My error.

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

My error. Anyone who teaches a false teaching is a false teacher.

St. Peter taught that circumcision was necessary.

But I should not have sinned against a holy man of God and called him a false teacher.

There's more to it than mere logic.

I have made some errors too. I should not be anything but humble. God forgive me for trying to say

things I should not have said. I was kind of speaking against what I thought was an error about saying

false teachers can't repent. I thought that was saying too much, that a person should not presume to know.

God forgive us and save us from false teaching. God forgive me for what I said about St. Peter. Amen.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[TheAristocat]

My error. Anyone who teaches a false teaching is a false teacher.

St. Peter taught that circumcision was necessary.

But I should not have sinned against a holy man of God and called him a false teacher.

There's more to it than mere logic.

I have made some errors too. I should not be anything but humble. God forgive me for trying to say

things I should not have said. I was kind of speaking against what I thought was an error about saying

false teachers can't repent. I thought that was saying too much, that a person should not presume to know.

God forgive us and save us from false teaching. God forgive me for what I said about St. Peter. Amen.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

If you called Peter a false teacher it'd be like calling any man who teaches the truth a false teacher. We're all humans. Anyway what's this circumcision thing about? I believe we should obey circumcision out of a loving obedience to God, but I don't believe it to be intrinsically necessary for salvation as Christ's sacrifice was.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

If you called Peter a false teacher it'd be like calling any man who teaches the truth a false teacher. We're all humans. Anyway what's this circumcision thing about? I believe we should obey circumcision out of a loving obedience to God, but I don't believe it to be intrinsically necessary for salvation as Christ's sacrifice was.

St. Paul did correct St. Peter. But I shouldn't have gone as far as to call St. Peter a false teacher. That was wrong of me. Forgive me, dear St. Peter. What St. Peter did was require circumcision, and St. Paul withstood him to the face over that. I didn't mean to say that St. Peter didn't teach the truth. I meant he made a mistake for a while. I was being overly logical, that anyone who teaches one false thing is a false teacher, in spite of all the other true things he teaches. So I went too far in pressing mere logic.
I have taught or at least believed false things in the past. So I was false. God forgive me.

 

[TheAristocat]

St. Paul did correct St. Peter. But I shouldn't have gone as far as to call St. Peter a false teacher. That was wrong of me. Forgive me, dear St. Peter. What St. Peter did was require circumcision, and St. Paul withstood him to the face over that. I didn't mean to say that St. Peter didn't teach the truth. I meant he made a mistake for a while. I was being overly logical, that anyone who teaches one false thing is a false teacher, in spite of all the other true things he teaches. So I went too far in pressing mere logic.
I have taught or at least believed false things in the past. So I was false. God forgive me.

If that's true then I guess it just goes to show us that the words we should primarily rely on for our theology are God's words (thus including Christ's) and not Paul's or Peter's. Would be the safest bet, no? After all, who's to say Paul didn't make a mistake himself? In one passage he tells us not to let others judge us in the matter of food and drink and then in another passage he seems to chew people out for improperly eating the Lord's Supper. He says that because they improperly ate the Lord's Supper that they were sick and dying.

 

[A-Omega]

The error here is in use of scripture!!

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?
15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Nowhere in this passage does it say that Peter was "preaching that you must be circumcised." What Paul specifically saw and wrote was that Peter was hanging out with Gentile Believers. But when the Messianic Jews showed up, he shunned the Gentiles to hang out with the Messianic Jews. It was basically just trying to be with the "in-crowd" based on ethnicity. And even Peter's motive is given. He did NOT do this because he believed and preached circumcision. He feared the Messianic Jews, who did not know better and were letting their prideful flesh get the best of them, would criticize him. There was obviously an ethnic tension and Peter, instead of addressing it, gave into peer pressure.



I am at a loss as to why you would inject something into the scripture that is nowhere mentioned whatsoever. Peter NEVER preached circumcision in the Bible.

