One of the most perverted forms of Biblical interpretation is that of Galatians 1:8-9. This passage is commonly used by Christian Apologists in their attempt to prove that Mormonism is “another Gospel”.
Therefore, the purpose of this post is to provide understanding as to what the Apostle Paul is discussing within the context of Galatians 1:6-9.
Historically, the epistle was written to Gentile Christians in the Galatian Province. The question here is: was it written to all of Galatia or a particular part of Galatia? This is an interesting question, for, when I had researched into the nature and history of the epistle, there is a dispute as to whether or not the epistle was written to the Northern Province of Galatia or the Southern Province of Galatia. Several sources cite this as a historical background. In one classic commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians by W.M. Ramsey (1851 to 1939) published in 1899, we find this:
The study of this document is encumbered with a great preliminary difficulty. It is not certain who were the persons addressed. While some scholars maintain that the “Churches of Galatia,” to whom the Epistle is addressed, were planted in the four cities of Southern Galatia, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, others assert that those Churches were situated in North Galatia. These two opposite opinions are conveniently designated as the South Galatian and the North Galatian Theory.
In his work – A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians , published in 1920 - Ernest De Witt Burton collaborates the nature of the debate as to whether the Epistle was addressed to those Churches in the Northern part of Galatia or the Southern Part of Galatia:
On the basis, therefore, of the Acts narrative, and the evidence of the letter that “the churches of Galatia” to which it was addressed constituted one group founded on the same general occasion, we must exclude any hypothesis that the letter was addressed to churches in both parts of the province, and make our choice between the two hypotheses: (a) that Paul founded churches in northern Galatia on his second missionary journey, and addressed the letter to them and them only, using the term Galatia in its older, ethnographic sense; and (b) that he founded no churches in northern Galatia, and that he addressed his letter to the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and (Pisidian) Antioch, using the term Galatia in the political sense.
The importance in understanding to whom this epistle was written is to understand the actual historical context of how and why the Apostle Paul wrote what he wrote to certain peoples and groups. Thus, we must have a basic foundational understanding as to the historical context of the Epistle before any consideration of the textual context is to be discussed and understood. While, I am not going to delve into the nature as to whom the epistle was written too, suffice it to say that we understand the textual context as being this: …Unto the Churches of Galatia. (see Gal. 1:2). Whether these churches were in the Northern part or Southern Part is up for debate and is only mentioned here as a background of historical understanding.
However, not only is the historical context important to understand, but the importance of the content of the message, nature of the message and purpose of the message must be understood and properly interpreted within this historical context. While there is dispute as to the date of the Epistle itself, the overall historical context of the Epistle is two-fold:
1) It is addressing an attack on the Apostleship of Paul and his doctrines he espouse and teach.
2) It is addressing the false teaching by those Jewish-Christians who were convincing the Galatian Christians that they must adhere to the Jewish rituals of circumcision and keep the strict observations of the feasts and new moons as perscribed within the Old Covenant and Judaic Law.
3) Finally, the evidence of Gal. 1:6 shows forth the historical context of how First Century Christians fell into Apostasy due to false doctrines and teachings that others purport to instill upon others.
It is here that when a person truly studies the historical and doctrinal aspects of the Epistle of Galatians, there is the understanding that the modern Christian Apologetic reasoning to use Gal. 1:6-9 as a proof text to refute Mormonism is invalidated on the more evidentiary reasoning as to the actual historical and doctrinal context of the epistle itself. Therefore, let us look at the first aspect of the Epistle.
The Apostolic Authority of Paul under Attack
As mentioned before, the first aspect of the Epistle is the direct attack upon the apostleship of Paul. Burton, in the same work mentioned above, discusses the nature of the attack upon Paul’s Apostleship:
The letter itself furnishes evidence, which is confirmed by 1 and 2 Corinthians, that the apostolic office or function was clearly recognised as one of great importance in the Christian community, and that the question who could legitimately claim it was one on which there was sharp difference of opinion. An apostle was much more than a local elder or itinerant missionary. He was a divinely commissioned founder of Christian churches, indeed, more, of the Christian church œcumenical. With their effort to keep the Christian movement within the Jewish church, including proselytes from other religions, the judaisers naturally associated the contention that the apostolate was limited to those who were appointed by Jesus or by those whom he appointed. With their denial of the distinctive doctrines of Paul they associated a denial of his right to teach them as an apostle. This denial seems to have taken the form of representing Paul as a renegade follower of the Twelve, a man who knew nothing of Christianity except what he had learned from the Twelve, and preached this in a perverted form. This appears from the nature of Paul’s defence of his independent authority as an apostle in the first two chapters of the letter, and indicates that with their theory of a limited apostolate the judaisers had associated the claim that the apostolic commission must proceed from the circle of the original Twelve.
It is the very same attitude of these Jewish-Christians (or Judiazers) that modern Christian Apologists implement in their arguments to deny the Apostleship of the General Authorities of the Latter-day Saint Christian Faith, limiting it to the Original Twelve apostles of Christ. Discredit the authority of the person, one ultimately discredits the nature and purpose of the message being delivered. A very serious charge to make and buy into – one of which a commentator has taken upon themselves to perform:
eternally condemned; The Holy Spirit speaks this through the Apostle Paul, this means that Joseph Smith is accursed and damned to hell for preaching another gospel. And you can only be saved by receiving the True Gospel as The Holy Spirit and faith are only imparted through the preaching of the true Gospel
However, Burton is not the only one to discuss this. Martin Luther, one of the great reformers and quite possibly the father of the Protestant Reformation, provided the following commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians:
In every way they sought to undermine the authority of St. Paul. They said to the Galatians: “You have no right to think highly of Paul. He was the last to turn to Christ. But we have seen Christ. We heard Him preach. Paul came later and is beneath us. It is possible for us to be in error—we who have received the Holy Ghost? Paul stands alone. He has not seen Christ, nor has he had much contact with the other apostles. Indeed, he persecuted the Church of Christ for a long time.”
Who were these people that Luther refers to?
These Jewish-Christian fanatics who pushed themselves into the Galatian churches after Paul’s departure, boasted that they were the descendants of Abraham, true ministers of Christ, having been trained by the apostles themselves, that they were able to perform miracles.
Why I mention this is because of the tone of the Epistle from the outset. Imagine having seen Christ. Being struck down on your way to arrest believers and you are a Jew who perscribed to the Pharisaic traditions. You encounter the Resurrected Christ, spend time with the original twelve, are separated with another into the apostolic calling and go about preaching the Gosple, setting up churches and submitting letters to keep those believers adherent to true doctrines and teachings. Imagine having been informed that your very own testimony, the very calling you hold to as coming from God and you have been separated into by the original twelve is being discredited. How would one respond? The answer is quite clear. Paul is angry and upset. Angry that those defactors are denying his apostolic calling. Using their reasoning and argumentation of their perverted belief that because they are descendents of Abraham, that they are the only sole heirs of Salvation and that in order to be saved, one has to not only be cirucmcised but have to be adopted into the Judiac religion.
This is where the argument of the Christian Apologist falls apart when using Galatians 1:6-9 as a proof text to prove that Mormonism is “another Gospel” that is false and preaching a different Jesus. In fact, there are two main points where this argument falls apart, when properly examined in historical and textual context: 1) Claiming to be the “Chosen” people of God based upon Ancestrial decent from Abraham as those Jews of the First Century rise of Christianity; And, 2) Teaching that in order to be saved, one has to adhere to the circumcision and be adopted into the lineage of Abraham in order to be considered part of the Chosen people of God.
Mormon’s do not claim any judiac traditions to Abraham. Meaning, members of the faith, nor the leaders go about saying that we are “Abraham’s Seed” and therefore are the sole persons of the True Gospel Message. In fact, if anything, we definitely understand what Christ and Paul truly taught regarding who were of the Seed of Abraham:
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (John 8:39).
When we look at the context of John 8:39, we find that there is a discussion between the Jews and Christ. In fact, verse 33 says this: They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed…and Christ responding with acknowledgement to their response in verse 37: I know that ye are Abraham’s seed. Yet, sandwiched between 33 and 37, we find that Christ says a very interesting thing: Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. Thus, the context of what Christ says in verse 39 is understood within the context of verses 33-39. What were the works of Abraham? And why is that important to understand in light of Galatians 1?
John Calvin, in his work Commentary on John – Volume 1, discusses the nature of verse 39 and the context of verses 33-39.
39. Abraham is our father. This altercation shows plainly enough how haughtily and fiercely they despised all Christ’s reproofs. What they continually claim and vaunt of is, that they are Abraham’s children; by which they do not simply mean that they are the lineal descendants of Abraham, but that they are a holy race, the heritage of God, and the children of God. And yet they rely on nothing but the confidence of the flesh. But carnal descent, without faith, is nothing more than a false pretense. We now understand what it was that so greatly blinded them, so that they treated Christ with disdain, though armed with deadly thunder. Thus the word of God, which might move stones, is ridiculed in the present day by Papists, as if it were a fable, and fiercely persecuted by fire and sword; and for no other reason but that they rely on their false title of “the Church,” and hope that they will be able to deceive both God and man. In short, as soon as hypocrites have procured some plausible covering, they oppose God with hardened obstinacy, as if he could not penetrate into their hearts.
