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!
Johann
Well-Known Member
I'm still waiting to hear back from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
In the meantime, the timelines of the Book of Acts I've seen have ranged, on Cornelius's salvation, from 36AD to 42AD. If these timelines are correct, it would mean that Peter didn't fully understand the Gospel, and God didn't correct his inaccurate/incomplete understanding of the Gospel, for a minimum of 3 years.
We have a precedent, then, that the understanding of the Gospel unfolded over time.
This fact could be used by a person who wanted to argue that that might account for John's Gospel being different/more accurate--either because it's actually different, or simply because, while John does teach the exact same material as the rest of the NT, he simply places different emphases--because he had the most time to be corrected/formed by Grace before having written his Gospel.
So we don't forget the context: Originally, this conversation arose because I'd said (in the OP) that it really seemed like John is putting this idea of an invalid faith forward in his Gospel--I had considered the idea of an invalid faith merely an empty assertion, without Scriptural backing, because I saw/see the passages which others claim refer to an invalid faith (eg, James 2) as having more believable, contextually respectful, explanations--and, importantly, there were other doctrines he puts forward ("If you remain in My Word, you will prove you truly are My disciples" (if not, they weren't valid disciples), and, "they went out to prove they were never of us, for if they were of us they would've remained with us") that it seems are intended to be taken together, have continuity, with that reality.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Why Preaching Peter Makes Us All Liars
Justin Johnson
Acts 2:38 is no doubt one of the most popular verses in Acts chapter 2. It is used quite often by those that make water baptism part of the gospel, but it is most often quoted out of context. What about the rest of Peter’s message?
If you think our pattern begins at Pentecost, then why don’t you ever hear Peter’s sermon at Pentecost repeated in its entirety from pulpits today?
Perhaps it is because repeating Peter’s Pentecostal message in its entirety would make us all liars. Preaching Acts 2:14-39 to the church today would feel awkward, out of place, doctrinally incorrect, and, at best, incomplete.
Here are half a dozen lies that would be spoken if you preached Peter’s message to your church.
“ye men of Judaea… ye men of Israel” – Acts 2:14; Acts 2:22
Peter specifically addressed Jews and Israel on the day of Pentecost. This is not merely a problem of a different audience, because Peter deliberately excluded Gentiles knowing the kingdom was promised to Israel (Acts 2:39; Acts 3:25-26).
Furthermore, he had not yet learned the acceptance of Gentiles by God (Acts 11:18), and Peter’s ministry was to Jews only before he was pushed to visit Cornelius (Acts 11:19).
By taking this approach, you would be neglecting to preach the gospel of Christ to all: Jew and Gentile, without difference (Rom 1:16; Gal 3:28).
“this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” – Acts 2:16
Would you dare say this from a pulpit? Especially after the hullabaloo that has recently passed about the end of the world in September, that is now come and gone, and become the laughingstock of Bible Christianity.
The “this” Peter refers to are the supernatural prophesies uttered by the power of the Spirit in the languages of the world. Is this your ministry? Do you speak in tongues? If you are not, then you are lying that Pentecost is your pattern.
Pentecostals for over a century have claimed passages like this to support their confusing and chaotic utterances, when in actuality the words at Pentecost were all understood, and spoke to “that” which Joel prophesied: the restoration of Israel’s kingdom and language. Joel did not speak about the mystery church of today (Rom 16:25).
So, whether you are part of the tongue talking groups, or not, it would be wrong to repeat “this is that”. Salvation is not being today in Zion and in Jerusalem (Joel 2:32).
“a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs… as ye yourselves also know” – Acts 2:22
No one alive today has seen Jesus live among us. None of us has a genuine memory of Jesus of Nazareth. No one today is witness to a single miracle of Jesus while he was on earth.
All that we know of him we read from inspired scripture. Yet, Peter was using their memory of these miracles to prove who Jesus was. Knowing Jesus and remembering his miracles is a prerequisite for the unbelievers listening to Peter’s message.
“ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” – Acts 2:23
I did not do this, and neither did you. Everyone that delivered Christ to council, nailed him to the cross, and cheered at his death sentence is now dead.
Peter is blaming that generation with the murder of Jesus, and we do not fit in the audience. The only way we can see our guilt in the death of Christ is according to the mystery when we realize that he purposely died for our sins, and so our sins made his death necessary.
Meanwhile, we are told to glory in the cross (Gal 6:14); whereas every time Peter mentions it in Acts 2, it is a shame to Israel.
Preaching that I crucified Christ with my wicked hands would be a spiritual lie; preaching Christ dying willingly for my sins is the gospel not preached at Pentecost.
“whereof [the resurrection] we all are witnesses” – Acts 2:32
No one has seen Christ resurrected since the days of Paul. Paul declares that last of all he was seen of him (1 Cor 15:8).
We believe the death and resurrection of Christ because of the scripture records, not because of a promise that God has given to appear personally before each person that believes.
“he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear… ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” – Acts 2:34; Acts 2:38
Peter was offering the same thing that was happening to all the believers at Pentecost to the unbelievers at Pentecost. If you do not have a public testimony of the Spirit’s gifts, and if the Spirit does not empower those you baptize to do what they did at Pentecost, either God is a liar, or you are (Rom 3:4).
Pentecost was a one-time event that fulfilled prophecy toward Israel. The revelation of the mystery of Christ, his church, and the gospel of grace was not yet known.
Stop the Lies
The ministry of Peter and Paul were different.
These statements were not lies when Peter spoke them at Pentecost, but by repeating them today in our churches they become lies. This should be a good indication that the message and ministry of Peter at Pentecost is not our pattern.
