Search results

The corrective vision came only years after Pentecost, and they were surprised that Gentiles were also being saved--none of them knew it before.

They only learned that Gentiles could be saved years after the first Pentecost, and the Jewish believers were surprised, so this was a new understanding that they had not had/been given before. Clearly, Peter, together with the other Jewish believers, had been leading a life under the assumption...

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...

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.

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...

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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...

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...

Peter obviously was the chief Apostle.

I'm just saying that we have the precedent that inaccuracies, unintentionally, were propagated by the chief Apostle, and God didn't correct him for a long time, so why would we not allow that John, the eldest (upon writing), and obviously most Christ-centric, had more time to receive correction...

Just spitballing, but was Peter NOT an Apostle when he was going around keeping and teaching the dietary Law was to be kept and teaching that salvation was only for Jews? Also, you could (and Calvinists/Monergists, I believe, do) argue that all of the warnings are just God's means whereby He...

Even if they really were (I actually reconcile them with the other Scriptures), I wouldn't care. I'd accept it. We know Peter held to beliefs that were not in line with the Gospel--he and the Jewish Christians were shocked that Gentiles could be saved at all. So, we have this precedent that, as...

Please don't engage in off topic debate. I didn't bother responding to them bc I realized, after discussion with them, that their brain is broken, so, yes, the post they made is there, but it is best to leave it uninteracted with.

If we stuck strictly to John's teachings, I could easily be led to believe that, no, the saved could not become unsaved, the regenerate could not become unregenerate (not even in the sense that someone could fall away--thus, being blotted out, their being forgotten rendering them effectively...

If you don't choose to get on topic here pretty soon, instead of asking all these irrelevant questions you're interested in, as if this were your thread and your topic, I'm going to go ahead and put you on ignore.

Maybe you should make a post about that, since I don't care about that topic (the topic I care about discussing is the one I keep asking you to stay on) and never asked about it?