If you were the children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. Christ now distinguishes more plainly between the bastard and degenerate children of Abraham, and the true and lawful children; (“Entre les enfans d’Abraham qui sont bastars et forlignans, et le vrais et legitimes.”) for he refuses to give the very name to all who do not resemble Abraham True, it frequently happens that children do not resemble, in their conduct, the parents from whom they are sprung; but here Christ does not argue about carnal descent, but only affirms that they who do not retain by faith the grace of adoption are not reckoned among the children of Abraham before God. For since God promised to the seed of Abraham that he would be their God, saying,
I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, (Genesis 17:7,)
all unbelievers, by rejecting this promise, excluded themselves from the family of Abraham.
The state of the question therefore is this: Ought they to be accounted Abraham’s children who reject the blessing offered to them in the word, so that, notwithstanding of this, they shall be a holy nation, the heritage of God, and a royal priesthood? (Exodus 19:6; Joel 3:2.) Christ denies this, and justly; for they who are the children of the promise must be born again by the Spirit, and all who desire to obtain a place in the kingdom of God ought to be new creatures. Carnal descent from Abraham was not indeed useless, and of no value, provided that the truth were added to it. For election dwells in the seed of Abraham, but it is free, so that all whom God sanctifies by his Spirit are accounted heirs of life.
What I find strikingly similiar (when I had devoted some time to studying the historical aspect of the Epistle to the Galatains) is that the similar arguments proposed by the Judiazers as to their direct lineage of Abraham is that of those Jews who confronted Christ while he served his earthly ministry and stated the same argument and were proven false. Yet, the question had not been answered - what were the works of Abraham and why did Christ mention to these people that if Abraham were truly their father, they would do the work of Abraham? The answer is very simple and quite obvious. Faith. The work of Abraham was that of faith in the redemptive power of Christ and the salvation of man. This is evident in verse 56: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.
Paul says this in Romans 4:3 – For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. What scripture is Paul referring to?
While many interpreters would say that this is evidence of salvation of grace within the Old Testament, a true and more careful reading of the scripture Paul refers to does not talk about works of righteousness, but talks about believing in the promises of God and the covenants God makes with those who choose to enter into a righteous relationship with the Divine:
…the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.” And Abram said, “O Lord God, what wilt Thou give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Since Thou hast given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir.” Then behold, the word of the Lord caem to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your decsendants be.” Then he blieved in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:1-6, NASB)
Regarding how Genesis 15:1-6 is referring to Faith as a Work, we look only to James 2: 21 – Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
We understand that the nature of God calling up Abram to sacrifice his only begotten son was to test his “faith” in God. Because of Abram’s faith, he believed that there was a purpose and reason for such a command. This is where the argument of the Salvation by Grace alone and Salvation of Grace and Sanctification come into conflict. It is this very reason that some Christian Apologists rely so heavily upon the idea and understanding that because Galatians 1:6-9 talk about a Gospel of Works as being another gospel and therefore cursed by God is reason to condemn Mormonism.
However, the reality and truth is, that when we look at the nature of the Gospel of Grace, we see that we are not only called into repentance and embrace the reality of Christ, but that we are to no longer live as we had lived prior to our conversion. Our faith is not just a belief but a life long change to conform our will to following Christ. Thus, when we look at Abraham, we see that God made a promise to Abraham in providing an heir and that Abraham would be the father of an innumerable amount of people. Christ, declared to the false Jewish belief that because they were of the lineage of Abraham, they were therefore Chosen of God as a holy and distinct people, stated that if these Jews were truly the Seed of Abraham, then they would believe in Christ just as Abraham believed in him – Christ being the Lord in the Old Testament. It is the reason Paul, the Apostle, stated in Romans that because Abram believed on the word of God, that he was declared righteous.
What all this means is that when we look at all of the Apostle Paul’s teaching, he taught two fundamental things:
1) Salvation does not come from lineage and ancestrial descent.
2) Salvation is not produced from performance of any type of “Works of Righteousness” as a means to gain Christ’s acceptance. On the contrary, because of Christ’s redemption and saving grace bestowed upon us, we manifest our appreciation and devotion in following after him and because of our faith in Christ, the evidence is the very works produced as a result of that faith and devotion – Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. is the opposite of if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. The Apostle Paul stated it simply, by their fruits, ye shall know them. Christ declared that a good tree does not bring forth evil fruit and a bad tree does not bring forth good fruit. Works are the fruit of our faith.
Hence, it is this very reason that those Jewish-Christians who claimed that because they were descendants of Abraham, they were the “promised and chosen” seed of Abraham. Thereby, perverting the Gospel of Christ and teaching the Galatian believers that in order for them to be saved, they had to not do the works of righteousness, but had to embrace the traditions and rituals of the Judiac rights of circumcision and be adopted into the “family lineage” of Abraham in order to be considered the chosen of God. Something that the Mormon Faith, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Prophets and apostles of the Church have never; nor, will ever teach and embrace.
Another thing to note, regarding this, and how it all correlates with the nature of disputing the authority of Paul, is that when these Judiazers taught the Galatians, they were effectively disproving Paul’s teaching and denied Paul as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. They had convinced the Galatian Christians not to accept Paul’s teaching on the basis that Paul’s doctrine was “another gospel”. Something which we will discuss next.
False Teaching of the Jewish-Christians
Previously, I discussed the nature of what these Jewish-Christians were teaching the Galatian Christians as to what they believed to be a “true gospel” as opposed to what Paul, the Apostle taught. And, the more I think about this, the more I am starting to realize the similiarities between these Jewish-Christians and some of the Evangelical Christians that I dialogue with in regards to Mormonism and the doctrines of the LDS Faith.
The first thing we noticed, and one of the later things I had discussed in the prior section, is that the “works” these Jewish-Christians were teaching were the circumcision and adoption into the Abrahamic line. To these people, the belief in the Abrahamic covenant still had a hold upon their mindset and belief system. While embracing this, they assimiliated the ideals of the the Older covenant with that of the newer Covenant of Grace. To this, we look to the original twelve that Christ had called into discipleship and later became known as the Apostles.
All twelve men were Jews. There were no Gentile Apostles that Christ had called to follow after. In fact, the gospel of Grace was first preached in contrast to the long held traditions of the various schools of religious thought within Jerusalem. The Pharisees, Sadduccees and the Zealots.
These twelve men were from the surrounding area of Judea and Jerusalem. Thus, from this Jewish idealism, the Jewish-Christians believed that the Gospel were preached unto them and them alone because of their ideal understanding that the Nation of Israel is God’s Chosen People, and, likewise, because Abraham was promised to have numerous children surpassing the stars in heaven. Therefore, it would be natural that these people would intigrate their Jewish idealisms within the New found gospel of Christ. And, as a result, preached “a different gospel” of Jesus Christ.
Burton expounds upon this thought of how and what doctrine these Judiaziers would use to influence the Gentile Christians, the difference between Peter and Paul and how the original 12 Apostles accepted Paul’s missionary efforts and preaching to the Gentiles:
On the one hand, there were added to the Christian community in Judæa certain men of strongly conservative tendencies who were convinced that Christianity ought to be built strictly on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, and that the Christian sect ought to differ from other Jewish sects, in particular from the Pharisaic sect, only by the addition of the doctrine of the Messiahship of Jesus, and in no case by any subtraction from the doctrines or requirements of the Old Testament religion as currently interpreted. On the other hand, as the effects of the evangelistic activity of Paul became more manifest and better known to the church at Jerusalem, the real extent and serious nature of his departure from the views and practices now becoming current in the mother church doubtless became more evident. As a result of these two influences the question of the obligation of the Gentile Christians to be circumcised came to an issue in the incident narrated by Paul in Gal. 21-10. The debate which took place on that occasion was apparently limited to this one question of the circumcision of Gentile Christians. The Jerusalem apostles at first urging Paul to conform, at least in the case of Titus, to the views of the ultraconservative element, were at length persuaded to throw their influence on the side of Paul’s view, to give their approval to his way of winning the Gentiles to faith in Christ, and not to insist upon circumcision.
Not only does Burton accept the notion that these Jewish Christians integrated their understanding of the Jewish customs and doctrines, but that they admittedly required and retained the idea of salvation through circumcision. Thus, this brings about the truer understanding of what the Apostle Paul states in Romans 2:24 – 3:1 -
For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written, For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
We know that the understanding of what Paul was relating here is within the context of Romans 2:2-10 where the Apostle Paul discusses those who do the works of Righteousness and how they are blessed because of this and how those who do the works of unrighteousness are in anguish, tribulation, and that these two faucets of human experience are not just among the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. It is here, that teh Apostle Paul says that man will be judged by their works – not their faith. This is not to diminish the Gospel of Grace and the salvation that Christ had brought about, but it is to realize that one can’t say that they confess Christ as their Lord and Savior in word alone, but must confess that Christ is their Lord and Savior in word and deed. Christ saves us from death – both physical and spiritual, however we are held accountable to the things we do in our life that result in either having a blessed life or a cursed life.
