|
Author
|
Topic: Pauls confrontation with Peter
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
ONEINCHRIST...Well, I recon I give up. I have explained the Peter/Paul thing best I knew how. Actually, I thought the "skit" I put on for you was the best effort. Did you read it?
As far as Sanctification goes, I give up on that too. I don't know where you guys are getting your meanings for the word.
On both of these subjects I spent a good deal of time checkin them out. Guess I will go back to my feeling dumb as a rock. Maybe a redish rock this time.
IP: Logged | 
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Michael,
You stated in your post that the "growing process" of sanctification is a lie of the devil. I do not believe that I can agree with that..........on the grounds that......no man learns humility in one moment in time.......and "learning humility" is very much of what sanctification is about.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi Bluefrog,
Peter was not being accused of preaching (out of his mouth) that circumcision was necessary (especially after receiving the vision and witnessing the pouring out of the Holy Ghost on uncircumcised Gentiles).....but, he was being accused of behaving in such a fashion(which we know was out of fear/possible threats?) that others might draw the conclusion that circumcision mattered. Once again, I do agree that correction was needed, but I still question the need for public embarassment as a means to that end. By the way, this is not the first time I questioned something about Paul. In Acts 9:7 it states that the men who journeyed with him on the road to Damascus HEARD a voice, but saw noone, but in Acts 22:9 Paul states that the men who journeyed with him were afraid, but DID NOT hear the voice of Him who spoke to him. This only proves to me that men(yes, even men of God) can think one thing, while the Holy Ghost knows something else.
Bluefrog, I do admit that there is something that I am having difficulty with concerning this issue. I am not sure at what point in time Peter and Paul had their confrontation........it does appear, in Acts, that Paul was converted and did join the apostles in Jerusalem before Peter had the vision. Personally, I find it unlikely that Paul gave Peter the warning right after his conversion and before the Holy Ghost gave the warning to Peter in the vision. If Peter would have been corrected by Paul before the vision, then what need would there have been to have the vision. I believe that Pauls rebuke provided as positive reinforcement to Peters vision.
Acts Chapter 11 would seem to be support for what I am saying........When Peter was asked by the Jews why he ate with the uncircumcised(Gentiles) Peter answered......."I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, and object descending.....
All in all, I do not believe that Paul was exposing doctrinal error, but what I do believe was that Paul was trying to prevent the chance of wrong beliefs about the doctrine of grace. Basically Paul was telling Peter and those with him(not in so many words)..........your cowardice/fear/display of partiality is giving too many people the wrong impression of Gods grace and that should not be so.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
bluefrog wrote to Michael Harrison, et al., quote:
However, in the NT it's meaning is distinctly different. Instead of seperating the secular from the sacred, Sanctify means that through Jesus, ordinary human beings are SET APART to serve God in their daily lives. We are to glorify God in our every day lives living Christ like.
Michael Harrison pointed out, I think validly, that in that experience with God that he wrote about in another thread, that sancfication is NOT trying to "live Christlike", but is instead "letting Christ Himself live in me", and I think there is a HUGE difference.
I don't think that even we bornagain Christians are ABLE to "live Christlike". Instead I agree with Michael Harrison that to be "sanctified" means to "get out of the way" and "let Christ Himself be Christlike in me".
To try to live Christlike is self-effort, while "letting Christ Himself live in me" is "finding rest by ceasing from my own works and letting God, well... be God".
As the ad says, "don't try this at home" ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
Sanctification is a word that means to make holy and to set apart. Let's not start giving it other meanings.
In the OT people sanctified themselves before participating in worship or before special encounters with God.
Lev 11:44 For I am the Lord your God; ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy; neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
v 47 To make a difference between the unclean and the clean, and between the beast that may be eaten and the beast that may not be eaten.
Exodus 19:22 And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them.
Josh 3:5, Lev 22:31,32, Ex 13:2,2 Chr 29:5, Gen 2:3, Deut 5:12
However, in the NT it's meaning is distinctly different. Instead of seperating the secular from the sacred, Sanctify means that through Jesus, ordinary human beings are SET APART to serve God in their daily lives. We are to glorify God in our every day lives living Christ like.
