Did Paul Correct Peter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tparsons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tparsons

Guest
A very good Baptist friend of mine told me last night that Paul met with Peter and corrected him. We didn’t get into the discussion because of a distraction so I’m not sure what he meant. Does anyone here no what he’s talking about?

Thanks you!
Tony
 
Galatians 2:11
Paul admonishes Peter because Peter had the vision that the Gospel must be preached to the gentiles, yet won’t eat with gentiles (whose dietary customs were “unclean”) in front of the Jews so as to avoid confrontation. Peter was watering down Church teaching. I think the Council of Jerusalem had already met and established that gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised or eat kosher. Faith in Christ and the teachings of His Church was all they needed. Old habits die hard, though, and Peter ate with gentiles when there were no Jews around, but backed off when James’ people came by. Paul told him to suck it up and be a man. The teaching had already been infallibly defined; Paul was just telling Peter he was going to have to deal with some ugly confrontations in order to get the truth of the gospel out there.
 
Paul basically chastised Peter for not practicing what he preached (it was Peter that first opened up the New Covenant to the Gentiles, and then Peter who said the Gentiles should not be shackled to the Mosaic Law in order to become Christians). Paul did not correct Peter for any false teachings, just not following his own teachings.

Remember, it was Paul who came to Peter to confirm his own teachings before he ever went out and evangelized to the Gentiles.
 
This wouldn’t be the last time that someone unbraided a Pope, either. Not by a long shot. My favorite story is that of St. Catherine of Sienna, who basically told the Pope of her day to quit being a coward, and get off his duff and do what was right by the Church, which meant leaving Avignon and French politics behind and moving the Chair of St. Peter back to Rome, among other things. Her courage and insistance changed the course of history, and most especially the face of the Church in Europe.

Such events don’t detract from the Papacy at all, but rather further emphasize its centrality and importance. In a very real sense, the Papacy is bigger than even the Pope, because it’s the focus of unity for the whole Church. For this reason it’s in the interest of all of us to work for its right-operation and holiness, and sometimes that means taking a Pope to task for the sake of the Papacy and the Church. St. Paul did the right thing by challenging St. Peter for the scandal he was bringing to the Gentiles, and St. Catherine did the right thing by challenging Pope Gregory XI for the scandal that he was bringing to all of Europe. None of these incidents involve false teaching, of course, though there are points in history where Pope’s have been challenged, sometimes posthumously, for not being clear enough about such things.

The Papacy is the gift to the Church, not to the Pope 😃

Peace and God bless!
 
tparsons said:
A very good Baptist friend of mine told me last night that Paul met with Peter and corrected him. We didn’t get into the discussion because of a distraction so I’m not sure what he meant. Does anyone here no what he’s talking about?

Thanks you!
Tony
Click to expand...
Tony-

Understand what your “friend” is really doing…attacking your Catholic faith by attempting to undermine the authority of the Pope.

No pope, Peter included, is impeccable; Peter’s personal weaknesses are well documented in the pages of scripture, and we Catholics have no reason to fear them because Jesus chose Peter in spite of his flaws.

Your friend doesn’t understand papal infallibility and thinks that it means that Peter must be perfect. Not so!

Now, you have the perfect opportunity to go back to your friend and show him how Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16 as well as the shepherd’s crook in John 21. From there, you can explain Apostolic Succession and how baptism of infants is taught by an infallible Church.

Holy cow! In just a few weeks you could stand as your friend’s sponsor when he enters the Church at Easter!!! :clapping:
 
tparsons said:
A very good Baptist friend of mine told me last night that Paul met with Peter and corrected him. We didn’t get into the discussion because of a distraction so I’m not sure what he meant. Does anyone here no what he’s talking about?

Thanks you!
Tony
Click to expand...
The other posters have answered your question but I must object to the word “correct”. Peter was a good Jew and truly wanted to help the Jews. Paul was not a Jew he was a Roman citizen and thus it is easy to understand how Paul was opening the religion to his (Paul’s) people. So Paul’s desire to help his people (gentiles) seam less supported by Peter the leader who evangelized to Jews. By the way (btw) remember when Jesus ate with the sinners which upset the (Jewish) apostles? Did the Apostles “correct” Jesus, I think not. None of this should offend your friend as he probably does not have a Jewish background.
 
Texas_Roofer said:
The other posters have answered your question but I must object to the word “correct”. Peter was a good Jew and truly wanted to help the Jews. Paul was not a Jew he was a Roman citizen and thus it is easy to understand how Paul was opening the religion to his (Paul’s) people. So Paul’s desire to help his people (gentiles) seam less supported by Peter the leader who evangelized to Jews. By the way (btw) remember when Jesus ate with the sinners which upset the (Jewish) apostles? Did the Apostles “correct” Jesus, I think not. None of this should offend your friend as he probably does not have a Jewish background.
Click to expand...
Hold on there, Tex!

Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus, most certainly was a Jew.

He also happened to be a Roman citizen. :yup:
 
Texas_Roofer said:
The other posters have answered your question but I must object to the word “correct”. Peter was a good Jew and truly wanted to help the Jews. Paul was not a Jew he was a Roman citizen and thus it is easy to understand how Paul was opening the religion to his (Paul’s) people. So Paul’s desire to help his people (gentiles) seam less supported by Peter the leader who evangelized to Jews. By the way (btw) remember when Jesus ate with the sinners which upset the (Jewish) apostles? Did the Apostles “correct” Jesus, I think not. None of this should offend your friend as he probably does not have a Jewish background.
Click to expand...
Paul was not only a Jew, he was the only one of the crew that we know was educated in the Temple under the greatest Rabbi of the day. He was a dedicated Pharisee, hence his persecution of Christian Jews before his conversion.

Peace and God bless!
 
I stand correct yes Paul was Jew in addition to being a Roman citizen and the primary evangelical for the gentiles - sorry about the error
 
tparsons said:
A very good Baptist friend of mine told me last night that Paul met with Peter and corrected him. We didn’t get into the discussion because of a distraction so I’m not sure what he meant. Does anyone here no what he’s talking about?

Thanks you!
Tony
Click to expand...
Point out that Peter chastized virtually the entire Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:10) and laid down the faith of the Church to guide the Council (Acts:15:11-12).

Also, point out that the last thing Christ did in the last Gospel was to give Peter pastoral care over the entire Church. John 21:15-19. Now, not only was Christ able to forsee Paul’s rebuke of Peter due to Christ’s divinity, but Christ specifically saw the rebuke incident, as Christ looked at Peter’s future to Peter’s death. John 21:18-19. Yet, with the full divine confidence, Christ gave Peter shepherdship over the whole Church.

Christ Himself has decided that the rebuke incident with Paul did not affect Peter’s authority. Peter’s faithful service to the end was foreordained…a done deal, per Christ Himself.

Never for one second did Peter loose his Christ-given authority over the Church!

Which follows:
  1. Paul could not revoke Peter’s Christ-given authority;
  2. Luther, et. al, could not revoke Peter’s Christ-given authority;
  3. Your Baptist friend cannot revoke Peter’s Christ-given authority;
  4. Peter himself could not renounce his Christ-given authority.
Finally, point out that your friend is really attacking Christ and His judgment, not Peter.

Hope this helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top