Why So Many Different Christian Views?

[Amanuensis]

1) Why do you assume 2 Peter 3 references Gal 2?

I don't. My point is that Peter considered Paul a beloved brother who had Wisdom from God and that his letters were scripture. Therefore we conclude that Peter did not have a contrary opinion to what Paul told him on the day he rebuked him, and the reasons that Paul gave Peter, the words that he spoke to Peter that day, which Paul records in Gal 2, I am sure that Peter agreed with 100% and I am using Peter's words about Paul from 2 Pet 3 to support that.

2) What exactly are you alleging Peter was "guilty" of? Based on your support of post 38, if your position is that this "guilt" indicates that Peter was not walking in the Spirit, what level of perfection is required to be considered "walking in the Spirit"? If Peter stumbles for a moment, is he not walking in the Spirit?

He was guilty of what Paul said he was guilty of. Paul said he was to be blamed!
The words in the text plainly say what he was guilty of:

11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For 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. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But 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?

3) Do you see a difference between being in the Spirit vs walking in the Spirit? How does that apply in this case?

As to walking in the Spirit I was responding to someone using that phrase. Peter always had the Holy Spirit living in him and this does not come and go but when he did this action he was not lead by the prompting of the Holy Spirit to do so. Most likely he was feeling uncomfortable about what he was doing (because the Spirit was giving him a check) and he did it anyway. That is not walking in the Spirit that is ignoring the check of the Spirit. Obeying that check of the Spirit is walking in the Spirit. We sometimes don't listen to that inner prompting because we let some other pressure over ride it, like "the fear of man" in this instance.

I think it is pretty obvious that if Peter in this incident was "Not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel" then in this incident he was not walking in the Spirit now was he?

To say that he was Walking in the Spirit when he did this act of "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" is just weird talk that makes no sense to normal people.

There is no such thing as walking in the Spirit while sinning. When one is sinning they are not walking in the Spirit at that moment.

The only reason I can think of that someone would insist that Peter was Walking in the Spirit while "not walking uprightly" is that they don't understand the definition of "walking in the Spirit" and they are defining it as being saved, or having the Holy Spirit.

In which case I can understand where the confusion might be coming from. They are trying to say that Peter still HAD the Holy Spirit even though he made this bad decision to not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel.

But if that is what you mean, then say it. He still HAD the Holy Spirit when he made this mistake. I totally agree.

Don't say that he was walking in the Spirit when he made this mistake. That makes no sense.

3) I can't vouch for exactly what Runningman means but have you ever read the works of Augustine of Hippo? (https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/galatians/augustine-on-galatians-2). Augustine basically brings up the point that the rebuke of Paul to Peter in front of others served a greater purpose. The topic isn't clean cut. There are obviously many interpretations of what exactly the exchange meant.

The passage in Gal 2 works well as an expansion on the teachings of Rom 14. You could be led into a certain understanding only to be corrected later. Your intention could be to offend the least number of people but still have your position be incorrect. That correction could be for the benefit of others and intended by God to provide perspective.

I don't agree that there is a singular "obvious" / necessary interpretation to Gal 2. We should be happy to explore any interpretation that does not contradict scripture and be mindful not to jump to conclusions about a singular answer so quickly.

[/QUOTE]
As to Augustine. Are you familiar with his methods of interpretation. Augustine is often used as an example of how to wrongly interpret scriptures by over use of allegory. Also he was very much affected by Greek philosophy. But the Allegorical methods of interpretation of Augustine is infamous as what NOT TO DO in hermeneutics. So what he had to say about Gal 2 would not surprise me though I would be surprised if he suggested that Paul was wrong. I have never given Augustine the respect that others seem to give him so what he said about it is not important to me. I would rather read the top five best evangelical scholarly commentaries of the past 50 years as we have really come along way since Augustine.

The weird interpretation I was referring to was in saying that Peter was innocent of these charges by Paul and that Peter actually was doing some kind of good deed and that Paul was wrong about this. To invent an idea like that allows one to disrespect everything else Paul says in Gal 2 as well.

If someone accuses Peter of arguing with Paul and having a contrary opinion don't you see that they have accused Peter of something far worse than what Paul rebuked him for?

Don't do that to Peter. People are always accusing Peter of way more than what the text says, even from the Gospels.

He withdrew and separated himself from the gentiles, fearing them which were of the circumcision. THAT IS WHAT HE DID.
He did not teach something or argue with Paul about something.

But I have not even read a commentary on Gal 2 since we started this conversation. It is too EASY to understand. I know that if I read the top 10 commentaries they are all going to say the same thing and none of them are going to suggest that Peter was right and Paul was wrong. That's not a real thing in academia. It's just weird.

And we ask ourselves.. "Why? How can they not grasp the ridiculousness of such an interpretation?"