Thus, what we discover is the specific doctrine that Paul is contending against, and that of being circumcised in order to receive salvation and redemption. Yet, Burton is not alone in this understanding of what it was Paul was calling the Galatian believers to turn away from. An understanding of the doctrine that was literally causing the Galatian Christians to apostasize from the gospel Paul preached. The Jaimeson, Fausset and Brown Critical Commentary discusses it in this way:
Judaizing teachers had persuaded the Galatians that Paul had taught them the new religion imperfectly, and at second hand; that the founder of their church himself possessed only a deputed commission, the seal of truth and authority being in the apostles at Jerusalem: moreover, that whatever he might profess among them, he had himself at other times, and in other places, given way to the doctrine of circumcision. To refute this, he appeals to the history of his conversion, and to the manner of his conferring with the apostles when he met them at Jerusalem; that so far was his doctrine from being derived from them, or they from exercising any superiority over him, that they had simply assented to what he had already preached among the Gentiles, which preaching was communicated, not by them to him, but by himself to them {Paley}.
Turning to Martin Luther’s Commentary, we further read his comments as follows:
Their objection to Paul’s Gospel is identical to that recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Acts to the effect that it was not enough for the Galatians to believe in Christ, or to be baptized, but that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses, for “except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” As though Christ were a workman who had begun a building and left it for Moses to finish.
The more one studies this epistle, one begins to understand that the context (both historically and contextually) is not about the denial of accountability and being obedient to the Gospel of Christ, but it is about the denial of promoting and preaching the nature and custom of Circumcision as being the ordinance to secure one’s salvation. In other words, it is specifically against the doctrine of circumcision that the Apostle Paul refers to as being “another Gospel”. In this light, the accusation that Mormonism is “Another Gospel” according to Galatians 1:6-9 is a fallacious argument having no foundational support on this. It further exposes the error of the critic who uses Galatians 1:6-9 as a proof text against Mormonism and against the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. In short, Galatians 1:6-9 actually supports the Latter-day Saint position more so than the modern Evangelical Christian would presume it to support their own position. The observation on this latter statement is self-evident.
1) Judiazer claims that in order to secure one’s salvation in Christ is to become adopted into the Abrahamic Covenant and be Circumcised according to the manner in which Moses was commanded to be circumcised.
Christian believers today say something to the effect: In order to be saved, one only need to make a confessionary statement through prayer and accept Christ in their heart and life. Anything added to this; baptism, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, obedience to Christ and the commandments of Christ – are but another gospel. On the contrary, even Satan and the demons believe in Christ, does this mean they are saved? Some athiests are adherents to good works of human service and devotion, does this mean they are saved? The reality is that Salvation is first and foremost by and through Jesus Christ. Man can’t in anyway redeem himself from the fall. Yet, once redeemed from his sins, man has an obligation to turn from his natural tendencies, former beliefs and subjugate them to follow after Christ and live in a manner where the power of redemption is manifested through them. Christ, Paul and the scriptures are consistently clear that men will be judged, not on their faith, but upon their deeds in this life. Something Christians (when it comes to the differences between Mormonism and modern Evangelical Christian teaching and dogmatics) scoff at, yet turn and teach as evidence of one’s faith and reason for the hope of Salvation that lies within the follower of Christ.
Evidence of Apostasy:
The Epistle to the Galatians is strong evidence for doctrinal apostasy. Something that Christian Apologists disagree with when it comes to the Latter-day Saint statement and belief that Early Christianity had gone into a state of apostasy, the power of the Priesthood having become corrupt and ultimately removed from the earth.
Not only was Paul contending for his reason and calling as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, combating the false doctrine of Circumcision, but that he recognized the reality and severity of the false doctrine having come into the belief of the Galatian Christians and caused them to turn from the Gospel of Christ.
While some would agree that this is specific to the reference of those Churches in Galatia, the reality is that we do not have any reference or source as to whether or not the Christians in Galatia turned back to the true Gospel of Christ or if they had completely abandoned the gospel of Christ for the more Judiac perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No matter, the fact is, Paul recognized that these believers were falling away from the pure gospel of Christ.
This apostasy was due to three factors: First, the doubt as to Paul’s authority as an Apostle (Which we discussed first); Second, declaring the Gospel that Paul preached as being contradictory to that which the Jewish-Christians believed and accepted as the true Gospel, declaring that their doctrines come from the original Twelve whom were Jews as well and Paul, only being an emmissary of the Original Twelve; and Thirdly, influence of the Galatian’s own cultural, ethnic and previous paganistic belief system.
A serious inquiry of the Epistle to the Churches of Galatia shows forth that the reality of doctrinal apostasy was very real. Why would Paul contend for his authority of Apostleship, defend his teaching and declaring that it is the same gospel as that of the original Twelve in Jerusalem and call the Christian believers in Galatia to repentence and back into the true gospel of Christ?
Final Thoughts and Testimony
The overall historical and textual context of the Epistle to the Galatians shows that the reference to “Another Gospel” is not a reference to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it is a reference to the false doctrinal teaching that in order for a Gentile Christian to be saved, they had to accept the custom of circumcision and be adopted into the false ideal of the “Chosen” lineage of the Abrahamic Covenant. There is no evidence, in light of this investigatory study, supporting the modern Christian interpretation of Galatians 1:6-9 as to Paul referring to Mormonism, Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Restoration of the Gospel. It is actually on the contrary that Galatians 1:6-9 is in support of the Latter-day Saint position of how and why there needed to be a restored gospel of Christ. The epistle is a call to repentence of following after false doctrines and traditions and embracing the true gospel of Jesus Christ. What is the true gospel of Jesus Christ?
- We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.
- We believe that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
- We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Whether you want to agree with me or disagree with me is up to you. I am only responsible to share what I believe to be true, how it is true and the substantial evidence for that truth.
I, personally, testify to you that Jesus Christ truly is the sole source for our redemption. That by and through Christ, we are saved and have our hope and purpose. That becasue of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, men can truly come to understand the reality of God’s divine plan: A plan to bring about the purpose and reason for our existence. I testify that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not about confessing Christ as our Lord and Savior, but it is about putting to death the old things and walking in a newness of life. That it is about how we live our life as much as it is about our belief in Christ, Jesus.
I truly have come to a knowledge as to the reality and truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That it is truly the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days. That Joseph Smith was truly called of God, and those who declare otherwise, denying him his divine appointment as a Prophet in these last days are much like those Judiazers who denied Paul’s divine Apostleship.
I do testify that the Book of Mormon, and the Church is not “Another Gospel” but The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon truly another testimony as to the reality and purpose to Christ’s mission, redemption and the call to repentence.
I say this because it is true, I say it, not because I have a false hope, or have been misled by the General Authorities, I say this because I have tasted the reality of Christ’s atonement, I have tasted the reality of being Born Again. I have tasted the bitterness of giving into false doctrines and presenting them as true doctrines. I have tasted the bitterness of attacking the doctrines of Christ in light of these false teachings that bind men to philosophical meanderings and improper interpretations of sacred scriptures.
I testify that there is a real living Prophet that leads the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that men are truly held accountable in either rejecting or accepting a True Prophet of God.
I say this with authority and truth and I say it in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
31 Comments
January 22, 2009 at 3:09 pm
A long post indeed, Timothy.
But are you going to answer the questions and replies that have come on your other posts, or will you continue to just make new posts and leave old questions unanswered?
I’m sensing a pattern…
January 22, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Brad,
I definitely understand your concern as to the observation that it seems I may be ignoring your posts. On the contrary. There are certain priorities I have laid out to adhere to. First and foremost the search for employment. Secondly, replying to posts as time allows. I have your comments printed out and will look them over and respond to them appropriately, and hopefully tomorrow.
Please forgive me if I have not responded to them “right away”.
And, quite honestly, I do see where you are coming from with those statements of my generalizations and am rethinking how I approach my responses. I definitely do appreciate your comments and apologies for making such broad statements and do realize that they were made in haste rather than in a more investigatory response. Thus, as time allows, I have decidedly to make my response posts with more of a thought out line of reasoning than making them in haste and presumptious.
Yes, you are correct in some respects, rendering some thoughts as to stating ‘from those Christians I have personally discussed’ as opposed to the more general connotation of “all christians”, because there are those who understand and see how and why some of the doctrinal differences are not so major, while others are very vehemently set that one must accept their position with no leway of thought.
Again, I appreciate your thoughts and time again refer to your comments as to a guide in how to formulate my responses in a more conducive manner than shooting off from the hip.
January 22, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Hi Timothy
That is a long post and I intend to be quite short in response. Basically your post comes down to you proclaiming your belief in the teachings of the Mormon church.
“That it is truly the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days. ”
The gospel you outline seems to say a lot about Law and Works – whereas Paul is about Faith.
You quote Luther “that it was not enough for the Galatians to believe in Christ, or to be baptized,” does that equate with all the ordinances and laws you mention.
