Peter wasn't a christian

[FreeinChrist]

You would be right that many, infact, most dispensationalist are not Calvinist, but it's a little low minded to use "right dividers" in a general way to suppose that we all fit under the scheme of "God's not in control."

Oh, I believe the so-called "right dividers" miss the mark in many ways though I recognize that not all fit an identical scheme that God is not in control. I was responding to one person's response to a cemment and not a comment of yours in that earlier post.

 

[eph3Nine]

Oh, I believe the so-called "right dividers" miss the mark in many ways though I recognize that not all fit an identical scheme that God is not in control. I was responding to one person's response to a cemment and not a comment of yours in that earlier post.

Would you mind telling us in just what ways you think we are missing the mark?

I too, used to think they were, until I stopped criticizing what I didnt KNOW, and began looking in the scriptures to see if they WERE right. Guess what? They were! Was I ever embarrassed...and my pride had to take a back seat while I continued to study WITH them instead of fighting them.

We are in the minority...but that has always been so with Gods people. Most arent willing to pay the price, but prefer the comfy safe zone of their denominational party line and what is commonly acceptable to ALL.

This is how Satan deceives the masses, folks. His tactics havent changed ONE IOTA. He doesnt try to find ways to make us SIN today...but he obscures the MYSTERY given to Paul because THAT...the preaching of the CROSS...was his downfall, and it was a secret EVEN TO HIM.

I pray you will reconsider and do some study on what we have posted here. Say hi to max for me...hes cute.

 

[TheScottsMen]

We are in the minority...but that has always been so with Gods people

Those that are saved by the cross, and have put their faith in the cross, even if they are reading the cross back into somewhere where it's not, are just as much God's people as those that don't.

 

[eph3Nine]

Those that are saved by the cross, and have put their faith in the cross, even if they are reading the cross back into somewhere where it's not, are just as much God's people as those that don't.

That may be so...but if they preach another gospel and another jesus, what does SCRIPTURE say about them? It may not mean their salvation, but it will sure slow em down in their growth in grace, and maturity in Christ, would you not agree?

 

[TheScottsMen]

That may be so...but if they preach another gospel and another jesus, what does SCRIPTURE say about them? It may not mean their salvation, but it will sure slow em down in their growth in grace, and maturity in Christ, would you not agree?

I would agree But my comment was about them being also God's people

 

[eph3Nine]

I would agree But my comment was about them being also God's people

Yep...believing the gospel of OUR salvation found in Pauls epistles will make ANYONE Gods person.

 

[ascribe2thelord]

The Bible actually talks about MANY GOSPELS.

There are FOUR names in the Bible for the Gospel that was preached to Israel.

1. The Gospel of the Kingdom Mt 4:23, 9:35, 24:14

2. The Gospel of the Kingdom of God Mark 1:14, Luke 4:43

3. The Gospel of the Circumcision Gal. 2:7

4. The Gospel of Jesus Christ Mark 1:1 2 Thes 1:8


The gospel WE preach today has many names as well.

1. The Gospel of the Grace of God Acts 20:24

2. MY Gospel Rom 2:16, 16:25, 2 Tim. 2:8

3. Gospel of Christ Rom. 1:16, 15:19, 29; 2 Cor 9:13, 10:14, Phil 1:27, 1 Thess 3:2

4. Gospel of Peace Romans 10:15, Eph 6:15

5. Gospel of His Son Rom. 1:9

6. Gospel of the UNCircumcision Gal. 2:7

7. Gospel of YOUR salvation Eph. 1:13.

While there is ONLY one gospel that saves today, its important that we know what that gospel IS. Peters gospel given to the Nation Israel is NOT the gospel on the table today. Pauls MYSTERY gospel is the gospel that saves today.

I do remember that Paul said that if anyone preached a Gospel other than the one he preached, then he said, even an angel, let him be eternally damned.

But apparently there was no such strife between him and Peter. So it must have been the same Gospel they were both preaching to the Gentiles - that salvation is in Christ alone.

Peter's mistake in Galatians was to try to conform to the religious Jew-Christians, who added the Pharisees' laws to the covenant of grace and caused the church to stagnate by not thinking in line with the bare Gospel of grace. Paul rebuked him, and as far as we can tell, there was no response of "I have a different Gospel" or "I am right too" etc. - apparently Peter accepted the rebuke and returned to preaching the Gospel as it is.

 

[eph3Nine]

I do remember that Paul said that if anyone preached a Gospel other than the one he preached, then he said, even an angel, let him be eternally damned.

Thats correct

But apparently there was no such strife between him and Peter.

There WAS no strife between Peter and Paul because of this:

Galatians 2:2 And I (Paul) went up by revelation, and communicated unto them (who is THEM? Peter and the boys) that gospel which "I" preach ...

(IF THE GOSPEL WAS the SAME < WHY AND WHAT DID PAUL HAVE to COMMUNICATE to them? And why did he call it THAT gospel which "I" preach???)

...among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw (who is THEY? Peter and the boys) that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

I count TWO gospels here...two different names. What do you think that might mean?

Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Again...count em...two. God had an apostleship to the circumcision which was Peter, and an apostleship to the Gentiles which was Paul. Paul is the one writing here.

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, (Peter and the boys UNDERSTOOD that God was doing something different here...they PERCEIVED IT< scripture tells us!)

they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Count em...two...we and they. Going to different audiences with a different gospel. ONE FOR ISRAEL, one for the Body of Christ.