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer (worse) 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 sanactified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Acts 20:32 And now, brethern, I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
Acts 26:18, Rom 15:15, 1 Cor 6:11, Jn 17:17 2 Cor 3"18
IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
quote:
......"Oh, ye of little faith" or Peter saying to Paul in front of everyone......get behind me, Satan! There is no person on this earth that can operate 100%(like Eden says) consistently like Jesus in their character.........the growing process of discipleship/sanctification is on the premise of becoming MORE LIKE Jesus. To be more specific on my opinion as it relates to your response........I have no doubt that the conviction of Paul was by the Holy Ghost.....I just have doubts about the manner in which the rebuke was carried out.
quote:
oneinchrist
Oneinchrist, that just is not true. Jesus has made it possible by bridging the gap. So let any man who takes that position dare to say to the Lord he cannot. For it will be a refusal, which as I said, Jesus made it possible. Will it happen? It is not because it cannot.
Concerning "Oh ye of little faith," typically we see Jesus looking down upon them in this expression whenever we read it, for we hear Him as being stern and critical. However, Jesus spoke the truth in love, always. His eyes were full of love. His voice resounded in love. There was a glimmer in HIS eye when HE turned and saw a person in need, and responed. Satan makes it appear HE was stern and critical.
Now, it could be interpreted as though HE was pleading with them to believe, more correctly I would say, than to think HE was pontificating over them. Jesus is sweet and gentle, precious and kind. He did not pontificate. Remember that this is HE who washed the feet of the desciples.
When Jesus spoke to satan, he was direct, and curt. But Jesus was speaking to satan. Peter just happened to be inbetween.
The 'growing process' of sanctification is a lie of the devil to keep the child of God from coming into the inheritance that Jesus gave him. It 'accomodates' the lower nature, giving one an 'excuse' to continue to wallow in the dirt. It is not the provision of Christ. Here again it is a case that the person sees what he wants to see, and that is the way scriptures are read. To be read this way, one has to ignore, or go around some tough passages that, since one doesn't understand, it seems easier to do. But if one does, he comes up short.
As far as the way it was carried out, was Paul right in context, but wrong in behavior? Peter needed to be rebuked. He got it. He was messing with the Kingdom of God, and misrepresenting it.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
ONE IN CHRIST...Subj: Pauls confrontation with Peter.
You said to me that you do not agree that they needed to hear the gospel correctly, because they already were, but they needed to see it PRACTICED CORRECTLY.
But in the following paragraph you told Michael that circumcision was not salvation. You said it was important that Peter did not give mixed messages. Sooo, which is it ?
It sounds to me that you sorta get what was goin on but a little scrambled. So, let me tell ya how all this came down again, in modern terms.
Paul walked into the meeting place all geared up to do his thang. Right off he noticed that all the old boys who were once Gentiles had clubs and a nasty look on their faces. Paul says What's up brothers ? A loud grumbling and rustlin of feet was heard. Their spokesman stepped up and said: Lookie here Paul, Peter came here to eat with us because he likes Pork rib BBQ that Jews don't eat. He gets to talkin to us about this and that and then he gets to talkin about circumcision. Peter says that we would make gooder Christians if'n we got circumcised. A lot of rumbling and rebelious yelling and noise making started from the Gentiles. Paul spots Peter hidin out in the back of the crowd...PETER !! Yes sir.. Comomucho! Like a dog with his tail between his legs Peter walks wayyy around the Gentiles but goes up front. Paul says is that true ? About the BBQ ? It sure is good. PETER ! And the rest of the story you know. The clubs were stacked in the corner and the Gentiles lived happily ever after.
So, ya see, Peter was sorta overstating the way to salvation (the gospel) and he certainly didn't suggest that when they were circumcised that it be PRACTICED CORRECTLY.
IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hello to my friends in the Lord,
Found in Him, I am in much agreement with you as to the general overall personal applying of scripture when it comes to rebuke/correction. Thank you for the break-down and the scripture support that you included.
Michael, you say that it was Jesus who rebuked Peter. Interesting argument, but my thoughts on that are..............though it was true that Jesus did openly rebuke, I find it far less common throughout scripture where you find two appointed leaders of God rebuking each other in the open. I mean, could you see John saying to James in front of everyone......"Oh, ye of little faith" or Peter saying to Paul in front of everyone......get behind me, Satan! There is no person on this earth that can operate 100%(like Eden says) consistently like Jesus in their character.........the growing process of discipleship/sanctification is on the premise of becoming MORE LIKE Jesus. To be more specific on my opinion as it relates to your response........I have no doubt that the conviction of Paul was by the Holy Ghost.....I just have doubts about the manner in which the rebuke was carried out.
