Peter - False Disciple and Apostate

Page 1 of 3 (43 items) 1 2 3 Next >
This post has 42 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 776
Lew Worthington | Forum Activity | Posted: Sun, May 10 2015 12:02 PM

Gundry's Peter - False Disciple and Apostate, due out in September.

Posts 2277
Andy | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 12:12 PM

Yes

Posts 9945
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 12:53 PM

This appears to be an interesting study since it so radically differs from the accepted view.  I wonder whether he has any hope of establishing his thesis.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2689
Forum MVP
Ted Hans | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 12:57 PM

George Somsel:
I wonder whether he has any hope of establishing his thesis.

No way! But then again i have not read the book.

Dell, studio XPS 7100, Ram 8GB, 64 - bit Operating System, AMD Phenom(mt) IIX6 1055T Processor 2.80 GHZ

Posts 162
Clifford B. Kvidahl | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 2:39 PM

If you want a taste of what this book will be on, here is a lecture from Bob Gundry.

Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to St. Matthew

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 3:15 PM

George Somsel:

This appears to be an interesting study since it so radically differs from the accepted view.  I wonder whether he has any hope of establishing his thesis.

I do not expect too many Catholics will accept their first Pope was apostate.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 9945
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 3:36 PM

Clifford B. Kvidahl:

If you want a taste of what this book will be on, here is a lecture from Bob Gundry.

Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to St. Matthew

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6g9lfGnFx0

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4753
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 4:31 PM

I think I've made the comment here before, so I'm going to guess that it is part of what Gundry's going on, but Peter put himself under a hheirem curse (Mk. 14:71). In certain circumstances, to be placed under such a curse is unrecoverable--it is a sentence of death...with strong potential for second death, as well. As a result, I have my own questions about Peter, but Yeishuu`a's interactions with him in Jn. 21:15, 16, 17 implies (though, if you follow to the end of the chapter, does not necessarily or conclusively guarantee) that Peter has found forgiveness for his actions. It's interesting that Gundry is using Matthew as his source for this, since it is Mark who provides the clearest enunciation of the self-cursing act of Peter. My "conclusion" on Peter remains open, though I tend to suspect he is forgiven, though I'm not exactly sure what mechanism brings that to pass.

I intend to address Peter's actions in a book I'm working on, but it will be a while before it comes out--I have others that take precedence. It is most definitely a profound prophetic event with massive implications.

Posts 4753
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 4:41 PM

I wonder if Gundry read my post? I think I posted it at least a year or two ago. Stick out tongue

Posts 4753
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 4:56 PM

I'm about ten minutes into the video above...Gundry is just asking "How can I say Matthew calls Peter a false apostle?" (not a direct quote), but I'm going to guess that Gundry is not going to be seeing the prophetic reason that is behind why Peter would do & say what he did. Peter isn't the real target, regardless of his ultimate status. I doubt Gundry gets that.

Time to hit "play" again...

Posts 623
JAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 5:15 PM

David Paul:
I wonder if Gundry read my post? I think I posted it at least a year or two ago.

Gundry published the notion in 1982 according to this article:  http://defendinginerrancy.com/robert-gundry-declares-peter-apostate/

It's more likely you've read his post. Stick out tongue

"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963

Posts 4753
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 5:30 PM

Hmmm...and he's just getting around to writing a book about something so "big"? Well, books always take longer than you expect, I know that...but over 3 decades? Yikes!

I guess I will stop watching the video and read the article first, since it preceded it.

Posts 26104
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, May 10 2015 9:12 PM

Super.Tramp:

George Somsel:

This appears to be an interesting study since it so radically differs from the accepted view.  I wonder whether he has any hope of establishing his thesis.

I do not expect too many Catholics will accept their first Pope was apostate.

Depends upon G.'s definition of "apostate"  I suspect a number of his contemporaries - Jewish and pagan - considered him apostate. So it might be a definition that requires one be apostate in order to support Truth with a capital T. So don't worry about those whose instant response is to consider the consequences of G.'s hypothesis and start planning a new Monty-Python style skit. No complaints from me if Logos wishes to offer it.

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 2372
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 11 2015 5:05 AM

George Somsel:

This appears to be an interesting study since it so radically differs from the accepted view.  I wonder whether he has any hope of establishing his thesis.

