Wow! I was not expecting that! I believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture, myself.
By "the chief Apostle", who do you mean?
Much love!
Faith: True and False
- Thread starter GracePeace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
By "the chief Apostle", who do you mean?
Much love!
I know where Peter learned that salvation was being extended to the Gentiles, but was there some place where Peter taught others that was not so? I can't think of a place, help me out here.
To be an apostle, it means you've been sent out. We have apostles now, only, we call them missionaries. We send them out from our churches to go to other places to start new churches.
As far as "all the warnings of God", I prefer to look at actually passages to confirm what they specifically do and do not say.
Much love!
I just give consideration to different ideas that seem plausible.
Did Peter not promote inaccuracies? Did God not let him do that for some time, and only afterward correct him?
I'll take truth however it comes--and, to me, there is no more obviously inspired writings than those of John. I mean, it's almost like John doesn't even exist (I must decrease, He must increase), like it's purely the Word of the Spirit.
Obviously, Peter was teaching all that time. Was he silent all that time before he received the corrective vision and went to Cornelius and ate with him (for which thing he was confronted by the Jewish believers)?
Right, but I've spoken with Calvinists who say that the warnings against falling away exist in Scripture, but they're just the means whereby God keeps His "elect".
And you think that some of the writers of the New Testament were young, inexperienced, needing to learn and be corrected, but they still wrote Scripture, just not as high quality as some of the other older, more seasoned writers? That's the idea I'm getting from you, and could well explain the differences in our views, if in fact you think of some of the Bible as "less accurate" than other parts, leading you to hold those other parts higher. So when you perceive what you think of as a disagreement between the two writers, you defer to the "older, more seasoned"?
For myself, I believe that all are equally accurate, having written according to the Holy Spirit. And therefore all must harmonize without changing or ignoring any part of what they say.
Much love!
Like I said, I was just spitballing.
Like I said, I reconcile the teachings.
Like I said, if I just had John to go on, I could easily (not necessarily certainly) be led to a Monergistic view.
OK.
Well, I'm curious which passages you think are wrong. But we're going to be at loggerheads over this, pure and simple. It will be like we are looking at two different books, for the difference this will make.
Much love!
It's not even necessarily that the other writers are "wrong", but just that John just gives a different emphasis--leads readers to lean more upon God's grace.
It is inferred. Peter immediately began preaching and teaching on Pentecost. He wasn't silent the rest of the time until he had the vision and went to Cornelius's home. ALL of the other Jewish believers thought the same way--that's why they confronted him when he came back from Cornelius's home. You think they weren't talking about these things, but were just doing them silently?
Hey Ronald, rather than derail this thread, why not start a thread about the 5 points of Calvininism..
You could explain all 5 points...I’ve heard of Calvin, never read what 5 points of TULIP are..
Also, since Paul gives equal weight and authority to the things he said in person, why should the fact that Peter promulgated these inaccuracies be any less meaningful?
The Spirit of Truth was to lead him into all the truth... but apparently that doesn't happen immediately. It took time, a long time, for God to correct Peter.
It's an argument from silence, which perhaps that fact doesn't carry the same weight with you as it does with me. Maybe he was simply preaching, and praying, and serving others. You don't know whether or not Peter made the teaching of the exclusion of the Gentiles a part of his preaching.
You seem to be suggesting that Peter was just saying what he thought to be good, and that he was at times wrong. I truth God to watch over His Word that it not be wrong. I believe what I read in the Bible, whether Peter, Paul, or John. I don't see contradictions between them, I see harmony.
Much love!
I think you are right, this is something you are inferring, which means, it's your opinion.
His preaching is recorded. Is there anything to actually substantiate this idea that Peter preached the exclusion of the Gentiles?
Though in fact, the Gentiles actually were excluded by Jesus Christ Himself. "I am sent but to the lost sheep of Israel". "Don't go the the gentile towns, just the towns of Israel". "who were strangers to the covenant . . .", they were in fact excluded, then, using Peter, God introduced a change.
Much love!
I'm just arguing from different points of view--I even argued for a Monergistic view, and I'm not Monergist--and, again, I am spitballing, but I have had the practice of reconciling it all.
Last edited:
God corrected Peter did He not?
Therefore, Peter was living in inaccuracies prior to that correction.
If he is a leader, he is leading others with his inaccurate life.
This only took place YEARS after the first Pentecost.
Even though the Spirit of Truth leads into all the truth, it can take YEARS for the Spirit to correct.
John had a lot of time to be corrected.
His writings have a different tenor than literally everything else in Scripture.
Or, Peter had a one time momentary lapse.
This is the problem with arguments from silence, you only hear the echo of your own thoughts.
Regardless, I perceive we will not have fruitful discussion, we have very different ideas of "what the Bible is", and we will not find ourselves on the same page.
I do appreciate the polite discussion!
Much love!
As stated throughout this entire thread, I've been playing "devil's advocate" with different points of view--anyone who knows what I've said knows I'm not Monergist, yet I've made Monergist arguments.
A "one-time momentary lapse"... that lasted for YEARS?
Peter didn't understand the Gospel--neither did the rest of the Jewish believers (and when Paul went to Jerusalem, these same people were still "zealous for the Law", and took issue with Paul and his Gospel, because his understanding of the Gospel was further developed than theirs was), who were shocked to learn that Gentiles could be saved--and God didn't correct his misunderstanding until YEARS later, letting Peter walk in his inaccurate understanding all that time.
So, it may be that others were permitted to go on in inaccuracies, as well--but John had been around the longest by the time he wrote, and could have had the most developed, accurate, Gospel.
Similar threads
