(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)
Welcome
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Rebuking Peter, Yet Paul Needed His Support and Blessing (Gal 1 and 2)
Response to a message by Brewer's "people" 
Adoi, No Need to Paranoia ('Santa' Monica)
reply
af29 said: "I repeat: Catholics do not need proof." (Christopher Yip)
Untitled
SO IS EVERY CHRISTIAN LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT
Not All Christians Appointed Teachers, Apostles. /nt (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
All devout followers have the ability to be teachers...it's a choice.......
Only one is appointed the "rock", "key-bearer", "confirmer of the brethen" (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
PAUL REBUKED PETER FOR WHAT ?
|
Catholic Saints Have Rebuked the Pope. You can rebuke the Pope, the King, the Prime Minister, the boss, etc. if you are right and they are wrong. Just make sure you don't embarass yourself, or get yourself into trouble. And remember, you still have to submit to authority - whoever he is.
Paul Rebuked Peter for hypocrisy. What did Peter teach about circumcision? He taught authoritatively and infallibly that circumcision was not needed for Gentiles who converted(Act 15). Peter'a authority in teaching was unquestioned. -- Bertrand Conway, author of the enormously popular The Question Box (second edition, 1929), a classic of Catholic apologetics, puts this incident in the proper perspective: St. Paul's rebuke of St. Peter, instead of implying a denial of his supremacy, implies just the opposite. He tells us that the example of St. Peter compelled the Gentiles to live as the Jews. St. Paul's example had not the same compelling power. The duty of fraternal correction (Matthew 18:15) may often require an inferior to rebuke a superior in defence of justice and truth. St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Canterbury and St. Catherine of Siena have rebuked Popes, while fully acknowledging their supreme authority . . . The rebuke, however, did not refer to the doctrine, but to the conduct of St. Peter . . . St. Peter had not changed the views he had himself set forth at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:10). But at Antioch he withdrew from the table of the Gentiles, because he feared giving offence to the Jewish converts. They at once mistook his kindliness for an approval of the false teaching of certain Judaizers, who wished to make the Mosaic law obligatory upon all Christians. His action was most imprudent, and calculated to do harm because of his great influence and authority. St. Paul, therefore, had a perfect right to uphold the Gospel liberty by a direct appeal to St. Peter's own example and teaching. (34) Leslie Rumble and Charles Carty, who co-wrote the three-volume Radio Replies (1940), another popular and bestselling defense of Catholicism, agree: No doctrinal error was involved in this particular case . . . To cease from doing a lawful thing for fear lest others be scandalized is not a matter of doctrine. It is a question of prudence or imprudence. St. Paul did not act as if he were St. Peter's superior. Nor did he boast. To show the urgency of the matter, he practically said, "I had to resist even Peter - to whom chief authority belongs." And his words derive their full significance only from the fact that St. Peter was head of the Apostles. (35) If St. Peter were guilty in this instance of hypocrisy (which appears to be the case), this is no disproof whatsoever of the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, since that teaching does not extend to behavior and applies only to decrees on faith and morals which are intended to bind all the faithful to a certain doctinal standpoint. Granted, hypocrisy and bad example are not conducive to the successful propagation of a viewpoint, yet one must critique an idea according to its actual content. Thus, the attempt to undermine papal infallibility by means of this scriptural passage fails due to misunderstanding of the Catholic claims for the pope's divinely-appointed charism (in other words, it is a "straw man" argument). The New Bible Dictionary, an authoritative evangelical reference work, states that the disagreement here had nothing to do with any theological dispute between Paul and Peter, but rather, with the unfortunte inconsistency of belief and behavior on Peter's part, and denies the "old theory" that there was some sort of "rivalry" between these two pillars of the early Church. (36) Reference: The Papacy and Infallibility: Keys of the Kingdom http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ62.HTM
|
to:
Messages
Outline:
But Paul Did Not SUBMIT TO PETER'S "AUTHORITY" by Christopher Yip, 2001, Apr 14
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page