quote:

---

What if you were at work and someone came up to you and said (in front of everyone) "You really dont know what you are doing, do you?

quote:

---

oneinchrist

---

---

quote:

---

I am having a good evening. I am not in pain, which is rare for this time of night.
Thank you for asking.

---

Hi Betty!
Thank God you are having a good night! It's good to see you out here on the board-- I sometimes feel so singled out, out here!
I like to hear what you have to say. It means a lot to me.
Thanks,
jeannie
 

---

Posted by Betty Louise (Member # 7175) on :
 
Hello Jeanie,
It is great to have a female friend her to talk to. You probably notice that there alot of guys but few females.
betty
 

---

Posted by Betty Louise (Member # 7175) on :
 
Do you have a facebook account?
betty
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
Subject: Pauls confrontation with Peter.

The question was asked why Paul would attack Peter in front of the congregation.

Answer: The problem was one of practices expected by members of the church. While Paul was gone byby, Peter would sit and eat with the Gentiles. When the look out came riding his horse yelling "Paul is coming, Paul is coming" Peter would run to the Jewish hood. Paul got wind of it. This wasn't something like stealing or muggin someone it was things done by Gentiles and frowned on by Jews and church members.

The confrontation was to make it clear that Peter was out of line, as if he had called someone sweetie (boooo), and it was a lesson for the other members to learn. Furthermore, Peter is the type that if you don't knock a knot on his head he will do as he pleases.

That is how Jesus tells us to handle it. Civil thangs send to civil court. Church thangs settle in church.

1 Cor 6:1-6
1)Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust (the bad guys), and not before the saints? (the good guys).
2)Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
(he is startin to get angry now...)
3)Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
4)If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed (counted as nothing) in the church.
5)I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
(his face is gettin red and Peter is thinkin: see there I'm not the onliest mess round here)
6) But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers?
 

---

Posted by Eden (Member # 5728) on :
 
Hi, oneinchrist, thanks for posting such a nice Topic. You wrote

quote:

---

Is it right for a leader to shame another leader in front of others? What do you think?

---

As Ronald Reagan would say, "well...", I think your first error, if there is one, oneinchrist, is that you think that one leader is shaming the other leader.

In those days they didn't have "conference rooms" like we do now. I think in those days people just dealt with the stuff right in front of everybody because "that was the room they were meeting in".

Nor is it a sign of disrespect that one leader should speak to, and yea, correct, another leader in a meeting. In fact, we could say that the meeting was blessed because it had 2 leaders.

Why? Because it took another leader to be present to able to recognize "leader things in Christ", and therefore God sent Paul to say by the Spirit "what only Paul could recognize or have the similar 'authority' to counter Peter".

It was not a shame but a blessing from God that God sent Paul to Peter at Antioch, IMO (in my opinion).

And besides, this is something thaqt the whole assembled church at Antioch needed to hear, and what was the quickeeeeest way but, THAT way? It was quick and effective, just like my God.

love, Eden
 

---

Posted by Eden (Member # 5728) on :
 
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.

---

quote:

---

You and I posted scripts within the same minute above. I didn't mean to jump in ahead of you but I did.

---

quote:

---

The confrontation was to make it clear that Peter was out of line, as if someone called him sweetie (boooo), and it was a lesson for the other members to learn. Furthermore, Peter is the type that if you don't knock a knot on his head he will do as he pleases.

---

quote:

---

Please stop this endless correction Eden. Just leave it alone. You didn't need to do this Eden.

What I did, I did out of respect for Daniel.

Daniel, I am sorry. These posts so often get side tracked and that's not bible study. I personally apologize.

---

quote:

---

Is it too much to ask you to just be respectful?

---

quote:

---

It doesn't amuse me.

---

quote:

---

Do you ever apologize for anything? Does it bother you when you have maybe, possibly have done something wrong?

---

quote:

---

Does it bother you when you have maybe, possibly have done something wrong?

---

quote:

---

The sin Peter committed has not been committed by anyone on this thread.

---

quote:

---

His sin is spelled out. He ate with the Gentiles when the Jews were not around but would not in front of the Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Found in Him:
Well, It is the truth that I e-mailed you and asked you to be respectful with your words earlier today right?