I think the most common answer is Ignorance. For example: Have they understood that the "circumcision group" is not just another way to say Jews? These are so called Christian believers of the Jews who are teaching that circumcision is necessary for Gentiles to be clean in the eyes of the Lord and therefore they will not sit with them. This teaching pollutes the truth of the Gospel. Peter should have known that after having been sitting with the Gentiles before they came and then withdrawing to sit with this "sect of circumcision teaching believers" he is condoning their false teaching which I don't believe Peter taught or believed but fear of man made him not think through the message his actions were conveying. Paul confronted him because the truth of the Gospel was at stake. Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be saved or clean in the eyes of the Lord and this sect needed to know that the apostles were not in agreement with the way they were treating their Gentile brothers.

Anyone who interprets this passage as saying that Peter was right and they are on Peters side has taken the side of the sect of circumcision and needs to be rebuked just as Peter was.

So I rebuke them. May they consider themselves rebuked. Now lets agree with Paul like Peter did and move on.

 

[Jocund]

Also he was very much affected by Greek philosophy.

You speak as though the God-given gift to the Greeks was a bad thing. Many Greek philosophers spoke truths of the Gospels before the Gospels were even written. If you think Greek philosophy is a bad thing you clearly don't know very much about Greek philosophy.

As to Augustine. Are you familiar with his methods of interpretation. Augustine is often used as an example of how to wrongly interpret scriptures by over use of allegory.

It's interesting that you didn't address what had to say about Gal 2 and instead resorted to character assassination. Instead of a logos argument, you presented an ethos argument.

So what he had to say about Gal 2 would not surprise me

You didn't even bother reading the position in the link but chose to dismiss an interpretation based on association. What does this say about you?

I have never given Augustine the respect

I don't care if you don't respect Augustine, but I suggest you give proper respect to the due process of rational discourse by acknowledging the interpretation and offering logic-centred feedback.

I would rather read the top five best evangelical scholarly commentaries of the past 50 years

Do you actually mean that? Or is this just something you say?

Here's a quote from a top evangelical scholarly commentary of the last 50 years which points to St Augustine:

The blame thus imputed to St. Peter was a subject of much controversy in antiquity. It was made a ground of accusation against both Apostles. The Ebionites--as represented in the well known heretical work, the Clementine Homilies--charged St. Paul with hostility to the faith, asserting that by calling Peter "condemned" he was really accusing "God who revealed Christ in him." On the other hand, Marcion, the Gnostic, saw in the incident a proof of the antagonism between Judaism and Christianity (as he understood it) [...] Clement of Alexandria maintained that the Cephas here mentioned was not the Apostle St. Peter, but an inferior person, one of the seventy disciples. A more popular theory was that which was started by Origen, elaborated by Chrysostom, and defended with great vehemence by Jerome in a controversy with Augustine. This theory was that the two Apostles had arranged the scene beforehand between themselves, and acted it out for the edification of the Judaisers. St. Paul was to represent the view sanctioned by the Church, and St. Peter was to give an eminent example of submission. This view, though it held its ground for two centuries, was finally put down by the straightforwardness and good sense of St. Augustine.
The true explanation of the incident is to be found in the character of St. Peter--at once generously impulsive and timidly sensitive to the opinion of others. An inconsistency very similar to this appears in his ardent confession, followed by the betrayal of his Master (Mark 14:29; Mark 14:66 et seq.). It had been seen at an earlier date in his attempt to walk upon the water (Matthew 14:28-33); and is, indeed, one of the features in his character most conspicuous in the Gospels. A little more attention to this would have saved many doctrinaire objections to the narrative of the Acts, where the inconsistency, which is really one of character, is treated as if it stood in the way of the objective truth of the events. . . .

But I have not even read a commentary on Gal 2 since we started this conversation.

I don't doubt it.

The weird interpretation I was referring to was in saying that Peter was innocent of these charges by Paul and that Peter actually was doing some kind of good deed and that Paul was wrong about this.

So again, I think there is important context in understanding historically how people have used disagreements between apostles or faults of apostles to try to argue against the truth or reliability of scripture or figures in scripture. Some people in this thread have clearly and very strongly expressed their belief in other places that "Jesus is a liar" and that "scripture can't be infallible if apostles disagree with each other." I don't understand why you would think this is a nonissue or take it lightly.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with Gal 2:14 when Paul stated "when I discerned that they were not walking straight-footed with the truth of the gospel". Or in Gal 2:11 when Paul states that Peter "stood to be condemned". Peter was condemned in front of others, and the Peter's initial behaviour was causing them around him to follow an incorrect path. But through the open correction and Peter changing his ways, he demonstrated by example the path for correction and healing appropriate to that circumstance. Like a thumb opposing a finger, the outcome was a deeper appeal to those in the audience than would have otherwise been possible.

There are a few possible interpretations to this:

1) Peter sinned by ignoring what he knew to be right (he sinned while knowing)

2) Peter followed what he felt was the right thing but it ended up being contrary to what was actually right (he sinned without knowing)

3) Peter was led by his faith to the truth of the moment which was a necessary component in the overall outcome (he didn't sin and was merely an instrument of the Holy Spirit).

