Peter's warning about misinterpreting Paul

[TER]

Yes or no. Do you believe the Roman bishop has strayed away from the priestly office?

Are you trying to cause a stir between me and Confederate? He knows my answer to that and yet it does not affect our love and respect for one another. What is your intention exactly in asking me this question?

 

[jmdrake]

You made a thread about misunderstanding the writings of Paul, I point out that you misunderstand him as well, and then that means I am derailing the thread? What did you want us to do, to simply accept what you said as true?

I have already asked you more than once now to explain what in my OP do you find to be a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. I haven't asked you to accept anything. Nothing in my OP had anything to do with your initial post in this thread, and nothing in your initial post had anything to do with the OP.

The summary of my initial post is simple. Paul's writings should not be elevated above the rest of scripture. Do you agree or disagree? Yes or no? Now whether you think oral tradition or post apostolic writings should be equal to apostolic writings (and here I'm talking time period, not "succession" based apostolic writings) has nothing to do with my initial post. So again, yes or no. Should Paul's writings be basis for interpreting the rest of scripture?

 

[jmdrake]

Are you trying to cause a stir between me and Confederate? He knows my answer to that and yet it does not affect our love and respect for one
another. What is your intention exactly in asking me this question?

It's a simple yes or no question. If you don't want to answer it that's fine. But it undermines the dogmatic position you wish to take about "the church". You can't have it both ways and be dogmatic in one arena and then "respectful" in another. And respect would mean not trying to derail the thread topic.

 

[TER]

I have already asked you more than once now to explain what in my OP do you find to be a misinterpretation or misunderstanding. I haven't asked you to accept anything. Nothing in my OP had anything to do with your initial post in this thread, and nothing in your initial post had anything to do with the OP. Please quit playing games. They are beneath you.

I am not playing games, I am trying to address your OP. In it you give an explanation and interpretation which you have formulated in your mind. But I don't consider your mind to be the greatest mind which ever appeared on the earth. So I must test your explanation and intepretation with the witness of the Church just as St. Paul and St. Peter did. For example, you say:

If Peter was so worried that people would misinterpret Paul to their own destruction, don't you owe it to yourself to interpret Paul's writings in the light of the rest of scripture as opposed to interpreting the rest of scripture in the light of Paul's writings?

St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, died before most of the New Testament writings were even written. Does that mean he did not understand the faith or preach the faith or live the faith? And when St. Peter was called out as being wrong, he humbled himself before the Church and was corrected by St. Paul, for even the chief of the Apostles knew himself to humble himself before the Church and the witness of the Church.

 

[TER]

But to more succinctly answer your question, you must understand that Scripture is understood within the witness of the Church, and that is the point St. Peter was making and exactly the way he lived.

 

[TER]

Anyways, my brother is coming over so I have to go for now. I leave you with the last word.

 

[jmdrake]

I am not playing games, I am trying to address your OP. In it you give an explanation and interpretation which you have formulated in your mind. But I don't consider your mind to be the greatest mind which ever appeared on the earth. So I must test your explanation and intepretation with the witness of the Church just as St. Paul and St. Peter did. For example, you say:



St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, died before most of the New Testament writings were even written. Does that mean he did not understand the faith or preach the faith or live the faith? And when St. Peter was called out as being wrong, he humbled himself before the Church and was corrected by St. Paul, for even the chief of the Apostles knew himself to humble himself before the Church and the witness of the Church.

Obviously Peter was alive at the time that some of Paul's writings had been written. That is unless you think Peter was just "making that up" and if you believe that Paul didn't write letters to churches when he was actually alive. Whether they were canonized into something called the "new testament" is irrelevant to anything I've discussed. And yes I am aware of Paul challenging the then teaching of the church and the church, after listening to what Paul had to say, coming to a different conclusion from what had been pushed until that time. More proof of the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

[jmdrake]

But to more succinctly answer your question, you must understand that Scripture is understood within the witness of the Church, and that is the point St. Peter was making and exactly the way he lived.

According to Acts the best way to interpret the "witness of the Church" is through scripture and your personal walk with the Holy Spirit. That's what the Bereans did. That's what Paul did when he challenged the then commonly accepted view of the Church with regards to circumcision. And that's what the modern sincere Christian must do. A Roman Christian can say "Well my church interprets the head of the church to be the bishop of Rome." Is he right? He's interpreting scripture in light of "the church". And yes you have your reasons to believe the Orthodox church is right on that point. Everyone has their reasons. Fine. Well and good. Seek and ye shall find. That is a promise of Jesus. Cling to that promise and you don't have to worry about the rest.

