7 reasons why Peter was not perfect after Pentecost and was guilty of sin.
- Thread starter ChristisGod
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I never said rebuking is a sin. Neither does Scripture. We are commanded to go to our brother in private to get them to repent of their sin. if not bring another witness and if they still refuse bring them before the church as Jesus taught in Matthew 18 and Paul taught in his epistle.
hope this helps !!!
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
The highlighted part is where I had a problem with Paul.
SHouldn't he have aproached Peter one on one instead of infront of a crowd?
I think they still teach us lessons by how they walked.
Jesus said.. follow me. We are to walk like he walked.
Then we get to watch others walk and compare their walk with Jesus's walk.
And then we need to look at our walk vs. their walk and see if we are walking the walk or just talking the talk..
Amen?
Hugs
1)What we do not know is that Peter could of already been confronted by someone else which is why Paul got involved and confronted him to his face.
2)But the text said Paul confronted Peter to his face. Paul does not say there were others with him when he confronted Peter. Read the text below. Paul said I not we.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
So I go with option 2 above.
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
So maybe it was first in private then in public. He might not of repented when he was confronted face to face.There you go..
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
I'm not arguing with you..
I say they all had issues.
And while we can find fault with them, we should be also looking at ourselves to make sure we are not doing the same thing.
That's all brother..
no argument here
Hugs
I say they all had issues.
And while we can find fault with them, we should be also looking at ourselves to make sure we are not doing the same thing.
That's all brother..
no argument here
Hugs
I said unto Peter before them all - That is, probably, before all the church, or certainly before all who had offended with him in the case. Had this been a private affair, Paul would doubtless have sought a private interview with Peter, and would have remonstrated with him in private on the subject. But it was public. It was a case where many were involved, and where the interests of the church were at stake. It was a case where it was very important to establish some fixed and just principles, and he therefore took occasion to remonstrate with him in public on the subject. This might have been at the close of public worship; or it may have been that the subject came up for debate in some of their public meetings, whether the rites of the Jews were to be imposed on the Gentile converts. This was a question which agitated all the churches where the Jewish and Gentile converts were intermingled; and it would not be strange that it should be the subject of public debate at Antioch. The fact that Paul reproved Peter before "them all," proves:There you go..
(1) That he regarded himself, and was so regarded by the church, as on an equality with Peter, and as having equal authority with him.
(2) that public reproof is right when an offence has been public, and when the church at large is interested, or is in danger of being led into error; compare 1 Timothy 5:20, "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."
(3) that it is a duty to reprove those who err. It is a painful duty, and one much neglected; still it is a duty often enjoined in the Scriptures, and one that is of the deepest importance to the church. He does a favor to another man who, in a kind spirit, admonishes him of his error, and reclaims him from a course of sin. He does another the deepest injury, who suffers sin unrebuked to lie upon him, and who sees him injuring himself and others, and who is at no pains to admonish him for his faults.
(4) if it is the duty of one Christian to admonish another who is an offender, and to do it in a kind spirit, it is the duty of him who has offended to receive the admonition in a kind spirit, and with thankfulness. Excitable as Peter was by nature, yet there is no evidence that he became angry here, or that he did not receive the admonition of his brother Paul with perfect good temper, and with an acknowledgment that Paul was right and that he was wrong. Indeed, the case was so plain, as it usually is if men would be honest, that he seems to have felt that it was right, and to have received the rebuke as became a Christian. Peter, unhappily, was accustomed to rebukes; and he was at heart too good a man to be offended when he was admonished that he had done wrong. A good man is willing to be reproved when he has erred, and it is usually proof that there is much that is wrong when we become excited and irritable if another admonishes us of our faults. It may be added here that nothing should be inferred from this in regard to the inspiration or apostolic authority of Peter. The fault was not that he taught error of doctrine, but that he sinned in conduct. Inspiration, though it kept the apostles from teaching error, did not keep them necessarily from sin. A man may always teach the truth, and yet be far from perfection in practice. The case here proves that Peter was not perfect, a fact proved by his whole life; it proves that he was sometimes timid, and even, for a period, timeserving, but it does not prove that what he wrote for our guidance was false and erroneous.
