Getting the Gospel Right

Ligonier.org ^ | January 1st, 2009 | Tom Ascol

[ravenwolf]

Just a tad and a bit more...LOL

---

Well I uh, ah heck.

[ravenwolf]

Just a tad and a bit more...LOL

---

Well I uh, ah heck.

[metmom]

But you need to consider, Paul was telling the Galatians, who would not have not known anything about it much less been involved, so slander is what it actually was.

Yes, if your brother trespasses against you, do go to him privately. But this was not a private action on Peter's part. it was done publicly and his sin involved other Christians.

Peter did not trespass against Paul. He trespassed against the whole church and it needed to be dealt with for the people he hurt.

What is so hard to understand about that? You recall, that the Holy Spirit slew Ananias and Sapphira PUBLICLY for a sin they sinned privately, don't you?

The Holy Spirit saw fit to include the Peter and Paul episode in the Scripture HE breathed out.

Peter was wrong and called on it and the church needed to know how to properly deal with public sin like that.

[Springfield Reformer]

so slander is what it actually was

It's only slander if it's false.  Truth is an absolute defense.

And the phrase "against thee" in Matthew 18:15 most certainly does make it necessary to be personal.   But then, if one can take or leave any bit of Scripture one finds inconvenient, via "partial inspiration," I suppose this argument wouldn't matter, would it.  Kind of a deal breaker trying to discuss the meaning of the word of God when the other party is actively chopping it to bits.  Just sayin ...

Peace,

SR

[ravenwolf]

Peter was wrong and called on it and the church needed to know how to properly deal with public sin like that.

---

The NIV says if a brother or sister sins, it does not say against you, the reason for that is likely because it is not even clear what the scripture says.

Is changing seats in Church wrong? I would think the purpose might be the only thing that could make it wrong,

But why would a man just start accusing some one in public with out first going to him privately, it could be hard on his own reputation, not that I have one to lose but I would not do it.

So I wonder about Paul`s intent here more than I do of Peter`s motive..

Peter was wrong and called on it and the church needed to know how to properly deal with public sin like that.>>>>>>>

But it was the wrong Church, why was it not even mentioned at Antioch but only mentioned to the Galatians? was Paul purposely defaming Peter? I am not accusing him of it but I do wonder.

Paul appeared like a lamb at the council of Jerusalem but then out on his own he is like a roaring lion, just trying to figure the reason.

[ravenwolf]

And the phrase “against thee” in Matthew 18:15

---

Here is what it says

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

Common sense, you could look pretty bad bringing an accusation against some one and then find out you are wrong.

First go to them privately to make sure you understood what they did, self preservation and Christian fairness.

It’s only slander if it’s false. Truth is an absolute defense.>>>>>>>>

That is true legally, but even if it is the truth and your sole intent is to defame some one the only difference is that it is legal in this country.

Kind of a deal breaker trying to discuss the meaning of the word of God when the other party is actively chopping it to bits. Just sayin ...

That’s ok.
I am just trying to see Paul the way he was, if I am right or wrong you can not tell me.

[boatbums]

Thank you for that explanation. I agree. One of the ways we can KNOW that the Bible is not a product of mere men is that it exposes the true nature of man - warts and all. Had the Apostles only written their own remembrances, experiences and adventures all on their own without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I seriously doubt we would have EVER known about their failures, sins and weaknesses. No... men write of their exploits! Victories! Greatness! Accomplishments! That the Scriptures never shy away from telling the WHOLE truth is how we know that it is from God - HIS word, the truth. Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away but the word of our God will never pass away.

[boatbums]

Sounds like you have a problem with Paul. Could it be because you think Peter was "infallible"?

You do know, I hope, that the epistles Paul wrote were copied and distributed to ALL the churches just as Peter's, James', Jude's and John's letters were. Together with the four gospel books they made up what is called the New Testament. Though some letters were written to specific city churches, they were distributed to all churches. Whatever was written to one church (Galatians, for example) was still true and relevant to ALL the Christians throughout the world just as they are today.

