Replies

Well, what shall we do, go through it line by line?

Why do you think he mentions the two visits to Cephas, the right hand of fellowship?

And then Acts 15:22 certainly admits, if it does not require, the interpretation that Paul was sent (here it's pempo, not apostello - which is interesting, huh?) by the council.

You're going to love this (not): I think that one simply cannot avoid, the Church cannot avoid having "religious" (and therefore clergy-ish/clerical?) aspects any more than an Incarnate IHS could avoid urination and still be truly human. (Or for a less offensive example, let us not that the evangelist helpfully tells us that after He fasted for 40 days He was "an hungered, yeah Howdy!"

(that particular text rarely makes it out of the archives ....)

Look at how A-G says she's not even non-denominational! (Wouldn't that mean she's denominational? CAN there be a tertium quid) and Paul mentions disparagingly those who claim to be "of Christ". The assertion of an invisible Church is reminiscent to me of docetism, or something in that ball-park. HE wasn't REALLY incarnate ..... The REAL Church couldn't POSSIBLY have the problems that trammel and disgrace the children of men when they get together ....

I think I would venture in this direction - that just as in IHS human nature is transformed, so in Him and in His Spirit the almost (if not entirely) inevitable structures of religion will appear ( but in a transformed way -- guided by the promised Spirit) in His Church.

And, I don't see a contradiction between Paul rebuking Peter to his face and still acknowledging his (alleged by my side) unique place in the ek-klesia.

Gotta go commit idolatry and abase myself before someone who preposterously claims to have been ordained by a successor to the apostles, right after I get finished worshipping Mary by means of vain repetitions.

Thanks for the conversation. YOU GOTTA read the Kittle article, you just gotta!