Doesn't it seem strange that you came out here tonight and immediately picked a fight with me?

That's wrong Eden.

---

quote:

---

Well, It is the truth that I e-mailed you and asked you to be respectful with your words earlier today right?

---

quote:

---

Doesn't it seem strange that you came out here tonight and immediately picked a fight with me? That's wrong Eden.

---

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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Don't you want peace with me?

---

quote:

---

hehe He's kinda like hot flashes.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Kinda LIKE Hotflashes. Not Kinda LIKE you have Hotflashes.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

What was it that Paul was actually confronting Peter about ... it wasn't that the people were HEARING the wrong thing ...

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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

---

---

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!
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Betty Louise (Member # 7175) on :
 
I think my post actually agreed with you bluefrog.
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by oneinchrist (Member # 6532) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Found in Him (Member # 7596) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Eden (Member # 5728) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Eden (Member # 5728) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Eden (Member # 5728) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Eden (Member # 5728) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by oneinchrist (Member # 6532) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 

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

---

---

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"

love, Eden
 

---

Posted by oneinchrist (Member # 6532) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by oneinchrist (Member # 6532) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
ONE IN CHRIST..Please explain what Humility has to do with Sanctification. I really want to know why you say that. Really. Please. Rivit.
 

---

Posted by oneinchrist (Member # 6532) on :
 
Bluefrog,
I did read your skit. I found it to be very speculative, if you actually even meant it to be serious at all. It seems to me that you do not understand my position even though Ive repeated it several times in my posts with most all of you. For you to imply that I meant that "circumcision" needed to be practiced correctly is way off base. What I believe that needed to be practiced correctly is the showing of love without hypocrisy.........meaning that Peter should not have to withdraw himself from the Gentiles just because certain Jews show up on the scene.
As far as "sanctification" is concerned. I cannot argue against the definition of "sanctification" as "being set apart unto God". I was not in disagreement with your post on sanctification. If I was, I would have told you and explained to you why I disagree.
I am convinced by the Word of God that "sanctification" involves the process of "learning humility"; therefore, I oppose the idea that Michael seems to be proposing, that it is a one-time experience, or that perhaps it does not even exist because it is a lie of the devil.

With love in Christ, Daniel
 

---

Posted by oneinchrist (Member # 6532) on :
 
Hi again Bluefrog,
You would like for me to explain what "learning humility" would have to do with sanctification??

Well, first of all, we know that sanctification means "to be set apart unto God". Next question....set apart unto what? Yes, becoming more Christ-like. Christ-like is exactly the opposite of Satan-like. Satan-like is pride, arrogance, and self-exaltation; whereas, Christ-like is humbly seeking the glory of another and/ or humbly seeking the best interest of another. I am not saying that "sanctification" is learning humility, but I am saying that I certainly believe that "sanctification" , to a large extent, involves the process of "learning humility".

With love in Christ, Daniel
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
OneinChrist...You are being patient with me. Thank You.

You had said: 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.

OK, but Peter was not telling the Gentiles about the proper gospel. He was telling them that there were better Christians than others and that circumcision was an important thing. He was a Jew and Jews were circumcised. I'm not saying that the bible said he didn't know the gospel, and I am not saying he wasn't preaching the proper gospel. It just said he fudged some because he was Peter and just couldn't help himself.

I have found numerous times that if a serious issue is given in a humorous way it sticks. The Circucision Practiced Correctly was thrown in for the bible lawyers.

If everything else fails, read the instructions.
Webster says, Sanctification is a state of growing in divine grace as a result of Christian commitment after baptism or conversion.

Is that not being Set Apart ?
 

---

Posted by oneinchrist (Member # 6532) on :
 
Ok bluefrog, 3 things to adress from your post....first thing.....you keep saying that Peter was telling Gentiles this and that......where is the scripture support for where Peter is telling them these false things? Peter was getting accused of hypocrisy in his behavior, not for proclaiming a false gospel.

Second thing, I agree with you that humor can get us in more in touch with important messages.