You seem to be having some heartburn about Paul's public rebuke of Peter, but look at what he said was going on. Peter didn't say anything to Paul's face - it was not something Peter did TO Paul, Paul heard it from many of the Christians he came into contact with, probably even Barnabas was telling him what Peter was doing. Antioch was a large city with a big Christian presence, MANY people were affected by Peter's error. If Paul had only gone to Peter to discuss personally Peter's wrongdoing - and we don't know that he didn't try, do we - then wouldn't there STILL have been some kind of public confession and correction? From the passage in Galatians, it sounds like it was a well known problem for all the Gentiles and Paul was correct in how he handled the public correction. The good news of the gospel should NEVER be allowed to be compromised. I don't see how Paul was sinning against Peter by doing what needed to be done.

You know, my question would be, why didn't James do something about it first? He was head over the Jerusalem church - the base. Why was it left to the "newcomer" Paul? I believe this was one of the reasons why God used Paul for so much of the New Testament writings.

[metmom]

Which is a good reason to go to the Greek.

In the Greek, it says.... *sins against you*....

http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/18-15.htm

[Springfield Reformer]

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over."

That's the NIV translation which has the problems I mentioned in my earlier post.  The Byzantine textform, the dominant text of historic Christianity, has the "against you," making personal offense a necessary feature of the Matthew 18 protocol:  Here's the Greek, with the "against you" in bold and underlined:

Matthew 18:15 Ἐὰν δὲ ἁμαρτήσῃ εἰς σὲ ὁ ἀδελφός σου, ὕπαγε καὶ ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ μόνου. Ἐάν σου ἀκούσῃ, ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου·

SR: It’s only slander if it’s false. Truth is an absolute defense.>>>>>>>>

RW: That is true legally, but even if it is the truth and your sole intent is to defame some one the only difference is that it is legal in this country.

It's true morally, too.  If a neighbor comes up to me and says, "your other next door neighbor is a pedophile,"  is that defamation?  Not if it's true.  It's being a good neighbor. Defamation as a false accusation is recognized world wide (See Wikipedia on global use of defamation).  The same Wikipedia article defines defamation as::

"the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation."

Furthermore, it is well known that the Biblical law of protecting an individual's reputation from false accusation (Exodus 20:16) is the basis of defamation in common law jurisdictions (See this Wikipedia article for a list of common law jurisdictions - it may surprise you).  In either case, falsity is an essential element of the offense.  If you are thinking of some other offense, I am not aware of any name for the "offense" of "confronting someone in public for doing a real public harm."

The Matthew 18 protocol is there to protect private individuals from being harmed by the public airing of private matters.  But if someone is drawing the whole congregation into error, the whole congregation needs to be part of the process of correction.

Peace,

SR

[metmom]

The NIV says if a brother or sister sins, it does not say against you, the reason for that is likely because it is not even clear what the scripture says.

Well, the KJV you posted along with the NIV, DID say *against you*, which is also found in the original Greek.

Not even a good try.

[Springfield Reformer]

Ping to 110. :)

[ravenwolf]

Not even a good try.

---

Don`t even have to try.

[ravenwolf]

Here’s the Greek, with the “against you” in bold and underlined:

---

Ok, I am not going to pretend to know half as much as you do on the law or the technical definitions.

And I do believe the KJV is good authority and most likely all around the best

But I do not believe the ;against you; is confining it to a private matter.

Jesus said do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Suppose you or I was accused in the place of Peter and was not even aware of doing anything wrong? gee, don`t you wish the accusers had of come to you first and at least give you a chance to repent or explain or deny their claim?

The first time I ever set foot inside a Church I was about 14 or 15 years old, I went because a friend of mine invited me.

I was a little late and there was no room to sit next to my friend and the sermon was already going so I sit in an empty seat a little ways away.

He heard me walking in and turned around and grinned like a possum eating a lemon and I grinned back.

That was a bad mistake, an elder or deacon or what ever he was came and grabbed me after the sermon and after pulling me to a standing position proceeded to tell me just what kind of a rotten person I was for laughing at God as the whole congregation watched and wondered what I had done.

What did I do wrong? I was only acknowledging my friends acknowledgement that I had got there, and I did not make a sound, I had always believed in God and would never laugh at him.

I had the hell scared out of me, I was saved by fear as Jude said Jude 1
23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire.

But did it save me? No.

I have no doubt this great man of God would swear that since it was a public matter that he was doing the right thing and according to you he was, even though he was the only one who saw me commit the terrible abomination.

It was about 63 years ago and I would not read the Bible or even consider going to Church for another 20 years.

