Reddit mentions of On the Apostolic Preaching

This isn't an answer to your question, but I wanted to offer my experience since I'm right where you are, or maybe a year or two past you.

You really do learn how to read this stuff in the process of going through seminary. I've been in since 2017 and am about to graduate in December, and I've seen my reading ability skyrocket. For example, I've gone from 1.5 hours for a journal article to 20/30 minutes, depending on how comfortable I am with the topic, and my comprehension has gone up. I can actually track authors' arguments now.

It's also a muscle. I worked through W. Norris Clarke's The One and the Many, and the result of struggling my way through it is both my baseline reading ability and my understanding of metaphysics has grown quite a bit. Likewise, after reading On the Apostolic Preaching, I'm legitimately more comfortable reading early church fathers, but also better at reading in general.

Sure, I still have a long way to go, but my point is as you work the muscle and force yourself to read hard stuff, your baseline really will improve. So be encouraged in that. Your struggling through the hard stuff is legitimately making you a better reader and thinker.

> 1. Metaquestion: What is the point of the crucifixion? The stock answer is "vicarious redemption for the sins of man" but if Jesus is God, then this doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. Why not just send Jesus to Earth to spread his message that God forgives sinners provided they accept him? The miracles would prove the point well enough. Why was the crucifixion necessary?

> 2. (related to 1) I have difficulty with the concept of vicarious redemption more generally (and similarly to original sin). If you did something wrong, does a judge sentence someone to jail in your place? Even if he volunteers? That seems unjust to me.

Jesus' incarnation and suffering was necessary given that God willed that full satisfaction should be made for the sins of the world. The significance of the crucifixion is not so much that Jesus did it in our place—equal satisfaction would not have been made if each of us suffered on a cross for a few hours. The suffering was of infinite worth because it was the suffering of a divine person, and it was offered to God by mankind, for he was a human being.

The Bible says we were redeemed "not with perishable things like silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ." So don't think of it as someone going to prison in your place; if anything, think of it more like the judge giving you a $200 million fine (maybe you caused an oil spill), and the judge's son paying out of his own account. The atonement consisted in the Son doing something the Father loved more than He hated the sins of the world, not in the Father pouring out His wrath on the Son. God's wrath is not concentrated by the redemption, it is turned away from man entirely.

Strictly speaking, God did not need full atonement from us for our sins. He could have accepted some atonement that did not quite measure up. But it was very fitting that full atonement be made, and He has chosen a plan of salvation that very distinctly shows His love for us.

> 3. When asked about which laws of the Old Testament are binding and which are not, most Christians I've spoken to/read will say that the moral laws are binding and the ceremonial laws are not. But if you hold to this view, how can you distinguish between a moral law and a ceremonial law? (e.g. the primary theological justification I've heard for either condoning and condemning homosexual behavior is based on whether or not Leviticus 20:13 qualifies as a moral law). And if you don't hold to this view, what is the status of Old Testament law?

Some laws are explicitly abrogated in the New Testament, such as the dietary restrictions. Others are explicitly reaffirmed; for example, Paul condemns homosexuality in his letters, and tells the Corinthians to excommunicate a man who is living with his own stepmother. In cases of doubt, the best guide to interpretation is a text's historical reception by the Church.

> 4. (related to 3) As I understand mainstream Christian theology, in the First and Second Temple period, God demanded (mostly animal but some non-animal) sacrifices (korbanot), but discontinued the practice after Jesus came to redeem mankind. Why on Earth would he ask for such a thing? And if he did ask for such a thing, why would the practice be discontinued? After all, the First Temple was destroyed, and replaced by a second. Why would the Second be destroyed to be replaced by a third?

