… he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:(Matthew 16:23)
This again shows us that Peter, one of the most important of the Apostles (as recorded in the scriptures), was susceptible at any moment to the presumption of faith. Perhaps only moments earlier, in verses 15-19, Jesus had blessed Peter for acknowledging Him as the Son of God. Jesus was revealed as Christ, not by flesh and blood, but by the Father, he was told. Peter was in communion with God as Jesus’ true nature was made manifest. He was called the rock by our Lord, and given the responsibility of founding the early church, which he and the Apostles, with the descent of the Holy Spirit, inaugurated at Pentecost. Still, Peter falls back “into the flesh” and Jesus has to rebuke him sharply.
How careful, then, must we be today, given this example? Peter, the rock, used by the Father only a short time earlier, now was in the grip of Satan. Can we expect to fare any better? How easily we let the circumstances of this world enter into our thoughts of doing God’s work. These examples we have given of Peter and our previous posts should spell the message out clearly. We must be ever mindful of what God’s plan and purpose is, and not let our own desire to do “right” interfere with our judgment. We must not presume upon the fact that we love the Lord, even when we are in the very presence of God.
Too often we presume that because it is our trusted pastor, or well known, well-respected preacher who is speaking, that we can relax our discernment. There is a difference between being overly critical and being a Berean. The people of Berea knew who Paul was, his reputation had surely preceded him, and yet they searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul said lined up according to what the Word of God said (Acts 17:11). Don’t accept novel ideas and innovations as gospel just because I said so, or just because the conference you are at is God centered, or because that radio ministry hasn’t steered you wrong before. Ministries can start out good but end up bad. Think about Saul and Solomon.
Haven’t you ever been part of a conversation that started out fine, but then it turned? Don’t you realize that the 11 other disciples were fooled into thinking Judas was genuine? Don’t you understand that when the Bible speaks of wolves in sheep’s clothing, that the wolves don’t come right out and say so? Haven’t there been times in your life when you started out for the right reasons but ended up doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons? Why then would you think that you might never say or do the wrong thing in spiritual matters?
Don’t let down your guard, at any given moment the Enemy is looking for an opportunity.
Think about it…
16 comments:
"Think about it...."
I'm thinkin we haven't a clue about the Enemy's strategies!
Even so...your understanding of Peter as the rock sounds very catholic to me? Do you have a RC background?
Jesus said, "You are petros (a small stone), and upon this petra (a large rock) I will build my church.
Jesus was saying He was the Rock that He would build His church upon, and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The RC use this verse to prove papal succession from Peter.
Paul said that he was not ignorant of the devils devices or schemes. I think this story illustrates the need to be sensitive to the Spirit of God and walk closely in fellowship with our Saviour.
God bless,
Jim
Jim, just the wording, and well, in a sense, bait...wanted to see if anyone would dispute this, although the wording isn't terribly clear as to what I meant there.
No I am not of a RCC background, and am not of their persuasion regarding Apostolic Succession. Glad to see you come on over, and happy to see you pay attention.
One and all, you see how things such as wording do indeed give some reason to ask for clarity. You must be ready to articulate what you believe; it is part of discernment, which Jim has exercised here. Well done.
As a further example, did you know that the Eastern (or Greek as some call it) Orthodox church and what we know as the Roman Catholic church were one and the same, until one word made this union split?
The clause, called the filioque, has to do with whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone or from both the Father and the Son, Jesus Christ. The RCC says both, the EO says only from the Father. Seems petty, does it not? But the ramifications of this doctrine, when considered in full, are staggering. I don't want to open that can of worms, but I do want to say this: WORDS MEAN THINGS.
Think about it...
I was more into trying to understand the main idea of what you were saying than "singling out" individual words.....kinda like I do when listening to a sermon. If I tried to "get" every "word" I'm afraid I would "get" nothing. Ya know what I mean?? (Just being honest)
But i am .........thinking about it!!
Chris,
yeah it's all good...my intent was on the presumption of faith, not the Catholic thing, per se. It was just as I had written this a long time ago, and now when I looked at it, I wondered if anyone would notice the seemingly Cathoilc language, so I left it in...
