THE BLASPHEMY OF THE MASS

Wilt thou also become a Roman ?

I "wilt" not. :) By God's grace, I will cross the Jordan before I ever cross the Tiber.

But you might ask why then do I seek the official stance of Rome? Simple. I don't think it has one, not on this passage, not in any form which can be relied on as even purporting to be infallible. In terms of lawyering, I'm calling the bluff. Well, that's cards you say, but good lawyering and good card play are close cousins. I don't think Rome has anything in their hand on this one. I want to see the cards. What have you got?

Peace,

SR

But you might ask why then do I seek the official stance of Rome?

No, I am not asking, yet I have an opinion as to why.

What have you got?

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Ezekiel, Catholic chapter eighteen, Protestant verses twenty four to thirty two,
Malachi, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verses sixteen to eighteen,
Hebrews, Catholic chapter ten, Protestant verses twenty two to thirty one,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Jesus didn't avoid answering any lawyerly questions by saying they were useless. Rather, He leveraged those questions into startling new insights. He is the best lawyer (and teacher) ever, and he out-lawyered the very best the Jewish magisterium had to offer. In that regard, and in every other way possible, He is my role model.

I wrote not that the questions were useless, rather that I do not recall them profiting the lawyers who asked them. As for the very best the Jewish magisterium had to offer, I do not view it thusly; just consider all the challengers and pretenders in any venue, this forum for example. Those who were named were another matter entirely, the good, the bad, and the ugly, so to speak.

As for my question to you, I ask you to answer rather than avoid, because I believe it will lead to insight.

It seems to me that I asked my question first and you have not answered it. I will likewise consider your question.

I have searched your previous posts carefully and cannot identify a question you asked that I did not answer. Not saying you’re wrong, just that I can’t figure out what question you think I overlooked. I even searched through every question mark on my ping page, all 78 of them, and not one was a question from you (unless I somehow missed it, which is always possible). But if you will repeat it I will be happy to give it a try. :)

Peace,

SR

I wrote not that the questions were useless, rather that I do not recall them profiting the lawyers who asked them.

Useless and unprofitable are basically the same thing as far as I can tell. Seems like splitting hairs to me. Jesus answered the questions, even the supposedly tricky ones, and He never said, as far as I know, "That question is useless, or unprofitable, to you, but here's my answer." That's not His MO. I think He is worthy of imitation in this matter.

As for the very best the Jewish magisterium had to offer, I do not view it thusly; just consider all the challengers and pretenders in any venue, this forum for example. Those who were named were another matter entirely, the good, the bad, and the ugly, so to speak.

Well, I have no idea what any of that means. Perhaps you take me too rigidly. I only meant that they sent what they regarded as their best minds to try and confound Jesus, and Jesus out-lawyered them. But he wasn't dismissive of their questions. He just asked better questions back at them. Classic example, render unto Caesar. They never saw that coming, and here they were the royal magisterium.

But in all this you seem to be overlooking my bigger point, that while these lawyers asked their questions with evil intent, and with no care for their flock, the question I am asking comes out of profoundly ugly personal experiences with people abusing this passage to oppress tender-hearted believers, real people, real souls for whom Christ died. The pattern of your interpretation runs close to the pattern of these abusers, and as a matter of love for Christ and His sheep, I am asking you how you would use your interpretation in a setting of pastoral care-giving. It is a legitimate question, not in the least rhetorical, nor even really lawyerly clever, but straightforward and blunt. Someone comes to you having sinned after becoming a Christian. Does this passage apply? Yes? No? Qualified yes? Qualified no? I'm open to hearing your true thoughts on the matter. Nuance them however you like. But I think it's a fair question, and I am not sure why it is taking so much effort to get a straightforward answer.

Peace,

SR

Those are all wonderful Scriptures. They do not tell me what Rome’s formal, infallible dogma is concerning the proper interpretation of Hebrews 10. In lawyer talk (as long as we’re on that theme), we would say your answer was unresponsive to the question asked. We’re not in court, so you’re free to make that choice. Unfortunately it leaves me in a position where I don’t know how to proceed. Do you think you are speaking for Rome? If so, can you verify that what you are teaching conforms to the official, infallible Roman position on this passage? Your move.