If thou, being a Jew - A Jew by birth.
Livest after the manner of the Gentiles - In eating, etc., as he had done before the Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem, Galatians 2:12.
And not as do the Jews - Observing their special customs, and their distinctions of meats and drinks.
Why compellest thou the Gentiles ... - As he would do, if he insisted that they should be circumcised, and observe the special Jewish rites. The charge against him was gross inconsistency in doing this. "Is it not at least as lawful for them to neglect the Jewish observances, as it was for thee to do it but a few days ago?" Doddridge. The word here rendered "compellest," means here moral compulsion or persuasion. The idea is, that the conduct of Peter was such as to lead the Gentiles to the belief that it was necessary for them to be circumcised in order to be saved. For similar use of the word, see Matthew 14:22; Luke 14:23; Acts 28:19.barnes
hope this helps !!!
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
Where are they? Athens Greece?
Ah we got a lot of idolatry going on there.
So Paul preaches that if you sit at a table and they are offering to idols, you know it's nothing. so don't worry about it.
But if someone comes along and is offended, the for your brothers sake you shouldn't eat.. right?
Hold on I find it:
1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
So going back to Paul's dilemma with Peter:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
So Peter, not wanting to put a stumblingblock in front of those who are arriving.. becomes the very stumblingblock that Paul accuses Peter of being.
How can you accuse someone of doing the very thing your preaching??
Brother...
They are all guilty!!!!
We are all guilty!!
Praise God for his Grace!
Amen??
Hugs
Ah we got a lot of idolatry going on there.
So Paul preaches that if you sit at a table and they are offering to idols, you know it's nothing. so don't worry about it.
But if someone comes along and is offended, the for your brothers sake you shouldn't eat.. right?
Hold on I find it:
1Co 8:9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
So going back to Paul's dilemma with Peter:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of some men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing those from the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?
So Peter, not wanting to put a stumblingblock in front of those who are arriving.. becomes the very stumblingblock that Paul accuses Peter of being.
How can you accuse someone of doing the very thing your preaching??
Brother...
They are all guilty!!!!
We are all guilty!!
Praise God for his Grace!
Amen??
Hugs
101G
Well-Known Member
GINOLJC, to all.
not knocking the OP, nor having read all of the post only a few, but none was perfect, including the apostle Paul. example Paul circumcised Timotheus/Timothy, Acts 16:1 "Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:" Acts 16:2 "Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium." Acts 16:3 "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek." Acts 16:4 "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." Acts 16:5 "And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily."
well Paul knew that to be circumcised was of the heart and not of the flesh. and he had just left a council of the apostles debating this point of contention on circumcision, which as a matter of fact was done in chapter 15 ... just before here in chapter 16. so if the Gentiles was not to be circumcised, and Jews neither, for if it was for Jew only, (and this is the NEW COVENANT, after Pentecoast), then all, and I mean all of them "LIED ON GOD", God forbid. for God himself said, Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."that was OT, and in the NT in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek/Gentile. which the apostle Peter stood up for at the council meeting.
now Paul, as the scriptures states, Acts 16:3 "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.". was the apostle Paul afraid of the unbelieving Jews in that quarter? no, I don't believe so. or, did he do it to gain them? maybe. but here's my point, it's strange to circumcise Timothy, and yet used the blame game aganist Peter, another apostle who stood up for no circumcision of the flesh, but in another point was in error?
just as Peter had to learn from God that the Gentiles was Just as clean as Jews, was clearly demonstrated in the case of captian Cornelius, (Acts chapter 10), with or without being circumcised. so likewise other apostles had to be learn of the things of God, just as others. so one cannot blame another of nothing ..... for all have fallen short.
so when one really look at it all ..... as the scriptures states, "there is none that are righteous" NO NOT "ONE". but as with all the apostles, they all did this, even the apostle Paul, Philippians 3:12 "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." Philippians 3:13 "Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before," Philippians 3:14 "I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."