 

[TER]

Obviously Peter was alive at the time that some of Paul's writings had been written. That is unless you think Peter was just "making that up" and if you believe that Paul didn't write letters to churches when he was actually alive. Whether they were canonized into something called the "new testament" is irrelevant to anything I've discussed. And yes I am aware of Paul challenging the then teaching of the church and the church, after listening to what Paul had to say, coming to a different conclusion from what had been pushed until that time. More proof of the power of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, he was alive during some of the writings of Paul, but not when most (if any) of the Gospels were written and especially not some of the epistles and Revelation. He answered before the Holy Spirit and the congregation of those chosen as Apostles graced by the Spirit, and submitted himself to the witness of the Church rather then anything written down. For us, conveniently, we have the New Testament as a guide and source of authority, but this written tradition should not be divorced from the Church to which these scriptures were written by and distributed for.

 

[TER]

According to Acts the best way to interpret the "witness of the Church" is through scripture and your personal walk with the Holy Spirit.

Actually, the best way to interpret the witness of the Church according to Acts is to humble oneself like the Ethiopian eunuch and be baptized into it.

 

[jmdrake]

Yes, he was alive during some of the writings of Paul, but not when most (if any) of the Gospels were written and especially not some of the epistles and Revelation. He answered before the Holy Spirit and the congregation of those chosen as Apostles graced by the Spirit, and submitted himself to the witness of the Church rather then anything written down. For us, conveniently, we have the New Testament as a guide and source of authority, but this written tradition should not be divorced from the Church to which these scriptures were written by and distributed for.

You know what? I'll simply agree to disagree. It's funny how people look at the same scriptures different ways. The story of Paul and Peter affirms for me the Holy Spirit the primacy of the individuals relationship with the Holy Spirit. Why did Peter vascilate?

Galations 2:11-13
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

Came from James? Who was James? He was main leader in Jerusalem at that time. So Peter knuckled under when church leaders who disagreed with Paul came around. But Paul was the one who was actually right in this case. And in Galatians when Paul asserted his apostleship, he didn't assert it through apostolic succession, but rather through his direct encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Yes Paul went to and discussed his ideas with the council at Jerusalem. They came to a conclusion that the Gentiles should avoid fornication, things strangled and things sacrificed to idols. (Acts 15:20). But, later Paul would write:

1 Corinthians 8:1-9
1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.

So Paul seemed less bound by his agreement with "the church" than he was by he desire not to cause others who were "weak in the faith" to stumble.

I'm all for seeking a multitude of council from a variety of sources. But in the end I don't think anyone else can have an experience with the Holy Spirit on my behalf.

 

[TER]

You know what? I'll simply agree to disagree.

That's fine of course, that is your right. It makes absolutely no difference and has no bearing upon the truth however.

It's funny how people look at the same scriptures different ways.

That is why personal interpretation leads to so many divisions and that is what St. Peter was warning about. That is why we mustn't just automatically assume we have the correct interpretation, for anyone can say 'it is by the Spirit' and point to verses in writings to support their position, even while others do the same exact things while pointing to the same verse and having different interpretations. We shouldn't rely so much on our own self simply because we may be wrong. We should check with the Church, and when it reaches a necessary point, should be decided in council with the Church, exactly as described in Acts and not just willy nilly choose whatever our fallible minds and sinful hearts may think.

St. Peter was wrong because he changed the original understanding and indeed the revelation he had received in regards to what is clean and unclean, and when he was corrected (even by the Roman citizen ex persecutor of Christians St. Paul of Tarsas), he humbled himself before the Church.

I'm all for seeking a multitude of council from a variety of sources. But in the end I don't think anyone else can have an experience with the Holy Spirit on my behalf.

I wish I could believe you are all for seeking a multitude of council from a variety of sources but your actions prove otherwise. You have hardly read the writings of the earliest saints and make no effort to do so, so your seeking is lacking.

As for your last comment, I don't know what you mean. I am not saying anything about someone else experiencing the Holy Spirit for you, I am simply stating that what you may be attributing to the Holy Spirit might actually not be from the Spirit and rather be springing from your own mind and your own heart and not according to the truth as understood and passed down from the beginning.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Then argue it, but then show me the proof that that is the more accurate. In fact, the earliest writings and practices and worship speak directly against such innovative doctrines to be accurate. Instead, taking bits of Scripture here and there often time out of context and applying innovative interpretations.