(He was given a specific discernment revealed to him until the whole of God's plan in that case shone through Paul's discernment - which he readily accepted.)

It would be foolish to ignore the possible interpretations without addressing them logically. And yet you have decided for no apparent reason other than intuition (pathos) that interpretation 1) is somehow necessarily true and no other interpretation makes sense. Your approach is bad. You could make a case for why interpretation 1) is a more compelling. You could also make a case for an exegesis that would render interpretation 1) to be necessarily true. But you have ignored the due process and that itself is worthy of criticism.

It is too EASY to understand.

Your disregard for proper exegetic process is also "EASY" to demonstrate.

You could declare that it is EASY to understand the Trinity through modalism, but you would be wrong. Just because an interpretation seems EASY does not make it the correct interpretation.

Anyone who interprets this passage as saying that Peter was right and they are on Peters side has taken the side of the sect of circumcision and needs to be rebuked just as Peter was.

No one argued that Peter was correct at the expense of Paul being correct.

From a scriptural sense, we can show where Peter's thinking was coming from. Rom 14 and Proverbs 22:3.

"But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." - Romans 14:15 KJV

"A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished." - Proverbs 22:3 KJV

But if that is what you mean, then say it. He still HAD the Holy Spirit when he made this mistake. I totally agree.

This falls under interpretation 2) from above. It's a valid interpretation. It just isn't the only valid interpretation.

I think it is pretty obvious that if Peter in this incident was "Not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel" then in this incident he was not walking in the Spirit now was he?

The short of it is that no, I don't agree that your premise here would be necessarily true even if it is a possible interpretation. And much like trying to explain the Trinity, if you don't understand interpretation 3), it's not going to be a simple conversation.

Can people in opposition both be walking in the Spirit at the same time? The premise I am suggesting is yes they can. The premise does not require Gal 2 to fit that scenario. It would be useful to the conversation if you understood how it could, but it isn't necessary.

The thumb can appear to work contrary to the finger but the collective action leads to an emergent good. The eye may not agree with the ear, nor the ear with the foot, but there are hidden purposes that through differences each serve the Spirit that guides the will of the entire body. The question was about "why are there so many different Christian views?" Why would we expect individual parts of a body to fulfil the same functions? Or perceive the same things? Or agree about direction of movement/energy? It is the love of God that is the binding force. Why should we assume that every body part requires a perfect objective understanding outside of the scope of their function?

If we follow the body-part analogy to its natural conclusion, we see exactly why there are so many different Christian worldviews, and it is not "because 99% of them are not walking in the Spirit"

 

[Inquisitor]

Yes we have the Holy Spirit to guide us, however people have forgotten that the Holy Spirit has been sent to reveal Jesus, His character and His purposes as Christ the Head speaks forth.

`However, when He the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears he will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify me, for He will take of what is mine and declare it to you.` (John 16: 13 & 14)

People who are just focused on the `Holy Spirit` and NOT on Christ the Head, can be led into all sorts of spirits, for unless Christ is the source then someone is open to demonic spirits.

Also the Head of His Body has 5 ministry gifts that are given to His Body, to open up God`s word, teach, exhort and thus equip the believers for the work of ministry out to others.

Five ministry gifts?

I read there were around nine ministry gifts listed in the text (1 Corinthians 12:8-10).

I feel like I have entered the twilight zone.

 

[Inquisitor]

I don't. My point is that Peter considered Paul a beloved brother who had Wisdom from God and that his letters were scripture. Therefore we conclude that Peter did not have a contrary opinion to what Paul told him on the day he rebuked him, and the reasons that Paul gave Peter, the words that he spoke to Peter that day, which Paul records in Gal 2, I am sure that Peter agreed with 100% and I am using Peter's words about Paul from 2 Pet 3 to support that.



He was guilty of what Paul said he was guilty of. Paul said he was to be blamed!
The words in the text plainly say what he was guilty of:

11But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For 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. 13And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But 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?




As to walking in the Spirit I was responding to someone using that phrase. Peter always had the Holy Spirit living in him and this does not come and go but when he did this action he was not lead by the prompting of the Holy Spirit to do so. Most likely he was feeling uncomfortable about what he was doing (because the Spirit was giving him a check) and he did it anyway. That is not walking in the Spirit that is ignoring the check of the Spirit. Obeying that check of the Spirit is walking in the Spirit. We sometimes don't listen to that inner prompting because we let some other pressure over ride it, like "the fear of man" in this instance.

I think it is pretty obvious that if Peter in this incident was "Not walking uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel" then in this incident he was not walking in the Spirit now was he?

To say that he was Walking in the Spirit when he did this act of "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" is just weird talk that makes no sense to normal people.