The main things and the plain things are the most important things, I am not trying to dissuade anyone from that practice. What I am saying is that it is wise to continue to listen to someone with a discerning ear, so that if and when something doesn't sound right, you may then be on the lookout as to how this person defines said "unrightness", and if it was just a casual thing, or if it fits into his or her scheme of doctrine as a major tenant.
As an example, you might listen to a teacher who seems great, then all of a sudden they start talking about some novel idea. It doesn't go away, but instead it becomes more and more pronounced the longer you listen. As if the deeper you get into their teaching, the more this new or secret thing is referred to.
We see this pattern all over the place, even in secular organizations...but eventually they all get to the heart of what they really believe is fundamental to their system of thought and/or practice.
This is why an orthodox statement of faith, while being important, is no guarantee against heresy. And it is also why it is a good thing to have a statement of faith. If they do have a solid creed, then you can be on the lookout for when they deviate from it and see if and how they try and justify it.
Much more can be said, enough to chew on for now...
Nice picture!
You too Buggy
Excellent post. It made me think, and reminded me of Galatians 1:8, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." At least part of what Paul it saying here is that it is not because of the standing or position of the person bringing the message of the gospel that it has validity. Instead it is the message of the gospel that is primary, and it is only as it is faithful, truthfully, and accurately proclaimed that the person proclaiming it has any authority in the words they speak at all.
Exactly right, and exactly the point I made a couple of weeks ago as we are going through Galatians on Wednesday nights...
Hmm, I think there is a lot more to this than the fundamental ideas that most might be aware of. And certainly worth delving into as part of defensive weapons given to us.
On an other topic... If you have time , JD, between today and Wednesday during the hours I am at home between work could you spare ten minutes for me, please?
"Peter... now was in the grip of Satan. Can we expect to fare any better?"
To that, I want to say, "Yes." Because Peter was not yet indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and did not have the benefit if picking up a New Testament to see how the story ends. We (today's believers) do.
But the cause of Peter's words aside, we are still susceptible to misspoken moments.
It is a good warning. Let us stay sharp, because bad theology can have devastating results.
Paul, I will call you tomorrow...
Craver, you are right in that Jesus had been telling them that He was to die and rise again, but they were not truly enlightened yet...and as you said, the point still stands, we must stay on guard, because at any given moment...
Dear Even So,
Great and thoughtful post! Thank you.
Just the other day, after church, I had a conversation with a man I had just met (he's a member of the church and I am the newcomer); the conversation started out great. But, by the end, I was furious, confused, hurt and incredulous. There was heresy, arrogance and presumption afoot, or so it seemed.
You are right about wolves clothed as sheep. But the big worry, I think, is the wolf in shepherd's clothing.
I, too, spotted the RC language in your statements re: Peter. But your casual exegesis of the passage is spot on. And if it is the case that Jesus spoke Aramaic (and a good case can be so made), then it is even clearer that Jesus was speaking of Peter (and not, as popularly interpreted by sundry evangelicals, Peter's confession): Peter is the rock.
How strange that Peter, inspired by God to recognize Jesus as the Christ, is nonetheless incapable of understanding what the role of the Christ would be. When Jesus finally says, "Get thee behind me, Satan," I sometimes picture him gazing away from Peter. After all, it is possible Jesus was not looking at Peter when He spoke; His words were directed at something beyond Peter. Perhaps.
Here's a question your whole post brings back to mind, one that I ask brothers and sisters all the time: When, exactly, were the disciples "born again?" Peter's remarks -- so wise and so foolish -- reassure me somehow; I hear in them the promise that the work begun in me will be completed -- by Someone else. I blunder about with as much spiritual swagger and misbegotten conceit as Peter (I am probably worse). It is good to see in Peter (and the rest of the disciples, really), that we don't get it ALL right ALL at once!
Peace to you, dear soul.
Bill Gnade
Thanks for the reply Bill...
When, exactly, were the disciples "born again?" Peter's remarks -- so wise and so foolish -- reassure me somehow; I hear in them the promise that the work begun in me will be completed -- by Someone else.
John 14:17 - apparently the Holy Spirit wasn't indwelling them fully yet, but it is very debatable...even so (ha ha) your point is valid, what God starts He finishes, and He actually performs it (Philippians 1:6)...
Indeed, very comforting...the kingdom of God grows within us, the blade, the ear, and then the full corn in the ear (Mark 4:28)...
Post a Comment