So the gospel you want is this one the Restored Gospel. Frankly the Logic of that means to me you are following another gospel.
January 22, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Ron,
Thank you for your comment.
A couple of questions for you?
Are you willing to concede that by your doctrine and logical interpretation that Paul is contradictory? That Christ taught something that can be shown to be “Another Gospel”?
I ask this because, if you would have actually read the post and not skimmed through it to pick out what you wanted to respond, you would see that there is evidence as to how and why there is evidence that Salvation is based upon Christ because man can’t save themselves from their own sins, nor physical death and spiritual death; but that Man does have a moral obligation to follow Christ.
Simply put, do you accept a “Gospel” where a person says, “Hey, I prayed, Christ forgave me of my Sins, and therefore I am saved because I believe and thus I am justified and don’t have to do anything else, because if I do any form of work, or obey any form of commandments, I am being Legalistic and that is a false gospel”?, or, do you teach that since we are saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we must bring forth fruits as evidence of that?
Another way of looking at this is if you are married, a parent or a person involved with someone special. Do you tell your wife you love her, or do you not only say you love her but also show her you love her in deed? Do you have to work for her love and devotion? No, she already loves you – even when she is mad, upset or frustrated. But, what happens if you don’t nurture your marriage? If you don’t show her how and why you love her and she shows you how and why she loves you? Your marriage falls apart.
The reality is that Believing in Christ is not just a confession of faith, it is a relationship that is a two way street.
Have you ever felt the Spirit of God move in your heart to council someone and you did so, not knowing any reason as to why and then after the fact realized that you followed in obedience to the voice of God in doing that which he called you to do? Is that not obedience? Do you not obey Christ when you minister? Obey Christ in preaching repentence?
The very essence of even “Salvation by Grace Alone” is an illogical concept because what do you do as a Christian? Live your life in denying the temptations. Live your life in order that it exemplifies the hope that lies within you.
Is not prayer a work? How about morning scripture devotion? How about visiting the sick and praying for them? how about sharing your love of Christ in service? Are not all of these works?
If you had read what I truly wrote, you would have read where I said that there are athiests that do good for the community, do the things that would consider a show of good wholesome moral character. Does this save them? No. And, it is just as much as a Christian who says “I Believe, I Believe, I Believe cause I prayed” and does not visit the sick, does not comfort the broken, does not devote themselves in building their relationship with Christ and their Father in Heaven.
In fact, time and again, I have yet had a Christian explain how Christ and the Early Christian Church truly taught Modern Evangelical Christian doctrines in light of “Take up your cross” or, “Deny yourselves of all ungodliness”, or, “men will be judged by their deeds”.
The fact is, you are showing forth the ineptness to understand the whole of Scripture because you are stuck at the cross and unwilling to see that we are already saved, but must walk in the newness of life, daily crucifying the flesh and the carnal natural man. Yes, we falter, we give into temptation, we have an argument with our spouse, but we have the ability to choose either to realize our mistake and faults, confess them, repent of them and turn from them.
So, honeslty tell me again that simple devotion to Christ and seeking to do the will of God and to be obedient in conforming our will to the will of God as being “Another Gospel”, because, would that then mean you are believing in a Gospel of Works when you merely pray?
January 23, 2009 at 6:15 am
If you had read what I truly wrote, you would have read where I said that there are athiests that do good for the community, do the things that would consider a show of good wholesome moral character. Does this save them? No. And, it is just as much as a Christian who says “I Believe, I Believe, I Believe cause I prayed” and does not visit the sick, does not comfort the broken, does not devote themselves in building their relationship with Christ and their Father in Heaven.
So there are 3 options, Timothy:
1) Faith ALONE saves
2) Works ALONE save
3) Faith AND works are needed to be saved.
We’re talking about salvation here, not sanctification. We’re talking about what an unsaved person must have, or do, to be saved, not what a saved person does AFTER they are saved, in the process of sanctification.
So, in order to gain salvation, which option do you go with, according to what you believe?
January 23, 2009 at 7:48 am
Brad, let us see what scripture has said on this:
1) Matthew 28:19-20
It is very apparent that Christ instructed his Disciples to 1) Teach, 2) Baptize, 3) Teach to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.
2) Luke 24:46-47:
Now, Christ, nor the Father can contradict themselves right? Yet, it appears there might be a contradiction here right? Wrong, What was it that the Apostles were to teach? They were to teach repentance. They were to teach that men were to come unto Christ?
Now, let us look at Acts 2:41 – Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.
Received what word?
And what did Paul say about Baptism for the Remissions of Sins?
Acts 8:36-38 –
Acts 16:30-33 cf 25-33 –
Acts 19:1-6 –
And, finally, Colossians 2:11-12
When we truly and prayerfully study the scriptures, we find that Paul preached repentance, faith in Jesus Christ, performed the ordinacnes of Baptism and the laying on of Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghosts. Peter preached Repentance, belief on Jesus Christ, baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Christ, commanded his disciples to teach repentence and to come unto Christ and that his disciples were to baptize those who come unto to him for repentence.
Thus, your question – what is the doctrine of Salvation? Simply this: We believe that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. And, what are these laws and ordinances of the Gospel? We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: First, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Therefore, what does scripture says about Salvation? They say this: Man must come unto Christ in Faith, Repent of his sins, enter the waters of Baptism and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, having thus received a remission of their sins, receive the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
So, of the two options: What do you believe?
1) Christ and the Apostles Preached, calling men unto Repentence, having faith that Christ will forgive them of their sins. And, as commanded by Christ, the Apostles commanded that those who believe, having faith, were to be baptized unto Christ by immersion and then receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. And, that Paul, the Apostle and Philip both had baptized people who exercised their faith in Jesus Christ, believing on Jesus Christ as their Redeemer and Savior.
Or,
2) Christ, Peter, Paul and Philip contradicted one another, contradicted Christ and therefore bringing about confusion.
Funny thing – Paul the Apostle actually said this: One Lord, one faith, one baptism Ephesians 4:5
So, again, What did Christ command the disciples? What did Peter, Paul and Philip do?
I testify to you that man is saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ and by obedience to the principles of the Gospel that Christ himself commanded the Original Twelve to perform. I testify that the Gospel is not just confessionary but it is about bringing people unto Christ, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Laying hands upon them to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. That this is the True and Only Gospel of Christ.
Thus, all other doctrines are appendage to this one fundamental truth. Do you preach Faith in Christ, Repentance, that one must enter the waters of Baptism and be immersed for the remission of their sins? Do you lay your hands upon their head to give them the Gift of the Holy Ghost? And, do you possess the true divine authority and priesthood to accomplish this as the Apostles themselves Held and performed?
I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power unto Salvation.
January 23, 2009 at 9:03 am
Tim, I’m oddly reminded of the phrase “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” You took 2 pages to answer what was a very simple question, and in fact never even answered my question at all, but tried to pose one yourself!
I posed 3 simple options, which are the only options available. I described exactly what my question was, and asked for an answer. I know what Scripture says, Timothy.
And you said my question was “what is the doctrine of salvation?” No, I didn’t ask you what THE doctrine of salvation is, I asked you for your answer to the question I raised, about which of the 3 options YOU believe gives a person salvation, as opposed to sanctification.
Again, a simple question, and I received a non-answer. Don’t write yourself into confusion, and try to obfuscate the real issue, which is: what is your answer to what I asked? Option 1, 2 or 3?
January 23, 2009 at 9:12 am
Brad,
I have sufficiently answered the question from scripture. If that is deemed insufficient, then that is what you deem. The reality is this:
I believe and testify that man is saved by and through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and by obedience to the ordinances and laws of the Gospel. What are these ordinances and laws of the Gospel? As already stated – 1) Having Faith in Jesus Christ; 2) Repenting of one’s sins; 3) Baptism by immersion for the remission of Sins; 4) Receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the Laying on of Hands. All of this is the initial rite of passage. From thence, a man is held accountable for the things he does in this life.
January 23, 2009 at 11:48 am
More of the same, Timothy, more of the same. I didn’t ask you to quote Scripture – I asked you to simply state which scenario (1, 2 or 3) you believed was true. I didn’t even ask you WHY you believed it was true, only WHICH you believed. Simple, simple, simple. You never answered it.
Seriously, try moving away from the typical Mormon, party line, FARMS/FAIR answer pattern, and use your own words, Timothy. Even if you’re wrong, it will help you in the blog world. I don’t know how much interaction you’ve had with other non-Mormons, but believe me, once you start chanting the oft-quoted Mormon talking points, people quit listening, b/c they’ve heard it all before.
That’s what I asked you to answer: 1, 2 or 3. To date, you still haven’t done so. I take that as fear to give a simple answer, but I’m not sure what underlies that fear. If you believe faith AND works (#3), then say “#3.” If you believe faith only (#1), then say “#1.” Why is that hard? I know the Scriptures you use already to try to support your position, Timothy – I’m not looking for those.
I’m looking for your, personal answer.
Why is that so hard to give simply?