There is no such thing as walking in the Spirit while sinning. When one is sinning they are not walking in the Spirit at that moment.

The only reason I can think of that someone would insist that Peter was Walking in the Spirit while "not walking uprightly" is that they don't understand the definition of "walking in the Spirit" and they are defining it as being saved, or having the Holy Spirit.

In which case I can understand where the confusion might be coming from. They are trying to say that Peter still HAD the Holy Spirit even though he made this bad decision to not walk uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel.

But if that is what you mean, then say it. He still HAD the Holy Spirit when he made this mistake. I totally agree.

Don't say that he was walking in the Spirit when he made this mistake. That makes no sense.

As to Augustine. Are you familiar with his methods of interpretation. Augustine is often used as an example of how to wrongly interpret scriptures by over use of allegory. Also he was very much affected by Greek philosophy. But the Allegorical methods of interpretation of Augustine is infamous as what NOT TO DO in hermeneutics. So what he had to say about Gal 2 would not surprise me though I would be surprised if he suggested that Paul was wrong. I have never given Augustine the respect that others seem to give him so what he said about it is not important to me. I would rather read the top five best evangelical scholarly commentaries of the past 50 years as we have really come along way since Augustine.

The weird interpretation I was referring to was in saying that Peter was innocent of these charges by Paul and that Peter actually was doing some kind of good deed and that Paul was wrong about this. To invent an idea like that allows one to disrespect everything else Paul says in Gal 2 as well.

If someone accuses Peter of arguing with Paul and having a contrary opinion don't you see that they have accused Peter of something far worse than what Paul rebuked him for?

Don't do that to Peter. People are always accusing Peter of way more than what the text says, even from the Gospels.

He withdrew and separated himself from the gentiles, fearing them which were of the circumcision. THAT IS WHAT HE DID.
He did not teach something or argue with Paul about something.

But I have not even read a commentary on Gal 2 since we started this conversation. It is too EASY to understand. I know that if I read the top 10 commentaries they are all going to say the same thing and none of them are going to suggest that Peter was right and Paul was wrong. That's not a real thing in academia. It's just weird.

And we ask ourselves.. "Why? How can they not grasp the ridiculousness of such an interpretation?"

I think the most common answer is Ignorance. For example: Have they understood that the "circumcision group" is not just another way to say Jews? These are so called Christian believers of the Jews who are teaching that circumcision is necessary for Gentiles to be clean in the eyes of the Lord and therefore they will not sit with them. This teaching pollutes the truth of the Gospel. Peter should have known that after having been sitting with the Gentiles before they came and then withdrawing to sit with this "sect of circumcision teaching believers" he is condoning their false teaching which I don't believe Peter taught or believed but fear of man made him not think through the message his actions were conveying. Paul confronted him because the truth of the Gospel was at stake. Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be saved or clean in the eyes of the Lord and this sect needed to know that the apostles were not in agreement with the way they were treating their Gentile brothers.

Anyone who interprets this passage as saying that Peter was right and they are on Peters side has taken the side of the sect of circumcision and needs to be rebuked just as Peter was.

So I rebuke them. May they consider themselves rebuked. Now lets agree with Paul like Peter did and move on. [/QUOTE]
Galatians 2:11
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

Very strong words from Paul.

 

[Marilyn]

Five ministry gifts?

I read there were around nine ministry gifts listed in the text (1 Corinthians 12:8-10).

I feel like I have entered the twilight zone.

Yes you are right there are 9 ministry gifts of the Holy Spirit which every believer can operate in one or many, as the Holy Spirit wills.

Then there are 5 persons with Christ`s ministries of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor, Teacher.

Christ is all those and have given of Himself as the Head to His Body to build up and mature it by truth of Himself.

 

[Amanuensis]

You speak as though the God-given gift to the Greeks was a bad thing. Many Greek philosophers spoke truths of the Gospels before the Gospels were even written. If you think Greek philosophy is a bad thing you clearly don't know very much about Greek philosophy.



It's interesting that you didn't address what had to say about Gal 2 and instead resorted to character assassination. Instead of a logos argument, you presented an ethos argument.

I have exegeted it quite succinctly through multiple posts and I don't really think it is an issue for common people reading the bible in church today.

In 40 years of more than average church involvement and ministry surrounded by people who talk about scriptures all the time I have only heard once, an interpretation that Peter was right and just trying to do what Paul said about being all things to all men to save some, and it was here on CC. Therefore I thought it served as a good example of the type of interpretations one runs into here on CC as to the OP original question that he articulated in his post. Also, none of the comments or quotes you provided match that kind of interpretation. All you presented was some discussions about the text. None of them suggests that Peter was right or that he was not guilty of what Paul said. At least that is not how I read them. If there is someone in church history who has come up with that interpretation it will probably be another 40 years before I run into it again, so it is not a real issue that is happening when most people read Gal 2.