Bluefrog, you stated that they needed to hear the gospel correctly. I disagree with that. They were hearing it correctly. I agree with Eden that they needed to see it PRACTICED CORRECTLY.
Eden, I agree with you that there was confusion going on in the church that needed to be worked through. Circumcision was a bone of contention.......and I believe that Paul, by the Holy Ghost, gave us Godly perspective on it. Noone should believe that circumcision merits salvation, and noone should believe that uncircumcision disqualifies one from salvation. Therefore, there can be a circumcised and uncircumcised Jews that are converted as well as there can be circumcised and uncircumcised Gentiles that are converted. It was important that Peter did not give mixed messages regarding this truth. Personally, I am convinced that Peter would also have responded positively with private rebuke. I believe that all things could have been put in proper order and perspective without the public embarassment. But I guess thats just me.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Galatians 2
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?
15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Galatians 2:13
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Strong's Concordance
Galatians 2:13 And 2532 the other 3062 Jews 2453 dissembled 4942 likewise 2532 with him 846; insomuch 5620 that Barnabas 921 also 2532 was carried away 4879 with their 846 dissimulation 5272.
dissimulation 5272
5272, hupokrisis; acting under a feigned part, i.e. (figuratively) deceit ("hypocrisy"):--condemnation, dissimulation, hypocrisy.
This word 5272, hupokrisis occurs 7 times in the New Testament and 5 times is translated "hypocrisy" and once "dissimulation" and once "condemnation". But clearly hupokrisis is where English gets hypocrisy from, so it was considered "hypocrisy", but no harm no foul, it was quickly corrected, thanks to the foresight of God to send Paul to Antioch ahead of the Jews from James. God's a Smart Cookie.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
oneinchrist also wrote to Eden quote:
So when Paul said "But when I saw that they were not straightfoward about the truth of the gospel"..........he did not mean that Peter and the rest of the Jews erred in word, but in deed (action). Yes, this incident was important in laying out and hammering down important doctrinal truth about the New Covenant of grace.........but it still was not a new revelation to Peter(Peter, I am sure, understood grace), rather it was a wake up call to him that he should not allow fear of others opinions to override the necessity of showing impartiality.
You make a good point that Peter did not err in his knowledge of the Word but that Peter erred in deed inspite of him having knowledge of the grace of the gospel.
On the other hand it is one thing to KNOW what the Word says, but it is another thing then to PRACTISE that Word in real life ... and there may be some initial failures there because cultural pressures can be enormous.
We must not forget that Christianity was "spinning out of Judaism" as a "new thing" and so in those early days there was probably still some confusion on "how exactly those Words played out in real life vis-a-vis Judaism that they had "come out of only yesterday", so to speak, and you might say they were "still warm Jews" trying to figure out "how to live this life of grace in light of the gospel" that now had appeared.
And as such, Peter AND Barnabas's "dissimulation" are pretty understandable as they had to overcome their "Mosaic Old Testament figures and traditions", and had to quickly figure "how to live in light of this new knowledge of the gospel". They probably all laughed when it was understood how silly they had been in "dissimulating".
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Hi, oneinchrist, thanks for your Topic. You wrote quote:
I guess my thought concerning the words "before them all" was that Paul raised his voice loud enough for all the Jews AND GENTILES to hear.............so that in the end Gentiles could have been like......."so Peter, are you guys going to move back over and sit by us now". In a sense, it would seem like the Gentiles could think Peter would come and sit with them just cause he was scolded. Kind of ackward????
Well, I don't doubt that the Gentile CHRISTIANS also heard everything, no doubt EVERYBODY in the house heard it.
And would it have been kind of awkward for everyone involved? I'm sure it was, just as it must have been "awkward" for Peter when the Lord rebuked Peter by telling him "Satan, get behind me". There must have been lots of other people around when that happened to Peter:
Mark 8:33
But when He had turned about and looked on His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, Get behind me, Satan: for you do not savor the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.