January 23, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Here are my responses to your points of contention:
Unfortunately, the reality is that you do not like my response. The reasons for that is either: 1) You are unable to reason with the Scriptures that are presented and stood upon; or, 2) You are not willing to accept the answer given because you refuse to recognize it as a satisfactory answer. The reality is, and I will still answer it: Yes, I personally believe that a man is saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I testify to you, Brad that this is my testimony. That only the Atonement of Jesus Christ is our source of Salvation, and that it is by and through this atonement that we are able to obey the ordinances of the Gospel. Namely, Professing our faith in Christ, Repenting of our sins, being baptized for the remission of our sins and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. From here, we are held accountable for our life, held accountable for our deeds. This answer has been given unto you thrice already, yet because you refuse to accept my testimony and the testimony of scripture, you attempt to make it out as if I had not provided an answer to your question. The sad reality is this: Even if Christ himself came to you teaching the same thing, you will most likely bring about the same accusation that you foster here, namely that he refused to answer your simple question. The answer is given, once again, and yet this is unsatisfactory for you to receive accept and acknowlege.
Quite the accusation here. Again, I am using my own words and standing on the testimony of Scripture. It is not the pat party line answer of typical Mormons. It is not based on any Pattern of Farms/Fair. Unfortunately, the reality is that this accusation is based upon ad hominems than anything else. I provided the truth on the doctrine of Salvation, answered your question with the authority of Scripture and yet you are more interested in condemning me, a mere mortal for standing on the word of God. Until you can truly deal with the scriptures presented, you can in no way truly stand in judgment or condemnation and say that I am wrong. No, what you would like me to say is that I believe we are saved by Grace and Works so that you can use your pat party line Anti-Mormon responses from CARM and Mormon Research Ministry and other foundations that attack the doctrines of the LDS Chruch to prove your position with mistranslated and improper interpretations, out of context statements from LDS General Authorities.
No matter what, I can’t prove to you whether or not what I believe to be true, nor can you prove to me that what you believe is true. I know and am confident to say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not one of confession, but one of committment. We are saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ and by our obedience to the principles of the Gospel.
I have already supplied my personal answer. It is an answer that is substantiated by Scripture and my Testimony. Why is it that hard for one to comprehend? Why is it easier for you to accuse me falsely where there is no accusation necessary when the answer has been provided for you?
I testify that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of all, that only through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that men have eternal life. I testify that we are held accountable for how we have lived our life. If we have lived our life selfishly, commiting sin, then we shall suffer the punishments for those sins. However, if we live our life unto God and doing the will of the Father, how much more are we blessed in this life and have eternal life in the next? I testify that our Heavenly Father loves each and every one of us, that he desires we should come to know him, the One True God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent into the world. That is the answer, that is my testimony.
January 23, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Seriously, Timothy, you’re coming off as a bit crazy. For your sake, I wanted you to understand that, before you get too deep in the blog world.
I DIRECTLY asked you to answer, quite simply, “1″, “2″ or “3.” I’ve asked this “unto you thrice already”, as you like to say (seriously, Timothy, you really expect people to believe these are your words? You’re WAY too caught up in the KJV English style, and you’ll have a hard time convincing anyone that it’s really “your” way of talking…).
Your first response? No, it wasn’t “1″, “2″ or “3″, but a long post trying to show Scripture that you believe shows your position. As I stated, I didn’t ask you for your Scriptural support, but a “1″, “2″ or “3″ answer based on the question I asked. Did you answer what I asked you to answer? No.
So I asked again. Same question, same easy replies, either “1″, “2″ or “3.” Did you reply with one of those easy responses? No. Instead, you insisted you had answered what I asked (which you hadn’t), and gave a shortened version of your original response, this time without Scriptures. Did you answer what I asked you to answer? Again, now for the 2nd time, no.
So, I asked again, directly, simply, a 3rd time. Asking again for an easy answer of either “1″, “2″ or “3.” Yes, it’s just that simple! Did you reply (again) with a single number? Nope. For the 3rd time, you responded with a diatribe about why I can’t accept your answer (which you have yet to give), why I don’t like the proof (which wasn’t even my question – heck, I’m still waiting on the answer), and how it is my problem. Did you what I asked you to answer – for a 3rd time? No.
I would ask you if you “get” it, but I really don’t think you do, Timothy. Why is it so hard? Don’t tell me for a second, and don’t expect anyone else to believe, that you’re using your words, or even that you’re comfortable using your words, b/c you’ve shown a complete inability to do so. You can’t even utter a simple answer, which would consist of a single number! THAT’S ALL I’M LOOKING FOR!!!
I’ve encountered this before. Nearly every time, it’s b/c the person is scared to answer a question in a way that they can’t give a pat Mormon answer to. If you try to get them to deviate from that pat answer, they don’t know how and aren’t comfortable doing so, so they attempt to turn the tables and make it look like the person asking the question doesn’t understand.
I wasn’t asking you for a dissertation or a proof of your answer, Timothy, just the numerical answer. You have yet to give it (of course, this is only the 4th time I’ve asked. Maybe once I get to the 20th time, you’ll be willing?).
You SERIOUSLY need to examine why you’re unable to give such a simple answer, and what it means about you and what you believe.
January 23, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Again – as before – and so round round the mulberry bush we will go Brad:
Another ad hominem attack. Frankly, what you are doing here Brad is taking from the discussion of the original blog post. That post being Galatians 1:6-9 and how inept, misinterpreted and unreasonable the modern Christian interpretation of the Passage is not conducive. Not once have you actually addressed the original post. This is quite typical of how those who attack the LDS Faith resort to. Because they can’t deal with the proper interpretation fo scripture and understanding of the context of the passages they rip out of the context, they result to personal attacks and defamation.
Secondly, are you the “Blog” Police? Why dictate to me how and what I ought to write on my blog posts? If you agree fine, if you disagree then disagree but lay off the attacks and defamation.
Thirdly, this blog is to provide articles on particular doctrines of the LDS Church, how and why I believe them to be true. If people read this blog – it is because 1) They are members of the Church and are interested in what other members have to say and how they understand certain aspects of the LDS Faith and how they are growing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; 2) Those who are seeking to understand the Latter-day Saint Doctrines, have questions as to the validity of the claims of the LDS Church or those who are seeking to understand and know from the LDS Perspective and not what the modern Evangelical Christian world has to say and teach on the doctrines of the LDS Church. While this blog and those articles posted here are not official LDS Doctrines, the reality is that these are my own thoughts, how I have come to the realization of these things and in what matter has my studies lead me to conclude. Granted, we can attain all the knowledge in the world about Christ, the Atonement, Scriptural Authority, False Teaching, etc, but that is nothing when it compares to receiving a personal revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of a Living God. A Living God who is our Father in Heaven that loves each of His Children and has a desire for all his children to come unto him through and by his Son, Jesus Christ. It is the desire of God to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of mankind. The scriptures, the Prophets (of previous ages and in our own age now) and apostles have taught and been commanded to share unto the world.
The reality is that this testimony is not enough for you because it is “Not my words” according to your own reasoning and understanding.
And, I directly answered it the same way each and every time. I don’t expect anyone to believe anything. It is not my place to expect anything of anyone. If people believe, it is because they have a desire to search such things and to seek God. If they don’t then they don’t. Why would I expect people to believe what I say to be true? No, the only thing I expect is people who disagree with me respect what it is I believe, how and why I believe and allow me to believe what I believe. Do you expect people to believe what you believe? Your philosophies, perceptions and perspectives on Life? I think not.
And, I am not “Way too caught up in the KJV Style” as you seemed to think. I enjoy studying out of both the KJV of the Bible and the NASB version of the Bible. However, what right do you have to tell me how I can and can’t talk? You have no authority and right. If I stand on my testimony, you are more than welcome to agree or disagree. But, you don’t have the right to dictate to how I share my testimony and faith. You do not have the right to tell me that my style, my language, and the way I present the information is in error and out of sync with what you deem to be the only and appropriate way for someone to write. I don’t care how other people write their blogs. I don’t care how they discuss their topics. I don’t have the right to go to them and tell them “Hey, look, the way you write… man people wont take you seriously.” Same thing here, you have no right to dictate to me how I write and in what manner I present the information – so long as I am not being vulgar or condenscending. Of the latter, these past couple comments of yours are on the brink of condencension.
All of this is non-conducive. Simply put, here is my answer for you, I believe that a man is saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ and by obedience to the Ordinances and commandments laid down by Jesus Christ and the Original Twelve. I testify unto you that this is true and right. Why do you rant against this? Why do you quibble over this answer? Why is this answer not good enough for you to accept and understand as a definitive answer to your question. No, I refuse to answer your question in the manner and way you expect me to answer your question. And, until I do, you are convinced and attempt to convince the readers of this blog that I have yet to answer your question and seemed to point to me being evasive, resorting to name calling, dictating how and what I ought to right and in what manner how and why I ought to answer.
