Was Peter saved?

[GustheMule]

You who say Paul and Peter preached different gospels, explain this:As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


What about when Jesus told Peter that upon him (the sermon at Pentecost) he would build his church? Matthew 16

Acts 2:47 refers explicitly to the church --the one Saul was persecuting.

 

[RGL1]

You who say Paul and Peter preached different gospels, explain this:As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


What about when Jesus told Peter that upon him (the sermon at Pentecost) he would build his church? Matthew 16

Acts 2:47 refers explicitly to the church --the one Saul was persecuting.

Check this thread out. (Link below)
For Those who claim they havent SEEN a list comparing Peter and Pauls message..
By eph3Nine

http://www.christianforums.com/t3188751-for-those-who-claim-they-havent-seen-a-list-comparing-peter-and-pauls-message.html

 

[TheScottsMen]

You who say Paul and Peter preached different gospels, explain this:As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


What about when Jesus told Peter that upon him (the sermon at Pentecost) he would build his church? Matthew 16

Acts 2:47 refers explicitly to the church --the one Saul was persecuting.

Of course Peter was saved, just as Abel, Abraham, Noah, Moses and Paul were all saved. No man or women can love God or seek Him without God first seeking them and regenerating them. Each of the above listed and the countless others were all saved by the shed blood of Christ, no matter the dispensation.

​

Your question regarding Galatians is one of gospels; one that spoke of the restoration of Israel, the return of her King, remission of sins for a backsliding nation, and an Earthly reign from Jerusalem. The other spoke of a new body, one that did not have Israels restoration in mind, but of an election of both Jew and Gentile that would not reign from Earth, but from Heaven.​

​

Neither of these vocations for Israel or the Body are better than the other, but both serve the plan and purpose of God.​

​

I believe your question is not one of saved or unsaved, but is there such a thing as more than one good news found in scripture?​

 

[Dispy]

You who say Paul and Peter preached different gospels, explain this:As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


What about when Jesus told Peter that upon him (the sermon at Pentecost) he would build his church? Matthew 16

Acts 2:47 refers explicitly to the church --the one Saul was persecuting.

Was the message that Paul preached preached to Peter or by Peter prior to Pau's conversion, and the revelation of the mystery to him? If it wasn't, then Peter was saved prior to what Paul preached.

I know for a fact that Peter was saved, because Jesus assured him that he would be one of those that would sit upon one of the 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel in His kingdom.

God Bless,
Live Well, Laugh Often and Love the Lord!

 

[notreligus]

You who say Paul and Peter preached different gospels, explain this:As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


What about when Jesus told Peter that upon him (the sermon at Pentecost) he would build his church? Matthew 16

Acts 2:47 refers explicitly to the church --the one Saul was persecuting.

Peter was abolutely saved!

There are the terms "Peter's Gospel" and "Paul's Gospel" out there in Christendom. What is going on here? Are these really differences without a true distinction? Are Christians just making this stuff up?

The Apostle Peter held on to the Judaic Law requirements of circumcision for new Gentile converts. He did this because of pressure put on him by the other Jews who were in the church who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Remember that 99% of the early church was made-up of Jews, along with a few Greek prosylites.

Jesus Christ Himself did pick Paul (formerly Saul) to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. The "mystery" which was revealed to Paul and Paul alone was that before the foundation of the world God had the Church in mind. God already planned that His Son's sacrifice would be sufficient to reconcile the whole world back to Him, by the finished work of Christ on the cross. This is a grace-based faith dependent on what Christ did. Judaism required man's works, such as circumcision. Paul argued to the early Church that God was no longer requiring circumcision, especially of the Greeks/Gentiles.

If you look at Galations 2:11 you will see that Paul got toe-to-toe with Peter and rebuked him for false teaching and siding with those who wanted to enforce the requirements of Judaism on the new converts.

The Peter we later see in his own epistles is a person about thirty-five years after the events recorded in Acts. Peter, in his epistles, did admit that Paul's teachings did have authority (if hard to understand) and he approved of Paul's teachings.

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

2Peter 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Peter 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

 

[GustheMule]

Peter was abolutely saved!

There are the terms "Peter's Gospel" and "Paul's Gospel" out there in Christendom. What is going on here? Are these really differences without a true distinction? Are Christians just making this stuff up?

The Apostle Peter held on to the Judaic Law requirements of circumcision for new Gentile converts. He did this because of pressure put on him by the other Jews who were in the church who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Remember that 99% of the early church was made-up of Jews, along with a few Greek prosylites.

Jesus Christ Himself did pick Paul (formerly Saul) to be the Apostle to the Gentiles. The "mystery" which was revealed to Paul and Paul alone was that before the foundation of the world God had the Church in mind. God already planned that His Son's sacrifice would be sufficient to reconcile the whole world back to Him, by the finished work of Christ on the cross. This is a grace-based faith dependent on what Christ did. Judaism required man's works, such as circumcision. Paul argued to the early Church that God was no longer requiring circumcision, especially of the Greeks/Gentiles.