There were probably even some disciples who privately were jealous of Peter's status with Jesus along with James and John, the "triumvirate" they probably called them behind their back, so that must have been very "awkward" for Peter. And no doubt it was very awkward" for everybody, including for Paul, during this incident at Antioch.
The fact is that everybody there except Paul was "doctrinally confused regarding this aspect of Christianity" and the church can "thank God" that God had sent Paul to Antioch to solve this issue immediately, lest it go any further, and especially before all those gathered at Antioch might return "to their own country" and end up teaching a wrong precept about Christianity, as would have been the case if God had not sent Paul to Antioch, no doubt in anticipation of these "Jews coming from James".
And if God Jesus shamed Peter, if need be, in front of the disciples, God would do it again if He had to thru Paul. That did not make Peter "a bad fellow", because Peter was used mightily of God and Peter WAS "one of the triumvirate". Jesus really liked this Peter guy.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
Paul wasn't trying to show off and he didn't like displaying someones errors. He didn't like an argument. His concern was the truth of the gospel. No personality hang ups here. It was thought to have something to do with trivial ceremonies and who you eat with. You had a group of people made up of Jews and Gentiles. It was a new group and they met where they could. They were trying to get their heads on straight. The Jews and Gentiles were new Christians (thought of as the public). The gospel said one thing and Peter was leading them to believe that some were superior to others because of race or traditions. Everyone in the church had to hear the gospel correctly. Being saved was not based on race or traditions but on the grace of God. Normally, if someone was doing something wrong you go by the instructions set up in Matthew 18 but not when it involves all members, which in this case it did.
Does anyone here think we will ever come to an agreement on this issue ? hehe
IP: Logged |
|
|
Found in Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7596
|
posted
Daniel,
This is just my opinion personally.
For Leaders:
Sin in the church that involves leaders who are teaching wrongly or leading people to go astray need rebuke & correction. Their responsibility is greater because they are called to bring God's message to His people. I --like you believe that they need to be corrected in private FIRST. If they do not heed rebuke, I do believe that they need to be made a public spectacle in order for others (the congregation) to see that they have been led astray or taught wrongly.
David in the OT was sent a prophet to speak to him alone when he was caught in sin, same for Saul, Solomon and so on. God did not confront them in front of the kingdom-- He sent a voice to speak to them alone in private.
Galatians 6
1Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him GENTLY. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.
For normal everyday people like me:
Matthew 18
15"If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, JUST BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Sorry again bout last night.
--------------------
~To Him That is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.~ Jude 24
Posts: 1503 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
I say that Paul was in the Spirit. Jesus withstood Peter:
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
There is no apology here.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi Bluefrog,
I do not believe that it was Peters intent to imply that the Gentiles needed to be like the Jews. Once again, it was the BEHAVIOR of Peter and the Jews(out of fear of mans opinion) that could have easily lended credence to that false belief about the gospel.........and that is what Paul wanted to prevent. Peter and Paul fed off the same doctrine(the doctrine/teachings of Jesus)--so it was not an issue of false doctrine that needed to be adressed.
As far as Peter deserving the embarassment. Im not so sure I can agree with that. Peter made the error out of human fear. Now if Peter had done what he did with a heart of contempt for the Lord, I would say that would be alltogether different.
I would like to clarify that I have been making the assumption that "before them all" is in front of a room full of Gentiles and Jews. I could be wrong about that assumption, and Paul could just have been adressing Peter and those close in proximity to him. It does appear though that Paul is directing his speech at Peter, so there would still be the element of embarassment in front of the rest of the Jews with him.
I just think, in my noggin, that if Paul would have taken Peter off the the side, that Peter would still have responded positively. If I was going to be told that I am shaming the Name of Jesus by my actions, I can guarantee you that I would respect more the man who comes to me in private, than the man who raises his voice in front of everyone to my embarassment. I think that there are people that do not realize that Paul was a man who stuggled with the same temptations that we all do. He was not perfect, but he was certainly dedicated to the cause of Jesus. Though I do agree with you all that Paul "needed" to adress the hypocrisy, there still has not been anyone that has convinced me that it "needed" to be done in front of everyone.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
BETTY LOUISE...I wish it had, but was close.
Peter was there and no other apostles. He was eating with Gentiles. That was the problem.
He was trying to make them Christians through himself and their relationship. He was doing what the Gentiles were doing and he wanted them to do what he was doing.