It has been a few months since I have read the Apostolic Fathers, so if I read them again, I'd try to formulate a somewhat cogent representation of what Orthodoxy was just after the time the Bible was written. I remember having some problems with that.

In my opinion, the best reason to read the Church Fathers is that they aid in our understanding of Scripture. If Clement knew Paul (most likely) and was the third Bishop of Rome, it lends a lot of credibility to how he interpreted Scripture versus how I'd interpret it on my own.

 

[TER]

In my opinion, the best reason to read the Church Fathers is that they aid in our understanding of Scripture. If Clement knew Paul (most likely) and was the third Bishop of Rome, it lends a lot of credibility to how he interpreted Scripture versus how I'd interpret it on my own.

Excellent observation. This is the reasoning of a reasonable man.

St. Clement knew St. Peter, in fact it was St. Peter who ordained him and who chose him as his successor. St. Clement also knew St. Paul and probably travelled with him. In fact St. Paul mentions him in Philippians 4:3 as a fellow worker of Christ. Wouldn't it be wise to study what this man had to say about the faith and what the Scriptures mean instead of relying upon our own minds and our own experiences 2000 years removed?

 

[loveableteddybear]

Excellent observation. This is the reasoning of a reasonable man.

St. Clement knew St. Peter, in fact it was St. Peter who ordained him and who chose him as his successor. Wouldn't it be wise to study what this man had to say about the faith and what the Scriptures mean instead of relying upon our own minds and our own experiences 2000 years removed?

Certainly, though liberal critics would argue it's "not the same Clement" and the tradition is faulty.

I always wonder if the Onesimus being made Bishop in Ignatius' Epistle was the same from Colossians. Being that Clement is mentioned in Scripture and his epistle includes the earliest attestations of Hebrews, it makes sense that it's him.

 

[TER]

Certainly, though liberal critics would argue it's "not the same Clement" and the tradition is faulty.

Most of these critics have tried to remove Holy Tradition from the life of the Church, and in their confusion argue and become divided, for all they know how to do is protest and by this spirit their churches were born. If they valued Holy Tradition just as their Christian ancestors did and as many Christians still do today, and understood and accepted the faith from before there even were Gospels written (which many spend more time arguing about and debating then actually following and living), then the confusions are lessened, the misintepretations are corrected, and the humbled heart receives understanding by the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the birth of the Church on Pentecost was not the Holy Spirit coming down upon a book or a collection of writings, but atop the heads of men and women. We become saved as members of a Body called the Church, and not as pages of a book. And Christ came not to give us a book but the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures are vitally important in our walk with God and one cannot even begin to approach Him without knowledge of its contents (if not mentally, then at least by the heart). BUT in accepting this authority of divine revelation, we should not be throwing away the truths about the Church and how we are saved as members of the Church. We should not disregard the worship and practices of the early Church which was and will always be more important and more fuller then a sole aspect of it like reading from the Holy Scriptures. We are created as worshiping beings. At least let us try to imitate the worship declared and found to be worthy by the Church Christ established on earth and guided by the Holy Spirit. This begins with our reading on the early Church and the writers of this Church (namely the Church Fathers) and testing their witness against ours so many centuries and doctrines removed.

 

[Smart3]

The author of this 'Epistle', whoever he was, is aware of multiple Pauline Epistles and has copies of them. This would not have been possible in the first or even early second century. Thus the book is commonly dated between 125-200CE. (I favor somewhere around 160-180)

I can't help but laugh at people thinking the Apostle Peter had anything to do with this practically Byzantine work.

 

[loveableteddybear]

The author of this 'Epistle', whoever he was, is aware of multiple Pauline Epistles and has copies of them. This would not have been possible in the first or even early second century. Thus the book is commonly dated between 125-200CE. (I favor somewhere around 160-180)

I can't help but laugh at people thinking the Apostle Peter had anything to do with this practically Byzantine work.

Having studied ancient history and having 1 measly peer reviewed work on sources such as these, I laugh at some of the presumptions made that "X couldn't write Y."

One faulty assumption is that a Pauline Epistle "sounds" different than another one, he didn't write it. Yet, when I look at my own writing style, it has changed substantially in 9 years, and it's the same person behind it.

I understand that you are talking about a Petrine Epistle, but even then there is nothing about it that betrays a date past the mid 60s, and it does not have a developed 2nd century theology like we see from some of the Church Fathers.

 

[jmdrake]

The thread's a trainwreck because some people are intent on pushing their views on others. New thread started.

