Search results

Which Seminary or University would you prefer I reach out to?

Commentary. I guess I can call a university if you're really that interested.

Jesus was sent only to the house of Israel... and? Irrespectively, Peter did not understand the Gospel between Pentecost and the time of the vision and Cornelius's conversion. Not sure, other than the fact that you don't "like" what is being said, why this should be considered controversial.

It's irrelevant, because whether it is two or three years later doesn't affect my argument--ie, that the Apostles' understanding of the Gospel developed over time.

I've only read that it was "years" after Pentecost.

Irrelevant.

It's been made abundantly clear. You're just either not paying attention, you don't really care to have the conversation, or else you're pretending you don't understand.

Keep your personal vendettas and scraps out of my threads. It is rude.

And the response was given to your response. I was saying "even if John taught slightly differently, I'd accept it", not that he actually did, and I said that another view could be that he simply places different emphasis. Don't know why I have to keep repeating this. Then I said that the...

That's beside the point. My point was that we have a precedent that the understanding of the Gospel unfolds over time, and someone could argue that, taking John's writings alone, you may be more likely to end up with a Monergist view, and we know that John was the oldest by the time he wrote his...

Anyway, Peter was in error for years, and only after those years was he corrected, so the precedent is set that the understanding of the Gospel develops over time--evinced, again, in that the Jewish believers took issue with Paul's Gospel, and his teaching that Jews were not obligated to serve...

Years. The exact number is irrelevant to my point.

You obviously don't know the timeline. Peter eating with the Gentiles, but not when the Jews were around, occurred AFTER the vision--before the vision, whereby he had justified his having eaten with Gentiles in their home, Peter had not eaten any unclean thing (according to the account of the...

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...