I believe when Jesus said ;against you; he was addressing both private and public matters.

To apply the letter of law on two words of scripture when it does not agree with many of the things Jesus taught is doing just the same as the scribes and Pharisees did.

The Pauline crowd will happily agree with Paul that Peter was wrong but deny that Paul could possibly be wrong about anything.

So I guess when they repeat that all scripture is given by God they must just mean Paul`s scripture.

2 Corinthian’s 13
1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

So where were the two or three witness’s in Galatians 2:11

Why was Paul establishing something with out any witnesses at all? and he did establish the word which all Pauline’s believe today.

You can say there is no contradiction, you can say anything.

You can accuse me of picking the Bible apart that is up to you but if you can not take both the unfavorable with the favorable what kind of faith is that?

If we can take peter the way he was accused of being then I see no reason Paul can not be taken the same way.

It’s true morally, too. If a neighbor comes up to me and says, “your other next door neighbor is a pedophile,”>>>>>>

But it is legalism and also comparing apples to oranges.

But if someone is drawing the whole congregation into error, the whole congregation needs to be part of the process of correction.>>>>>>>>>>>

Not until the matter is discussed and understood in private.

[Springfield Reformer]

Well here's the thing.  You're admitting the words that make Matthew 18:15 about personal relationships are really there.  But if they still don't matter to you, what am I to do with that?  

As for us allegedly defending Paul at all costs, you've not responded to what I said earlier.  You do remember that Paul accounted himself the worst of sinners, don't you?  No one is arguing that Paul is sinless.  That's a straw-man and it burns real easy. Let's put all our chips on the right number: This is about your view of God.  If you don't think God can overcome the imperfections in His chosen messengers, then like Tozer once said, your god is too small.  My God has no more trouble speaking through Balaam's donkey than He does sending fire down from Heaven to incinerate a water-soaked altar for the prophet Elijah.

As for the correctness of Paul bringing charges against Peter without first having a private consultation, you forget these men are both apostles, uniquely empowered by Jesus Himself to set the foundations of the Christian era.  When Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Holy Spirit in public, did Peter consult with them privately to make sure he got his facts right?  Or did God work through Peter's immediate public rebuke of the two public liars to bring an immediate judgment of death?  That wouldn't play very well in the seeker sensitive environment we have today, would it.

And what sort of insight and power did God give to Paul concerning Elymas the sorcerer, without the benefit of private consultation?

Acts 13:8-11  But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.  (9)  Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,  (10)  And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?  (11)  And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.

Or again Peter in this instance, declaring the innermost heart of a professing Christian in public after a public offense against the Gospel, without the benefit of an exploritory private conversation?

Acts 8:18-21  And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,  (19)  Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.  (20)  But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.  (21)  Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Yet what Paul did surely meets even your criteria of a multiplicity of witnesses.  Think about it.  How do you suppose Paul knew there was a problem?  There are only three choices.  Either God told him directly, or he had testimony from third parties, or he was an eyewitness to it himself.  The passage suggests he was reacting to bad behavior he was witnessing with his own eyes.  Do you know all the details of how that evidence was gathered?  Were you there? Do you know whether there were three or fifteen or forty witnesses?  You don't know.

The irony here is rich.  Your attack on Paul's character for supposedly acting on incomplete knowledge is based on your own incomplete knowledge of what happened in Antioch.  And your only witness against Paul is Paul himself, writing in defense of the purity of the Gospel.  Where's your second and third witness?  

For my part, I give credit to God, that He is well able to overcome all these petty limitations and accomplish His will.  My confidence in the word of God is a reflection, not of my opinion of Paul or Peter or any other writer of Scripture, but of my complete confidence in the power and good will of God to provide for us the words by which we are to live.

Peace,

SR

[ravenwolf]

Well here’s the thing. You’re admitting the words that make Matthew 18:15 about personal relationships are really there. But if they still don’t matter to you, what am I to do with that?

---

You are going all over the place again, Just two little scriptures is really all we have to deal with here.

2 Corinthian’s 13:1
Galatians 2:11

If you first want to tell me they do not mean what they say

Then I will tell you for the 20th time why I believe Matthew 18:15 is not confined to private matters.

All of this just because I commented that Christians should read the Gospels more, which is a strong indication that many Christians are offended if some one wants to put Jesus ahead of Paul.

