> General Discussions
Paul & Barnabas
mharrell08:
--- Quote from: GinaMilan on June 06, 2010, 07:51:32 PM ---I'm sorry, Marques. See, I was under the impression that God directs our steps. ;)
--- End quote ---
He does and I did not say the contrary.
--- Quote from: GinaMilan on June 06, 2010, 07:51:32 PM ---I'm sorry, I hope this doesn't sound harsh, but it is very confusing to read that first you believe that Barnabas was perfect in his actions because of his forgiveness (automatically leading the reader to conclude that you do not believe that Paul was perfect in his decision);
--- End quote ---
I never said Barnabas was perfect in all his actions, only that he forgiveness of John Mark is a 'perfect example of forgive and forget'. Obviously, Barnabas did not practice this same outlook with Paul, otherwise they would not have split their ministry. So Barnabas is not perfect in all his actions.
--- Quote from: GinaMilan on June 06, 2010, 07:51:32 PM --- then to hear you say that they both were stubborn. (I'm sorry, I don't see where Paul was being stubborn. Did Paul ever apologize for his actions regarding John Mark?) And that this stubborn attitude (now on both their parts) was the thing that caused the (unnecessary?) split.
--- End quote ---
I would think it is stubborn to split up, after ministering for years together, because of how to deal with a fellow apostle. Neither budged from their own perspective and would rather split than concede in the matter. That was based on their opinion of one person, instead of the betterment of the saints as a whole. That is a spirit of stubbornness.
--- Quote from: GinaMilan on June 06, 2010, 07:51:32 PM --- It was clearly only for a season, and necessary for the betterment of the saints; that is, if you believe Paul's reasoning. These things happened, and Mark obviously was not harmed by it and neither was Barnabas. If they did not split, if there was never any contention or division, then we'd have a perfect church body and everything Jesus and the apostles prophesied would never have come to pass. And, thank God it's not here to stay. (Sure seems like it though, doesn't it.)
--- End quote ---
Paul and Barnabas has nothing to do with the apostasy that was prophesied to come into the church. They didn't split because of doctrine, they split because of how to deal with a fellow brethren.
--- Quote from: GinaMilan on June 06, 2010, 07:51:32 PM ---Thank you for your responses, though. I appreciate you taking the time, and I hope we can get past this.
--- End quote ---
We can move on from this topic, that is not a problem.
Also, we as a group should be mature enough in the knowledge that 'all is of God...God directs our steps'. Just because we say 'this person should not have done something', that does not automatically mean we are saying that God is not directing their steps.
Paul speaks of this same attitude because people assume this:
Rom 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Sometimes the means in which God directs someone's steps is to have another brother or sister admonish them in the faith. Most of the time, that's exactly how He deals with us.
Rom 10:13-15 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
Thanks,
Marques
GinaMilan:
--- Quote ---I never said Barnabas was perfect in all his actions, only that he forgiveness of John Mark is a 'perfect example of forgive and forget'.
--- End quote ---
I never said you said Barnabas was perfect in all of his actions. I said, "Barnabas was perfect in his actions because of his forgiveness" (I meant regarding Mark's desertion)"
You said
--- Quote ---Paul and Barnabas has nothing to do with the apostasy that was prophesied to come into the church.
--- End quote ---
Okay, but I find that hard to believe. After all, it was "no small dispute." But okay.
Yeah, I think it's best to move on.
A wise man sees the danger and takes refuge but a fool keeps going and smarts for it.
Thanks Marques.
Deborah-Leigh:
I noticed this insightful comment in what you said Marques...
--- Quote ---see wisdom in both instances
--- End quote ---
This little jewel lying in the context of your communication Marques, reminds me:
Php 4:11 I am not saying this because I am in any need, for I have learned to be content in whatever situation I am in.
Php 4:12 I know how to be humble, and I know how to prosper. In each and every situation I have learned the secret of being full and of going hungry, of having too much and of having too little.