Peace,

SR

Do you think you are speaking for Rome?

No. Contact the closest Italian or Vatican Embassy. You might rather go to your closest parish and have a heart to heart talk with a priest and ask your questions.

... I am asking you how you would use your interpretation in a setting of pastoral care-giving. It is a legitimate question, not in the least rhetorical, nor even really lawyerly clever, but straightforward and blunt. Someone comes to you having sinned after becoming a Christian. Does this passage apply?

What is the exact nature of the willful sin ?

Yes? No? Qualified yes? Qualified no? I'm open to hearing your true thoughts on the matter. Nuance them however you like. But I think it's a fair question, and I am not sure why it is taking so much effort to get a straightforward answer.

The scripture always applies. How it applies depends on the nature of the sin. One seeking to confess one's sins is on the right path and should bring forth fruits meet for repentance. One seeking to justify oneself and remaining an adversary to the Messiah and his one holy catholic and apostolic church is surely at risk of judgment, fiery indignation, and destruction.

No, my interest is in your position. You have effectively answered my question, with the only answer I thought possible.

Peace,

SR

Post 233 has my question:

Do you think Paul lied to the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, all Israel, and sinned in the temple here ?

And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law: And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Acts, Catholic chapter twenty one, Protestant verses seventeen to twenty six,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

What is the exact nature of the willful sin ?

I've always thought that was pretty obvious. I would ordinarily say any sin, because every sin requires an act of the will. But as I said at the beginning, that's a solution that works too well in this passage. Where I was hoping we could go was the recognition that the author qualifies this sin in context to his overall theme of the book, the superiority and finality of the sacrifice of Christ, versus the mentality under Moses, in which there was always hope of some future sacrifice. It is incontrovertible that the Mosaic system of sacrifice has ended. Jesus and what He did is all that remains for those who seek atonement. Defy that, and there remains no alternative. In which case we get to the idea that the willful sin here warned against is repudiation of Messiah and His sacrifice and returning to the shadows of Moses, even after having a clear opportunity to see the truth about Jesus through close contact with His believing community.

That this is not some one irreversible sin is further brought home by the fact that the sin spoken of is ongoing, in the Greek a participle, so not those who commit some single act of apostasy, but those who keep on defying the truth about the Messiah. If they remain in that state of continuously denying Messiah, especially after having been exposed to the most convincing evidences through the teaching and body of Christ, there is truly no where else for them to go, and nothing for them to look forward to, other than their own doom.

None of this defeats or contradicts all of the evidence elsewhere that clearly indicates that when an apostate permanently leave the fellowship of believers, it is because they were not in fact a true believer, but an antichrist, as John says. The wheat is always a wheat from a seedling, and the tare always a tare. But in their early days they look a lot alike. But as John says, when they leave, they are revealing their lostness, not causing it.

So this passage is not at all in conflict with the stability and permanency of the grace God gives us in saving us as His elect. Quite the opposite. The author even confirms this at the end of the chapter:

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
(Hebrews 10:38-39)

Do you see how the author is making a categorical distinction here? We don't belong to the category of those who apostatize. Why? What's the distinction? The nature of belief. Some belief, as James says, is mere intellectual assent. The devils believe and tremble. But we are those who have the kind of faith that results in the saving of the soul. Very clear. Very consistent, even textbook consistent, with perseverance of the saints, per the Reformed view.

Are there some Protestants/evangelicals who avoid this passage? No doubt true, probably out of ignorance. But many do teach on it, and teach it well. It is a suitable warning to those who have come among Christians but have not found a secure footing in faith that saves, and who are wavering in their commitment to Messiah. There is no more temptation to return to the Mosaic sacrifice, so the circumstances have changed from when this was written. But the essential truth remains. No one should settle for half-faith. Go big or go home. Playing Christian without the power of God's Spirit working through a changed heart is a losing game.