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Galatians 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

So it must have been the same Gospel they were both preaching to the Gentiles - that salvation is in Christ alone

Nope...NOT the same gospel at all...read the words. The gospel of the UNcircumcision is NOT the same gospel as the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION, I dont care HOW you cut it. There are TWO separate gospels there.

Peter's mistake in Galatians was to try to conform to the religious Jew-Christians, who added the Pharisees' laws to the covenant of grace and caused the church to stagnate by not thinking in line with the bare Gospel of grace. Paul rebuked him, and as far as we can tell, there was no response of "I have a different Gospel" or "I am right too" etc. - apparently Peter accepted the rebuke and returned to preaching the Gospel as it is.

Now, I ask you...re read the scripture passages and tell me that it is the same gospel. Peter saw what was happening...he understood it. It is YOU who are putting a spin on it that never happened and isnt supported by scripture AT ALL!

After Paul rebuked Peter, Peter preached the gospel to his own countrymen as they had agreed to at the Jerusalem Council.

 

[Schroeder]

Thats correct



There WAS no strife between Peter and Paul because of this:

Galatians 2:2 And I (Paul) went up by revelation, and communicated unto them (who is THEM? Peter and the boys) that gospel which "I" preach ...

(IF THE GOSPEL WAS the SAME < WHY AND WHAT DID PAUL HAVE to COMMUNICATE to them? And why did he call it THAT gospel which "I" preach???)

...among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

there was a strife Peter was acting unchristian by shying from the Truth(that gentiles were not less then the jews) that they were NOT different or saved any different. If you would read in context you would know. this letter wasnt to the apostles it was to the Church which was being harassed by the jewsish elect and being confused by there teachings.( the LAW which includes having to be circumssid to become jewish so you COULD be saved. Peter was fallening into there trap somewhat he didnt teach another gospel BUT BUT was treating them like they were still special or acting different around them for fear of them, and THIS is why Paul brings up the matter in chpt.2 you think verse 7-8 brings up this two gospel system, it does not.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw (who is THEY? Peter and the boys) that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

I count TWO gospels here...two different names. What do you think that might mean?

NO WROMNG tow mentions of the word gospel, Peter spoke the gospel to the jews Paul the gospel to the gentials. Other wise it would be worded as such,"As the gospel peter teaches is for the circumcised" Does not state it this way. NOTICE THE APPRENTISIED VERSE 8 ( for he who worked EFFECTIVELY in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised ALSO worked EFFECTIVLEY in me TOWARD the gentiles) So he is showing that Peter was a good FIT for the circumcied and Paul was a good FIT for the uncircumcied.

Galatians 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

Again...count em...two. God had an apostleship to the circumcision which was Peter, and an apostleship to the Gentiles which was Paul. Paul is the one writing here.

above So you are stuck on interpreting all passages in your two plan system instead of in context with the passages it is in. CALLED CHERRY PICKING.

Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, (Peter and the boys UNDERSTOOD that God was doing something different here...they PERCEIVED IT< scripture tells us!)

they saw that he was a good FIT to teach the gospel to the Gentiles.

they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

Count em...two...we and they. Going to different audiences with a different gospel. ONE FOR ISRAEL, one for the Body of Christ.

We to the gentiles they to the jews. again your putting it all into context with YOUR theology and not in context with scripture.

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

FOR NOT speaking the TRUTH of the gospel. He was acting wrongly around the jews because he was AFRAID of them.

Galatians 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

above AFRAID OF THEM.

Nope...NOT the same gospel at all...read the words. The gospel of the UNcircumcision is NOT the same gospel as the gospel of the CIRCUMCISION, I dont care HOW you cut it. There are TWO separate gospels there.

so YEP the SAME gospel. Peter was being repremanded because he was ASHAMED of the TRUTH of the Gospel towards the jews. Talk about CUTTING it you do a masterfull job of this to create this theology.

Now, I ask you...re read the scripture passages and tell me that it is the same gospel. Peter saw what was happening...he understood it. It is YOU who are putting a spin on it that never happened and isnt supported by scripture AT ALL!

After Paul rebuked Peter, Peter preached the gospel to his own countrymen as they had agreed to at the Jerusalem Council.

Paul DID NOT rebuke Peter because he was hording onto Paul turf but because what i said above. so i showd you you misinterpreted the passages and made two different gospels when in FACT two ARE NOT shown but assumed by you. it merely says it twice and you assume it includes two different one.

 

[eph3Nine]

Sigh.....Ive done my job to show you. YOU will be held accountable for rejecting NEW revelation given to Paul FOR YOU.

Have a great day.

 

[Schroeder]

Sigh.....Ive done my job to show you. YOU will be held accountable for rejecting NEW revelation given to Paul FOR YOU.

Have a great day.

well i could say you will be held accountable for presenting false doctrine. which do you think is worse not understanding or giving FALSE doctrine. i merely shown you misinterpreted the scripture to make it fit your theology. It is very clear you start with your theology and make scripture fit into it. VERSE 8 makes it VERY clear what the meaning was. he (PETER) was effective in given the gosp[el to the jews and Paul was effective in giving it to the Gentiles. a influencial teacher of the LAW NOW teaching the gospel (PAUL) and a LOW man on the hierarchy of the jewish beliefs teahing WISELY to the JEWS.( they know he should NOT be able to do this) He being Peter. makes good sence.

 

[WAB]

Excuse me?!!

Me too!!

 

[lightninboy]

Of course Peter was a Christian.

 

[Iosias]

Of course Peter was a Christian.