Paul had a pick-up load of problems trying to put these churches together. Ol' Peter wasn't a bunch of help.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Betty Louise
Advanced Member
Member # 7175
|
posted
I think my post actually agreed with you bluefrog. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Posts: 5051 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
Apparently no one was interested in my last script on this subject. I will try another approach:
Peters hypocritical example implied that Gentiles had to behave like Jews in order to receive God's grace. So Peter was not being straight about the gospel.
Gal 1:1 Paul an apostle, NOT OF MEN, NEITHER BY MAN, BUT BY JESUS CHRIST, AND GOD THE FATHER, who raised Him from the dead.
Paul was saying to Peter: Your a Jew living like a Gentile, so why do ya compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
Peter had no position of authority over any of the churches. Apostles had various positions. Some could write inspired works and some could display acts not inspired.
Church leaders who sin publicly should be disciplined publicly.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
Are ya 'tempted' to anger? Didn't mean ta, you know. Remember, it is a work of the flesh. It also robs one of the peace of God, for if Jesus didn't behave that way, then you transgressed him if you 'obeyed' the lust to anger. The point is that no matter what is within us, we do not have to transgress Him, when we find brokenness.
It is the alibaster box thing. The alibaster box contained precious ointment that was very aromatic. Jesus is the alibaster box, who is within us. But we are the 'box', the hard, rugged, shell which contains the ointment without letting it go. The 'box' has to be broken in order for the precious ointment to fill the air. Consider: "Breaking of the Outward Man." Watchman Nee!
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
quote:
Yeah...and when they were too lazy to check my profile to see if I was a male or female, they did not know whether I was taking estrogen or testosterone, have Michael Harrison tell itmwhen all that happened, at that time. I was practically convicted of being "gay" before I could even say, "hey!!!!"
quote:
ed cornfed wrote
More than just Michael thought that we were talking to a woman. After all, eden is not a man's name. And who expects someone to use a woman's name on a 'Christian' BBS? You brought it up. I didn't! ![[happyhappy]](graemlins/happyhappy.gif)
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Michael Harrison
Advanced Member
Member # 6801
|
posted
quote:
I can only go by my version of respectful. I try not to be angry and I don't call anyone, except perhaps myself, any names, and I'm just calling as "I" see them, whether YOU would do it that way, or not. quote:
said ed
If you were 'dead,' and yours "was a life hid with Christ in God," you would not become 'angry' unless Jesus was angry. Your admission indicates that you believe 'victory' is in 'self-control'. It is however in being dead.
Jamie Buckingham, who penned the biography about Kathryn Kuhlman, related how that he wanted, if he were cut, to bleed Jesus. That is the provision we have by being baptized into His death. Scripture points directly to it.
Posts: 3273 | From: Charlotte N.C. | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi again Eden,
I still do not agree that it was doctrinal correction that was needed. I believe that Peter and Paul both were one in accord on the belief that everything they preached was based on the doctrine of Jesus.
I believe that Pauls aim was to be sure that there was no "favoritism" showed when it came to his relationships with others, otherwise, that could give others a false impression of the nature of the grace of God revealed by the gospel. So when Paul said "But when I saw that they were not straightfoward about the truth of the gospel"..........he did not mean that Peter and the rest of the Jews erred in word, but in deed (action). Yes, this incident was important in laying out and hammering down important doctrinal truth about the New Covenant of grace.........but it still was not a new revelation to Peter(Peter, I am sure, understood grace), rather it was a wake up call to him that he should not allow fear of others opinions to override the necessity of showing impartiality. That certainly can be a challenge for all of us even today.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
I guess my thought concerning the words "before them all" was that Paul raised his voice loud enough for all the Jews AND GENTILES to hear.............so that in the end Gentiles could have been like......."so Peter, are you guys going to move back over and sit by us now". In a sense, it would seem like the Gentiles could think Peter would come and sit with them just cause he was scolded. Kind of ackward????
To me it would seem like a pastor saying out loud........."alright now, that whole section over there didnt put money in the offering plate, would you all please stand up and put your money in so that all the rest of us can see to it you do".
Then again, maybe Paul could have yelled at the top of his lungs and the Gentiles wouldnt have understood because they didnt know the language??? I didnt think of that possibility before, LOL
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
oneinchrist wrote to Eden quote:
I still believe that, for example, if a pastor is to travel to another church, by an unction of the Holy Ghost to give correction to another pastor, that the correction/rebuke ought to be done in private.
