Peter REMOVED from discipleship

[ClubV12]

I've been reading Desire of Ages, actually, reading it again and studying sections.

Peter, after his denial, felt himself unworthy or even removed from discipleship. The other disciples were also seriously considering his status or perhaps had come to the conclusion he was removed. It is also clear that Christ recognized the seriousness of Peters sin. Being public, it needed to be addressed in a public manner. It is less clear what Christs actual position was on Peters "membership" in that esteemed group.

But I'm not sure Christs position is relevant. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. As the other disciples considered Peters "membership" in question at the very least we could say he was under "Church censure". As such he would be removed from office.

It's noteworthy that in spite of "censure" and a public rebuke for his sin, the manner and love with which Christ dealt with this issue. So tender, so compassionate, yet in no wise ignoring sin and the consequences it brings.

[Gail]

Afterward, Christ spoke to him as if He knew he would later be converted.

That is important- Of course Christ knew Peter would come back, but before he did Jesus spoke to him as if it was fact, thereby encouraging Peter back.

[ClubV12]

I like that Gail! I am reminded of the counsel to not imagine evil of your brother. Christ takes that to another level, imagining your brother will overcome, will find his way. In spite of the obvious or apparent difficulties and short comings in his walk and his character.

I have been thinking for months now about Peter's "conversion". Was he not already a professed follower of Christ? Did he not walk with Christ for years? And yet, his "conversion" came much later, years later. Sobering thought, as I contemplate the question of my own conversion...

[joeb]

I've been reading Desire of Ages, actually, reading it again and studying sections.

Peter, after his denial, felt himself unworthy or even removed from discipleship. The other disciples were also seriously considering his status or perhaps had come to the conclusion he was removed. It is also clear that Christ recognized the seriousness of Peters sin. Being public, it needed to be addressed in a public manner. It is less clear what Christs actual position was on Peters "membership" in that esteemed group.

But I'm not sure Christs position is relevant. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. As the other disciples considered Peters "membership" in question at the very least we could say he was under "Church censure". As such he would be removed from office.

It's noteworthy that in spite of "censure" and a public rebuke for his sin, the manner and love with which Christ dealt with this issue. So tender, so compassionate, yet in no wise ignoring sin and the consequences it brings.

[Gail]

There is a story of EGW doing the same thing. She heard of a brother who had fallen away from the faith. She took him some books, asking him to share them with his neighbours because she wondered if he was reticent to share from his own library.

Later, she visited that man and asked him which of the books his neighbour preferred. He said, Great Controversy (or whatever it was) but then added that HIS favourite out of what she left was Patriarchs and Prophets (or whatever it was). It was through the reading of that book that the man returned.

She at no time berated the man for backsliding. But in her ingenious way she won both man and neighbour by lending out good books. She treated the man as if he had never left the faith.

Now- if that was YOU in that position, how would you like to be treated?

If you were struggling in the faith, and church members blamed you or railed on you to your face or talked about you behind your back, would any of those behaviours help you back or kick you out the door?

Jesus was a genius in how He treated people. There is such a wealth of wisdom in His ways!

[Gail]

Quote:

The Greek word translated as converted in Luke 22:32, where Christ tells Peter that He's prayed for him, means to "revert to". To me this is Christ telling Peter that when he "reverts to" loving Christ with all his heart again after his denial that Peter was to strengthen his brethren, for what happened to Peter in his denial of Christ? He thought of himself first and Christ second. This is a momentary lapse, not a pre-existing condition. Thus, I don't see this as Christ saying Peter doesn't love Him, that He isn't first in Peter's heart and mind, for that is what "conversion" in the way we use the term means to me.

I like that tidbit! :)

[joeb]

There is a story of EGW doing the same thing. She heard of a brother who had fallen away from the faith. She took him some books, asking him to share them with his neighbours because she wondered if he was reticent to share from his own library.

Later, she visited that man and asked him which of the books his neighbour preferred. He said, Great Controversy (or whatever it was) but then added that HIS favourite out of what she left was Patriarchs and Prophets (or whatever it was). It was through the reading of that book that the man returned.

She at no time berated the man for backsliding. But in her ingenious way she won both man and neighbour by lending out good books. She treated the man as if he had never left the faith.

Now- if that was YOU in that position, how would you like to be treated?

If you were struggling in the faith, and church members blamed you or railed on you to your face or talked about you behind your back, would any of those behaviours help you back or kick you out the door?

Jesus was a genius in how He treated people. There is such a wealth of wisdom in His ways!

I've never heard this story. Can you point me toward a reference source?

