Replies

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.

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