Wouldnt you agree?
I think that nowadays pastors WOULD provide the correction in private. But one reason for that nowadays would be that almost all Christians already HAVE cannonized Bibles so that the basics of our Christian faith are now "firmly set down" and the Christians nowadays can "read for themselves what Christianity now is", so the pastor can be corrected in private more nowadays than in the infrancy of the church when there still was a LOT of controversy about "what exactly consituted Christianity compared to Judaism", and in those days all that was still developing and in flux, to the point that this kind of thing needed to be dealt with "immediately lest this thing go any further".
But nowadays we all have the same information available to us, so a pastor could now be corrected in private, if need be, and it would not have any momentous repercussions. Unless they accidentally "left the mike open".
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi Eden,
I certainly agree with you in the sense that CORRECTION from God is a BLESSING.
I still believe that, for example, if a pastor is to travel to another church, by an unction of the Holy Ghost to give correction to another pastor, that the correction/rebuke ought to be done in private.
Wouldnt you agree?
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
oneinchrist wrote quote:
OK Eden and Found in Him, my friends in the Lord, perhaps, according to some of the circumstances that you have pointed out, it was an acceptable place and time for a public shaming.
I do not think, though, that in most cases, it would be suitable for a leader to shame another leader in front of a bunch of people.
No-o-o, oneinchrist, it was NOT a "shaming" please don't use that word. Only in our modern church buildings with its many anterooms and forerooms and uprooms and downrooms, might one leader in the modern church talk more privately with another leader.
And even IF a modern leader took another leader "outside for a more private drumming", the leader would still have to "tell his church that he had been wrong all along about 'this and that'."
But these early Christians met in homes, and perhaps even surreptitiously as in "secret house churches of today", and it was PARAMOUNT that this opportunity of assemblage NOT BE WASTED by hesitatin or "niceties" as Found in Him might wish.
There was therefore ZERO SHAMING involved, none. Peter's doctrine needed to be correced and no better time to say it than while most of the whole church was assembled. It was NOT like they could have been told thru "email" or "telephone" or "fax" or "TV" or "radio", the time to act was NOW. If anything, Peter was very blessed that Paul happened to be there when the Jews came from James; indeed, it must have been the Holy Spirit's good timing. But no "shaming" was ever involved; only doctrinal correction, and like everyone else, Peter too had to "take it like a man".
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Bluefrog,
LOL, let me see if I can find it.
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
OK Eden and Found in Him, my friends in the Lord, perhaps, according to some of the circumstances that you have pointed out, it was an acceptable place and time for a public shaming.
I do not think, though, that in most cases, it would be suitable for a leader to shame another leader in front of a bunch of people.
Betty, I do not agree that it would be appropriate for your pastor to publicly single you out for that bad behavior..........but I do believe it appropriate for the pastor to publicly adress the bad behavior as an admonition to all hearers.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
ONEINCHRIST...Earlier today, Feb 13th at 10:09 PM, I wrote a script also about your topic here.
If interested, I invite you to have a look.
Happy Valentines Day
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Hi, oneinchrist, you wrote quote:
Eden,
If I may I would like to adress something you said in one of your posts regarding this issue.
........that it was "something good for all in Antioch to hear".
Initially I felt that was a strong argument, but the more I thought about it ... What was it that Paul was actually confronting Peter about ... it wasn't that the people were HEARING the wrong thing ... it's that Peter's behavior could easily give the wrong impression about the gospel message.
If I may stop you here for a moment... A picture is worth a thousand words. Peter and other Jews with him at Antioch were eating and drinking with the Gentiles, but when Jews came to Antioch from James in Jerusalem, Peter HIMSELF got the gospel message wrong, and when Paul realized what was happening, Paul, no doubt by the Spirit of God, IMMEDIATELY nipped that little "nugget of wisdom" right in the bud before it went any further.
So you said quote:
What was it that Paul was actually confronting Peter about ... it wasn't that the people were HEARING the wrong thing ...
Yes, the people wERE being sent the wrong message by Peter and Barnabas, and as such the message that they were HEARING from Peter and Barnabas is that "when the Jews from James come, we no longer eat with the Gentiles because eating with the Gentiles is WRONG".
