I’ve got the results back and unfortunately Mr. Roane they are not good … you’ve got cancer. There is hope, however, we can retard its growth and ‘who knows’ chances are new research will develop a cure; until then however, we must aggressively attack it.” Following that, the rest of the conversation is a blur.  Attack it, we did. Given a choice, I chose surgery and then later radiation over a less proactive approach. That along with prayer basically did the trick. Not completely, but enough so that every time the cancer cells raise their ugly heads we zap them with hormone treatments and starve them almost to death. The dirty little rascals are still there but are limping around on crutches, you might say. So, I've had my share of ups and downs. In line with that, today while listening to some of the amputees from the Boston Marathon bombings share their experiences, it dawned on me more than ever that suffering can and does play a part in our growth as Christians.  Paul wrote so many years ago to a group of struggling, fearful Christians that to suffer has a purpose. Here is what he said,  “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.” (2 Corinthians 1: 3-4) In essence what he is saying here is that suffering serves a purpose, a very high purpose: that of comforting others in their sufferings in a way that someone who has never experienced that particular type of pain can be comforted because you have experienced suffering yourself and really know that God in His great mercy and grace comforted you. Whew! That's a long sentence—but true!  Many times in my Christian walk I have come across someone suffering and I struggled with just the right words to say. Many times words of comfort do not come easy—like for example when someone has just lost a child or been diagnosed with cancer, or have a loved one who has. Perhaps, it may be a tragic mutilating, disfiguring car accident, or any number of terrible incidences, and the person is really hurting; and, we simply cannot find the right words to say. I have found, also that words sometime get in the way. All the person needs is a kind sympathetic arm around their shoulder and a look on your face that says, “I know how it feels. I’ve been there and it is not pleasant. But, I also know that Jesus is a friend that never leaves us, even in our darkest hours. He too suffered, and therefore he also understands.”  A skeptic will say,” ‘nonsense!’ why doesn’t God do something about it if he really cares?” To which I can only say, “I don’t know. But, I do know that He cares. I know that He suffered for me, too. I don’t have to bear the ultimate pain and rightful consequences of my sins either, because He cared enough to die for me. He took my place. Suffered for me. Paid the penalty for my sins; and now because He lives, I too have great confidence in His assurance that I will not have to suffer yet even more once this life here on earth is over. As you know, we have been at teaching at Evangel Theological Seminary teaching in the Ukraine. What a lesson in Christian dedication and in suffering for the cause of Christ. I noticed a reserved humility that can in my opinion be the primary results of years of persecution and suffering for Christ. Only eternity will reveal what these dear brothers and sisters have gone through under Communism. But, I sensed that in the long run they are the better for it. Thanks once again for the opportunity to minister there, and may God comfort you all along your Christian journey. En agape Christou,

Print this article

Please keep in mind that we minister entirely by faith. We are not underwritten by any church or organization.

On Traducianism

In reference to the origins of the soul and how it relates to the body, it seems only reasonable to deduct from logic  as well as Scripture that traducianism  offers the best answer—at least, I certainly feel more comfortable with this doctrine. So, I would think that the actual bridge between the relationship of the body to our spiritual nature must theologically begin there. Traducianism may also shed light on the propensity of some individuals to be either “naturally” good; or, some would say, a bad seed. Perhaps, even some criminality can be understood better, if we explore this doctrine more carefully.

Logically, I feel that traducianism is the best argument against abortion, since the inherited soul is already present in the embryonic (zygote) state. Furthermore, the doctrine frees us from having to defend an ongoing creation necessitated by those who advocate creationism or the Platonic concept of the pre-existence of the soul.

The prevailing view also in Eastern Orthodoxy is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam. Orthodoxy prefers the term "ancestral sin."

Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind (see also traducianism), but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[31]

However, in saying so, the act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam's descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, man remains free.[2] Instead of accepting the Lutheran interpretation of Augustine's teaching, Orthodox Churches accept the teaching of John Cassian, which rejects the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally.

