Where was Paul's grace in dealing with Peter?

...And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
II Tim 2:24-26

As Christians, publicly attacking and rebuking those with whom we disagree is not acceptable general practice. Rather, the above is the "modus operandi" for confronting people who are in error. James 3:13-18 has instruction on this matter also. Having said that, how should we view Paul's confrontation with Peter? Paul does say to rebuke an elder publicly, and a matter against an elder is also not to be brought against an elder unless there are 2 or 3 witnesses. I see Paul's confrontation with Peter as an exceptional case, apostle to apostle on an area of foundational doctrine and involving the sin of public two-facedness. It was a necessary step on Paul's part, but it is not the general procedure for confronting error.

 

I couldn't get through a single day without God's grace. He said His grace was sufficient for me and I have proven that to be true.

You would lose your bet. I am certainly not one who has a problem taking a position or stating my opinion!

Blessings,
Sue

 

When talking about "showing more grace" one ought to be able to define the word "grace". As I see it the word of God defines grace as "undeserved or unmerited favour". Most often in the NT this undeserved favour is on the part of the sovereign God towards undeserving elect sinners. When a person tells me to "show more grace" I take it he means I must show or exhibit more undeserved favour towards him. But this is most often code language on the part of some undogmatic compromiser of "hard sayings", meaning I must be more tolerant with his ungodly compromise or hereticalness. What would Christ the Lord say herein? I come to think of Revelation chapter 2 where He commended a messenger of an assembly who was NOT ABLE TO TOLERATE EVIL (or, worthless) MEN, Rev. 2:2. Inability to tolerate worthless ones when it comes to religious tenets and practices etc. is actually something commendable in the Holy Scriptures. 2John 9-11 is in agreement with this. Such attitude is of the essence of godly meekness, humility. I think PreachTheWord brought up an important thing. If showing more grace means tolerating heretical doctrines and practices and the such then no one is obligated to "show more grace".

Little of repentance from heretical beliefs and practices is seen when and where there is little godly rebuke of it which surges into the conscience, mind and affections. Tolerantism, compromise of biblically fixed dogmas, satanic sentimentalism, and romanticistic humanism is the consensus of the day. Would that it were not so.

Harald

 

Before some of our esteemed theologians would take off in a different tangent, and try to defend their stand on clobbering an individual over the head with the truth (the Bible), please allow me to shed some light on what those uneducated masses (myself included) are thinking about when they say, "show more grace."

As I see it, the subject of shedding some truth in a conversation over the Baptist Board often takes shape in a manner Paul the Apostle was using against Peter, as he openly rebuked the latter for his dissimulation (a KJV Bible word for you, recorded in Galatians 2:13). It is true, Paul did rebuke Peter, the Bible says so. The incident occurred face to face, and it was in the interest to set a Godly precedence in doctrinal stand by the early church, over the subject of being justified by faith versus the works of the law. Now if some of you think that the Gospel is not finished in its entirety yet, and you'd like to add to it, comparing yourselves to the Apostle Paul... then by all means go ahead and clobber those poor misguided believers over the head with your brand of truth. Who knows, you may win them over to Christ...

The way I see it, and please correct me if I am wrong, the primary purpose of every New Testament church is to restore. The primary function of the BaptistBoard.com must also by definition be the same. It was intended for the purpose of exchanging Biblical views, and to grow in faith, in understanding, and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ thereby. And here is the clincher: What this simpleton (meaning myself) understands under showing more grace is that when those higher learned individuals are trying to convince me of a particular understanding of theirs from the Bible, I say to them, tell it to me kindly, seasoned with love and grace please - instead of clobbering me over the head with truth.... Can we all do that?

P.S. In our interaction with fellow believers, let us also consider Romans 12:9, 10...

 

Thank you Barnabas!

 

Preach, Paul and Peter and the other original apostles were specially commissioned directly from the Lord Himself to begin the new church, whose cornerstone is the Lord Jesus Christ. I think we had better be awfully careful before trying to compare ourselves with them.

Our commission is to
1. Make disciples (which, as I understand it, means taking new believers and walking alongside in encouragement and prayer and friendship and often also Bible study together as they learn and start to mature spiritually)

2. Always be ready to give an answer for the hope we have (which, as I interpret it, means that we are to respond to the questions of others, and I don't see how they are going to ask questions if we are belligerant or if we don't live a life which demonstrates God's patience and grace, thus making people not only curious but feel safe to ask us questions)

3. Build up the body of Christ.


Where public evangelists and ministers are concerned, I do think there is a deep need for some real confrontation. My heart was broken this weekend when I attended my niece's wedding. It was in a United Methodist church and they were married by a woman minister. Her husband is 1 1/2 years older than I am and evidently had left his wife in the past couple of years. My niece was evidently the 'other woman.' I have adored my niece for years and did not understand really what had gone on until I was at the wedding. But it really , really hurt. What hurt just as much was that she was theologically oblivious to what had happened and was happening. Yes, we absolutely need to confront those who preach the kind of loose, liberal doctrine which not only allows, but asks for God's blessing on this kind of thing.

