Search results

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?

Nope.

This is a misattribution. I never said or thought that man saves himself by his own faith, but God reveals Himself to man, and He is the object of faith, and without Him revealing Himself, no amount of "faith" can save.

Please keep in mind that the main topic is the fact that John's Gospel seems to teach there is such a thing as an invalid faith--it's not mainly whether people can or can't fall away (though I was entertaining that tangent with @marks, we had started that convo based on the original topic).

This is not addressing the topic. If it is please clarify how it is. I only raised James 2 as a preface--afterward, I said "Having said that..." and went on to the real topic at hand.

Lots of misunderstandings and misattributions, but I will skip all of that, and zero in on the issue of faith in John's Gospel: I never said the crowd had faith, so that's a straw man if you're attacking that argument (also, it would show you didn't read the OP carefully). Also, briefly, you're...

I've had over a decade of experience discussing the facts with you guys, and I haven't found a single one of you interested in facts, so, no, not gonna waste my energy. You're all impenitent. In fact, I'll go ahead and place you on ignore, where you belong. I don't want to hear another word.

That was what I said before