The Godhead Understood

Critics of the doctrine of a Triune God often – and, perhaps, to their credit – point out that the word “Trinity” does not appear in Scripture. Advocates of the doctrine, however, rebut with, “Yes, that is true, but the concept does.”

Perhaps, both are addressing the subject from the wrong perspective. All knowledge is based on a given that we are privileged to analyze under ideal conditions, and speculate upon those that are less than ideal. So, let us begin with the given:

1.      Peter’s declaration, “My Lord and My God”

2.      Jesus’ self affirmation, “I Am . . .

3.      He that has seen me, has seen the Father . . .

4.      In Him dwells the fullness of the (Deity) Godhead bodily

5.      For it pleased the Father that in Him should all the fullness dwell

6.      His name shall be called wonderful, counselor, the everlasting Father . . .

Therefore, it seems to me, to accept Jesus, the Christ, our Lord and Savior, as anything less than God is the spirit of the antichrist. The Scripture boldly declares:

Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist — he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:20-23)

So, in the clear words of Scripture we are presented with a solemn fact, Jesus is God! Now, what we do with that statement, or how we deal with the fact is left to us. And, as with all truth, words are only at best descriptive approximates or testimonies to a truth.

For example, if I say, “I know Jim Brown. Jim Brown is five foot nine and a half inches tall, and weighs 175 pounds. His skin is black, and he is a human being.”

Now, what do you really know about Jim Brown?  Well, you know that he is a human being, and not an alien. That’s for sure. You also know a little bit about his physical characteristics compared to other human beings. But, not much else. So, no matter how much I repeat the words ‘Jim Brown is a human being’ it does not clearly define who Jim Brown is, nor does it produce Jim Brown, nor are the words actually Jim Brown, himself.

These same principles apply to Jesus of Nazareth, a human being, who is also God, according to Scripture.

Now, to accept this as a fact is really no harder than to accept the fact that Jim brown is a human being with certain characteristics. Jesus, also, has certain characteristics. He is human and he is Devine – in other words, He is God, who became a man, as the Only Begotten Son of God. Did He exist in or with God prior to His earthly appearance? Yes, Scripture openly declares, God, the Father, speaking, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten you.”

So, he was declared a son before he was begotten as one. Therefore, he in his very essence is God, not simply a part of God. Had he been declared a son only after his conception, then he would not have been of the essence of God the father – he would have simply been a godlike man, or a manlike God, but surely not God. This is where the simple minded fail in their apprehension of God the Father, Son, and as we shall shortly see, and Holy Spirit.   

See Theological Musings on the Trinity blog posted 5.30.13

Theological Musings On The Trinity

Some say that Jesus is the eternally begotten of the Father, and site the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) as an affirmation of this. The creed states:

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end."

Further, this position was also later reaffirmed in the fifth century in the Athanasian Creed, which in its own convoluted way states this among other things:

“For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God.”

Whereas, I do not take umbrage of the fact that Christ is eternal, the word son connotes a beginning, as in the statements “eternally begotten of the Father” in the Nicene Creed and, “begotten before the worlds” in the Athanasian Creed, I do find the phraseology beggarly at best.

To simplify what I see as the problem, I simply ask a few basic questions. Firstly, unless we are willing to accept the Mormon position, then how can we justify embracing the words “begotten before the worlds”, as contained in the Athanasian Creed? Or, secondly, the words “eternally begotten of the Father” as contained in the Nicene Creed?