The church at Antioch did not need to be TOLD so that they could HEAR it too, the picture alone that Peter and Barnabas were conveying to the church was "worth a THOUSAND WORDS".
So God quickly stirred up Paul by the Holy Spirit so that Paul corrected Peter before this went any further. Period. No need to "take this stuff outside" because the church was INSIDE, and this way the matter was immediately and most effectively straightened out, while everyone was present and BEFORE everyone "went their own way".
oneinchrist, you continued quote:
So instead of reprimanding Peter about his wrongful behavior in private he makes a spectacle out of Peter basically telling everyone that Peter is a hypocrite to his own faith.
The whole church needed to know what was the correct way, right there and then. The occasion was perfectly suited for a righteous reprimand and correction of doctrine.
You continued quote:
Peter had previously received a vision from the Holy Ghost which explicitly let him know that he is not to show partiality with the gospel. This would not have been a brand new revelation to Peter, but a reminder of things already spoken to him.
Exactly. It is to Peter's shame that Peter so soon had forgotten the message of the vision at Joppa, saying "call not that which the Lord has cleansed, unclean". If anyone should ber ashamed it was Peter that he had so soon forgotten that lesson, and it was Peter's blessing that Paul was there to set Peter, and the church at Antioch, back on the path of "calling nothing unclean that the Lord has cleansed".
As bluefrog might say, "Paul was Johnny on the spot".
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi Eden,
If I may I would like to adress something you said in one of your posts regarding this issue.
........that it was "something good for all in Antioch to hear".
Initially I felt that was a strong argument, but the more I thought about it...............What was it that Paul was actually confronting Peter about?........it wasnt that the people were HEARING the wrong thing..........its that Peters behavior could easily give the wrong impression about the gospel message. So instead of reprimanding Peter about his wrongful behavior in private he makes a spectacle out of Peter basically telling everyone that Peter is a hypocrite to his own faith. Paul is a brother to everyone of us.......but at this point, I am not convinced that he had to bring the house down on Peter to convey the truth.
Peter had previously received a vision from the Holy Ghost which explicitly let him know that he is not to show partiality with the gospel. This would not have been a brand new revelation to Peter, but a reminder of things already spoken to him.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
bluefrog wrote quote:
Kinda LIKE Hotflashes. Not Kinda LIKE you have Hotflashes.
Now you got me confused. WHO is having the hot flashes then if not me?
like, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
Kinda LIKE Hotflashes. Not Kinda LIKE you have Hotflashes.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Found in Him wrote about Eden quote:
He comes out on the board and immediately starts throwing darts.
It's heartless and arrogant. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
More allegations but little evidence. This case would be thrown out of court and you know it.
But what I do find kind of hilarious about the whole thing is wondering whether a similar argument did not erupt in Antioch when Paul confronted Peter. But Paul had evidence; Found in Him does not.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Found in Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7596
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eden:
Found in Him wrote to Eden quote:
Don't you want peace with me?
If peace comes at the expense of me having to become a Found in Him No. 2, then, no peace; but if peace means that I am allowed to be whoever I am, then, yes, peace.
2 Kings 9:22
And it came to pass when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of your mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?
love, Eden
How sad.
--------------------
~To Him That is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.~ Jude 24
Posts: 1503 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Found in Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7596
|
posted
Bluefrog.......
quote:
Originally posted by Found in Him:
I appreciate your input, I really do. But I had prayed about this and sent him an e-mail today. He comes out on the board and immediately starts throwing darts.
It's heartless and arrogant. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Many things tear down in this world-- I shouldn't feel that from a brother in The Lord.
--------------------
~To Him That is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.~ Jude 24
Posts: 1503 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
bluefrog wrote about Eden quote:
hehe He's kinda like hot flashes.
Yeah...and when they were too lazy to check my profile to see if I was a male or female, they did not know whether I was taking estrogen or testosterone, have Michael Harrison tell itmwhen all that happened, at that time. I was practically convicted of being "gay" before I could even say, "hey!!!!"
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
OH NO !!!!
IP: Logged |
|
|
Found in Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7596
|
posted
I appreciate your input, I really do. But I had prayed about this and sent him an e-mail today. He comes out on the board and immediately starts throwing darts.