If you look at Galations 2:11 you will see that Paul got toe-to-toe with Peter and rebuked him for false teaching and siding with those who wanted to enforce the requirements of Judaism on the new converts.

The Peter we later see in his own epistles is a person about thirty-five years after the events recorded in Acts. Peter, in his epistles, did admit that Paul's teachings did have authority (if hard to understand) and he approved of Paul's teachings.

Galatians 2:11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.

2Peter 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Peter 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

I think I agree with everything you said. I certainly agree that Peter was in the wrong in the Galatains account. But I don't believe the preached another gospel consistently. Just read his letters!

 

[heymikey80]

I think we ought to cut Peter some slack. Yes, he was wrong in Antioch -- but he wasn't horribly wrong.

Peter lived in a nation that required him to follow the Mosaic Law. Naturally he'd tend to practice it even in other countries.

Peter didn't perceive the fact that it was introducing a separatist attitude in the Antioch church -- but Paul did. It was Peter's insensitivity to this fact that was in the wrong. And how often are you or I insensitive to the feeling of separation some church members feel? Paul isn't holding Peter up as some example of Judaizing. Paul is pointing out that the Apostles guard and guide each other, and that Paul is one of the Apostles even Peter heeds as having the Spirit of God and knowing the one Gospel to all nations.

Paul heeds Peter at other times. Paul heeds James at other times. Peter listens to James. The Apostles recognize the Spirit of God working in them all, and so they all heed the Spirit of God in others.

 

[Tychicum]

I think we ought to cut Peter some slack. Yes, he was wrong in Antioch -- but he wasn't horribly wrong.

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

This Paul did to Peter in front of all present no less ...

Galatians 2:14-16 KJV But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The "anathema" levied by Paul to those who preach "another gospel" has not been rescinded to this very day. There will be many who when called to account will be shamed greatly.

 

[heymikey80]

This Paul did to Peter in front of all present no less ...

Galatians 2:14-16 KJV But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The "anathema" levied by Paul to those who preach "another gospel" has not been rescinded to this very day. There will be many who when called to account will be shamed greatly.

Great quote. Peter was "we who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles". This is not anathema against Peter. Peter was inadvertently leading Gentiles astray to embrace something even Peter didn't believe.

And =shrug=, you guys are asserting Jesus Christ Himself taught another gospel. So applying Paul in the way you're doing, calls what's Holy ... what was that word you used for another gospel?

 

[Tychicum]

And =shrug=, you guys are asserting Jesus Christ Himself taught another gospel. So applying Paul in the way you're doing, calls what's Holy ... what was that word you used for another gospel?

Oh my goodness. You are finally seeing the light ... ?

Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers

Jesus kept the Law. Mind you ... Jesus kept the Law perfectly. But we today are not to keep the 613 Laws of Moses.

Jesus ... after spending 3 1/2 years preaching with the 12 Apostles ... I repeat ... after spending 3 1/2 years preaching with the 12 Apostles ... tells them He is to die on the cross. Peter tries to talk him out of it ... Jesus even tells Peter that Peter is Satanic ... and all this is just a couple days before the cross ...

Now you are just now discovering that we say that Paul's "Preaching of the Cross" ... message was somehow than those 3 1/2 years.

Wow ...

Jesus did not even associate with Gentiles and certainly during his whole 3 year ministry did never preach to them.

Paul's ministry focused on the Gentiles as Israel rejected her King ...

And you are just now discovering that we say this earthly ministry differs GREATLY to His ministry through Paul to Us ...

.

 

[Tychicum]

Peter was "we who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles". This is not anathema against Peter. Peter was inadvertently leading Gentiles astray to embrace something even Peter didn't believe.

hypocrite

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Lest it be said I am too hard on old Peter ... I have done the same or worse than Peter's hypocrisy I am sure ...

.

 

[heymikey80]

Oh my goodness. You are finally seeing the light ... ?

Eh? That you're calling yourselves anathema?

hypocrite

I don't think it was so much hypocrisy as not realizing his actions were being taken as a contradiction in terms.

Being hypocritical is not the same as inadvertently leading others astray. Peter's actions were completely consistent with his approach to Jewish believers in Antioch. The problem was that he didn't realize Gentile believers would be led astray by his actions. He thought the reasoning of his actions were sound and consistent. Unfortunately his reasoning didn't happen to take into account the effect on his Gentile followers.

So in effect Paul was calling Peter to account for Peter's ministry to the Gentiles. Which ... you're saying Peter didn't have.

 

[lightninboy]

Of course Peter was saved.