As a matter of fact, the words “eternally begotten of the Father” are illogical since ontologically this suggests a incarnational beginning in eternity. Begotten, if it suggests anything at all, suggests that before His begottenness He was at best only begotten in thought. A thought is not a person. At best it is an eternity potentiality, assured by God’s omnipotent assisted promise that will take place in a world of begottenness.[i] Thus, the time space aspect of the incarnation places God fully integrated into the ’stuff’ of His creation. In essence God chose to be part of His own creation in order to fully integrate Himself in a for creation so that eschatologically He may become all and in all (i.e., ho Theos [ta] panta en pasin).” (1 Corinthians 15:28) 

Therefore, when we speak of Jesus as God in theological terms, we must exclude an eternal begottenness except in terms of God’s intention. The Holy Trinity knew in God’s free knowledge that God the Son would be born of a virgin woman—Mary, the mother of Jesus; and only the mother of God in so much as she carried Jesus (as any normal woman does during any pregnancy) within whom the fullness of the eternal Godhead dwells bodily. Jesus of Nazareth was therefore flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone the begotten eternal Son of God in and through the ministration of the Holy Spirit functionally and in ontological essence the one Divine essence of the Godhead dwelling bodily (Colossians 2:9) for it pleased God that in Christ all the fullness should dwell. (Colossians 1:19) 

The scriptures declare, Acts 13:33 “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”[ii]

Now, on the strength of this declaration, may I suggest that Jesus was a Son prior to His begottenness—e.g., “thou art my Son” precedes “this day have I begotten thee.”

So, Christ was in Sonship relationally prior to his fleshly birth. How or why this Sonship relationship came about, I have no way of knowing, other than Scripture declares it to be so. Nor, do I find any hints in Scripture. So, my objection has nothing to do with the personhood of the Son as ontologically in the essence of God, but rather in the event of His begottenness which is clearly within the frame work of time.

On the strength of Acts 13:33 which states “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again ….”; and thereby associates His Sonship with His Resurrection it can be argued that as death and resurrection operate within the framework of time so does His begottenness. Now, ontological by intention both  His Sonship and His begottenness is assured. He is the Lamb slay from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8; however, indicates a beginningness for His incarnation. Thus, God’s creative intention included The Son’s begottenness; but not his Sonship, since His Sonship is of Godly essence, as it might be said that God’s creative intention is part of His Omniscience in the actuality of an Omnipotence willful potentiality. An assured potentiality, however, must be realized before it is expressed in its actuality.

To disallow a chronological actuality in respect to His begottenness is to deny His humanity, and to deny His eternal Sonship is to deny His Divinity.

---

[i] The nature of the trinitarian relationship within the essence of God is that of subordination, communication and fellowship as to the Godhead; and toward his creation that of sustenance, revelation, and reconciliation.

God—whether we articulate it or not, or for that matter understand it—must by His very nature consist of all potentialities, including that of relationship. Since He is in His essence righteous, He can not practice evil; since by its very nature evil is the absence of goodness.

[ii] Taken from Ps. 2:7 “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”

Killing babies in the name of women's rights . . .

---

"One Man's Opinion"
by Jim M. Roane, Ph.D.

Recently, Andrea Lafferty the president of the Traditional Values Coalition hit the nail squarely on the head when she wrote:

"Kermit Gosnell may have been the one convicted on three counts of murder today, but it was abortion that was on trial. I'll spare you the details.  But the difference between snapping the neck of a 24-week old baby in the womb and outside of the womb has been finally reduced to meaningless word games.  What of the 28-week old baby?  The 34-week old baby?"

Kudos to you, Andrea.

How much of a victory we have won, though, is not clear. There are however several things that I have been able to deduct from the whole episode. One is—do you remember part of the argument used against a pro-life stance was that we just had to take unsafe abortion clinics out of the back alleys, and bring them out in the clear sunshine so everyone would have access to a clean and safe abortion that wanted one? Afterall, the argument went, abortion was a fundamental Constitutional right! Well, so much for that. I’ve seen pictures and read reports of the filthy clinic that Dr. Gosnell ran. My veterinarian’s clinic is run better, and is a whole lot cleaner too. And, what about the Constitutional rights of the poor helpless child?

“Oh, he was a nice man,” I heard one interviewee say. “He made house calls when mama was sick.” Now that is just the point. Just a whole lot of “bad people” can do “good things.” Hitler did a lot of “good things” for the German Republic, but he also tortured, slaughtered, and cremated a whole lot of good people in the process.