But for those who have sinned, and sinned willfully, and grievously, and yet are true in their repentance, we have this word:

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
(Matthew 18:21-22)

The servant is not greater than the master. If we are to forgive so many times over, will God be less gracious than us? God forbid. He will always be more gracious than we expect Him to be. Those who have sinned, despite knowing the truth, if they repent, and finally come to have the faith that saves, as Hebrews 10 teaches, they do NOT qualify for the warning of the passage. Only those who unrepentantly continue in their rebellion, because until they come to true repentance and true faith, there is nowhere they can go for atonement, if they refuse the once for all sacrifice of Jesus.

Peace,

SR

None of this defeats or contradicts all of the evidence elsewhere that clearly indicates that when an apostate permanently leave the fellowship of believers, it is because they were not in fact a true believer, but an antichrist, as John says. The wheat is always a wheat from a seedling, and the tare always a tare. But in their early days they look a lot alike. But as John says, when they leave, they are revealing their lostness, not causing it.

Nonconcur; the author is not writing about salvation being a done deal for anyone (save those mentioned in the Roll Call of Faith. In fact he is rather careful to write that we are only saved if we obey the Messiah.

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Hebrews, Catholic chapter five, in its entirety,
Hebrews, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses one to twelve,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Do you think Paul lied to the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, all Israel. and sinned in the temple here ?

Thanks for finding the question. Of course I think Paul was truthful. That's a bit like asking a theist if he believes in God. Well, yeah. That doesn't necessarily turn a specific historical action into a paradigm for Christian behavior. It is still just a description of what happened while the Temple still stood.

The paradigm for Christian belief and behavior is in the teaching of the whole message of Scripture. There are acts described in both Old and New Testaments that cannot and/or should not be imitated because the full revelation of Scripture teaches otherwise. The Holy Spirit is not going to present an inconsistent message. If the book of Hebrews is to be taken as divine revelation, one has to take its teachings as the guide for understanding descriptions of historical events and what lessons we should draw from them.

For example, Paul's compliance with some Jewish customs was part of hs overall plan of evangelism by blending in. He states this explicitly here:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
(1 Corinthians 9:19-21)

The mission is the thing with Paul. He was perfectly happy to accomodate expectations of Jewish believers, just as he did here:

Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
(Acts 16:1-3)

So he had Timothy circumcised, not for his personal justification, but in deference to the Jewish community to which he was to minister. But whether in principle or in practice, Paul was adamant in his revelatory teaching that these customs were not to be understood as the substance of obedience to the Gospel. They were mere accommodations to those whose consciences would otherwise be offended, inhibiting the progress of the Gospel. Missionaries today do the same sort of thing. Becoming as identified with your audience as possible is still a good way to get access to share the Gospel. But it doesn't mean the adopted cultural practices become a requirement of the faith.

And so when Paul is presented in Acts 21 with the prospect of reassuring his countrymen that he was not advocating that Jews apostatize wholesale from Moses, which he was not in fact advocating, he was happy to accommodate their sensibilities by following through on the recommended ritual. And why not? A good Jew can comply with Moses and still be fully aware that his justification is not coming from that compliance but from his faith in Messiah, of which all the ceremonial law was a forecast and a shadow. So Paul was indeed not recommending apostasy from Moses, but he now had a Messianic understanding of Moses, and could just as easily get by without Moses to blend in with Gentiles for the same purpose, in both cases gaining access for the Gospel.

But with the fall of the Temple system, what the writer of Hebrews spoke of here came to fruition, at least with respect to the levitical temple service and the sacrifices associated with it:

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
(Hebrews 8:13)

Notice he doesn't describe it as a sudden break, or that it had ceased completely, but was in a process of decline. This suggests that Hebrews was probably written before the fall of the temple, within the timeframe of Paul and the other apostles.

And the writer of Hebrews is not alone in this attitude toward Moses as a system that was ramping down, because the same view appears elsewhere, in a book I hope we can both agree was authored by Paul:

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
(2 Corinthians 3:5-8)

The ministration of death, the law, was indeed glorious, but such glory was to be done away, overcome by an even greater glory, the glory of the Gospel, the ministration of the spirit.