 

[TheAristocat]

The error here is in use of scripture!!

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?
15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Nowhere in this passage does it say that Peter was "preaching that you must be circumcised." What Paul specifically saw and wrote was that Peter was hanging out with Gentile Believers. But when the Messianic Jews showed up, he shunned the Gentiles to hang out with the Messianic Jews. It was basically just trying to be with the "in-crowd" based on ethnicity. And even Peter's motive is given. He did NOT do this because he believed and preached circumcision. He feared the Messianic Jews, who did not know better and were letting their prideful flesh get the best of them, would criticize him. There was obviously an ethnic tension and Peter, instead of addressing it, gave into peer pressure.



I am at a loss as to why you would inject something into the scripture that is nowhere mentioned whatsoever. Peter NEVER preached circumcision in the Bible.

I tend to agree with most if not everything Paul has to say. I just think it should be understood within context. For instance, he calls us the temple of God, but we are obviously not a structure of stone that was built for the express purpose of or taking the place of an earthly temple. The context of such a teaching is that God dwells within us, and we should be holy as God is holy. It says as much in Deuteronomy if I remember right.

 

[A-Omega]

I tend to agree with most if not everything Paul has to say. I just think it should be understood within context. For instance, he calls us the temple of God, but we are obviously not a structure of stone that was built for the express purpose of or taking the place of an earthly temple. The context of such a teaching is that God dwells within us, and we should be holy as God is holy. It says as much in Deuteronomy if I remember right.

I honestly have no idea as to how what you said relates to what I posted. Could you clarify as to how this relates to Galatians 2 and Paul correcting Peter?

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

The error here is in use of scripture!!

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?
15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Nowhere in this passage does it say that Peter was "preaching that you must be circumcised." What Paul specifically saw and wrote was that Peter was hanging out with Gentile Believers. But when the Messianic Jews showed up, he shunned the Gentiles to hang out with the Messianic Jews. It was basically just trying to be with the "in-crowd" based on ethnicity. And even Peter's motive is given. He did NOT do this because he believed and preached circumcision. He feared the Messianic Jews, who did not know better and were letting their prideful flesh get the best of them, would criticize him. There was obviously an ethnic tension and Peter, instead of addressing it, gave into peer pressure.



I am at a loss as to why you would inject something into the scripture that is nowhere mentioned whatsoever. Peter NEVER preached circumcision in the Bible.

St. Peter was not a false teacher once he was saved. Before that, when he was still being taught by Christ, he objected when Christ said He would be crucified. And Christ said, "Get thee behind Me, satan".
But St. Peter was shown great mercy by Christ. He denied Christ 3 times. We have all done things like this, when we sinned. We all need Christ's mercy. Galatians seems to imply Peter preached circumcision. Maybe I am just wrong about that, too. Forgive me, St. Peter, for saying you were a false teacher. I was overreacting about what some person said about Fred Phelps not being able to repent. I said any false teacher can repent. I used a poor example by saying Peter preached error. As far as I really know, St. Peter did not do that. What did St. Paul "withstand him to the face", though? I'm not sure. Surely, there was some controversy between the two.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

My error. Anyone who teaches a false teaching is a false teacher.

St. Peter taught that circumcision was necessary.

But I should not have sinned against a holy man of God and called him a false teacher.

There's more to it than mere logic.

I have made some errors too. I should not be anything but humble. God forgive me for trying to say

things I should not have said. I was kind of speaking against what I thought was an error about saying

false teachers can't repent. I thought that was saying too much, that a person should not presume to know.