Yes, the answer to your question is this: I am confident and testify that a man is saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ and by obedience to the ordinances and laws of the Gospel of Christ. That is your answer. It will be the only answer you will receive. I will not waver and lessen my testimony to benefit your own way of thinking. If this answer is not good enough for you, if it is not what you are looking for then do not ask me the question. Simply put, you ask me the question, I will answer it. If you do not like the answer given, then you have no right to ask the question to begin with. And that is what it has come down to. Because you refuse to accept the answer given to you, the evidence for my answer as a means to further explaining how I have arrived to this conclusion and sound reasoning, you resort to condemnation and name calling. You have resorted to taking the focus off the topic of the original post and attacked my very character and personhood.
I testify to you that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the true Church, having been restored in these last days – the dispensation of fulness of times. I testify unto you that the LDS Church, the Prophets, the Apostles have taught and continue to teach that Christ is the Son of God, and our redeemer. That it is through him and by him we are saved when we come to him in Faith. Repent of our sins and are baptized for the remission of our sins. I testify unto you that these things are true.
This is what I believe, this is my testimony. And it is the answer I will give you and anyone else who challenges my faith.
January 23, 2009 at 2:57 pm
From a different perspective, the answer to your question would be #3. Did not James teach, “Faith without works is dead being alone?” Did not Nephi confirm this by teaching “it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do?” If it is simply faith, why did Christ come to show us how to live? Why was he baptized as an example? If it is only works, surely we are all doomed. We need Christ. We must keep the commandments and strive for perfection. Both.
January 23, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I’ll pray for you, Timothy. You seriously have some things wrong upstairs. I have a 3-year old who can give me a simple answer to a question. Judging by your picture, you’re older than 3, so I would think you could do the same.
There’s fear within you somewhere, something that keeps you from being able to answer in simple terms. You keep “saying” you are, but a coherent reader can read what you’ve said and know that not once, not twice, not 3 times, but 4 times you have refused to give a SIMPLE answer to a SIMPLE question. That is a sure indicator that there is fear, or something to hide.
It really is too bad, Timothy. A lot can be learned from good conversation. But when a person continually demonstrates that they don’t even have the ability to answer simple questions in a straight-forward, requested manner, it really isn’t conducive to meaningful conversation. And you win the gold medal for not being able to do so, as evidenced by your 4 straight refusals.
Party lines can be good sometimes, but in the context you’re using them, they’re not. I soon hope you realize that, Timothy.
January 23, 2009 at 3:16 pm
LDSlesson, thanks for doing a wonderfully remarkable job in showing that it truly is possible to give a simple, requested answer to a simple question. That’s all I’ve been looking for.
Timothy, I hope this illustrates to you my point, of how EASY it would be for you. Frankly, I still don’t think you get it…
January 23, 2009 at 3:19 pm
LDSLesson –
Definitely appreciate your comment here and posting your answer. I agree whole-heartedly with you. While we have different ways of answering the question posed, the sad reality is that some individuals do not want you to answer the question how you are impressed and moved to answer, but they want you to answer their question the way they want you to answer. And, it is only when you do not answer the question the way that they expect and want you to answer that they attack you, consistently demand you have not answered the question. Of Course, I did not answer the question. I did not answer it the way he wanted me to answer because I know how such questions lead to discussions in how I am wrong and how he is correct. I have seen it done at CARM and on other forums. It is a very well aspect of reasoning I know too well and use on some occasions. Ask a specific question in the way someone answers it and then you lead them through a series of questions until you set them up on a path of showing forth how their reasoning and belief is truly in error and wrong.
Sadly, he did not like the answer I gave, consistently on what I personally believe because he has concluded in his own mindset (As evident from his comments and discussions we have had here) that I only give pat answers. Sometimes, bearing your testimony is the only thing you are able to do and leave it at that. They either accept or reject it.
January 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm
I could use prayers for employment. Thank you for that.
Honestly, there is nothing wrong upstairs. Secondly, I don’t think you are in a professional position to make any formulative pyschological analysis as to what is or is not wrong with my mindset and mental capacity. Thank you again for showing how condescending and disrespectful you are capable of being when the conversation is not conducive to your liking.
Honestly, why are you resulting to name calling, attacks on my character and upon my mental capacity of understanding? This is flat out disrespectful, condescending and rude. I have called you on this on several occasions and yet, you would prefer to insult me in a way that shows the immature antics that some Christian believers exhibit when a conversation is not going their way, or to their liking because someone did not answer a question the way they expected or wanted that person to answer. This is your last warning to stop such insultations and condescending posting. Because, quite honestly, I have answered your question, yet you refuse to accept it. That is not my problem but your problem. Again, you do not like the answer given, then don’t ask such a question.
Again, you do not know me, nor anything about me here. There is no fear within me that keeps me from answering your question in simple terms. What do you not understand about this answer: I believe that men are saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ and by obedience to the ordinances and laws of the Gospel. Quite honestly, if you look at that answer you will see that it is the answer you have sought after all along but refuse to accept. Just because I did not say #3 does not mean I did not answer your question. Unless you don’t know what I mean by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If that were the case then you ought to have asked me, what do you mean by the Atonement of Jesus Christ? Instead, you resorted to the typical insultation tactic to demean me. The fact is, my words are there for anyone to see I have answered your question, just not in the exact words or liking as you hoped or expected me to answer.
Unfortunately, and I stand firm on this, I have answered your question. But not in the way or in the expectation you had hoped I would answer. The reality and truth is that what is not conducive to good wholesome conversation is your continual insulting and condescending tone of your responses to me.
Not once have I demeaned you. Never had I called you crazy, told you that you were mentally incapability, in fear and used words to demean your character and personage. Instead, I have stood firm on my testimony, knowing that I have answered your question. Any person who thinks I have not answered the question – here is the answer one last final time.
I Know of a surety that a man is saved by the Atonement of Jesus Christ and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Where in that statement have I not answered your question? You consistently accuse me of not answering it, show me how in that statement I have not answered your question? Is it because I did not say “I will take #3 Salvation is by Grace and Works Alex”? Is that what you are meaning by me not answering your question?
It is truly unfortunate that the conversation has deterioted into you insulting me and demeaning me, showing disrespect and accusing me falsely for something I have not done.
Until you can show me efficiently where I did not answer your question with my testimony and statement, you have no basis and the real intent of your disposition and tone is for all to see. Your very own words and tone show forth your own nature and disposition. I have and will stand firm, I have answered your question – unfortunately, you will never see it that way.
January 23, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Unfortunately, that is your opinion and you are entitled to your opinion. Again, the reality is, I chose to word my answer differently because I don’t give pat answers as you have insinuated.
January 23, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Timothy
Your response put a lot of words into my mouth. Just to be brief – one result of coming to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus is indeed works. But it is not the works that give one salvation. Your gospel lists various items including ordinances – I would understand these are only explained by bringing in the Mormon church and Joseph Smith.
If those are essential for Salvation and Christians do not know these. Are Christians saved?
January 23, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Ron, thank you for your response:
If I understand your statement correctly, you are saying that my post on Galatians 1:6-9 puts alot of words into your mouth. My question to you, is this: How so? How am I putting words into your mouth? In what manner am I putting words into your mouth?
If I recall your comment to a previous post of mine, did you not put words in the Apostle Paul’s mouth? Did you not interpret the nature of Galatians 1:6-9 as to mean Paul was speaking of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Joseph Smith?
The way I read your comment, you quoted Galatians 1:6-9 and inserted your own parenthetical statements as to how it is interpreted to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
First off, your comment gave the inspiration for the post. However, it was not the sole reason I had posted this post, provided the information regarding this post, or the exact reason why I posted this article. The fact is, you are not the only Christian Apologist to cite Galatains 1:6-9.
Here are other statements and how those other statements reflect the same interpretive principles you have shown:
1) Contender Ministries: It is a heretical cult, and the Book of Mormon is a false gospel (Galatians 1:6-9)
2) Contender Ministries: While people are being deceived by the false gospel of Mormonism (Galatians 1:6-9)
3) The Perception of Mormonism: Well, it’s not actually what I think defines Christianity, it’s what the Bible says defines Christianity. The scriptures tell us that we have to be careful not to find ourselves believing in “a Jesus other than the Jesus” that the original apostles described in the scriptures (2 Corinthians 11:4), and more importantly, not to believe a “different Gospel – which is really no Gospel at all” (Galatians 1:6-7). The problem is that Mormons have done both of these things. They believe in a Jesus that is extremely different by his very nature, and they also have completely abandoned the Gospel of Grace for a system of good works. The scriptures warn us that when we do this, we are “eternally condemned” (Galatians 1:8)! Mormons have abandoned the historic perspective of Christianity on all of these foundational beliefs, and for that reason, they simply can’t be defined or categorized as Christian’s.
As you can see, these are just samples of how Galatians 1:6-9 is used as a proof text against the LDS Faith. A true examination (the posted article here regarding Galatians 1:6-9) shows how such reasoning is actually a false Biblical interpretion of the Historical Context and Textual Context.
