Acts Is Just So Darn Catholic!

[Jake Huether]

I'm reading it for the second time through, and more and more these things just pop up at me. It's so CATHOLIC!

People wanting Peters shadow to fall on them! Using the Apostles face clothes as "relics" for healing! The laying on of hands! Oooooo! man, it's a goldmine.

Anyway... So I come to the "Ethiopian" part, and in context to what had happened right before, it struck me...

If protestants dismiss this passage as "well he hadn't been saved yet", then how do the explain all the Jewish Priest's teaching Scripture BEFORE Christ. I mean, the eunuch was reading the OT - and if it takes "being saved" to be able to understand, then that would mean that NO ONE understood before Christ came. But that's just silly because the entire OT was written by "unsaved" people! So, in reality, it wasn't that the eunuc was "unsaved", it was simply that he didn't know unless he was taught by someone - and in his ignorance of Christ, he would have expected the teaching to come from a rabbi. Not necessarily someone who was "saved" - because The Ethiopian didn't even know that Philip was "saved".

So - in sum, that passage says what it intends to say, Scripture must be taught to us by people commisioned by God, not simply by picking up Scripture and reading it for ourselves. It counters private interpritation - whether by "saved" or "unsaved" people!

What's more...

Later on we read that some of the Gentiles that Peter converted (remember the dream about unclean things, etc.) received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were Baptised.

And in the passage right before we read:

Acts: 8 

15 When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus.

17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

So we see that baptism doesn't necessarily mean that you've recieved the Holy Spirit. And recieving the Holy Spirit doesnt' necessitate your salvation, which comes only if you've been baptised.

So saying that the Eunuch didn't understand because he hadn't yet been baptised is kinda wacky. Because even if he was baptised (and therefore "saved" - in the protestant sense of the word) he might not have had the Spirit to understand - and needed therefore to be taught. And conversly, even if he was NOT baptised, he might have had the Holy Spirit, like the Gentiles, and been able to understand it! But he didn't (or at least he didn't trust himself that much). He asked regardless to be helped! Remember too that the Eunuch was not only an important official of the queen, but he was also devoted to God - he was on his way back for worshiping. A man of his status presumably would know Scripture quite well. Yet he still asked for TEACHING.

We cannot trust ourselves, and be so bold as to believe that we are guided by the Spirit. The Eunuch knew that (and he was in a possition where he might even be looked UP to by others to understand Scripture). This has been proven! How would Luther know if Jack Chick was being lead by the Spirit. Or maybe Calvin was. Or John Smyth, or Jake Huether and his private interpritation. Or is the Pope right. Who is really being lead by the Spirit. Is it me, or is it you? We must be taught by those who were promised to understand! And those that were promised to understand were 1) in the OT, God's priests, 2) in the NT, God's Apostles and their successors, held tight inside the Church that Christ established for this purpose!

[Qamidalash]

That's amesome! I really believe the part about not knowing, too. You could even argue that Jesus wasn't Christian...well, I wouldn't want to, but...never mind.

On a side note...you mentioned the Ethiopian...if you never had the chance to find out what Jesus, or even God, is all about, wouldn't he be merciful in judgement? Just a thought...

Sarah

[yiannii]

The first general council of the Church, the Council of Jerusalem, sorted out such matters as whether a man must embrace Judaism and be circumcised in order to embrace Christianity. Details of the Council are found in chapter 15 of the Acts.

Careful reading if this chapter is recommended as we often hear objections to St Peter's primacy based on it.

Note that Peter and Paul did not have a disagreement over circumcision and Paul's trip to Jerusalem was not to "put Peter in his place" over the issue.

Simply, hearing and debating some Jewish Christians who preached the need for Jewish ways, Paul and Barnabus went "up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question" (15:2)

The primacy of Peter is seen in verse 7 onwards: "And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: 'Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.'" He then spoke in favor of Paul's position...."And the multitude held their peace; and heard Barnabus and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them."

In conclusion, a letter was written to the Gentiles at Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, that "some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment: it hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men, and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabus and Paul" (15:24-25). The letter continues: "For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no more further burden upon you than these necessary things" (15:28). A number of practices to avoid are then listed.

Four more observations are worth noting here:

Firstly, Paul acknowledged the Church's organised structure and authority, knowing exactly where to go to get the definitive answer to this question of faith and morals.

Secondly, the way in which the decision was made is the Extraordinary Magisterium in action: St Peter and the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit from teaching error.

Thirdly, the council, sending out men with Paul and Barnabus in order to teach the truth is a display of the apostolic succession. They were given orders to teach the truths of the Church. Their authority and duty is traceable back to the apostles and they core a great responsibility to be faithful in their preaching. Every priest, deacon or bishop can trace his orders back to the apostles and bare the same responsibility to preach faithfully. Their orders are legitimate because they come from Christ, through the apostles and their successors.

We recall John 20:21, where Jesus said, "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you."

The duty and authority Christ gave the apostles is the same as that passed onto their successors. In the Acts we see how this occurred in the early Church, when Peter iniated a vote to replace Judas with another (1:15-20). In verse 20, Peter quotes Psalms: "and his bishopric let another take."

Finally, that some who were spreading the gospel ended up "subverting your souls" is a reflection on those individuals only, not the Church as a whole. We cannot assume that those who receive these orders will always be faithful.

[God Conquers]

Jake, you done good brother. Excellent insight man. I'm going to remember that one.

[Norseman82]

yianii, you beat me to it!!!

[God Conquers]

mwaahhaha