Third thing, Yes, Websters definition sounds to be pretty much in line with bible dictionary definitions.....especially with the word "growing"

With love in Christ, Daniel
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
Webster was not qualified to comment.


Sanctification does share in humility. If humility is not a trait of sanctification, one is not sanctified. But as before, I have to again say, humility is a 'gift' (not givt, bf). It is not something in you that you can 'perfect'. The flesh cannot be perfected. And Jesus, who is supposed to be your life, already 'knows' humility. If the Spirit is perfected, humility is a 'fruit'.
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
One in Christ....Are you sure you won't just take my word for it? Oh Well.

Galatians 2:7-14
7)But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8)(For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles;)
9)And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we shoulld go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10)Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
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)An 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 unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

I did it, I did it !
 

---

Posted by bluefrog (Member # 7448) on :
 
MICHAEL..Why do you say that Webster is not qualified to comment on a word?
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
They who are in the flesh can only reason in the flesh.
 

---

Posted by oneinchrist (Member # 6532) on :
 
Hi again Bluefrog,
I looked at what you said that Peter said in your initial post, then I looked at the scripture that you used to support your claim---and I see absolutely no correlation. Sorry, I dont know what else to say.

With love in Christ, Daniel
 

---

Posted by Eden (Member # 5728) on :
 
oneinchrist wrote

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Well, first of all, we know that sanctification means "to be set apart unto God". Next question....set apart unto what? Yes, becoming more Christ-like.

---

quote:

---

Well, first of all, we know that sanctification means "to be set apart unto God". Next question....set apart unto what? Yes, becoming more Christ-like.

---

quote:

---

The vessels of the Temple were sanctified unto the LORD, meaning, the vessels were to be strictly used for the LORD's ceremonies, but the vessels DID NOT BECOME GOD because they were sanctified. The vessels were "sanctified" only because they were "avaiable for God's use".

---

quote:

---

Because of all the time I spend in research and making an effort to write my results properly so they can be well understood it doesn't seem fair that folks just skim over it, misunderstanding most of the time and come back with some off the wall comment is disturbing.

---

Can't possibly imagine what you are talking about.

quote:

---

I can see that I am getting no where on most all subjects. Along with that, I am told that I am a false low down no good sorry unbeliever. This is not fun or worthwhile much any more.

---

quote:

---

Because of all the time I spend in research and making an effort to write my results properly so they can be well understood it doesn't seem fair that folks just skim over it, misunderstanding most of the time and come back with some off the wall comment is disturbing.

---

quote:

---

but we should be among those who take Jesus teachings to heart and obey them because it glorifies God ...

---

quote:

---

Eden, First tell me, what are you trying to prove? Why dont you just tell me what you disagree with in my post and why------before getting personal.

---

quote:

---

I am able to obey what He has given me the ability to obey.

---

quote:

---

Don't worry about it, bluefrog. Nor should you expect other people over whom you have no control to "read all your stuff"; people have different busy schedules, some only have time to skim, others read more, etc.

---

quote:

---

ONLY Jesus IN US can keep His own teachings, if we will only let Him...

---

quote:

---

I have often felt that if someone was not willing to read, and even chew on what someone said, that they should not bother to comment. Because usually people skim until they hit a trip-wire for what is a 'hottopic' for them personally, and they miss the point, and carry on about something which misses the point. You think?

---

quote:

---

I would 'enjoy' myself if people were enlightened! However when they are not ready to receive, perhaps I am out of the gate too early.

---

What? You can only enjoy yourself if others are enlightened? What planet do YOU live on???

For now you are talking about something you have no control over; you only have control over how YOU are doing. And the better YOU are doing, the more it will rub off on others...or not! And if not, all you can do is try anyway. Just being myself is enough for me (and that is already too much for some!). For the rest, it's none of my business how or why people do what they do. I hope they are all happy most of the time.
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 
The Spirit in me compels me eden.
 

---

Posted by oneinchrist (Member # 6532) on :
 
Eden,
My hope is that when you read the gospels and take in what Jesus teaches us that you spend more time finding good reasons to obey and less time finding good reasons to pass them up as unatainable. When it comes to living out our Christian faith, God is the One who sees the difference between the one who just does not want to obey His word and the one who wants to obey but needs more strength.