and again out of the apostle mouth, Romans 14:13 "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." thank God for the NT, 1 John 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." BINGO.
and I'll end this post this way, from another apostle, Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:2 "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:3 "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matthew 7:4 "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" Matthew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
translation, we all need to get a pair of holy glasses from the Holy Ghost, or "forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,"
PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"
not knocking the OP, nor having read all of the post only a few, but none was perfect, including the apostle Paul. example Paul circumcised Timotheus/Timothy, Acts 16:1 "Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:" Acts 16:2 "Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium." Acts 16:3 "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek." Acts 16:4 "And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." Acts 16:5 "And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily."
well Paul knew that to be circumcised was of the heart and not of the flesh. and he had just left a council of the apostles debating this point of contention on circumcision, which as a matter of fact was done in chapter 15 ... just before here in chapter 16. so if the Gentiles was not to be circumcised, and Jews neither, for if it was for Jew only, (and this is the NEW COVENANT, after Pentecoast), then all, and I mean all of them "LIED ON GOD", God forbid. for God himself said, Deuteronomy 10:16 "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked."that was OT, and in the NT in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek/Gentile. which the apostle Peter stood up for at the council meeting.
now Paul, as the scriptures states, Acts 16:3 "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.". was the apostle Paul afraid of the unbelieving Jews in that quarter? no, I don't believe so. or, did he do it to gain them? maybe. but here's my point, it's strange to circumcise Timothy, and yet used the blame game aganist Peter, another apostle who stood up for no circumcision of the flesh, but in another point was in error?
just as Peter had to learn from God that the Gentiles was Just as clean as Jews, was clearly demonstrated in the case of captian Cornelius, (Acts chapter 10), with or without being circumcised. so likewise other apostles had to be learn of the things of God, just as others. so one cannot blame another of nothing ..... for all have fallen short.
so when one really look at it all ..... as the scriptures states, "there is none that are righteous" NO NOT "ONE". but as with all the apostles, they all did this, even the apostle Paul, Philippians 3:12 "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus." Philippians 3:13 "Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before," Philippians 3:14 "I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."
and again out of the apostle mouth, Romans 14:13 "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." thank God for the NT, 1 John 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." BINGO.
and I'll end this post this way, from another apostle, Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Matthew 7:2 "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:3 "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matthew 7:4 "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" Matthew 7:5 "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
translation, we all need to get a pair of holy glasses from the Holy Ghost, or "forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,"
PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
Known better how?
Was he doing what Paul himself said to do by seperating himself when other's who were weaker in the knowledge of the liberty they had, disassembled himself from those that would of made those entering in be offended?
Jesus accused the Lawyers of doing the same thing right?
Luk 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
So if Peter was given the commision to go to the Gentiles. As seen in the sheet coming down from heaven with all the animals, and Peter told to rise and kill. And then was sent to Cornielus' house... ok..
And then He is in Antioch eating with the animals on the sheet. And some came is and maybe he didn't want to offend them, because they was weak in the knowledge of the freedom in Christ..
Is that Peter's fault?
Or was Paul just looking for a way to usurp Peter.. hmm
I see a battle going on of who's throne is bigger, and which one will get the bigger crown.
I'm being objective here.. I left my bias at the door.
I see them both equally guilty.
Peter shouldn't have been eating things offered to idols, because that's what even he put in his own letter.
So the hypocrisy is thick brother.. on both sides.
Hugs
So is it ok for you to drink whiskey in front of a struggling alcoholic, do you have that "freedom" to drink in front of him and be a stumbling block ?
Or knowing he is an alcoholic are you better off abstaining and not causing him to stumble ?
Matthew 23 listen to Jesus- a entire chapter dedicated to it.
I cannot justify what Jesus condemns.
So you can not point to any Scripture that says hypocracy of men against men is a Sin?
What is the Penalty/ Judgement for a man committed hypocrisy ?
Ziggy
Well-Known Member
That's my point.
Peter was eating with the Gentiles until others came in and then he removed himself from the bar.
And because he removed himself Paul attacked him..
You can't have it both ways.
Similar threads