But here on this board, we are fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. There are many ways of presenting differences apart from harsh confrontation. Simple phrases such as "the way I see it" or "my understanding is..." can go a long way towards avoiding causing defensiveness or pain in others and I think that by being careful in this way we can discuss our differences of how we read certain things in the Bible without trying to use it as a Gatling gun to shoot others down. It is not our commission to shoot any other part of the body at all, but to build up and lift up, considering always others better than ourselves, being courteous, respectful, and gracious at every possible turn.

I think the best example we have of that on BB is Barbabas himself. We could all do a lot worse than following his example.

That is, I think, what it means to respond with grace. I do think that when one's ideas regarding what the Bible is saying in some areas are challenged, it is only the grace of God through us which can give us the courtesy and respect and graciousness that is needed in any Christian discussion.

People here have declared themselves Christians. Therefore we must treat them as a part of our own -- part of the body of Christ.

 

Helen said:

Our commission is to
1. Make disciples (which, as I understand it, means taking new believers and walking alongside in encouragement and prayer and friendship and often also Bible study together as they learn and start to mature spiritually)

END OF QUOTE

Helen. You did not give any Scripture for what you said - "make disciples" (our commission). I take it you refer to what is popularly called The Great Commission, Matt. 28 at the end. If you believe that commission is for each individual professing believer then it is your duty to go into all the world, "disciple all the nations", to immerse them unto the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And to teach the disciples you make to keep ALL things whatsoever Christ commanded, not leaving any doctrine untaught. Unless you engage in all these activities you have miserably failed to fulfill the commission, and have been a disobedient servant. You cannot pick and choose and only "make disciples", and leave out the immersing of disciples and the indoctrination of them in all of Christ's teachings.
*** remarks removed***

Harald

[ March 31, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Premise of making disciples as you describe finds no support in the commission of Jesus as far as I can see. Would be interested in where that definition came from and Scriptural support.


"Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations..."

That is the NIV translation. "Disciples" there is translated "teach" in the KJV. However in the KJV it is the ONLY time that matheteuo is translated 'teach'. However that same word is used four times in the New Testament:

Matthew 27:57 -- KJV: When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' DISCIPLE

NIV: As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself BECOME A DISCIPLE of Jesus.

Matthew 13:52 -- KJV: Then he said unto them, Therefore every scribe [which is] INSTRUCTED unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure [things] new and old.

NIV: He said to them "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been INSTRUCTED about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old."

Acts 14:21 -- KJV: And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had TAUGHT many, they returned again to Lystra, an to Iconium, and Antioch.

NIV: They preached the good news in that city and WON a large number of DISCIPLES. Then they returned to Lystra, Iconium and Antioch....

This, including the time in the Great Commission, are the only four times that Greek word is used in the Bible. And both the NIV and KJV use both teach/instruct and disciple as the meaning. Therefore I would suggest that the NIV use of the word disciple in Matthew 28 is justified.

A disciple is, indeed, someone who is taught; and someone who follows that teaching. The concept is, as I understand, implicit in the Greek word. For if 'teach' simply as we use it was to be meant, the word would have been didasko, which is used 97 times in the New Testament, ALWAYS meaning simply to teach or instruct.

So I think the word 'disciple' is an accurate translation of the word in the Great Commission. And we cannot teach anyone, or disciple anyone, who is not a believer -- for only they are empowered to follow.

That is where I got that crazy idea...

 

Man I'm an easy target...

 

A double amen to that! That is exactly what seasoning your words with grace means. Paul was firm, determined, but did not whack Peter and company over the head - did he?!

 

There is a difference between tolerance and love.

A tolerant parent allows a child to play with fire; a loving parent teaches a child that fire burns.

A tolerant pastor avoids being offensive; a loving pastor preaches all truth & standards.

There is a difference between tolerance and grace.

Some confuse tolerance with grace. Grace is God's unmerited favor towards man, tolerance is man's acceptance of sin.

Tolerance in America has led to abortion, couple living together umarried, drugs, teen age drinking, the list goes on and on.

God's grace extends God's mercy to undeserving man, grace sent God's only begotten son to the cross, grace shed the sinless blood of Christ for the redmption of our sin.

It was grace that led down a dusty, rutted street in the Philippines where I could be introduced to the one who died for me.
The misunderstanding of grace has led to too much tolerance among Christians.

[ April 02, 2003, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

Very nicely put, Ernie. Thanks!

 

"Open rebuke is better than secret love," Proverns 27:5

 

Yes, tentmaker, it is. But it is good to remember that the Bible also gives us a blueprint for that rebuke. First we are to go to the Lord and get cleaned up ourselves -- get that plank removed from our own eye.

Then we approach the person quietly and privately in love -- and that means caring for the other person more than you care for yourself.

Many people forget that even though an open rebuke is better than a hidden love, a rebuke done going to God first and then to the person in love is the best way -- it's God's way.