God forgive us and save us from false teaching. God forgive me for what I said about St. Peter. Amen.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Friends, I am still learning the faith "once delivered to the saints". I am not yet fully an Old Orthodox Christian. I'm just a convert from Lutheranism/Pentecostalism. I still await help from the EOC to receive the sacraments of the EOC.
In Erie Scott

 

[A-Omega]

St. Peter was not a false teacher once he was saved. Before that, when he was still being taught by Christ, he objected when Christ said He would be crucified. And Christ said, "Get thee behind Me, satan".
But St. Peter was shown great mercy by Christ. He denied Christ 3 times. We have all done things like this, when we sinned. We all need Christ's mercy. Galatians seems to imply Peter preached circumcision. Maybe I am just wrong about that, too. Forgive me, St. Peter, for saying you were a false teacher. I was overreacting about what some person said about Fred Phelps not being able to repent. I said any false teacher can repent. I used a poor example by saying Peter preached error. As far as I really know, St. Peter did not do that. What did St. Paul "withstand him to the face", though? I'm not sure. Surely, there was some controversy between the two.

I just explained the controversy above with the entire passage quoted.

When Peter was rebuked by Jesus, he was NOT PREACHING. He was having a conversation with The Lord. You are still trying to wrongly and falsely say Peter was preaching false teacher at some point. He never was. Yes, he was wrong at times in his interactions with Jesus. But this does not amount to being a false teacher. He was a disciple being schooled by His Master.

When Peter does finally preach, he is completely biblical. The entire thrust and basis for this thread is just incorrect.

 

[TheAristocat]

I honestly have no idea as to how what you said relates to what I posted. Could you clarify as to how this relates to Galatians 2 and Paul correcting Peter?

I guess what I said came half-way between your post and the original topic of this thread. They both dealt with the interpretation of men's words. I was saying that we didn't need to pick and choose whose words were right, because - as you pointed out - it had to do with a faulty interpretation of Scripture. But I wasn't going to say as much as a rather lengthy argument would ensue - an argument I didn't care to invest time or energy in.

 

[TheAristocat]

St. Peter was not a false teacher once he was saved. Before that, when he was still being taught by Christ, he objected when Christ said He would be crucified. And Christ said, "Get thee behind Me, satan".
But St. Peter was shown great mercy by Christ. He denied Christ 3 times. We have all done things like this, when we sinned. We all need Christ's mercy. Galatians seems to imply Peter preached circumcision. Maybe I am just wrong about that, too. Forgive me, St. Peter, for saying you were a false teacher. I was overreacting about what some person said about Fred Phelps not being able to repent. I said any false teacher can repent. I used a poor example by saying Peter preached error. As far as I really know, St. Peter did not do that. What did St. Paul "withstand him to the face", though? I'm not sure. Surely, there was some controversy between the two.

I think the error was not one of doctrine but double-mindedness (i.e. not a doctrinal issue but a heart issue). Peter knew what was right and wrong. But Paul believed him to be "playing the field" and ultimately being a bad influence to the Jews by appearing chummy with the Gentiles, and - when the Jews came (who forbade eating at the table with Gentiles) - choosing to eat with the Jews instead of the Gentiles so as not to appear like a bad or unrighteous person to the Jews.

I don't even think there is a prohibition in the Torah about not "eating at the table of Gentiles". But living in a society where you don't know which meat is what 90% of the time, I can see how such a regulation would be formulated by a kosher society. Whatever the case may be it's been settled that you're not a false teacher, Scott.

Hope that helps.

 

[owyka]

When it comes to christainity and bible there is no logic, science or philosphyc all you have to do is believe God's word. Remain bless Shallom

 

[superdave5221]

I think the error was not one of doctrine but double-mindedness (i.e. not a doctrinal issue but a heart issue). Peter knew what was right and wrong. But Paul believed him to be "playing the field" and ultimately being a bad influence to the Jews by appearing chummy with the Gentiles, and - when the Jews came (who forbade eating at the table with Gentiles) - choosing to eat with the Jews instead of the Gentiles so as not to appear like a bad or unrighteous person to the Jews.

I don't even think there is a prohibition in the Torah about not "eating at the table of Gentiles". But living in a society where you don't know which meat is what 90% of the time, I can see how such a regulation would be formulated by a kosher society. Whatever the case may be it's been settled that you're not a false teacher, Scott.

