Baptism is a work.

[rturner76]

Ok, this is interesting. From what you've offered above, it sounds like you believe that Peter actually did nothing wrong. That he was falsely chewed out for being respectful of the Law? My goodness, this is the same Law that was referred to as a "Stone" that would make the Lord's people stumble. You're saying that Peter was lending respect and honor to the "stone" that makes people stumble? That would be walking the Saving Gospel Plan of Christ right back to the cross again. The Law was fulfilled by the Life, death, and Resurrection of Christ. The Law of Moses ceased and anyone who continued to be justified by it remained under the Curse of the Lord.

You are dead on right in your view. What I am trying to convey that even though Gentils WOULD be included in God's plan and the Levitical Law would NO LONGER be required, the very first major congregation founded, was set up and run by Jewish Christians. That congregation and Judaism as a whole still wielded a lot of power and influence in the newly founded Christian community.

For Peter to "defile" high-ranking Jews who wielded much influence over the early Church, it could have gotten him killed. From a commentary that I read about Acts 10, Peter lost much influence in Jerusalem when he ate at the table of Cornelius who was a Gentile. Violating Levitical Law like I said could have deadly consequences if you were caught doing it in the right area by the right people.

So while Peter did not stand up for the Gentile cause in that moment, he was able to keep the peace and later bring in Gentile followers like the Romans. During that intensely violent time, the fo;;powers of James could have just as easily started killing Gentile Christians and non-Levitical Apostles on sight. All of this droning on and on is to say that Peter was an Apostle but also a diplomat.

 

[rturner76]

Yes, you can now understand better why Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, which means to us.

I do see why Paul is important but I also see Peter's vision in Acts 10 as the reason he went to the Gentiles in Rome which ended up being the religion of most of the Western world. With Latin being the language of education in the Western World, St Jerome's Vulgate became the book that most of the Western world relied on for scripture for a thousand years

 

[rturner76]

He DID fracture the brand-new church. He did it by leading a ton of people astray.

Ok . . . are you playing us? I mean, this is no-brainer stuff, here.

I literally had no idea that Jesus' chosen Rock of the Church would be leading people astray. In what way(s) did he do that? I was under the impression that he founded the Church that would eventually have one billion followers accepting the bread of life at the Lord's table

 

[ViaCrucis]

Lets just say that if we are living in Daniel 70th week, the time of Jacob's trouble, you will once again need faith and works to be saved.

When I say that Dispensationalism is anti-Gospel. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

"Abraham had faith, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aldebaran]

PLEASE TRY TO AVOID BECOMING PERSONAL IN DEBATES REGARDING DIFFERENCES IN ONE ANOTHER'S BELIEFS​

 

[Guojing]

When I say that Dispensationalism is anti-Gospel. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

"Abraham had faith, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

-CryptoLutheran

Are you aware that there will be temptation to take the mark of the beast during the Tribulation?

You just need to ask yourself this question "If I had faith at the beginning of the Tribulation, and then before it ends, I decided to take the mark of the beast, because I want to buy and sell. If I do so, will faith alone save me?"

 

[BurningBush84]

Is accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior a righteous act ?

I thought people are not saved because of their righteous acts.

 

[Guojing]

Is accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior a righteous act ?

I thought people are not saved because of their righteous acts.

You have to be clear what that means.

You have to believe that Christ died for your sins and rose for your justification (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Once you do that, Jesus is automatically your Lord, and that belief will justify you, and its without works (Romans 4:5)

 

[BurningBush84]

You have to be clear what that means.

You have to believe that Christ died for your sins and rose for your justification (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

Once you do that, Jesus is automatically your Lord, and that belief will justify you, and its without works (Romans 4:5)

But Ephesians 2:8 says, "this is not from yourselves".

See the point I'm trying to make ?

If baptism is a work , then accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is a righteous act, and we are not saved by our righteous acts.

 

[Guojing]

But Ephesians 2:8 says, "this is not from yourselves".

See the point I'm trying to make ?