I for one do put Jesus ahead of Paul or any one else.

That is why I insinuated that they were Paul worshippers.

[Springfield Reformer]

You are going all over the place again,

Not really.  These are very brief arguments using only a few relevant Scriptures.  Volumes could be written.  I'm only going light because I have limits on my time.  And because people don't read really long posts anyway, so why bother.  :)

Just two little scriptures is really all we have to deal with here.

2 Corinthian’s 13:1
 Galatians 2:11

Nope.  Every Scripture that speaks to the matter is valid evidence.  As I said above, I haven't introduced but a tiny fraction of the available evidence, but time and prudence constrain me.

If you first want to tell me they do not mean what they say

Oh they mean what they say, just not what you say.  See previous post for elaboration.

Then I will tell you for the 20th time why I believe Matthew 18:15 is not confined to private matters.

You can tell me Matthew 18:15 proves that America never really landed on the Moon.  Assertions of your personal belief are always welcome, but they don't mean anything if they are divorced from the actual text.  Sorry.

All of this just because I commented that Christians should read the Gospels more, which is a strong indication that many Christians are offended if some one wants to put Jesus ahead of Paul.

No, that is absolutely not why this got started.  You have described yourself as rejecting that all the words of Scripture were directed by the Holy Spirit. That's a seriously heretical doctrine called partial inspiration, and it is refuting that falsehood which has given energy to my response.  If you only wanted the Gospels read more, I would have given you a hearty amen and moved on.  I love the Gospels and read them all the time.  Indeed, they are one of the reasons I also love Paul, and read him all the time.  And James and Peter etc etc etc.  It's all from God. Every. Last. Word of It.

I for one do put Jesus ahead of Paul or any one else. That is why I insinuated that they were Paul worshippers.

I do not see how denigrating His chosen apostles is "putting Jesus ahead."  It seems more like a back-door way to reject Him. No one here worships Paul or puts him ahead of or even in the same league as Jesus. A charge like that is just inflammatory rhetoric.  It should be overwhelmingly clear to you by now that the issue is one's view of God, not Paul.  All Scripture is inspired, God-breathed, fully capable of giving us God's message without error.  That's just how God is.  If you don't want to believe that, fine, that's your choice.  But don't expect us to lay down and be quiet when someone starts trying to cut large swaths out of God's word.

Think about it this way.  If you received a love letter from the one person you treasure above all others, and some of it was written in the hand of her secretary, and some in her own hand, would you toss everything not in her handwriting?  Wouldn't you want to know absolutely everything she said, no matter whose hand it was written in? It's not about the secretary.  It's about the one we love above all others.  

Peace,

SR

[ravenwolf]

I do not see how denigrating His chosen apostles is “putting Jesus ahead.” It seems more like a back-door way to reject Him. No one here worships Paul or puts him ahead of or even in the same league as Jesus. A charge like that is just inflammatory rhetoric.

---

You deny deny deny and deny again

Oh they mean what they say, just not what you say. See previous post for elaboration.

Year right.

If I ever turn to crime, I want you for my lawyer.

[Springfield Reformer]

SR: I do not see how denigrating His chosen apostles is “putting Jesus ahead.” It seems more like a back-door way to reject Him. No one here worships Paul or puts him ahead of or even in the same league as Jesus. A charge like that is just inflammatory rhetoric.

RW: You deny deny deny and deny again

LOL! Next time you're falsely charged with a crime against God, let me know if you too feel the need to deny the charge.  :)

We have moved past conversation and into spitwads.  I'm no good at spitwads.  Never was.  Rubber bands are a different matter.  But I digress. :)

God bless you,

SR

[ravenwolf]

SR: I do not see how denigrating His chosen apostles is “putting Jesus ahead.” It seems more like a back-door way to reject Him. No one here worships Paul or puts him ahead of or even in the same league as Jesus. A charge like that is just inflammatory rhetoric.

---

That is kind of what started it to begin with, I have nothing against Paul.

But when people start putting Paul ahead of the other apostles, I admit it gets my dander up.

And I will agree on the spit balls, but kind of think rubber bands are fun.

LOL! Next time you’re falsely charged with a crime against God,>>>>>>>>

I hate to admit it but I would probably deserve the punishment even if I was not guilty of that particular one..

God bless you.