How could you disagree with this?...........

Commit your life in obedience to Jesus, and God will stengthen you when you need it.

I do not believe that God demands perfection, but I do believe that He commands obedience........."This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye Him!".
Will we also be like the disciples when they said, "Lord, increase our faith" (because we think that the Lord puts too great of a demand on us by His commands). Will we also say "we are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do."

With love in Christ, Daniel
 

---

Posted by Michael Harrison (Member # 6801) on :
 

quote:

---

One who sees the difference between the one who just does not want to obey His word and the one who wants to obey but needs more strength.

How could you disagree with this?...........

Commit your life in obedience to Jesus, and God will stengthen you when you need it.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

The Spirit in me compels me eden.

---

quote:

---

The Spirit in me compels me eden.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bluefrog:
MICHAEL HARRISON..SUBJECT; Pauls confrontation with Peter, and other stuff.

Michael, I cannot share the brotherly love and respect for you that One in Christ claims. Fact is that I have absolutely No Respect for you as a brother in Christ. Furthermore, I believe that your posts have convinced me that the only spirit that guides you is Satan himself. You discuise yourself as one superior to everyone else just like he did. You work your scheme differently because you are not him.

Satan made it an issue to his subordinates that God would surely disown them eventually just like you have been doing. He said if you will just listen to me, just like you do. He presented himself as a most powerful being, just as you do. He assured them all that he had all the answers, just as you do. He made it clear that whatever he said it was the truth, just like you do. You don't claim to be wanting to take over from God because you apparently think you already are, with HIM in YOU.

Ignorance and Arrogance don't match but in your case they do. When a person tells you they are a Christian you take over for God Himself and announce to them that they are not.

Just recently you said that Webster was not qualified to comment on what Sanctification means. I have no comment on that because it doesn't merit one.

You said that humility is a gift. Likewise, no comment.

You say that they who are in the flesh can only reason in the flesh. Again, very poorly said.
In case you didn't know it, you are in the flesh.
Try "only in the flesh"

You say that most are content being wrong and asked: Have you ever REVIEWED the Holy Spirit.

You said: We can not do what we think we are called to do.

You said to Eden: The spirit in me compels me Eden.
And I know what spirit you are speaking of.

If God has taken over your body, soul, spirit as you say, then why are they telling everyone that they are not worthy and making such stupid statements. No, you have a very serious problem.

You have been reading our displeasure about your hateful and ignorant comments. We are not talking to God, we are talking to you Michael Harrison, and Your Spirit who has been putting doubt in the minds of the angels and man since the beginning of time.

There is no doubt that you will start a word game here and no doubt will disagree with all I have said.

I am not about to go back and comment on all your statements and hatefulness, and why should I? I think I can speak for the rest of the folks on this board; we don't want to hear it again. Mister, you need help.

---

quote:

---

So, if you have aught against me for saying that God does not strengthen you, go back and re-read it. For you mis-read it, clearly! Sorry to sound so demanding. Perhaps I should simply 'ask' if you will. I even gave you the scripture that cannot be faulted, which says that HIS strength is made perfect in weakness. Why then would HE strengthen you. IF you are offended at that, you oppose yourself.


Michael, to be honest with you, I am beginning to wonder how much trust you actually put in the Word of God itself. To make the statement that "Sanctification is a lie of the devil" certainly appears to be a direct assault on the Word of God, if I have ever seen one. In a post that I had written a ways back concerning the commandment of Jesus to love one another, you argued that there is no commandment except the command to "have".

The more you keep doing this, the more faith I am going to lose in what you are trying to impress on all of us.

I love you as a brother in the Lord, but your willingness to elevate the banner of your theology at the expense of canceling out scriptural truth troubles me.

I would have more respect towards you if you would be willing to believe that each one of us have something to offer for edification.......instead of your incessant arguing and persistence that your "right" makes the rest of us all "wrong".

---

quote:

---

In case you didn't know it, you are in the flesh.
Try "only in the flesh"

---

quote:

---

If God has taken over your body, soul, spirit as you say, then why are they telling everyone that they are not worthy and making such stupid statements. No, you have a very serious problem.

---