I'm not seeing anything in Peter's writings... in the New Testament where Peter is saying "salvation is for the Jews only and gentiles cannot be saved".
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!
I'm not seeing anything in Peter's writings... in the New Testament where Peter is saying "salvation is for the Jews only and gentiles cannot be saved".
They only learned that Gentiles could be saved years after the first Pentecost, and the Jewish believers were surprised, so this was a new understanding that they had not had/been given before.
Clearly, Peter, together with the other Jewish believers, had been leading a life under the assumption that only Jews could be saved, and that Jews (the only group he knew was being saved), at the very least, had to keep the dietary Law (possibly, the whole Law), and promulgated that.
It was his job to lead, to teach, so if he was laboring under those assumptions, he was, as a teacher, sharing those assumptions. Or was he not at all looked to for guidance?
The corrective vision came only years after Pentecost, and they were surprised that Gentiles were also being saved--none of them knew it before.
That is the new covenant with Israel, that they would have a new heart, and would keep all God's Laws of His covenant with Israel. That was prophesied specifically by both Ezekiel and Jeremiah, and we saw a beginning of fulfillment in the early Jewish Christians. Then the Jews again rejected the Gospel, and God sent it directly to the Gentiles through Paul.
Paul and Peter and James all agreed with each other re the Gospel.
Galatians 2:7-10 KJV
7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8) (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10) Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
This was later,
Galatians 2:11-14 KJV
11) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
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.
13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14) 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?
You assert that Peter had the wrong idea until this correction, however, "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles". Peter didn't seem to have the same problem until these people from James showed up, who were used to keeping the Law.
So, I'm still saying, what we see in the Bible is a one time lapse, and anything beyond that is unsupported.
Much love!
How many years after Pentacost was Cornelius' converion?
And are you remembering that the Gentiles had in fact been excluded?
Much love!
Anyway, we're just going to go on and on just like this because we have very different ways to read and understand the Bible, I don't see much fruitfulness here.
Much love!
You obviously don't know the timeline.
Peter eating with the Gentiles, but not when the Jews were around, occurred AFTER the vision--before the vision, whereby he had justified his having eaten with Gentiles in their home, Peter had not eaten any unclean thing (according to the account of the vision), and he didn't know Gentiles could even be saved, so, of course there were no believing Gentiles Peter was eating with.
Anyway, Peter was in error for years, and only after those years was he corrected, so the precedent is set that the understanding of the Gospel develops over time--evinced, again, in that the Jewish believers took issue with Paul's Gospel, and his teaching that Jews were not obligated to serve by the Law.
Your response? Nothing.
I was not opposing the fact that Peter did not know until the Lord gave him the vision to correct him.
I was just noticing that none of Peter's writing in God's canon specifically teaches that salvation is only for the Jews. The Lord did not allow that to be put ion to His canon.
It's interesting to note these references that show salvation is to the Jew first... and once the Jews rejected Jesus, then was salvation brought to the gentiles.
Romans 1:16
salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile
Matthew 15:24
I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel
Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
That's beside the point. My point was that we have a precedent that the understanding of the Gospel unfolds over time, and someone could argue that, taking John's writings alone, you may be more likely to end up with a Monergist view, and we know that John was the oldest by the time he wrote his Gospel, so it may be that he had a greater understanding IF it is the case that he taught slightly differently (otherwise, it may be said that he may just have had a different emphasis that was more God/Christ/Grace-centric and more edifying).
My response was already given. God inspired the writing of the Bible, and I believe what it says. There is no contradiction, not some doctrine that changes as they get more educated, as if these men were just writing whatever they thought good.
If we are going to have a productive discussion we have to have a common foundation and we do not. You appear to hold some parts of the Bible as more accurate then others, and you've decided which are which. I hold it is all accurate, so we are not on the same playing field.
It's not going to come together.
Jesus came to Israel, as was prophesied, and those who believed were zealous to keep the Law, as was prophesied. Peter went to gentiles in obedience to the vision, and then defended that obedience as being obedient to the heavenly vision, and being confirmed as the Holy Spirit came.
Many years later, Peter demonstrated his continued understanding as he did in fact did in fact eat with the gentiles. He didn't have an issue with the gentiles, and customarily ate with them. That does not show some misunderstanding that the gentiles were still excluded.
Peter's problem - according to the Scriptures - was that these Jews who came had a different view, that the Jews were still supposed to be separate, and Peter acted accordingly because they were there, not because that was his practice. Which was why Paul called it dissimulation, because it was NOT Peter's normal practice.
So again, this was a one time lapse as presented in the Bible. The passage refutes a years-long behavior pattern, because Peter didn't act that way until these guys showed up.
What seems obvious to some may not be true, you know.
Much love!
Time for dispensational discussion? Prophecy and Mystery? Rightly cutting straight the word of God?
I notice you are like old wine-mature and steady-rock solid, grounded in Scriptures. I am affiliated with Berean Bible Society and Grace Ambassadors at the moment-but I also realize most are strongly averse to dispentational studies but it helps me to STAY in the Scriptures.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Shalom to you and family brother @marks
Johann.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
I have explained the five points in multiple threads only to have behold slink off, make his allegations then refuse to defend his allegations. I have challenged him on many threads about the five points. He chooses to accuse and run and I will simply hold him accountable for his lack of integrity until he owns up to his allegations.
Allegations without proof are called slander and bearing false witness. So he also blew his supposed sinless perfection.
If he had honor this could have ended 5 threads ago. but being retired, I don't mind trolling him until he acts like the Christian he claims to be.
Ritajanice
Born-Again
Can you point me to where your threads on Calvin are Brother...I’m really interested in reading them?
And the response was given to your response.
I was saying "even if John taught slightly differently, I'd accept it", not that he actually did, and I said that another view could be that he simply places different emphasis. Don't know why I have to keep repeating this. Then I said that the argument could be made, whichever argument someone followed, that there is already precedent that the understanding if the Gospel unfolded over time, proven by the fact that it was only YEARS after Pentecost that any of them knew that Gentiles could be saved, plus Peter said "nothing unclean has ever touched my lips", so we also know that, contrary to the Gospel as it is understood today (through Paul), he was still keeping the dietary law....
Your response? You cite Gal 2,an incident that has nothing to do with the matter, since it didn't occur the years prior to Cornelius's conversion. It's irrelevant.
As stated, it has always been my practice to reconcile the Scriptures.
I said if I only had John's writing's to go on i might come to a different conclusion.
Paul was a Jew, too, so if it was a "prophecy" that the Jews will be "zealous for the Law" (in the manner in which they were), why wasn't Paul, another Jew, behaving as they were, and how come the Jewish Christians, who were "zealous for the Law", unlike Paul, objected to his Gospel, wherein he had been teaching Jews they were not obligated to serve God by means of the Law?
Clearly, they didn't fully understand the Gospel, and Paul had a further development of it than they did.
Irrelevant. I referred to the years between the death and resurrection of Christ and when he received the vision and Cornelius was saved.
Again, irrelevant.
You are not even addressing the point.
Last edited:
It's been made abundantly clear. You're just either not paying attention, you don't really care to have the conversation, or else you're pretending you don't understand.
Similar threads