The pattern of God’s grace sent to unbelieving Gentiles is found in Paul’s epistles. Paul’s ministry began in the middle of the book of Acts after Israel had rejected the Pentecostal promise of the last days and the earthly kingdom.
Whereas preaching Peter’s message would make me a liar, there is no problem reading what Paul wrote in the book of Romans in my church without a lie. This is what should be done more often.
Stop the lies. Stick with Paul.
Related Posts:
- Acts 2:38 is Not the Preaching of the Cross
- Pentecost Not the Beginning of the Mystery Church
- The First to Preach the Gospel
- Did the Church Begin at Pentecost?
- Did Peter Preach Paul’s Gospel at Pentecost?
- Peter’s Best and Worst Day
Why Preaching Peter Makes Us All Liars
graceambassadors.com
Maybe off topic.
J.
They should be getting back with some false doctrine as cemeteries do.
I'm amazed at some of the garbage that comes out of these places and from bible colleges too.
I'm just asking them why timelines of Acts always have Cornelius's salvation taking place years after Christ's death and resurrection--what Scriptural and/or other historical evidence they are basing that on.
I'm asking whether it is the case that God letting Peter lead the Church, with preaching and teaching that he himself conformed to (which would mean he was teaching the Jewish believers (the only people anyone knew could be saved at the time) that they were to keep the dietary law, as he himself was ("Not so, Lord, for no unclean thing has ever touched my lips.")--contrary to Paul's (later) Gospel that salvation was for Gentiles, and that the dietary law didn't need to be observed by Jewish believers), during the years he was still learning the reality of the Gospel establishes a precedent that God would also let others, like Paul, do his best to lead even while he was himself still in the process of learning.
Peter was no less "led by the Spirit" during the years he was believing uncorrected inaccuracies than he was afterward--so why should it be a denial that anyone else is "led by the Spirit" just because they are believing uncorrected inaccuracies?
That would be my defense if I believed that John actually taught something different/better/more accurate--that there is already precedent for it.
@marks I'm glad we talked about this, because I believe there are many in the Catholic and Orthodox and Protestant versions of Christianity who belong to Christ, yet I've heard many from these groups, based on doctrinal differences, deny the salvation of members of the other groups. With Peter, no one, looking back, would question that he had been saved, or that he had been led by the Spirit, based solely on his having held to uncorrected inaccuracies about the Gospel. This helps me to see a Scriptural support for holding that the Spirit can be leading people, they can be saved, yet without immediately correcting their doctrinal errors. While He does lead us into all truth, He apparently doesn't do it instantaneously--He is happy to leave errors unaddressed for years, even with the Chief Apostle. How much more with us? It shows that we don't have to deny we are "led by the Spirit" just because we were convicted about something being true, but later find out we were wrong the whole time. Sorta like Romans 14--the one who is weak in faith may be restricted to eating vegetables, but, later on, when he's stronger in faith, he may not be under that restriction... but, for the time being, he really is under that restriction. Not the same but similar.
Last edited:
I can't believe you are saying what you are saying, and please do not involve me in this.
You seem fixated on denouncing Peter and I'm not going to join you in that. He was a Apostle of Christ Jesus. Does that make him a perfect man? No. Nor Paul, nor the others.
Scriptures correctly divided don't require that a person prioritize one teaching over another for it to make sense, as though one fellow didn't get it quite right.
I disagree with that POV as heartily as I can!
Much love!
No, actually, I'm not denouncing Peter at all, and "I can't believe" that that is somehow your takeaway.
You seem intent on misunderstanding me--you've been doing that for some time now.
Didn't you say that while the Gentiles were actually included in the Gospel that Peter didn't understand that for years, until God finally had to correct him in a vision? Because he just didn't "get it"?
And so when we come to places giving teaching from Peter, and teaching from John, and it seems that John's teaching is a little different, that we should go with John's teaching, because, well, Peter, you know, he didn't really 'get it' for a long time, while John was growing in the truth for so long a time!
Am I misunderstanding you?
Much love!
If they did get born again and were being led by the Holy Ghost... they would separate from these false religious cults.
There must be another reason. Or maybe I do understand, I just gave a reflection.
Much love!
I'm, in part, trying to look at how the Spirit led Peter, and make sense of my life and how I've experienced God's "leading", and better understand what that actually means, and what I should expect, and should not expect.
Also, I see Scriptural backing for my belief that there are Christians from different/opposing versions of Christianity who are saved, irrespective their imperfect understandings.
What if God is perfectly content with them believing in Jesus, and chooses not to reveal those things to them?
I have to KEEP ON repeating myself.
I said that I was probing possible/plausible arguments related to the issue.
Unless you are under the weather at the moment, or going through something else that is clouding your understanding, I am really seeing that I cannot discuss these things with you.
I don't like repeating myself.
How could the Holy Spirit... THE Spirit of Truth... not point out error when Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to all Truth (John 16:13), and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)?
There are warnings in the New Testament to separate from those that teach false doctrine, so I'm thinking the Holy Ghost would be teaching this to people in these religions that actually get born again.
If they do not get out of the false religions, then satan has massive opportunity to choke the Word of God out of them (Mark 4:13-20) dragging them back in to the false religion and they end up being lost.
I've read some of the testimonies of folks belonging to false religions that actually got born again and all of them say the first thing the Lord put on their heart was to separate from the false religion and get outta dodge!
Years ago, I used to belong to a social club they claimed was a church and as I grew in understanding of God's Word I found out they were teaching various tenets of reformed theology and eventually the Lord revealed to me that He wanted me to depart from these folks.
Similar threads