So no, Paul was definitely not lying to either the apostles or the Holy Spirit, nor do I think he was sinning in his action. Purification rituals under Moses did not necessarily entail personal atonement for sin. A woman giving birth to a child was in need of ceremonial purification, despite childbirth being an innocent act. Likewise, Paul, having been with the Gentiles, would be expected to purify himself, but not in connection with an actual sin for which he must offer a sacrifice, but to accommodate a Jewish culture that would be harder to reach for the Gospel if the purification rituals were ignored. Paul did this for peace, not for justification.

Some have gone further and argued this was a mistake. This does not mean there was a deliberate sin by either Paul or the apostles. But it is interesting to observe that if the purpose was peace, the action did not succeed in the short term, because a riot broke out over the false belief that Paul had polluted the Temple with a Gentile associate of his. Can apostles make mistakes? Certainly. No one is perfect but God. Was this a mistake? Perhaps. I can see the argument. I can also report this is exactly what my own father believed. It is interesting to be reviewing it again after so many years.

But getting back to how this relates to Hebrews 10, there is no reasonable way to see this as Paul and the apostles sanctioning the false idea that the Mosaic system of sacrifice would continue indefinitely in parallel to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or that these shadow sacrifices were at all necessary to justification before God, even for a Jew. One Holy Spirit, one Scripture, one message. So no, I don't see the conflict. Hebrews 10 connects very well with Paul's view of the covenants, and with the overall theme of Hebrews, the contrast between the Old and the New Covenants, the one being our teacher that leads us to Messiah, the other being the full revelation of Messiah, whose once for all sacrifice rendered all others obsolete.

Peace,

SR

Some have gone further and argued this was a mistake. This does not mean there was a deliberate sin by either Paul or the apostles. But it is interesting to observe that if the purpose was peace, the action did not succeed in the short term, because a riot broke out over the false belief that Paul had polluted the Temple with a Gentile associate of his. Can apostles make mistakes? Certainly. No one is perfect but God. Was this a mistake? Perhaps. I can see the argument. I can also report this is exactly what my own father believed. It is interesting to be reviewing it again after so many years.

Yes, this is what I wanted to see addressed. It brings us to the one holy catholic and apostolic church where all the apostles in Jerusalem agreed, including Paul, that he did not teach the Jews in the Diaspora to forsake Moses, either in circumcision or customs, and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. .

All the apostles in Jerusalem were in unity, agreeing to keep the law as the Messiah kept the law and commanded them to, not for justification, but to fulfill all righteousness as a testimony to Israel. What they told Paul to do, and what he did in obedience, was not a mistake. The Messiah had personally promised these particular apostles the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and given them the power to bind and loose. One might make a mistake, yet here you have all of them in Jerusalem. I'm certain you see the catholic implications, although you may not accept them. Once the temple passed away, the sacrifices stopped. How do you reconcile a third temple with restarted animal sacrifices after reading the book of Hebrews ?

(*phew*) Okay... computer crash somewhat restored, computer somewhat rebuilt. Sorry for the delay...

You wrote: Then please provide the official, Catholic church approved infallible interpretation of that verse for us.

This "broken record" of yours has been addressed already, innumerable times. Your problem is that you put up a provably false, unbiblical, and self-contradictory standard (i.e. "sola Scriptura"), dare people to live up to it, and then insist on some sort of micromanaged "Where's the infallible interpretation of every last verse of the Bible?" nonsense as a supposed "alternative" to sola Scriptura. False dilemma fallacy, anyone?

No... if you seek to claim that the Catholic Church must either "show where the Bible contains [Church teaching #__] and give me an infallible Catholic interpretation of those Bible verses" or else "admit defeat", you'll first have to prove that your "gold standard" on which your argument rests--i.e. "sola Scriptura"--is infallible and unequivocally true (and unequivocally taught in the Bible).

Lots of luck, with that!

Problem #1: your comments on this forum describe a belief in "sola Scriptura"; but the Bible simply doesn't work that way, nor does it ever claim that it does. Sola Scriptura is a pure figment of Luther's imagination, and his desperation to fight "Rome" blinded him to the glaringly obvious logical problems with it.