[joeb]

Quote:

The Greek word translated as converted in Luke 22:32, where Christ tells Peter that He's prayed for him, means to "revert to". To me this is Christ telling Peter that when he "reverts to" loving Christ with all his heart again after his denial that Peter was to strengthen his brethren, for what happened to Peter in his denial of Christ? He thought of himself first and Christ second. This is a momentary lapse, not a pre-existing condition. Thus, I don't see this as Christ saying Peter doesn't love Him, that He isn't first in Peter's heart and mind, for that is what "conversion" in the way we use the term means to me.

I like that tidbit!

I'm glad you like it. It's what I've gleaned out of the DofA and the Bible. To me it is completely in harmony with the character of both the Father and Son.

[ClubV12]

"Conversion" is an often misunderstood term, "revert to" does help clairify it a bit.

"He had dishonored Christ, and had incurred the distrust of his brethren. They thought he would not be allowed to take his former position among them, and he himself felt that he had forfeited his trust." from D.A.

This is where I come to the conclusion that both Peter and his brethren were seriously considering the question of his RETURNING to his former position of responsibility. He couldn't return ("take his former position among them") if he had not been "removed" from that position at some point. WHO removed him? Peter himself on one hand, recognizing the severity of his sin AND his brethren.

What was Jesus' position on the question of Peter "taking his former position" among the disciples? We are not specifically told, but I think it becomes clear from His actions. He recognized the need to show Peters brethren his repentance so that could see it for themselves. So that Peter could be, publicly, restored. Publicly because it was a public sin, not a secret sin. While the "public" wasn't involved in the restoration itself, the "public" would be advised by the brethren (the Church) that Peter had been restored. That Peter once again had their full faith and confidence.

Peter did not have to acknowledge his sin, publicly, that was a choice he had to make, three times! Pride could have stopped him. Did Christ know what decision he would make? Irrelevant! Christ, like the brethren, like the Church, like the public, needed Peter to demonstrate it. Before man, the angels and the unfallen worlds as there could be no question of free will being manipulated in some way.

I see a principle here that applies to the Church today. Public sin must be dealt with in a public way. Censure is one method the Church today can use in especially grievous situations. When under censure one cannot hold Church office, cannot transfer membership. Typically there is a time frame involved, 6 days, months, a year or whatever is deemed reasonable. What ever is bound on earth is bound in heaven, I see Jesus supporting this principle with Peter. I see Jesus supporting this principle today.

It's not a "bad thing", it's a necessary thing, designed to restore a member to good faith! That the standards and principles of the Church, that body of believers who follow Christ, is not lowered to the very dust.

Had Peter failed to acknowledge his sin, three times, before his brethren, the next step would have been disfellowship. Which Paul makes clear is an option the Church must at times exercise. An option which heaven will acknowledge.

This is a prime example of mercy and justice. There are some sins that are SO grievous one cannot be restored to membership, cannot even be allowed to attend Church at all! Regardless of the deepest and most sincere repentance. Why? So that the standard of what it means to be a Christian, a member of the Church is not lowered to the dust. So that the public can be assured the Church has some minimum standards.

I know of several people who will never be allowed to even so much as enter a Seventh-day Adventist Church again. Sincere and deeply repentant persons!!! For the rest of their lives, they are forbidden. On pain of arrest even. This is by Church law, Ellen White supports it, the G.C. supports it, I support it, as difficult as that is. It is a privilege to attend Church, not a right.

[ClubV12]

One reason God wants us to fellowship together is that each mind see's things in a different way, a different facet of the jewel of truth, when looking at the same jewel!

Consider this verse:

"...go your way, tell his disciples and Peter...” Mark 16:6

"and Peter"? Why is Peter noted separately here? Great love, compassion, mercy? Yes, and I also think, a recognition of Peters current status, one of loosing his dicipleship. Which should NOT be confused with one loosing their salvation! Two entirely different concepts.

[joeb]

"Conversion" is an often misunderstood term, "revert to" does help clairify it a bit.

"He had dishonored Christ, and had incurred the distrust of his brethren. They thought he would not be allowed to take his former position among them, and he himself felt that he had forfeited his trust." from D.A.

I think it is very important to understand where the disciples, at this point in their lives, were coming from, where the major influence on their thinking came from.

The SOP makes it very clear that the influence of the Jewish religious leaders on the disciples thought processes was still very powerful at this point. That remained true until after they received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Ellen White says after that they were "like men awakening from a dream".

So, to take the mindset of the disciples at this pre-Holy Spirit point in their lives as our example to follow is a big mistake, imo. They loved their Savior, but their thinking was still largely under the spell of the Pharisee's radical form of legalism.