I did address your comment about 2 Pet 3 and Gal 2 but you did not understand my answer.
You asked "1) Why do you assume 2 Peter 3 references Gal 2? "

I said:

I don't. (I don't think that 2 Pet 3 references Gal 2. My point is that from reading 2 Peter we learn that Peter considered Paul a beloved brother who had Wisdom from God and that his letters were scripture. Therefore we conclude that Peter did not have a contrary opinion to what Paul told him on the day when he rebuked him, and when he told Peter the reasons for that rebuke in Gal 2.

Therefore because of what Peter said about Paul in 2 Pet 3 I believe that supports the idea that on that day that Paul rebuked him, that Peter agreed with Paul. We have proof from 2 Pet 3 of what Peter thought about Paul's writings. And logic tells us that we can conclude that Gal 2, being some of Paul's writings, that Peter thought Paul was correct about what he said about Peter's actions that day. Therefore I have more biblical support that Peter did not have an opposing view and those who invent an interpretation that Peter did have an opposing view are making it up with no biblical support and actually contradicting Peters' statements about Paul from 2 Pet 3 as though he did not mean it. I could go on with this logic but it really is too clear and simple and I feel I am being condescending so I will quit.

As to Greek Philosophy it was riddled with problems. It has been a problem in making mistakes in hermeneutics throughout the history of the church. The reason is somewhat complex. There is a different mindset of Hebrew and Jewish and eastern philosophy that has to be understood when reading Jewish ancient Hebrew or Ancient Near East literature and one can mess things up when they read a Ancient Jewish literature through the lens of a Western Greek Philosophy. It was part of Augustine errors and all this has been documented in reams of books through out history and can be read in books on Hermeneutics.

Since we are talking about discovering correct interpretation of scripture and when someone presents Augustine it is always helpful to remind them of how often Augustine is used as bad examples of a period of time in church history when the "known or literature producing church" was known to have done some really awful hermeneutics. I think most bible college text books on hermeneutics will discuss this in the first few chapters on the history of scriptural hermeneutics. They often use Augustine's' writing on The City of God as an example and also his allegories about the Good Samaritan is used as an example of times in church history when some people have really gone off the rails in hermeneutical methods that are discouraged if you are trying to discover authorial intent.

If you didn't know all this, don't get upset with me. Just read a few good text books on hermeneutics. Don't shoot the messenger as they say.

 

[Goliath]

So if you are guided by the Holy Spirit, do you believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the teaching of man.[/QUOTE]

I believe solely in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Here's why....
I never attended a church, but I listened to many Christian teachers on the radio every morning on my 1 hour ride to and from work. Men like Charles Stanley, John MacArthur, John Hagee and Hank Hanegraffee. I found them very interesting, and they took my mind off the drive. I listened for many years on my drive, and yet couldn't understand what I must do to be saved. Their teachings simply didn't make any sense to me. If I couldn't do anything to save myself, and I believed in Jesus....I must have been saved and didn't know it.

Well years went by...with the same routine, even listened to some Christian music from time to time. I even Sang along from time to time because it brought me so much joy. Then over time as the years went by...I stopped listening to the teachers, when their words began to bore me. Though I didn't identity myself as a Christian, I continued with their music, because for some reason, the music just made me happy.

More years went by, and one day, on my 41st birthday.... I fell into a deep depression that night. I had never felt depression so I didn't know my way out. I thought of all the things I could do to make me happy...and couldn't think of a single thing in this world to make the depression go away. Then I remembered those days of listening to Christian music. But instead of turning on the radio...I got on my knees and asked God to explain Jesus for me.

All of a sudden, I felt the need to Apologize to God for my behavior Throughout my lifetime. In other words, I confessed my sins before God. I had never done this before, and after that prayer, The depression was gone and it was replaced with pure joy, a joy I had never known. Now things were getting interesting and I wanted to know more. I repented...I turned from sin. Over the next six months, when I sinned against God, I would confess my sins. I didn't know how I knew it was sin at the time, but I knew when I sinned, I needed to ask Gods forgiveness. I soon found that I was unable to keep one of the Lords commands.

My life was going great..better than ever before...and believe me...I had a full life. I simply didn't want it to end. I knew my life was going in a new direction, but I didn't know the direction. I mean I didn't ask God to save me, but to simply allow me to continue to bask in his beautiful light. But there was this sin...

A sin that simply tormented me.
I tried to keep it, I really did...But every once and a while the temptation overwhelmed me, and I fell to its demands again and again. Each time I fell, God would punish me. Boy howdy....could I relate to Pauls (Romans 7:24) cry for help at that time in my life.
Then, there came a time when I grieved when I committed this sin. God had given me everything I needed and I failed him over and over again. And when I felt grief, that became my punishment. This grief over sin, I know now to be repentance.