Seems to me that liberal Christians would get the point; but some don’t.

If you don’t believe me drop by the Episcopal Diocese office in your neck of the woods when you have a little spare time and have a chat with the local bishop. Chances are that he or she will look you straight in the eye without one ounce of remorse and defend a woman’s choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. And, oh, yeah, while you are there ask the fine bishop what he or she thinks about sanctioning a gay marriage with the dignity of a church ceremony. Sure, he or she reads the same Bible you do; but the difference is they get to interpret theirs to meet their politically correct whims, and, of course, we don't want to stoop that low, nor do we have that choice.

Now back to our convicted murderer Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Why single him out? So he was off by a few days. Maybe it was just a little over 26 months into the pregnancy in some cases; but, you know pregnancies do have a way of fooling us time wise. So, the poor little fellow came out crying? He can’t make it on his on now anyway, so what’s wrong in severing his little neck to stop the suffering and especially the crying?

Of course, I am being sarcastic, and you know it.

Now—just in case you think the battle is over—I found it interesting to read what Ilyse Hogue the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America had to say in defense of their stance on abortion. Firstly, she goes on the attack by advocating the role of the victimized woman who is not allow to terminate her pregnancy—ignoring, of course, the poor child who never got a chance to breath one breath of fresh air. Here’s what she said:

[Pro-choice advocates] are exploiting the Gosnell case to boost their 40-year-old agenda to ban abortion altogether. These opportunists are shamelessly using the case of these victimized women to take even more control away from our ability to make private decisions about how, when, and with whom we have families.

And, her only qualm seemed to be providing a sanitary environment with a surgically adept physician to perform the procedure. In other words, make it a clean, fast, and hopefully painless procedure—the latter of which, Gosnell provided by severing the spinal cord with some razor sharp scissors; unfortunately according to her, his big mistake is that he wasn’t as sanitary as he should have been. Here’s that statement.

“Women, regardless of their background, deserve access to high-quality health care. Women deserve the opportunity to determine if and when they want to have families. Women deserve the dignity of controlling their own lives and, without a doubt, women deserve a lot better than the likes of Kermit Gosnell.”

Problem is America is not weeping loudly enough. May God rouse us into a holy righteousness that will fearlessly confront this horrible crime on every legal front we have.

With that in mind, I must say that America is not the only country that is guilty of such unspeakable Godlessness; the Ukraine, where Bonnie and I are presently, has one of the highest abortion rates on the globe. So, friends, there is still work to be done. 

One of the joys I had today was to give the Commencement address here at Evangel Theological Seminary and witness a small class of graduates from countries that most people have never heard of graduate with their master’s degrees and commissioned to return to their homes with a mandate to reach their generation for Christ. Pray for them.

Pray for us also. There are more ministry opportunities than we can fulfill so we need guidance from above to make some hard decisions in the future. More about that later.

Thanks for taking time once again to read my newsletter.

---

Please keep in mind that we minister entirely by faith. 

We are not underwritten by any church or organization.

Remember Enter:

"09" Personal Expenses
"40" Work Expenses

 Thanks!

Paul vis-a’-vis Peter

Paul vis-à-vis Peter

On Matters of Conduct

Evangelical Christians, particularly those of the more fundamentalist persuasions are quick to criticize formality or structure such as a liturgical calendar of events on the basis of Colossians 2:16 which reads,

“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. [NIV]

Paul’s objection was not intended as a diatribe against the use of a liturgical calendar as long as no efficacious spiritual blessing for doing so is expected. As a matter of fact, Paul acquiesced to the advice given by the Apostle James (whom some consider to be the presiding bishop of Jerusalem) and had Timothy circumcised [Acts 16:1-3], and participated in a strictly Jewish Passover ceremony; whereas, on the other hand he refused to allow Titus to be circumcised [Galatians 2:3-5]. The question is of course, why?