The sacrifices of the old covenant foreshadowed the sacrifice of the new and eternal covenant. "In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe.... Those priests were many because they were prevented by death from remaining in office, but he, because he remains forever, has a priesthood that does not pass away. ... For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer’s ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God." (Hebrews 1:1-2, 7:23-24, 9:13-14) Jesus spoke in parables of what had been given to the Aaronic priesthood being taken away and given to others. Jesus said that the Temple would be destroyed, and a new one would be raised up; the new one is his own body. (John 2:19-21) We, the Church, "are Christ's body" (1 Corinthians 12:27).

> 5. (related to 4) I am not now, nor have I ever been a Jew [personally, I think their eschatology in particular is nutty]. But the history of Christian antisemitism really, really bothers me. With most kinds of bigotry, people use scripture as a way to justify their beliefs (e.g. "Slavery is in the Bible, so it's okay"), but antisemitism is the only kind of bigotry I know of that for many years was not just justified with scripture, but which Christian leaders [in the West] for centuries used scripture to explicitly advocate for. (e.g. Cum nimis absurdum). I'm originally from the U.S., where this stuff seemed like ancient historiy, but I've been living in various places in Europe for the past few years, and I've been shocked at the kind of things I've heard religious Christians say about Jews.

> This isn't really a theological question, it's just something that would make me deeply uncomfortable about becoming a Christian.

Very true, there's some bad history there. It's only one side of the story, though. There was already a well-developed theology in Pius IV's time of coexistence with Jews. Look at St Thomas Aquinas' article on religious toleration in the Summa Theologiae: citing the authority of Pope Gregory the Great, he says the worship of Jews should be tolerated, full stop, and the rites of heretics and pagans can be tolerated for a good reason.

Through much of the history of Christian Europe, Jews were accepted as a distinct community and had the right to live according to their own laws. There was anti-Jewish prejudice, but not until the modern period did this become associated with a "Semitic race." Jews who chose to convert to Christianity were fully accepted as part of the Christian community until the time of the Spanish Inquisition, when we start to see the first suspicions associated with "Jewish blood."

> 6. Any pitch for a specific denomination? I should warn you that I'm a bit turned off by "charismatic" movements. I tend to like traditional services with a defined liturgy, and at the same time I prefer some kind of congregational participation. I've been leaning towards Anglicanism, but any other suggestions wouldn't be welcome.

As a Catholic, I have the following to say. Christ wanted his Church to be one for all time, and he wanted the whole world to be able to see that it is one, a witness for all time that he is the Messiah: "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (John 17:20-21)

The more you read the earliest Christian writings that have come down to us outside the New Testament itself—from 1st Century writers like Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, to Irenaeus of Lyons and Justin Martyr in the 2nd Century, down to the great 4th Century Fathers like John Chrysostom and Augustine of Hippo, the clearer it becomes that all Protestants have departed from the faith of the ancient Christians. Only the Catholics and Orthodox have a remotely plausible claim to identity with the early Church, the Church founded by Christ.

Jesus also wished the Church to be an authority that must be listened to: "if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." (Matthew 18:17) Even without arguments from the Bible, to have a living voice of authority to settle disputes, to resolve questions about how the gospel applies to new situations, is what we would expect the Church to be like. Someone must have the final say if we are all to remain one. To actually give us assurance, it must be an infallible authority.

The Catholic Church—even if you haven't already counted out the Protestants on the basis of the Fathers—is the only body in the world that claims to be such an authority, attributing infallibility to the ex cathedra teaching of the Bishop of Rome, and to the whole body of bishops acting with him as its head. It might seem like the Eastern Orthodox have a competing claim, with the infallibility just being decentralised to ecumenical councils, but when you get deeper you figure out they really have no magisterium as the West conceives of it. Ecumenical status can be attributed to a council only in retrospect based on how it ultimately contributed to the life of the Church. Sometimes, they'll even explain the authority of councils to you in this circular way: "a council is ecumenical when it is accepted by all orthodox Christians." So the Council of Chalcedon was ecumenical despite being rejected by millions of Christians, because they were heretics. But how are the heretics supposed to know that?