Problem #2: your comments on this forum describe a supposition that the Catholic Church has pronounced an "infallible interpretation of every last Bible verse" (at least, you've asked for something akin to that, repeatedly)... which has two sub-problems: first, the Church is not "sola Scriptura", and She does not trace every last Church teaching from the Bible, nor does She have to, nor COULD She have done so had She WANTED to do so (since the Church predated the complete Bible by hundreds of years, an She predated the earliest of the individual NT books by at least 15 years); second, the Church does NOT "micromanage" the lives of Catholics (though some Protestants like to think that, apparently), and Her teachings are often in the forms of what beliefs may NOT be accepted as "true" (e.g. Arianism, Nestorianism, Protestantism, etc.).

I do wonder what it would take to put this old, illogical canard of "show me the infallible interpretation of verse [x]!" to rest, once and for all...

AF, I have a developing work situation that demands my attention. It's quite a storm and it will take me offline, except occasionally in the evening, probably for the next few weeks.

With that in mind, I can only offer a fairly cursory response to your thoughts at this time. In short form then:

1) The "mistake" theory is not necessary to the larger point I was making. I merely mention it as a point of interest. The apostles may well have been doing the right thing. Even so, Paul was prohibited from following through on the ritual, and so no sacrifice was in fact offered on his behalf. We could say that God preempted him through circumstances. Then the question would be, would God lead them to do something that He did not intend them to finish doing? So the "mistake" theory, while not essential to my argument, remains a live issue for me.

2) As to the unity of the apostles in this situation, I do notice from my time here on the FR RF that RC readers of Scripture often find confirmation of things they already believe about Catholicism, and project that back onto the text. But a more rigorous analysis typically will show that the text by itself does not in fact confirm the Roman bias. In this particular instance, we cannot conclude that observing Moses was a universal requirement of Christian faith, because even in sending Paul to be purified, they readily acknowledged that this did not overturn their earlier decision respecting the liberty of the believing Gentiles. So at most your assessment that they were doing this because of Christ's teaching concerning the law could only apply to Jews. But then it is inconsistent with Christ's own teaching concerning the unity of the sheepfold. There are not to be two churches, one Jewish in practice, one Gentile. The better surmise, IMHO, is that they were doing this for the same reason they whittled down the behavioral imperatives for gentiles in Acts 15, to keep the peace between the two factions.

This is in keeping with Paul's own teaching regarding meat offered to idols. To him, in his conscience, it was a thing indifferent. The idols are nothing. The meat is fine. But as long as it might do damage to someone with a weaker conscience, he says he wouldn't eat such meat ever. It is a self-imposed limitation, done for the good of the body of Christ. That is a good and noble motivation, and fully explains the temple event without resorting to the superimposed idea that the apostles were actually motivated by a belief that full, Old Covenant Torah compliance was and would always be normative for Jewish Christians. The text doesn't say that.

This fact, BTW, is exactly why the mistake theory is unnecessary to harmonize Acts 21 with Hebrews 8, 9, and 10. I remain puzzled about it for the reasons stated above, but have no problem with the view that this temple event with Paul was nothing other than an attempt to build unity between the Jewish and Gentile factions of the nascent Christian family. There is no rational way to redirect this event to support a dual praxis of Gentile Christianity versus Jewish Christianity, which idea is profoundly at odds with Paul's teaching concerning the blending together of the two into one new man, which also coincides with Christ's own teaching on the same matter.

3) The third temple. As you know, I have always openly represented to you where I come from theologically. In eschatology, I am not a dispensationalist. I used to be. Followed Hal Lindsey and the whole nine yards. But now I am an Historic Premillenialist, after the model of Charles Spurgeon. We see no literal third temple. If there is a temple after the one destroyed in 70AD, it is either us, the Ecclesia, who are spoken of directly as the temple of the Holy Spirit individually, and corporately as living stones built on the rock of foundation in Jesus Christ, or perhaps at the end of days there will be a temporary faux temple, used to carry out the deception of the Antichrist for a time. But Hebrews is God-breathed revelation. The true Ecclesia will never look back to the shadows, except as instruction in Messianic truth, but not as a guide to ceremony.