I agree, and that is why I stated that an Athiest can do good things in his/her life. Be an upstanding citizen, exemplify the Christian Life while not believing nor accepting Christ as his/her Savior and Redeemer. Does this mean they are saved? No, it does not. Just as much as it does not mean that a Christian is saved who says “I believe in Christ,” and does nothing to show forth evidence of their faith and hope that is in Jesus Christ.
I don’t know of anything that is outside of the following: Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentence of sins, Baptism by Immersion for the remission of Sins, laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Don’t mistake one having a testimony of Joseph Smith as being a Prophet of God as being on the same par of the Gospel Ordinances. Having a Testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is a secondary aspect than that of the Testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. What I mean here is that having a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon is not a saving Testimony. It is only an acknowledge testimony of gratitude and recognition that God, the Father had called Joseph Smith to accomplish the translation of the Book of Mormon, and recognition that the Book of Mormon testifies of the reality and reason for the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
I am actually in no position to say who is and who is not saved. All I know is that we are held accountable for our life and how we lived our life. We are accountable for those things we have done against ourselves and others. We are held accountable for every thought, word and deed. Either we receive immediate blessings or punishments for our choices in this life or in the life to come is all predicated on how well we perform and function in this time. Thus, I can’t say, no Christians are not saved. What I can say is that there are some who believe that they are saved and have not done anything to manifest their hope and faith in Jesus Christ and continue to walk in sin. Those people have a false hope and faith. That is what Scripture says and declares. Else, why would Christ give the parable of the Sheep and the Goats? Why would he say to some “get away from me, ye workers of iniquity?” It is because they lived their life on the contrary. Why did he condemn the religious leaders of his day? Because they did not understand the scriptures or the prophecies that were about to be fulfilled.
However, what we do understand is that Christ commanded the Twelve to teach and preach. The question is: What were they to teach and preach? The answer, from scripture, is that they were to teach and preach that salvation is by and through Jesus Christ and that in order for man to be saved, they must first have faith on Christ, repent of their sins and then what? In Acts 2, what did Peter say to those who believed? What did they have to do? They had to be baptized. This is in scripture, it is in accordance with scripture. Paul laws out the wonderful symbolism and purpose behind baptism by Immersion. Thus, where I can answer from Scripture and my own personal impression, yes there may be some Christians who will be saved as they understand it, but then there will be some who will suffer because of how they chose to live their life.
I hoped that answer your question. and provide you some insight.
October 2, 2009 at 4:05 am
Timothy: as one who has once been a severe critic of your church, I feel you thoroughly answered Brad, but given his need to keep it going, myself i would have just said #3 because didnt Paul say “Faith without works is dead”–If one is born again it doesnt mean they will never have trials or even sin, but one who is saved will produce works of that salvation unotherwords once you gain testimony of Jesus and allow Him to be Lord of your life, you lose that old desire to continue in Sin and if you do Sin you have an advocate with the Father.
October 2, 2009 at 5:55 am
Charles, thank you for your comment to this discussion. I agree with you there and it is because of their love for Christ that they do those things that Christ has commanded us to do. It makes it easier for us, and we are without excuse.
October 31, 2009 at 12:18 am
I offer a rebuttal, not against Mormonism in particular, but against most Christian interpretations of this passage. I adopt the liberal interpretation which says Jesus taught the Judaizer gospel, and Paul’s understanding of it was heresy, and therefore, when Paul cursed anybody whose gospel differered from his, he was cursing James, the leader of the Judaizers.
The legalists that Paul battled against in Galatians were men representing apostle James’ views:
“Galatians 2:11-13
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.
13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.”
———–
First, all bible-believing faiths say apostle Paul and James taught harmoniously on salvation. No sir. The Judaizers represented the doctrine of James. Unfortunately, that means the Judaizer gospel was taught by James, which, without some great argument to the contrary, shows that the Judaizer gospel was also taught by Jesus. The gospel strongly support this conclusion, for when Jesus was asked about the conditions for eternal life, he gave an answer that would have Judaizers standing up and cheering:
Matthew 19:16-17
16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”
17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Second, Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem, where James allegedly finds in favor of Paul’s gospel and says Gentiles need not be circumcized to be saved, poses a problem. In that council, Apostle James answers the question of what exact bits of the Mosaic Law, if any, Gentiles must adhere to, to be saved. Problem: How is it that the Gentiles’ relation to the law had never been answered previously? Did Jesus not preach salvation to Gentiles as well as Jews (John 3:16)? If so, we don’t need to know what answer Jesus gave to the Gentile/Law question during his earthly ministry…we only need to know that he gave AN answer. Whatever answer he gave to that question before his death, how is it that the apostles find the issue to be so contentious as late as Acts 15, that they must hold a meeting of Christianity’s finest minds, in order to inform the Churches abroad of this answer? If the Judaizer gospel was known to be obvious heresy to James and Paul alike, why is James giving the legalists the time of day, let alone a chance to formally defend this “obvious heresy”? Did the original Christians also get together to debate whether or not Jesus was a man? How many other questions with obvious answers did the apostles waste time debating with heretics? There are only two options: Jesus never intended his gospel to go to Gentiles, so he never needed to answer that question and so didn’t, which means Paul’s spin on the gospel, taking away the legalism of the Mosaic law, is the heresy…or, Jesus required male gentiles to be circumcised in order to be Christians, but Acts is Pauline propaganda that stretches the truth to make it appear that James and Paul were in more agreement on the issue than they actually were. Acts appears to be little more than a history book written solely to defend Paul’s version of the gospel.
In Acts 10, Peter has a vision, explained in Acts 11 as God’s instruction that Gentiles can be saved. What? Peter didn’t know this from his three year tenure with Jesus? Obviously, this yarn about Peter is not the historical truth. The author of Acts has simply invented a tale about a prominent member of original Christianity finally “realizing” that Gentiles can be saved…which tells the reader that even the original Christians agree with Paul’s Gentile gospel. Unfortunately, the author of Acts never thought about how ridiculous it would be to say God gave Peter a vision so he could know something that should have been point blank obvious already. Jesus preached salvation to Gentiles, didn’t he? How then does Peter and the apostles find the concept of Gentile salvation so staggeringly new in Acts 11?
Third, James is found to be a Judaizer in Acts anyway. Read Acts 21. There are “thousands” of Jews who, even after converting to Christ via James’ preaching, remain “zealous for the law”. In the context, they are angry with Paul because they know that he has been telling Jews that circumcision is not necessary. So this group of Jews, converted to Christianity within James’ mission field of Jerusalem, remain legalistic in spite of their Christian confession. Unless somebody wishes to argue that James was an excessively poor communicator, and after preaching Paul’s law-free gospel to Jews, somehow mistakenly ended up with thousands of converts that continued to errantly hold to their prior Judaizer beliefs, Acts 21 makes it obvious that James himself was a legalist, thus a Judaizer. His converts would not have remained “zealous for the law” had they converted to a Pauline gospel that said “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to those who believe.” Whatever James preached to his converts, it was not a gospel that taught the death of Jesus as the end of the Mosaic dispensation. In other words, original Jewish Christianity was perfectly compatible with the continuing divine significance of the Mosaic law and temple ceremonies. The idea that Jesus came to institute a new covenant that would abolish the law or “fulfill” it in a way that made it largely irrelevant to Gentiles, is the heresy here, not the Judaizers.
Fourth, a large portion of Christians are “dispensationalist”, that is, they believe the gospel Jesus preached before his death, does not apply to us today, for as the Book of Hebrews teaches, his death on the cross brought the law-convenant to an end, and initiated a New Covenant of Grace. You wanna talk about another gospel? “The original gospel of Jesus does not apply to us today, because his death caused the covenant to change.” Well, Jesus never taught that his death would bring the Mosaic Covenant to a stop or “fulfill” it in that kind of way. When he said in Matthew 5 that he came to “fulfill” the law, the context of that statement indicates nothing more than an expression of his desire to obey all of the Mosaic law, a fulfillment that does NOT take the law out of the way of any other person. As such, Jesus never said his death would do anything whatsoever to relax any part of the Mosaic law for anybody. The most damning indictment against most Christians, including Mormons, comes from the Great Commission:
Matthew 28:19-20
19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;
What did Jesus command the disciples? Presumably, the same sort of salvation that he himself preached to the rich young ruler:
Matthew 19:16-17
16 And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” 17 And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
So in the Great Commission, the disciples were told to teach to everybody else, the same exact things that Jesus had taught THEM….that obedience to the Law was the key to eternal life. In other words, the resurrected Jesus did not understand his death to have required the least modification to the gospel he preached beforehand. The gospel was to be taught by the disciples UNMODIFIED. In other words, the resurrected Jesus of the gospels would strongly disaprove of all that Pauline teaching in the New Testament about the law being done away in Christ. Jesus NEVER taught that his death would do anything near what Paul said it did.
This is only the tip of the iceberg in historical and biblical proofs that Jesus approved of the Judaizer doctrine that militated against Paul.
Some critical questions: Galatians 2:14 — If the Judaizer gospel was so obviously false, how do you figure it was convincing enough to sway “even Barnabas”, who was Paul’s personally chosen helper for the Paul’s Gentile ministry? If “even Barnabas” gave in to the Judaizers demands in Antioch, is there not raised a presumption that the Judaizers must have had some pretty powerful arguments and carried high authority?