It's heartless and arrogant. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Many things tear down in this world-- I shouldn't feel that from a brother in The Lord.
--------------------
~To Him That is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.~ Jude 24
Posts: 1503 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Found in Him wrote to Eden quote:
Don't you want peace with me?
If peace comes at the expense of me having to become a Found in Him No. 2, then, no peace; but if peace means that I am allowed to be whoever I am, then, yes, peace.
2 Kings 9:22
And it came to pass when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of your mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
bluefrog
unregistered
|
posted
Eden has some ornery streaks in him, don't ya know? He can be a real hoot one day and the next a real poot. hehe
He says he is married. It seems he would know better than to take on the women on this board, or get them upset. The safe zone helps. lol
Now, there is always a positive side to everything. In that we are a study group about the bible, he can insert some pretty interesting questions which in turn sets up a challange of how to answer them. It also gives us something to look forward to, like, what is he gonna come up with next? hehe He's kinda like hot flashes.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Found in Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7596
|
posted
I am so sorry Daniel...
--------------------
~To Him That is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.~ Jude 24
Posts: 1503 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Found in Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7596
|
posted
Love is our foundation. Our words, actions and deeds have to align with love. I e-mailed you and tried to talk to you about this because I'm not the only one you do this to. I'm not perfect Eden, but if someone comes to me and has a problem with me, I do try to work it out.
--------------------
~To Him That is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.~ Jude 24
Posts: 1503 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Found in Him wrote to Eden quote:
Betty and I were having a discussion that got side tracked from the discussion. Daniel asked for the main topic to stay focused.
You come in and start flinging rudeness and I am calling you out on it.
You have done this over and over again. It DOES distract all for the sake of you getting some kind of arrogant glory for yourself and it is wrong.
Oh please. This is a public board in the sense that anyone with a computer can make a comment if they want to. It's not just you and Betty talking to each other, everybody is talking to each other, and that is good; the more the merrier. But I do not expect everyone to like exactly ALL THAT I said, nor should you expect that either, Found in Him.
On a bbs like this, anyone can post at anytime they feel like doing so, provided they are not threatening anyone physically or are cursing or are maliciously posting private information of other members or are posting pornographic material. For the rest, have your say and be prepared for others to either add to what you said or to comment on what you said. That's what happens on a bbs like this: "it shall come to pass that whosoever has a computer..."
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Betty Louise
Advanced Member
Member # 7175
|
posted
Good Night Brothers and Sisters. May tomorrow bring peace and understanding between all of us.
Have a blessed evening.
betty
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Posts: 5051 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Found in Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7596
|
posted
well if I'm hypocritical it is FOR DANIELS SAKE. You didn't need to do this just for the sake of you being "right"
You seem to point out others error but won't humble yourself to make amends-- why Eden?
Don't you want peace with me?
--------------------
~To Him That is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.~ Jude 24
Posts: 1503 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
The point is that a little earlier you had "complained" to WildB that it was NOT nice of him to delete his Topic after other people had invested time in his Topic, and then you said you were going to "delete some of your pown post", so that to me was being hypocritical.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Found in Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7596
|
posted
Betty and I were having a discussion that got side tracked from the discussion. Daniel asked for the main topic to stay focused.
You come in and start flinging rudeness and I am calling you out on it.
You have done this over and over again. It DOES distract all for the sake of you getting some kind of arrogant glory for yourself and it is wrong.
--------------------
~To Him That is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.~ Jude 24
Posts: 1503 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Found in Him
Advanced Member
Member # 7596
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eden:
Found in Him wrote quote:
feel bad that I wrote so much above when Daniel asked for the focus to be on rebuke/forgiveness.
I am gonna delete my comments up there so to respect him.
And what did you say to WildB about that? Do you think that deleting your comments is fair to the rest of us who may have posted AFTER your post.
Don't be a "WildB". One reason why I do not approve of WildB deleting his Topic IF HE DOESN'T LIKE ONE OR MORE OF THE ANSWERS is bc people invest time and heart and work into their posts, so to have all that work deleted at the Topic starter's whim I think is inappropriate. But you should just leave yours there too, whatever it was. No revisionism.
love, nedE
WAS THIS NEEDED? What's the point here?
--------------------
~To Him That is able to keep you from falling and to present you before His glorious presence without fault and with great joy...to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.~ Jude 24
Posts: 1503 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