Php 4:13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
After all, it was God who declared that His Will was that Paul and Barnabas were to be separate for the work God called them to.
Paul writes that he withstood Peter. There is no mistake which Peter this was. This was the Peter to whom Jesus Christ had given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven:
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I (Paul) withstood him (Peter) to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Does the carnal mind sees division, fragmentation, contradiction and strife ~ the single, whole and regenerated mind sees God in all as did, does Christ.
We can remember that Peter denied Christ in times of tribulation. Jesus said he would. First the natural then the Spiritual.
Mark did not continue with Barnabas in the work and this too was caused by God. We can speculate on the how’s why’s and wherefores ….and it is the same thing. First the natural then the Spiritual.
Mat 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
Mark later received warm affection from Peter who wrote of him as a Father to a son and Paul wrote to Aristarchus infrorming him that Mark was to be welcomed. Are we not to do the same with Peter, Barnabas, Mark and Paul himself who may also be criticized for having circumcised Timothy in keeping with Jewish law, tradition and customs. God forbid we draw such divisive and fragmented judgments on the Work of God Himself who tells us HE authored the separation between both Paul and Barnabas.
It is not mans wisdom but God’s Wisdom and Truth that vaults to the highest Glory of our God. :)
Arc
mharrell08:
Hello Members,
Not to be melodramatic, but I want to apologize to you all. I did not mean for this subject to become a divisive issue. I never even planned to respond past my 1st post because all I really wanted was to hear you guys/gals thoughts. I found this passage interesting and simply wanted to hear from you all.
To clear up a few matters:
1. I did not start this thread so we could debate about who was right and wrong between Paul & Barnabas. To each his/her own with their opinion on the matter.
2. I did not start this thread so we could debate about whether John Mark rejoined the ministry or not. As I stated, I do not see any scriptures which conclusively prove the 'Mark' mentioned in other epistles is the same John Mark from Acts. That does not prove he did not nor does it prove he did not. To each his/her own with their opinion on the matter.
3. I did express that I thought both Paul and Barnabas should not have split up...again, only my opinion & thoughts. If you don't understand my statement, under the context that 'All is of God' & 'God directs our path/steps', then I can clarify in a PM as I don't want to continue to use a thread to express my own personal thoughts. It is not a contradiction, that's all I'll say for now.
Hopefully we can move on into maturity when expressing our thoughts on the scriptures. I would like for all of us to communicate with one another on our thoughts on the scriptures...not debate, just telling what one thinks based on what they have read in the scriptures and/or Ray's teachings.
Thanks,
Marques
GinaMilan:
No problem, Marques. Apology accepted.
Here's something in Galatians that Akira pulled out that sheds a light on why Paul wasn't afraid to stand his ground with Barnabas and Barnabas' close relative, John Mark. The man who isn't afraid of speaking and doing the truth at all costs is a grown man. Paul was definitely not a reed swaying in the wind (tossed to and fro by every changing wind of doctrine -- see example below).
Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I [Paul] withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
Gal 2:12 For 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.
Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all,
(Side note: It's hard to know whether Paul first took the matter up with Peter one on one "behind closed doors" before bringing this matter before all. All I know is, Peter said follow me as I follow Christ.)
As Akira said, it's also hard to know whether this thing with Barnabas being carried away by Peter's hypocrisy happened before the John Mark incident or after it. It makes Paul's decision to stand his ground with Barnabas regarding John Mark (who got "carried away" at least in the book of Acts -- and being Barnabas relative, likely got carried away here too) make a LOT of sense, regardless.
I fully believe Paul when he said that he was not out to please men. And I don't see any reason to believe that Paul was "stubborn" in his decision. I truly believe that had Paul not stood his ground, he too would have gotten carried away (and no, our NT wouldn't look different - I jest) and would be relegated to the likes of the Gospel of Thomas, or something like that.
Thank you.
Gina
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version