If baptism is a work , then accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior is a righteous act, and we are not saved by our righteous acts.

In the first place, you don't need to "accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior" to be saved.

Read my post carefully.

If do that distracts you, you can change that phrase to "Once you believe that". (Romans 4:5)

 

[Oneofhope]

I literally had no idea that Jesus' chosen Rock of the Church would be leading people astray. In what way(s) did he do that? I was under the impression that he founded the Church that would eventually have one billion followers accepting the bread of life at the Lord's table

I'm not sure what you mean. You are speaking with authority over Galatians chapter two, yet you seem to be suggesting that you are stunned that Peter led many people astray. You're not sure of what he did?

You are putting A LOT into the text, yet what is obviously right "there," you seem to be missing it.

Are you just playing around, or?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Are you aware that there will be temptation to take the mark of the beast during the Tribulation?

You just need to ask yourself this question "If I had faith at the beginning of the Tribulation, and then before it ends, I decided to take the mark of the beast, because I want to buy and sell. If I do so, will faith alone save me?"

I used to be a Dispensationalist. So yes, I am aware of this particular fiction. It's unbiblical and un-Christian.

1. I don't believe in a future "Tribulation".

2. I don't believe that the mark of the beast is some future literal mark which people will have tattooed or microchipped.

3. I don't believe that getting a mark on one's skin can nullify God's promises in Christ Jesus, that is a blasphemous heresy.

So, again, your words only reinforce what I said before: Dispensationalism is explicitly anti-Gospel. It is the doctrine of demons which denies Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[rturner76]

I'm not sure what you mean. You are speaking with authority over Galatians chapter two, yet you seem to be suggesting that you are stunned that Peter led many people astray. You're not sure of what he did?

You are putting A LOT into the text, yet what is obviously right "there," you seem to be missing it.

Are you just playing around, or?

I'm not playing around. I am ignorant to when and hoe St Peter led men astray other than him first believing that Levitical Law was required to be followed until Acts 10 when he received a vision concerning the Gentiles and his experience with Cornelius.

I apologize if I come across like I have some authority. My "mission" on the forum (especially when the subject concerns our Christian beliefs) is not just to prove that I I am right and someone else is wrong. I am open to hearing and learning new ideas/points of view that I have previously not been aware of/

I am not always swayed by other people's beliefs or points of view etc. but I am ready to learn from others. I guess when I've been spending time in the "Politics" section of the forum I can get into a "right-minded" mode where I think I[ve been given the full revelation of the Gospel and God's plan for us. I am not as familiar with Galation as much as other books of the New Testament. I have my opinions and what I believe based on what I have read and been taught but like I say, I am open to other people's points of view, especially when they have biblical proof to back up.

So by all means, if you're up for it, take me through Peter's folly or point me toward chapter and verse that would help me understand what you are saying. I promise I am not baiting you in some kind of joke, I just don't have a 100% grasp of the New Testament (or the Old for that matter).

 

[Oneofhope]

I'm not playing around. I am ignorant to when and hoe St Peter led men astray other than him first believing that Levitical Law was required to be followed until Acts 10 when he received a vision concerning the Gentiles and his experience with Cornelius.

I apologize if I come across like I have some authority. My "mission" on the forum (especially when the subject concerns our Christian beliefs) is not just to prove that I I am right and someone else is wrong. I am open to hearing and learning new ideas/points of view that I have previously not been aware of/

I am not always swayed by other people's beliefs or points of view etc. but I am ready to learn from others. I guess when I've been spending time in the "Politics" section of the forum I can get into a "right-minded" mode where I think I[ve been given the full revelation of the Gospel and God's plan for us. I am not as similar with Galation as much as other books of the New Testament. I have my opinions and what I believe based on what I have read and been taught but like I say, I am open to other people's points of view, especially when they have biblical proof to back up.

So by all means, if you're up for it, take me through Peter's folly or point me toward chapter and verse that would help me understand what you are saying. I promise I am not baiting you in some kind of joke, I just don't have 100% grasp of the New Testament (or the Old for that matter).