No Christian denomination is completely free of corruption or political backstabbing, including Mormons. Where exactly did we get this fairytale idea that original Christianity for the first 50 years was founded by Christians who were completely free of corruption and ulterior motives? If you acknowledge that the NT authors were sinners, then what is so wrong with imparting to them the presumption that not everything they said or wrote was 100% holy?
dave
spirit5er@hotmail.com
October 31, 2009 at 11:23 am
I have never heard anyone provide an alternative discussion on this particular passage. From what I gather, you are probably with those who position themselves saying that Christianity is more of a Pauline influence and basis and that the Apostle Paul founded the “version” of Christianity that is prevalent in today’s culture and society.
I will definitely look into this and provide a proper response to you.
October 31, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Thanks for your prompt response.
Yes, I am of the position that original Christianity was divided into Pauline Christian and Judaizer Christianity.
While conservatives are quick to conclude that Paul’s gospel won out because the Judaizer gospel was false, I don’t think popularity contests prove anything. It could very well be that the version of Christianity which prevailed, was a heretical form of the original.
What made you become a Mormon? How’s the “job search” going? Did you lose your house, like so many others?
Dave
October 31, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I actually grew up in the LDS Faith – if you had not had an opportunity too, read the page “testimony and Journey” – left in my early 20’s and then came back in the last couple years.
I do agree with you in one respect about modern Christianity, and the evolution of Christian doctrine and thinking. I believe that when you look at Paul and what he preached, he was not preaching “another Gospel” that is different from what Christ taught and preached, nor did he create his own version of Christianity. What I do believe happened – and something that is very prevalent in the Pauline Epistles – is that because of the various thoughts as to what constituted doctrine and not doctrine perplexed the early church. There were competing ideas. Gnosticism is proven to have developed out of this peculation of idealisms and doctrines. For me personally, there seems to be harmony between what Paul taught, what Christ taught, and what is recorded in James.
There are a couple things here. The first is that majority of the early Pauline epistles date closer to the time of Christ than the Synoptics and the Johannine Gospel. Second, Hebrews is purported to have been written by Paul, but some say it was not. Regarding James, some say this is purely a Jewish context within the First Century.
This is the most unique position of the Latter-day Saint faith. Since we accept that there are particular questions within the Old and New Testament texts, and the reason why we accept the Bible to be the Word of God in as far as it is translated correctly is that we accept the notion that there are certain things within the Bible that has been lost. One of these things that have been lost is the fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Salvation of humanity had become corrupt over the milieu of the Christian history. Much of this came out of the prevalent thought of the Nature and Deity of Jesus Christ (which if you take the time to understand the Latter-day Saint position, there is the doctrine of Subordination that predates the Nicene Creed of Christianity), the Canonicity of the Bible itself and the disputes of what was to be considered “authentic” scriptures and what was to not be considered authentic official canon. Salvation and the doctrine of how men are saved has changed, even at the time of Augustine and Pelagius where the debate over Predestination and the Grace of God and human depravity were debated.
When you read the Book of Mormon, you will come across the passages where the Law of Moses was a preparatory law. Meaning, that the Law of Moses (as you have stated) was fulfilled in Jesus Christ as pertaining to the doctrine of Atonement and Sin offering, but that there were specific commandments that were not done away with (Which Modern Evangelicals believe and accept in various ways and argumentation). The simple point of doctrine (which I am sure you will find interesting) is that what Mormons believe is that we are definitely held accountable for how we live our lives. One such passage within the Book of Mormon has this to say:
“Therefore remember, O man, for all thy doings thou shalt be brought into judgment. Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever”.
This is consistent with the many passages within the Book of Mormon itself that calls men to repent, to forsake, and to be obedient to the commandments of God.
November 1, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Paul says the Judaizers, who ended up persuading Peter and “even Barnabas” of the truth of their doctrine, were “from James” in Galatians 2:12.
Do you believe that the Judaizers came from James as Paul said in Galatians 2:12?
How do you avoid the conclusion that the Judaizer gospel, which Paul disagreed with, was the gospel as understood by the Lord’s brother, James?
November 2, 2009 at 3:35 pm
My apologies for not getting this posted right away. Having a very relaxed day with a not so well feeling wife.
It is my understanding (and I will have to research more into this to properly give it the discussion it deserves) is that Peter was the overseer of the Church, and therefore the one in authority over all the other apostles present.
My problem is that the Judiaziers did not just teach the importance of obedience as a gospel principle, the issue centers around the understanding and doctrine that of the Abrahamic covenant and the doctrine of circumcision. Remember, there were many who came to Christ who said that we are descendants of Abraham, and Christ rebuked them saying that if they truly were the Children of Abraham, they would do the works of Abraham. This would not mean they would be circumcised because they were Jews and Circumcision had become a part of their culture to separate themselves from those whom they referred to as Gentiles. So, the question rests upon the “works of Abraham” being obedience and faith in God and the Atoning Sacrifice that would fulfill the Law of Moses through Jesus Christ.
That is how I understand it.
November 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Do you agree with Galatians 2:12, that the Judaizers came from James?
November 4, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Dave, out of due respect, I read the context of Galatians 2:1-12 several times.
According to a Homily written by Saint John Chrysostom, we find the following commentary on Galatians 2:11-12:
The entire commentary on Galatians 1-2 can be found here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iii.iii.ii.html
“Ver. 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;5555 [ἀλλ᾽ οῦκ ἔστι ταῦτα, οὐκ ἔοτιν ἄπαγε.—G.A.] 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, 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.5656 S. Jerome adopts the interpretation given in the text, viz. that S. Peter’s dissimulation was no sin, but intended as an opportunity for S. Paul to declare the freedom of the Gentiles from the Jewish Law. On the other hand, S. Austin considers that he acted through wrong motives, and sinned in dissembling. In this opinion he is supported by Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Cyril, of Alexandria, S. Gregory and Ambrosiaster. (Hieron. in loc, et alibi. August. de Bapt. contr. Donatist. ii. 2. de Mendacio 8. Tertull. de Præscript. 23. in Marc. iv. 3. v. 3. Cyprian, Ep. ad Quint. 71. Cyril. Alex. in Julian. ix. fin. Gregor. in Ezech. ii. Hom. 6, 9. Ambrosiast. in loc.) S. Austin is influenced in his judgment of the transaction by an anxiety lest disingenuousness and duplicity should receive countenance from the apparent example of an Apostle; S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome by affectionate reverence for the memory of so great a benefactor and so exalted a saint. Vid. Justinian, in loco.
[In earlier life Chrysostom had himself practiced such a “scheme,” as that which he here attributes to Paul. In order to induce his friend Basil to be consecrated as a bishop he made on him the (false) impression that he himself had already been consecrated.] Neander (Life of Chrysostom p. 22.) says: “In the first book of his work on the Priesthood Chrysostom defends the principle that a falsehood is permitted for a good object. An invention which has for its sole object the advantage of another is rather an οἰκονομία (the word he uses in expounding our passage.) This lax view respecting truth was not peculiar to Chrysostom but was consonant with the prevailing spirit of the Eastern Church. There were a few exceptions however to this view, among whom were John of Lycopolis in Egypt, and Basil of Cæsarea who says του κυρίον διαφορὰν ψεύδους οὐδεμαίν εκφήναντος. Schaff says (Prolegomena p. 8): “Origen, Jerome and Chrysostom explain the offense of this collision away by turning it into a theatrical and hypocritical farce, shrewdly arranged by the Apostle for a purpose. In this respect the modern standard of ethics is far superior to that of the Fathers and more fully accords with the spirit of the New Testament.” [We may add that Chrysostom’s view gains nothing; for to save one Apostle from the charge of unpremeditated hypocrisy, he makes both guilty of premeditated hypocrisy.—G.A.]
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, (οἰκονομίας) 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. 11.) 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.”
What then is my own opinion of this? I believe that there was no “real” contradictory dispute between Paul and Peter because Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom and the distinction between the Circumcision and those of the Uncircumcision were cultural distinctions. The Judiazers could not make this distinction themselves and were already disregarded as those who denied the efficacy of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
November 9, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Chrysotom’s interpretation is pretty fanciful, Paul’s words to Peter were to highlight alleged inconsistency of behavior. The idea that this was all cooked up beforehand as a “scheme” to introduce the Gentile gospel, is pretty hard to swallow.
Further proof against this patristic interpretation is “even Barnabas” was carried away with the Judaizer gospel. Then we read in Acts that the rift between Barnabas and Paul continued.
The Roman Catholic Church has the most to gain from the Chrysotom interpretation-because it avoids attributing error to the first pope-Peter. Yet the Catholics do not adopt this interpretation, but admit that Peter was justly and seriously rebuked by Paul and for good reason. I’d say Chrysotom is just a desperate apologist setting forth a rather unlikely scenario.
Do you believe Jerome when he says James was a Jewish high priest (which means he did animal sacrifices after Jesus died)?