The most obvious answer is that Timothy’s mother was Jewish; whereas, Titus was pure Greek [Galatians 2:3]; and according to the Pauline principle espoused in 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews [he] became a Jew in order to win the Jews.” Clearly, elsewhere, throughout his epistles Paul finds no intrinsic value in strictly religious customs such as circumcision or special meeting places.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in Galatians 2:3-5 these Judaizers were false brothers who wanted to force work of law in order for Titus to be accepted as a fellow believer; something that was absolutely antithetical to Pauline theology. 

On Matters of Acceptance

We must keep in focus is that this is the same Paul, who in the very next chapter wrote,

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, and there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [Galatians 3:28 NASB]

So rather than pegging this as a theological problem with Paul, or a sign of weakness on his part, we should rather look at this as a pragmatic missionary strategy.

This is clearly in line with Jesus’ theological response to the Samaritan woman at the well who was confused about how and where she should worship—was it Mount Gerizim or at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem?

“[An] hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers. God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”  [John 4: 23-24]

God can and will meet us anywhere, under any circumstances—in a temple or on a mountain top, the place or the form is not essential; nor is a prescribed liturgical form. Worshiping God in spirit and truth is, however. And, this is the essence of the theology of both Jesus and Paul, and from all indications the brethren in Jerusalem who were clinging to Jewish practices in hopes of reaching the household of Israel.

That is not to say that obvious ethnic prejudices in the church were not in play. They plainly were.  We must take into account in this regards that it was Peter to whom God gave The Apostle Peter the vision of a sheet full of ceremonially unclean animals that were lowered from heaven. At which time a voice from heaven told Peter to kill and eat, but Peter as an orthodox Jew declined. Again the same command was repeated twice, assuring him that,

"What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." [Acts 10: 15 ASV]

Apparently, this was something that Peter took serious, theologically, for we see him repeating the story again in as he speaks to Cornelius, saying,

"You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean.” [Acts 10:28, NASV]

Furthermore, Peter related the vision again in Acts 15: 6-11 in his comments to the Jerusalem council. And, although Peter wisely recused himself in the decision it was on the basis of Peter’s revelation^[i] that James rendered the crucial decision recorded in Acts 15 which reads:

“The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings:

Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

“Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.” [Acts 15: 23-29 NASB]

Now, several important conclusions can be draw from these observations. Chief among these conclusions is that the Apostles and Elder in the New Testament ecclesia were in agreement. Paul deferred to the Council in Jerusalem for a binding decision, and it was Peter not Paul who as it were gave the conclusive evidence. It can also be determined that God’s grace extended to all mankind regardless of ethnic or religious heritage. It is also interesting to observe that one of the functions of the prophets [Acts 15: 32] was to encourage and strengthen the Gentile brethren—remember, the foundation of the church is Christ as the Chief cornerstone, and the Apostles and prophets as the remaining foundational stones [Ephesians 2:20].

In this regards it should be pointed out that contrary to liberal redaction theology the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem were in perfect harmony with Pauline theology on this issue and it is absolutely inexcusable to suggest otherwise. The key phrases in all of this discussion, and indeed throughout the scriptures are the words,

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”

That clinches the argument. The Holy Spirit always prevails in these cases; therefore, we can expect harmony in each and every Godly sanctioned theology within the pages of His inspired word.

In light of our discussion, it is safe to say that theologically Peter and Paul are in complete harmony. Which, I think the following passage illustrates in that Peter compliments and thereby complements Pauline theology with these words,

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16 (NIV)

Thus, in essence all Biblically based theology is harmoniously complementary; and although some theologians see a competitive and discordant spirit among the various authors careful study will disclose otherwise.

Caveat on Cultism.

A word of caution, I think is appropriate at this juncture. Fascination with Pauline theology to the exclusion of other so-called New Testament theologies can be dangerous. A good case in point is that of Martin Luther the champion of the Protestant Reformation. It is well-known that Luther early in his career excluded James in his canon of scripture. Most probably Luther was so enamored with his newly found doctrine of sola fide that he neglected sola scriptura when the accepted canon did not serve his theological taste.   

Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Commentary on Acts 22:21, also has this to say:

"The Epistles of Peter, John, James, and Jude are great and excellent; but, when compared with those of Paul, however glorious they may be, they have no glory comparatively, by reason of the glory which excelled. Next to Jesus, St. Paul is the glory of the Christian Church. Jesus is the foundation; Paul, the Master-builder."

Further, another Dr. T. D. Bernard, in my opinion borders on heresy when he asks:

"Who are the appointed teachers of the church, Peter and John, the two chief Apostles; James and Jude, the brethren of the Lord? We take knowledge of them that they have been with Jesus and own the highest authority which association with Him can give, but the chief place in this system of teaching doesn’t belong to any of them, nor to all of them together. Their united writings form but a second volume, and that a very thin one, just one -fifth the bulk of the first, to which moreover it bears in some degree a kind of supplementary relation. The office of working out the principles of Christian faith into full proportions and clearly defined forms was assigned to another, to “Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle.” ^[ii]

My feeling is that when theologians make statements like that is that they are protecting some private theological preference, in this case the perceived Calvinism in Pauline theology. Paul, however, reminds us that,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable" (II Timothy 3:16).

Bits and pieces of supplementary material are not extraneous add-ons; but rather essential complementaries that blend particular theologies into a harmony of Biblical truth. In the words of Amos,

“Can two people walk together without agreeing on the direction?” (Amos 3: 3 NLT)

Paul is unique; there is no doubt about that. God used him to reduce to words the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the intentions of the Father concerning our eternal salvation; however, to imply that Paul’s theology trumps Peter’s or James’ theology or that their works and that of other New Testament writers is somehow a kind of supplementary relationship to the body of New Testament truth is naïve.

Dr. Ervene C. Bragg, whom I mentioned previously, does not improve the case of these Pauline cultists by quoting Dr. Oswald Chambers who stated in his book, The Psychology of Redemption, that:

"The Gospels always present in nugget form the truth, and if we want to know the stages of evangelical experience, we must go to the Epistles which beat out into negotiable gold the nuggets of truth presented by our Lord." ^[iii]

Nor does Sir Robert Anderson help their theological crusade when he writes that Paul referred to the gospels as if it were his, and his alone. Anderson writes:

“‘My Gospel, three times repeated by Paul, are no mere conventional expressions. They are explained in several of his epistles and with peculiar definiteness in his letter to the Galatians. He there declares in explicit and emphatic terms that the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles was the subject of a special revelation peculiar to him. Not only was he not taught it by those who were apostles before him, but he it was who by Divine Command, communicated it to the twelve…."^[iv]

That, in my opinion is sheer theological rubbish; and cultic to say the least. Who is Sir Robert to suggest such a thing, as if Paul the only one with whom God trusted to share the fullness of the gospel.

Bragg, to his credit, recognizes the inherent error with such exclusivity and offered the following modified caveat, which, however, does not do much to improve the case. He writes:

We must again warn the student that to ignore any of the Scripture is to miss some God-given revelation to your heart. James and John and Jude and Peter were just as inspired as Paul, and they wrote to the church, for the church, and about the church. What God revealed to them is just as much for us as what Paul wrote. All we contend is that the New Testament distinctly teaches that to Paul alone was committed the whole complete perfect revelation of church truth, and, therefore, we must go to him to build our system of church doctrine.^[v]

So we see even on that occasion, it seems he could not resist that his primary contention was,

“[T]hat the New Testament distinctly teaches that to Paul alone was committed the whole complete perfect revelation of church truth, and, therefore, we must go to him to build our system of church doctrine.”^[vi]

This “whole complete perfect revelation of church truth” according to Bragg was received at one time in Arabia by Paul shortly after his conversion.^[vii

This, Bragg says is taught in Galatians 1-2; so let’s take a close look at this passage. It reads,

“As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as^[viii] Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.” (Galatians 1: 6-10)

The word “as,” an adverb (καθὼς; kathōs) occurs 182 times in the New Testament has a conjunctive relationship with a preceding subject of comparison. An acceptable synonym would be “exactly,” or in this case, “exactly as Peter” did. Granted, Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews but both preached the same Gospel; although both on at least two occasions were perceived by some (primarily reductionist theologians) to relapse into Judaist practices:  Peter when he refuse to eat with Gentiles to please his Jewish friends; and Paul when he had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16: 1-3) and again when Paul shaved his own head to signal that he had taken a Jewish vow (Acts 18: 18).