 

[jmdrake]

That's fine of course, that is your right. It makes absolutely no difference and has no bearing upon the truth however.

You know, that goes both ways. What you believe has absolutely no different and has no bearing on the truth either. The truth about circumcision didn't change just because Peter felt pressure from the "official church". The truth about meat offered to idols did not change either neither did the truth about meat from strangled animals or of consuming animal blood. Paul didn't argue with the "official church" when it gave its "ruling". He had always taught against fornication so that did not change. He taught in 1 Corinthians 8 that while someone isn't condemned for eating meat that is offered to idols, it's best not to cause your brother to stumble either. That was not the agreement he left the official church with. Paul's writings on silent (from what I've read) on blood in the meat or meat that is strangled. Those are from the health laws Moses gave. Moses warned against eating animal fat or blood. Strangled animals were not fit to eat because the blood doesn't drain out that way. Is it "wrong" to eat meat that isn't kosher? Most modern Christian churches, including your own, don't teach that. Were the earliest church fathers "wrong"? I'm sure you won't address that as you haven't addressed many of the other Bible references I've given you.

Of course, the most important question for the "seeking Christian" is "Why would God say that in the first place"? God answers that question for the seeking Christian.

Exodus 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

Most people wrongly assume that Seventh-Day Adventists follow dietary restrictions for salvation. That is not true. We follow them because we want to claim the promise of Exodus 15:26. If you follow God's dietary rules (advice if you don't like the word "rule") you tend to live longer. That's a proven fact. (SDAs tend to live 7 years longer than average). But if you stop at just what your "church" teaches you, and you don't dig further and apply all of God's promises to your lives, do you have anyone but yourself to blame for the result?

God even gave rules (advice) on where to put your toilet. He told the Israelites when they had to use the bathroom, they should leave the camp, take a shovel with them, dig a hole first and then bury the waste. (Deuteronomy 23). Two to three thousand years later "the Church" forgot about this little gem and open sewage was running in the streets of Europe. The result was the black plague. Since Jews were following the principles of the hygiene laws given to Moses they were less affected. So "good Christians" assumed that meant Jews were poisoning the wells and instead of trying to learn something from someone else, they decided "We must kill the Jews." Maybe if someone studied and learned for themselves instead of depending on "the church" to spoon feed them?

That is why personal interpretation leads to so many divisions and that is what St. Peter was warning about.

Actually Paul explained why there were so many divisions in the church. It was because people were looking to men instead of to Christ.

3 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?

5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul goes on further to nail the point home. You are the temple of God.

16 Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”[a]; 20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21 So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas[c] or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

So why boast about the "bishop of Rome" or the "bishop of Constantinople" or whatever "bishop" you chose to be under? God seeks a direct relationship with you. Yes listen to and read wise teaching. But don't take your eye off the source of such teaching.

That is why we mustn't just automatically assume we have the correct interpretation, for anyone can say 'it is by the Spirit' and point to verses in writings to support their position, even while others do the same exact things while pointing to the same verse and having different interpretations. We shouldn't rely so much on our own self simply because we may be wrong. We should check with the Church, and when it reaches a necessary point, should be decided in council with the Church, exactly as described in Acts and not just willy nilly choose whatever our fallible minds and sinful hearts may think.

The story described in Acts reveals the opposite truth of what you are trying to say. That is especially true considering that your church no longer holds to the position on strangled meats as given by the church in Acts. And comparing scripture with scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is not coming up with your own interpretation "willy nilly". The claim you are making actually goes against the Bible teaching that if the Holy Spirit is your teacher you cannot be led astray by false teachers. But hey, I guess I shouldn't believe Jesus and John and just believe you. Okay.

St. Peter was wrong because he changed the original understanding and indeed the revelation he had received in regards to what is clean and unclean, and when he was corrected (even by the Roman citizen ex persecutor of Christians St. Paul of Tarsas), he humbled himself before the Church.

Peter's original understanding was the one the official church at the time gave. And it was the church that changed it's position to align it with Paul. And since that time the "official church" has changed the position on diet even further.

I wish I could believe you are all for seeking a multitude of council from a variety of sources but your actions prove otherwise. You have hardly read the writings of the earliest saints and make no effort to do so, so your seeking is lacking.

Well if they've lead you to believe that Paul changing the mind of the church, getting the church to adopt his position, then rebuking Peter for falling back to the original church position is Peter humbling himself before "the church" then that's some doublethink understanding I can do without. Paul was not "the church" nor was he ever head of "the church". You've got that exactly backwards.