Good to know that this isn't a joke for you. Below is the NLT translation of how Paul describes what Peter had done. The language is clear to understand.

Galatians 2:11-19 NLT - "But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn't eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter's hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, "Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions? "You and I are Jews by birth, not 'sinners' like the Gentiles. Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law." But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not! Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down. For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law--I stopped trying to meet all its requirements--so that I might live for God."

As you can read above, this issue has nothing to do with Peter somehow attempting to get the Gentiles to adapt to the Laws of Moses. Paul charges Peter with "rebuilding" the old system of law that has been torn down. Peter is falling away from Faith because of his fears of what others think of him and is falling backward in obeying the Laws of Moses rather than recognizing that Christ fulfilled the Law. Thus there is no longer any Law to break.

Romans 4:15 NLT - "For the law always brings punishment on those who try to obey it. (The only way to avoid breaking the law is to have no law to break!)"

I highly encourage that you begin reading the Bible in a timeline, chronological order so that you can learn the actual Story of God instead of trying to piece it together one chapter at a time, skipping from chapter to chapter. Who can understand any story if it is not in order? Until a person understands the Old Testament, their New Testament theology won't be accurate.

 

[Strong in Him]

Who can understand any story if it is not in order?

The Bible's not in order - the Epistles were written before the Gospels.

Until a person understands the Old Testament, their New Testament theology won't be accurate.

I don't believe that; I'd been a Christians for years before I seriously read the OT.

 

[Oneofhope]

The Bible's not in order - the Epistles were written before the Gospels.

I don't believe that; I'd been a Christians for years before I seriously read the OT.

Considering your level of knowledge and the fact that you speak with authority, I am certain that you would disagree with 95% of everything I offer.

 

[Strong in Him]

Considering your level of knowledge and the fact that you speak with authority, I am certain that you would disagree with 95% of everything I offer.

Only 95%?

It's a fact though; the Epistles were written before the Gospels.
The order of books in the Bible is not necessarily chronological.

 

[Guojing]

3. I don't believe that getting a mark on one's skin can nullify God's promises in Christ Jesus, that is a blasphemous heresy.

So, again, your words only reinforce what I said before: Dispensationalism is explicitly anti-Gospel. It is the doctrine of demons which denies Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

I see, so what do you think Rev 14 is saying then?

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Once you understand the mark of the beast, you will understand why Jesus said he who endures to the end shall be saved, and why the little flock sold all their possessions and shared everything they had (Luke 12:33, Acts 4:32)

 

[rturner76]

I highly encourage that you begin reading the Bible in a timeline, chronological order so that you can learn the actual Story of God instead of trying to piece it together one chapter at a time, skipping from chapter to chapter. Who can understand any story if it is not in order? Until a person understands the Old Testament, their New Testament theology won't be accurate.

Yes, I see how this approach is prudent. Not knowing the chronological order in which the NT was written, did this passage take place before or after Acts 10? That is the chapter where I read about St Peter's conversion to the allowance of Gentiles not being required to follow Levitical law.

I appreciate your patience and your willingness to add to my understanding of the larger picture of the Apostles' early days in church building,

I know how St Peter was mistaken at one point in time about the inclusion of Gentiles who were not required to get physically circumcised nor follow Jewish dietary laws. What I wonder like I said was this passage in the letter to the Galatians written before or after the passage of Acts 10th chapter.

Though I am pro St Peter being a Catholic, I acknowledge that my grasp of the New Testament (and old if I'm honest) is limited. I am open to education an instruction on these topics as long as it is a theology based on scripture.

One thing I am ignorant about is the order in which the books of the New Testament were written. Do you have a link to that information or should I just "google" it?

I appreciate your patience.

 

[Guojing]

I know how St Peter was mistaken at one point in time about the inclusion of Gentiles who were not required to get physically circumcised nor follow Jewish dietary laws. What I wonder like I said was this passage in the letter to the Galatians written before or after the passage of Acts 10th chapter.

Galatians was written after Acts 15 council event.

So it is definitely after Acts 10.