Once there...a few months later, I committed the sin again. The temptation was just unbelievable and I was too weak to stand against it. This time, the grief was simply unbearable. A simple confession wasn't enough, I felt the need to do something for God.
But what?
What could I do for God?
I had the answer...I told God I would attend church. You see....God knew what I thought about Christians. I saw them as a bunch of self righteous hypocrites. So the next day I went to church, and after a day or so...I noticed the temptation to sin was no longer there. Sin died that day...and over 20 years later has not reared its ugly head again...and when it died.....I was able to became a servant of righteousness. Though I wasn't looking for salvation....I found it!!

 

[Goliath]

Christians will Quietly get me to the side....and ask me to show them the way.
I tell them, I can not. For I can not make you feel guilt over sin. I can not make you grieve in your heart. Grief which is there, because you love God with all your heart. Grieve as I once grieved, feeling unworthy of Gods love, unworthy because he blesses you, and you can keep a simple command. A grief that will cause you to not just ask, but beg the Lords forgiveness as you lie in a pool of your own tears. I also can not bring you the joy of the Lord, a joy once you have, you never want to be without.

These are the tools the Holy Spirit uses to keep us on the right path. Many have this gift, but they simply don't know why they need the gift. It's because the Holy Spirit, is the only one, who can show you the way. You must only put your trust in God (Narrow path)...and not one of many of the doctrines (Wide path) we are free to choose from. You must learn the way of the spirit. The way he tried to teach you the very day you received him. But being in a church and trusting only in your teachers, the seed planted..never really took root.

But it's not to late...for the spirit is still with you.
So....What must you do to be saved?
Get down on your knees and have a talk with God, confess your sins, and ask God to show you the way.
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
(Matthew 7:7)
If he did it for me...he will surely do it for you.

Why is Confession of sin so important?
Unconfessed sin is Unforgiven sin, and Unforgiven sin separates us from God
But your iniquities have separated you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear. (Isaiah 59:2)
If we are separated from God, we are also separated from his light and we will walk in darkness.
This then is the message which we have heard from Him and declare unto you: that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. (1 John 1: 6)
How do we know we have been walking in darkness?
Notice how acutely aware you are of sin, immediately after your confession, sin you were not aware of before the confession.This is basically what John is teaching in (1 John 1). And you become aware of sin because you are now in his light.
Now you simply need to follow the Holy Spirit.
How? Conscience!!!
Notice what convicted these men...
And they who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the eldest even unto the last, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing in the midst.
(John 8:9)

Many people are bothered by their conscience...and most have no idea it's God teachings them, through their conscience. Conscience is mentioned 29 times in the New Testament. But found nowhere in the Old Testament.
Why?
Because God did not write his laws in the hearts and minds of those who were under the Law of Moses, but he did for those under the Law of Christ.
So let the Lord lead you through your conscience, and learn to obey him, and stay in his light. Until you die to sin, you will still fall to temptation and sin. But eventually your love for God will destroy that which causes you to sin. (Romans) chapter 7&8 will then begin to make sense to you...as will your experience.

 

[Jocund]

I have exegeted it quite succinctly

Character assassination is not exegesis. Ethos is not logos. 90% of your post is an argument from ethos. I will not acknowledge any part of your post that is premised from ethos.

There is a different mindset of Hebrew and Jewish and eastern philosophy that has to be understood when reading Jewish ancient Hebrew

Your thinking is flawed. In Hebrews 9 we see that in order to have an unveiled understanding of the OT, scripture must be understood from the NT (Greek). It is therefore the case that it is more important to have an understanding of ancient Greek culture and philosophy than Hebrew. Understanding Greek thinking is key to understanding the entirety of the Bible, Hebrew is not. A good translation of Hebrew is necessary but Greek holds the key to understanding. Why do you think God presented the NT in Greek and not by some other language first?

I did address your comment about 2 Pet 3 and Gal 2 but you did not understand my answer.
You asked "1) Why do you assume 2 Peter 3 references Gal 2? "

I said:

I don't. (I don't think that 2 Pet 3 references Gal 2. My point is that from reading 2 Peter we learn that Peter considered Paul a beloved brother who had Wisdom from God and that his letters were scripture. Therefore we conclude that Peter did not have a contrary opinion to what Paul told him on the day when he rebuked him, and when he told Peter the reasons for that rebuke in Gal 2.

Therefore because of what Peter said about Paul in 2 Pet 3 I believe that supports the idea that on that day that Paul rebuked him, that Peter agreed with Paul.

I addressed this in my last post.

We have proof from 2 Pet 3 of what Peter thought about Paul's writings.

The 2 Pet 3 passage you cited only describes Peter's perception that Paul's epistles can be hard to understand and may be misunderstood. 2 Pet 3 does not state that Peter agreed with Paul on all issues.