Hope that helps.

There may not have been a prohibition in the Torah against eating with Gentiles, but it was definitely understood from the oral tradition of the Jews.

The real problem was that Peter was denying fellowship with these Gentiles. He was thus compelling them to be circumcised in order to enjoy fellowship priveleges with the Jews.

 

[TheAristocat]

There may not have been a prohibition in the Torah against eating with Gentiles, but it was definitely understood from the oral tradition of the Jews.

The real problem was that Peter was denying fellowship with these Gentiles. He was thus compelling them to be circumcised in order to enjoy fellowship priveleges with the Jews.

I think it had more to do with the appearance of the Jews as he was actually fellowshipping with the Gentiles before they came. Afterward he stopped though, and in verse 12 we see why. He "feared" them in some respect. I suggest that he feared what they would think of him. Perhaps they would think he was backsliding or "not saved" as if obeying the Torah or their man-made regulations was what intrinsically saved you.

 

[RedTent]

Where does it say that Judiasm believes they are saved by works? Even Abraham was saved by faith and grace.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

I just explained the controversy above with the entire passage quoted.

When Peter was rebuked by Jesus, he was NOT PREACHING. He was having a conversation with The Lord. You are still trying to wrongly and falsely say Peter was preaching false teacher at some point. He never was. Yes, he was wrong at times in his interactions with Jesus. But this does not amount to being a false teacher. He was a disciple being schooled by His Master.

When Peter does finally preach, he is completely biblical. The entire thrust and basis for this thread is just incorrect.

Amen. I was wrong. Some of his opinions were false at times, even if he was not teaching them. Some of my opinions were false at times. Even while I did not at any point preach Filioque to anyone in all the time I recited it in the Lutheran "church" (sic). I was in error. Again, I apologize to you all and especially to St. Peter for saying (writing) what I said (wrote). My big mistake.

 

[A-Omega]

Amen. I was wrong. Some of his opinions were false at times, even if he was not teaching them. Some of my opinions were false at times. Even while I did not at any point preach Filioque to anyone in all the time I recited it in the Lutheran "church" (sic). I was in error. Again, I apologize to you all and especially to St. Peter for saying (writing) what I said (wrote). My big mistake.

It's all good! No worries.

 

[TheAristocat]

Where does it say that Judiasm believes they are saved by works? Even Abraham was saved by faith and grace.

Nowhere. Christianity is Judaism in its purest form. Non-Messianic Judaism is arguably not Judaism. But we know there were Jews around that time that believed you needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. And these types of Jews were the next best thing to the kind of Jews Jesus' disciples were. Imagine what other Jews - who didn't understand the Torah or the Messiah's sacrifice - would think of obtaining righteousness by the Torah. After all, if you don't break a law and weren't sinful it seems you wouldn't need a sacrifice, right? It's not hard to imagine there were some Jews who believed in self-righteousness by merit of the Torah. And that includes the kosher rules.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Nowhere. Christianity is Judaism in its purest form. Non-Messianic Judaism is arguably not Judaism. But we know there were Jews around that time that believed you needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. And these types of Jews were the next best thing to the kind of Jews Jesus' disciples were. Imagine what other Jews - who didn't understand the Torah or the Messiah's sacrifice - would think of obtaining righteousness by the Torah. After all, if you don't break a law and weren't sinful it seems you wouldn't need a sacrifice, right? It's not hard to imagine there were some Jews who believed in self-righteousness by merit of the Torah. And that includes the kosher rules.

Christianity MAY BE true Judaism. But unfortunately, actual Judaism today is anti-Christian and Talmudic. I think that it's a stretch to say it is a form of Judaism, though. Unless Judaism in the OT included non-Jews. Non-ethnic people adopted into the Covenant Family of Israel. Otherwise, it's a form of discrimination against "non chosen peoples". Today, Arabs (whether Muslim or Christian) suffer at Israeli hands. Of course, Anti-Semitism is sin too.