And I will add that I have had this position, specifically on the Temple, for about 40 years. When I was a student at Moody, back in the early 70's, we had John Walvoord as a guest speaker. The dispensationist's dispensationalist, bar none. After the talk, he was meeting and greeting and I walked right up to him and confronted him about the heinous idea of reinstituting the sacrifice system in the Millenium, ostensibly in this third temple. I was offended then as I am now at the idea of erecting once again what God Himself tore down, so that His Son might receive all the glory for the once for all sacrifice He provided to all those who would come to trust in Him. The poor fellow was a bit flummoxed and really had no reply. He was expecting a friendly audience. And mostly they were. Not me. Not on this issue.

Bottom line, if Hebrews is canonical, and God-breathed, any sort of conscious return to the levitical sacrifice system, especially if viewed as literally necessary to obtain forgiveness of sins, runs way too close to the substance of the warning in Hebrews 10. We have passed through that transition, bumpy ride though it was, and ought not ever to go back, because going back willfully amounts to denial of the Messiah's greatest accomplishment.

Peace,

SR

Hey, the Catholics are the ones who claim infallibility.

What’s the problem with expecting them to live up to the standards they set up for themselves?

AF, I have a developing work situation that demands my attention. It's quite a storm and it will take me offline, except occasionally in the evening, probably for the next few weeks.

Understood; work before hobbies

As certain of your own poets have said:

Almost aflame still you don't feel the heat
Takes all you got just to stay on the beat
You say it's a living, we all gotta eat
but you're here alone there's no one to compete
If mercy's in business I wish it for you
More than just ashes when your dreams come true
Words by Robert Hunter; music by Mickey Hart

The apostles may well have been doing the right thing.They were; original Jewish apostles, discipled by the Messiah himself, filled with the Holy Spirit he sent to them, binding and loosing, working love in unity; it doesn't get any more right than this.

Even so, Paul was prohibited from following through on the ritual, and so no sacrifice was in fact offered on his behalf. We could say that God preempted him through circumstances. Then the question would be, would God lead them to do something that He did not intend them to finish doing? So the "mistake" theory, while not essential to my argument, remains a live issue for me.

By this method of argument one could argue that Paul's mission to the Gentiles was a mistake and that God preempted him through circumstances, leading to his execution, and not only him but all the Apostles save John. One might further ask about the Jewish apostles entire ministry and work, would God lead them to do something that He did not intend them to finish doing and conclude since they were slain and driven out they failed and a new Gentile Christianity emerged only based on the doctrines that Paul taught. Some might even espouse those arguments on the FR forum. Now those would be ridiculous arguments.

As to the unity of the apostles in this situation, I do notice from my time here on the FR RF that RC readers of Scripture often find confirmation of things they already believe about Catholicism, and project that back onto the text.

Catholics tend to take seriously what Jesus said to, and about, his apostles, and believe the Father answered His prayers. They tend to love and honor those the Messiah chose to shepherd the flock, and regard them as blessed family. Catholics are brethren.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Matthew, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses fifteen to nineteen,
John, Catholic chapter fourteen, Protestant verses twelve to eighteen,
John, Catholic chapter seventeen, in its entirety,
John, Catholic chapter twenty, Protestant verses twenty to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

Hey, the Catholics are the ones who claim infallibility.

Perhaps you might be a bit more specific, and give some indication that you have even the *faintest* idea what you're talking about, here. As it stands, this statement of yours is (forgive me) as stupid-sounding as would be the statement: "Hey, let's see you drive your car across the Atlantic Ocean; you claimed that you could drive, right?"

I'm not sure how the idea that "the Catholic charism of infallibility has things known as 'parameters' by which it works" managed to escape you. Your statement couldn't be more off-base if you had looked up the word "infallibility" in Webster's Dictionary, took your favorite definition from the options there, assumed that the Catholic definition must mean neither more nor less than that exact definition, and used it to make your comment. Suffice it to say that it's a bit lacking.

What’s the problem with expecting them to live up to the standards they set up for themselves?

None, whatsoever. The problem comes in when some people expect us to live up to THEIR artificial straw-men; we're really under no obligation to do that.

Honestly: have you read the Catechism... or at least the bits about infallibility?