Your argument completely ignores the fact that relative truths can exist per Rom 14. Your argument ignores the fact that two people can be right in their own discernments despite those discernments being contrary. It can be sinful for one person to eat shellfish and not sinful for another person to eat that same shellfish. Since Jews by OT law were not to eat with nonobservers of OT law, the case could be made that it could be sinful for a OT-observing Christian to eat with a non-OT-observing Christian. By Peter's discernment at the time, abstaining from eating with non-OT-observing Christians could have been seen as a means to fulfil the teachings of Rom 14. The aspect of fear Peter experienced can be attributed to Prov 22:3's prudence.

There is moral dilemma that exists in Rom 14 and Gal 2 addresses it.

And logic tells us that we can conclude that Gal 2, being some of Paul's writings, that Peter thought Paul was correct about what he said about Peter's actions that day.

"Logic tells us that we can conclude"

If you are suggesting that your interpretation is a valid possibility, I don't disagree. You seem to be misunderstanding the nuance between possibility and necessity.

Therefore I have more biblical support that Peter did not have an opposing view and those who invent an interpretation that Peter did have an opposing view are making it up with no biblical support and actually contradicting Peters' statements about Paul from 2 Pet 3

No. There would be no contradiction with 2 Pet 3 if Peter and Paul had different opinions in that case.

 

[kenallen]

For several years, something hit me in the head. It felt like someone threw a brick at me! It was like someone started annoying me and won't leave me alone!

The Bible seems to be saying that we Christians, have the same "Holy Spirit" that guides us in all truth. I heard a pastor say, that unbelievers can't understand the Bible because they don't have the Holy Spirit. And yet at another Church I met a guy who claimed that even before He became a Christian He knew the Bible better than most Christians, simply because He enjoyed reading a lot. He became a Christian, therefor God did get a hold of him! But according to that one pastor, it was backwards.

When I log into Christian forums, I see an awful lot of "interesting" views. I wonder, if everyone has the same "Holy Spirit" then why does all these views exist? Some of these views set me on edge. Because of all the different Bible teachings I have ever heard, I've never come across some of these ideas. And other thing. I do the best I can. I listen to an audio Bible while I work. I've been through the entire thing from Genesis to Revelation, probably 4 or 5 times, and some of these ideas never even entered in my mind once! So when I read them, I'm like where on earth are these ideas coming from? When I look at the provided scriptures, at first glance, it looks like people are reading in between the lines, or taking things out of context to form their views. But why on earth, anyone who has the "Holy Spirit" would do such a thing? I suppose we could have some wolves in sheep clothing, but then again, we would have an awful lot of self deceived people. Which would make it really hard to determine who is and who isn't deceived. Because people who are deceived, don't know they are the deceived. That is what deception is...

So I guess, I'm curious, why do you think "Spirit Filled" people are messing up so bad?

Below are just scripture verses that I found before I started writing this post.

John 14:26
26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Romans 8:26
26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

John 16:13
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

1 Corinthians 12
4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

I will start with something My Pastor says: Do not ask me a question about any specific Church, or Pastor, we do not have the right to judge any man; But we do have the right to discern what is right or wrong from the word. In the last few months I have been to several denominational, and nondenominal churches and have heard that Jacob stole Esau's birthright, the rapture, the law "the 10 commandments" is no longer has a place in the church today it has been replaced by grace, We need money we are behind in our budget, in general the word is not tought. If it is tought it is watered down milk and a few verses and then how good ol uncle Joe did things back in the day . . .

 

[kenallen]

Failure to rightly divide the word of truth, mainly, failure to divide Israel from the body of Christ.

John146 Just what do you mean divide Israel from the body of Christ?

 

[kenallen]

Yes, we are flesh, living in the kingdom of the world. We are given scripture telling us about another kingdom that is operated with very different ways and rules, and asked to understand from God's point of view. It would be surprising if all flesh could understand scripture, written from the kingdom of heaven instead of the kingdom of the world.

We are just traveling through his world we are not to be citizens partakers in it. Our true destination and citizenship is The New Jerusalem, and the bible is our map. This is my opinion from my limited visits to church and what I have seen on line they do not line up with what I read in the bible.

 

[kenallen]

Thank you, and I sure hope these panels are pleasing to our Lord

In some ways it can seem my whole life prepared me for this.
And I do derive much... pleasure, and peace, in the creation of them.

I don't know what I'd do with myself otherwise.

PS~ you'd asked earlier how many there were. I counted this year's,
and arrived at a number amounting to two every three days, which
was not counting January, since I didn't really do any panel designs
until the end of that month, being away from Christian Chat...

Love the art and what you have to say. I am sure your spirit is a wounderful as your art work.

 

[Magenta]

Love the art and what you have to say. I am sure your spirit is a wounderful as your art work.

Thank you, Ken. I hope you are finding some satisfactory answers to the questions you pose It's great that you are delving so deeply into the Word! You have given many of us much to think about in your relatively short time here. Oh! The Genesis panel that was inspired by/from your Adam and Eve apple query thread was a delight for me to design. Thank you for that, also

Genesis 2:17

 

[John146]

John146 Just what do you mean divide Israel from the body of Christ?