""Gundry uses this investigation to support his claim that Matthew portrays Peter as a false disciple and apostate, like Judas Iscariot, and that Peter's denials of Jesus rule him out of God's kingdom.""

Question: Is the Pre-Cross Peter the same as the Post-Pentecost Peter?  I would think that anything that Peter says before being told to "Feed my sheep" does not count. I would think that Pentecost was a total reset for all 120 in the upper room - including Peter. [and then Acts shows that they still had more to learn]

Posts 623
JAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 11 2015 7:40 AM

David Ames:
Question: Is the Pre-Cross Peter the same as the Post-Pentecost Peter?

I'm trying to give Gundry a fair appraisal - it's quite hard to look at his interpretation without bias - even he seems to acknowledge the novelty of his assertions. I've only heard him present his case in the October 6, 2014 Westmont College lecture video linked in this thread.

In my initial consideration I keep thinking "The cross, the cross, any interpretation must take into account what occurred on Calvary and the proceeding events. This effects everything."

"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963

Posts 773
JRS | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 11 2015 9:45 AM

A vigorous assessment of Gundry's position on Peter can be found here.

"In sum, how can Gundry reach such a novel approach, the only one in church history who has ever seen Peter in such a light?  First, by deprecating, or really, eliminating harmonization.  Second, by a subjective, imaginative assertion of psychology that somehow the church found comfort in Peter’s “good and bad behavior.”  Third, the influence of Romanism on the church, as well as the current ecumenical movement toward reproachment [sic] with Roman Catholicism."

His sleight of hand begins with, "If you have only the Gospel of Matthew, what would you think of Peter?" at about the 11:00 mark in the YouTube video referenced above.  Given selective evidence and dull listeners, I, too, can "prove" anything.

How blessed is the one whom Thou dost choose, and bring near to Thee(Psa 65:4a)

Posts 8967
RIP
Matthew C Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 11 2015 9:48 AM

JRS:
Given selective evidence and dull listeners, I, too, can "prove" anything.

Well put.

Logos 7 Collectors Edition

Posts 10032
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 11 2015 10:44 AM

Gundry's refreshing. Doesn't kowtow to centuries of tradition. Sound familiar? Looks at the text. Gee. 

Gundry is where the evangelicals left Stone/Campbell in the late 1800s.  They'd do well to end the the check-off creeds and return to the text ... however guessed at.


Posts 623
JAL | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 11 2015 11:07 AM

JRS:
"In sum, how can Gundry reach such a novel approach, the only one in church history who has ever seen Peter in such a light?  First, by deprecating, or really, eliminating harmonization.  Second, by a subjective, imaginative assertion of psychology that somehow the church found comfort in Peter’s “good and bad behavior.”  Third, the influence of Romanism on the church, as well as the current ecumenical movement toward reproachment [sic] with Roman Catholicism."

a fair summary

JRS:
His sleight of hand begins with, "If you have only the Gospel of Matthew, what would you think of Peter?"

Gundry's point is about what he thinks the Gospel of Matthew says about Peter.

"The Christian mind is the prerequisite of Christian thinking. And Christian thinking is the prerequisite of Christian action." - Harry Blamires, 1963

Posts 773
JRS | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, May 11 2015 12:34 PM

JAL:

JRS:
His sleight of hand begins with, "If you have only the Gospel of Matthew, what would you think of Peter?"

Gundry's point is about what he thinks the Gospel of Matthew says about Peter.

Gundry's point is about what he thinks the gospel of Matthew says about Peter ... to the exclusion of all other evidence.  Solus Matthaeum.  If he were to say something along the lines of Matthew was unique in recognizing Peter's anxiety/fear that he, because of his denials of Christ, might actually be the one of whom Christ spoke about in John 6:70 ... but that he was later forgiven and restored per the other Gospels and the remainder of the NT, I would have no problem with the thesis.  But he doesn't.  In other words, no harmonization with all of the biblical evidence significantly reduces the value of the book in particular, and his work in general, in my opinion.

How blessed is the one whom Thou dost choose, and bring near to Thee(Psa 65:4a)

Page 1 of 3 (43 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS