Generous Dave

Before we continue in this Do NOT Pray series:


We will pause to consider Dave's latest rebuff of my argument.  Of Dave's eventual revealing of the actual context of his own "generous" argument.  And his being less generous by refusing to interact with me on the more obvious context of his post.  On whether "St. Paul is the model of behavior for Rome".


Now, I would offer a response at the posts that Dave linked me to... but then I would be out of context.  I would be "off topic".  Because my argument was not about whether "St. Paul was superior to St. Peter" or what "St. Paul's rebuke of St. Peter proved".  But my argument was that Rome 'more closely' identifies with St. Peter as their "model of behavior" in Paul's letter to the Galatians.  Unlike Dave's claim to the contrary.
An inference that we shall examine.


We will also examine Dave's inference of whether Paul considered all the "Galatians as Fellow Christians".  And examine Dave's reply that "Paul was guilty of hypocrisy as well".


And for the sake of argument, let's just use arguments from Calvin.  Since Dave is so fond of trying to use Calvin against me. 


And thanks to CCEL, we will use arguments from Calvin's Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians.
Commentary from Calvin that seems far more generous to Rome on this topic- than commentary from Matthew Henry, Erasmus, Chrysostom, Jerome, Ambrose or Augustine.


And let's work our way backwards... starting with Paul's "hypocrisy":


Here Calvin claims that Paul was NOT being guilty of hypocrisy.  That Paul was merely being utilitarian.  That Paul was not in fact presenting a different Gospel... but was trying to be 'all things to all men'.  All things... in order to receive the opportunity to proclaim the true Gospel.  Paul was being opportunistic, so-to-speak.  Which is not all bad.

     He circumcises Timothy, (Acts 16:3,) in order to take away a ground of offense from weak minds; for he was at that time dealing with weak minds, which it was his duty to treat with tenderness. And he would gladly have done the same thing with Titus, for he was unwearied in his endeavors to “support (Acts 20:35) the weak;” but the case was different.

Yet, I'm willing to concede to Dave on the hypocrisy charge, anyway.  That the case wasn't terribly different.  That Paul was in fact quite fallible here.  But that still doesn't acquit Peter of the charges.


Now, let's work on Dave's inference that all the Galatians addressed by Paul were "Fellow Christians"
The inference in Dave's post that Paul actually knew all their hearts.  That Paul was a profound prophet.  And that as a prophet, Paul's omniscience extended to the existing faith of all Galatian churches.  An enormous claim for an enormous province.

     To the churches of Galatia. It was an extensive country, and therefore contained many

churches scattered through it. But is it not wonderful that the term “Church”, which always

implies unity of faith, should have been applied to the Galatians, who had almost entirely

revolted from Christ?

I make this observation, because the Papists, seizing on the single word Church, think

that whatever they choose to force upon us is sanctioned; though the condition and aspect

of the Church of Rome are widely different from what existed in Galatia.

Yet, I'm willing to concede that Paul may have been given some divine omniscience in this matter.  That the Holy Spirit was actually giving eternal assurance to all Galatians by including them in the "Church".  As apostate as they were.  But that's hardly likely, is it?


But let's look at my actual issue of contention- that contrary to Dave,  Peter is in fact a far closer model of Rome's behavior than Paul is in Galatians.  An issue that is very hard to concede:

     Between those men [the apostate Galatians] and the Papists there is no difference; and therefore, in refuting them, we are at liberty to employ Paul’s argument.

And why is Peter a closer model?

     With what effrontery then will the Papists boast that they possess the gospel, which is not only corrupted by many inventions, but more than adulterated by many wicked doctrines?

And why does it matter?

     Augustine is therefore right in asserting, that this was no previously arranged plan, but that Paul, out of Christian zeal, opposed the sinful and unseasonable dissimulation of Peter, because he saw that it would be injurious to the Church.

And was Calvin talking about the Universal Church?  The Catholic Church?

     In short, the word Church is often applied by a

figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole, to any portion of the church, even

though it may not fully answer to the name.

And not so strangely, what else do we find in Calvin's Commentary on Galatians 2?

We find yet another refutation of the universalism that Calvin is alleged to hold by Dave et al.  Yet another indication of Calvin actually holding to the Reformed tenant of Limited Atonement.  Who knew?

     It will not be enough for any man to contemplate Christ as having died for the salvation of the world, unless he has experienced the consequences of this death, and is enabled to claim it as his own.

In closing, we find Calvin making another all too generous claim:

     If they [Catholics] wish to have God appearing on their side, a new Bible must be manufactured; if they do not wish to have him for an open enemy, those two chapters [Galatians 1 and 2] of the Holy Scriptures must be expunged.

Now, I'm sure Calvin knew of many more chapters that must be expunged.  But he was generously- just referring to Paul's letter to the Galatians.  Far too generous perhaps.

But then we must also find Dave guilty- of being far too generous.

Far too generous to "Anti-Catholics".

Far too generous in claiming Anti-Catholics as his "brothers". 
Far more generous than numerous popes and councils were to Anti-Catholics.
And far more generous than his beloved Calvin.