God has made a covenant with the nation of Israel, God's physical people, the twelve tribes. This is different than God's spiritual people the body of Christ. Most of the bible is to the nation of Israel concerning their promises and kingdom.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

I will start with something My Pastor says: Do not ask me a question about any specific Church, or Pastor, we do not have the right to judge any man; But we do have the right to discern what is right or wrong from the word.

I'm unable to clarify what your pastor means by this, but I always find it concerning to hear pastors say that we shouldn't judge, as often this is a means by which a pastor is allowed to teach whatever they want and without questioning.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 NLT - "It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you."

Any person who has received the Circumcision of Christ and the Holy Spirit, live by the Laws of the Spirit of Life. This means that they inwardly are being taught the Laws of God, thus written Word is not necessary to possess to be able to make certain judgments about others.

I wish that the "christians" that surrounded me would have made judgments about me and my lifestyle, for if they had, perhaps I could have come to know the Truth much more quickly and wouldn't have suffered as I did.

 

[kenallen]

I'm unable to clarify what your pastor means by this, but I always find it concerning to hear pastors say that we shouldn't judge, as often this is a means by which a pastor is allowed to teach whatever they want and without questioning.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 NLT - "It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you."

Any person who has received the Circumcision of Christ and the Holy Spirit, live by the Laws of the Spirit of Life. This means that they inwardly are being taught the Laws of God, thus written Word is not necessary to possess to be able to make certain judgments about others.

I wish that the "christians" that surrounded me would have made judgments about me and my lifestyle, for if they had, perhaps I could have come to know the Truth much more quickly and wouldn't have suffered as I did.

No that is not what He means. It is Gods place to Judge us. We have been given the Holy Spirit and we do have the right to discern truth from fiction. He will also tell you do not take my word for it check it out in the bible. After every one of His messages 35-40 min long He has a question and answer session and gives everyone a chance to ask questions. I live about 31/2 hours from the church itself so I have only been there once but we get a message Monday-Friday on local tv. We can get all the archived sermons and every book of the bible done chapter by chapter and verse by verse. We can get any CD for $5.00 each disc, and most are on youtube.

 

[Amanuensis]

Character assassination is not exegesis. Ethos is not logos. 90% of your post is an argument from ethos. I will not acknowledge any part of your post that is premised from ethos.



Your thinking is flawed. In Hebrews 9 we see that in order to have an unveiled understanding of the OT, scripture must be understood from the NT (Greek). It is therefore the case that it is more important to have an understanding of ancient Greek culture and philosophy than Hebrew. Understanding Greek thinking is key to understanding the entirety of the Bible, Hebrew is not. A good translation of Hebrew is necessary but Greek holds the key to understanding. Why do you think God presented the NT in Greek and not by some other language first?



I addressed this in my last post.



The 2 Pet 3 passage you cited only describes Peter's perception that Paul's epistles can be hard to understand and may be misunderstood. 2 Pet 3 does not state that Peter agreed with Paul on all issues.

Your argument completely ignores the fact that relative truths can exist per Rom 14. Your argument ignores the fact that two people can be right in their own discernments despite those discernments being contrary. It can be sinful for one person to eat shellfish and not sinful for another person to eat that same shellfish. Since Jews by OT law were not to eat with nonobservers of OT law, the case could be made that it could be sinful for a OT-observing Christian to eat with a non-OT-observing Christian. By Peter's discernment at the time, abstaining from eating with non-OT-observing Christians could have been seen as a means to fulfil the teachings of Rom 14. The aspect of fear Peter experienced can be attributed to Prov 22:3's prudence.

There is moral dilemma that exists in Rom 14 and Gal 2 addresses it.



"Logic tells us that we can conclude"

If you are suggesting that your interpretation is a valid possibility, I don't disagree. You seem to be misunderstanding the nuance between possibility and necessity.



No. There would be no contradiction with 2 Pet 3 if Peter and Paul had different opinions in that case.

I have nothing left to say about it that I haven't already said.

Peter was moved by fear of the circumcision group and separated from the Gentiles because of hypocrisy. Barnabas went along with it and followed Peter.

Paul corrected them and told them why it was perverting the truth of the Gospel.

No argument ensued. Peter did not talk back defending his actions.

No one has the biblical support to invent a imaginary scenario where Peter talked back to Paul about it and to do so falsely accuses Peter of a crime that he was not guilty of, namely disagreeing with Paul's statements about Peter and his reasons for the dissimulation.

I think it is a sin to accuse Peter of arguing with Paul about this when Peter never did such a thing. People who do it should repent and apologize to Peter for falsely accusing him.

 

[kenallen]

Love the art and what you have to say. I am sure your spirit is a wounderful as your art work.

Iam sure they are because they are uplifting to His children

 

[Jocund]

No argument ensued. Peter did not talk back defending his actions.

I've addressed this time and time again, I never took this position. Look back at the posts. Read.