"Errors" in the apostles' writings?

[KyleB]

Sort of related to the other topic I just posted.

We see Paul rebuking Peter in Gal 2:11-14 for his misconduct/wrong teaching toward Gentile Christians. I understand that the apostles were imperfect men just like the rest of us, I have no problem with that. I also have no problem admitting that not every written word of the apostles was "inspired" (i.e. 1 Cor 1:14-15). I am also aware that Paul sometimes spoke from his own thought, and sometimes from the Lord (1 Cor 7:10,25). No problem here either.

My question is, why do we assume that there were no "Peter moments" preserved in the doctrinal portions of the apostles' writings?

[kaufmannphillips]

It is convenient. It spares people the trouble of weighing out what is reliable and what is unreliable within the teachings that they have been handed.

It is soothing. It spares people the uncertainty of whether or not their lives are based upon reliable teachings.

To think otherwise would threaten bibliocentric Christianity. How may one advocate the bible as the core teaching authority of Christianity, if its contents may be unreliable? And if the bible is not the core teaching authority of Christianity, then what on earth might be put in its place?

[darinhouston]

To avoid the scorn of the Reformed.

[mattrose]

That's a good and legitimate question... and, practically, the above suggestions probably are the 'real' answers for the typical Christian fundamentalist.

I would say that the church's role in the process of canonization also plays a part. There were a lot of writings in the early church, but not all of them were canonized. It was a process. Maybe some things were weeded out b/c of some suspected 'peter moments'...

But I'd also add that Peter moments were probably far more likely in action than in writing. Writing wasn't cheap or easy back then. I think quite a bit of thought was put into writings such as we find in Scripture by and large... and that factor would have weeded most things out too.

We also have a third level of protection from such 'errors' and that is the hermeneutic principle of interpreting Scripture by Scripture. If one passage is suspect, we interpret it in the light of another similar passage which passes the standard.

In the end, I think Scripture is pretty well safeguarded from the type of thing you are wondering about. Then again, I'm not as demanding about such things as a hyper-fundamentalist might be.

[KyleB]

But I'd also add that Peter moments were probably far more likely in action than in writing.

I was thinking something like this as well. Even at the very time when Peter was acting wrongly, if he had been asked to write his thoughts on the matter, I would imagine that he would not have recommended behaving as he was.

It seems that there should be a more fundamental (not that kind of fundamental) test to apply here though...