Therefore, it seems strange to me that critics who insist that Paul had to either correct Peter’s theology or that either had different theologies on the basis of their unique ministries is simply not supported by scripture. Ministry strategy and theological differences are two different subjects altogether.

Foundational Stones

According to Hans Urs von Balthazar the difference between Paul and Peter was that of the difference between that of an "ecclesiastical office and a gifted theological writer."

Most Protestants would not concede to that, but admittedly Peter did have a special role in his office as what appears to be the Chiefest of the Apostles—this should not, however, surprise us since any good organization must have a leader, or in this case one who appears from all accounts to be chief among the Apostles.

Consider this in regards to the uniqueness of Peter’s role in the New Testament church: Peter's name is listed first in all the lists of the Apostles in the New Testament, and he is described as "first in the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. 10:2); Peter was the first to profess Jesus' divinity (Matt, 16: 16); and he alone is given a new name Petros (or Rock) by Jesus (Matt. 16: 18; John 1: 42) and a “key”—a symbol connoting unlocking the mysteries of the Kingdom.

Much more could be said, however, it should be noted that Peter's name is mentioned more often in the New Testament than all of the other disciples combined: 191 times–162 as Peter or Simon Peter; 23 as Simon; and six as Cephas. And, of course, that list includes Paul.

In referencing the uniqueness of Peter, please understand that this is not be misconstrued that I for one moment believe that Peter was the first Pope, since there is no indication in scripture that any foundational office was continued after the foundational stones of the church were laid. (Eph. 2:20 cf. Hebrews 6:1–2; 1 Cor. 3:10-11) These foundational stones—that of Christ as the Chief Corner stone, and the Apostles and Prophets as the rest of the foundational structure are uniquely one of a kind. Once that was completed—which, I personally assume was when the canon of scripture was completed, then the unique roles of pastor and teachers, evangelists and those with prophetic gifts continued to build the superstructure of the church.

An Exclusive mystery?

Some, such as Dr. C. I. Scofield believe that that Paul received two distinct revelations: during his three year stint in Arabia; and a second more mature revelation during his imprisonments. Whatever the sequence, however, it apparent that Paul seems to be more reflective in his prison epistles and elsewhere as grew older; some of which, howeve, could be because he was addressing a more resolute audience. Some have suggested that his time spent with Peter (Galatians 1:11-12) could account for Paul’s theological development. More likely, however, that since Paul undoubtedly spent considerable time in prayer and meditation this was simply just a natural development. It may be also that Jesus appeared to him several more times if we can assume that his “abundance of revelations” mentions in 2 Corinthians 12:7 did not all occur in Arabia but elsewhere.

“And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.”

The timing of those “revelations;” however, are not clear. The Macedonian call would certainly qualify as dynamic equivalent of such a supernatural experience; however, this vision was seen before Paul wrote his first epistle. Nor is there any reason to rule out that all of these revelations could have been within the three year time period that Paul was in Arabia. However, in either case there is no reason to assume that Paul received any more or less of a revelation or revelations than Peter to whom Jesus said, “Build my church,” and “feed my flock.” (John 21: 15-17)

These would be strange orders, indeed, for someone who had to wait on Paul for the complete revelation, as Dr. Bragg implies. In that regards also, it was unto Peter that Christ said,

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-20

We should note that in this case the Bible uses a key as a symbol of authority. In Isaiah 22:22, we see Eliakim the priest received "the key of the house of David…on his shoulder." And, in Revelation 3:7 we see a similar symbolism. Further, in biblical times it is a well-known fact at that a trusted servant to the king wore the key to the king's house on a hook on his shoulder; which, therefore, indicates that he had the authority to open or close the king's house.

Assuming Jesus was addressing Peter exclusively in Matthew 16:19 some interpret this to mean that Peter had the authority to allow or deny people access to the Kingdom of God. This seems hardly likely, since Peter would have to be consulted each time a new convert was made, and as ridiculous as it may sound when Peter died no one else could be admitted to the Kingdom.

No, in my opinion this was simply a way of Christ honoring Peters as his chosen to lead the nascent church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit until a sufficient superstructure was constructed to carry on Christ’s soteric and eschatological mission.

Admittedly the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 is theologically impossible to decipher on the strength of the statement alone  since Jesus is the foundational rock, the corner stone; however, the statement may be construed that Peter as well as the other Apostles—Paul included, together with the prophets were the foundational stones. (Ephesians 2:20) Thus it seems that in this case also Christ may have the other foundational stones in mind when he singled Peter out as it were from the other small foundational stones as the leader.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Christ would establish such a major doctrinal point on such illusive metaphors as a key and a rock. More likely those that read the inauguration of an ecclesiastical hierarchy into these two words do so to justify a subjective church dogma that has little or no basis in scripture. [Matthew 19:28]

Nonetheless, we should not discard the references altogether since a common interpretation at least on the first reading is that Christ was simply putting Peter in charge of the little company of disciples, particularly since they were to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.  

Paul’s ministry—let me emphasize which was not a different doctrine—was largely to the Gentiles; however it did include some Jews as well^[ix] as Ananias had so accurately prophesied.^[x]

Paul vis-à-vis The Twelve

Strange as it may seem, The Holy Spirit approved the choice of the Apostle to replace Judas by blessing a lottery of two: Matthias and Justus. After prayer Matthias’ name was drawn and thereby became the last of the Apostles of Christ to the Jews. This choice was further confirmed when he was baptized in the Holy Spirit along with the other eleven (Acts 2:4); but, perhaps the most convincing evidence is that he was clearly identified as one of the twelve in Acts 2:14 and 6:2.Acts 15: 23-29

Paul’s ministry was well received in the region of Galatia, an area settled by what can only be described as complete barbarians, savages that had through the mercy of God’s grace been converted, also some in the region were no doubt Jewish converts from among Jewish settlers. Some commentators have suggested that Paul met some of these converts when he visited synagogues in the region, and thus the other converts in the region were more infused with a tendency towards Judaism. In any event, Judaizers from Jerusalem with a letter purportedly from James and the brethren that was either a forged document or certainly a misconstrued one that backed these false brethren, theologically, was presented to these fledgling disciples in an effort to Judaize them.

Interestingly enough, James denied that he or the brethren had ever written such a letter, and thoroughly reputed the intentions of these “false brethren.”  (Acts 15; Galatians 2:4)

In any event, Pau respectfully visited the brethren in Jerusalem with what turned out to be a successful effort to clarify the issue. The point, being of course, that not only was there structure to this nascent ecclesia but also that Paul was willing to submit the case to the Jerusalem leadership. Any other interpretation of this episode I think misses the real issue at stake here; namely, of harmony among the brethren.

---

[i] Acts 15: 14

[ii] 1 T. D. Bernard, The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament (London: Pickering and Inglis, n.d.) 152

[iii] 42. Oswald Chambers, The Psychology of Redemption (Fort Washington: Christian Literature Crusade, 1930) p. 24.

[iv] Anderson, Robert, The Silence of God (London: Pickering and Inglis, n.d.) 106

[v] Bragg. 6.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] The word as, an adverb (καθὼς; kathōs) occurs 182 times in the New Testament has a conjunctive relationship with a the corollary    

[ix] Galatians 2:8

[x] Acts 9: 15.