genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Sept 15, 2022 21:07:23 GMT -8
Peter, an INSPIRED Apostle, made a mistake?  ? The Holy Spirit Who inspired Bible writers as Peter made a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make another mistake in Acts 10:47-48 in commanding Gentiles to be water baptized??? Was a mistake made by the Spirit in Acts 8 in sending for Phillip to teach and water baptize the eunuch? ?? If the Holy Spirit makes mistakes, how can we ever trust anything the Bible says? Or is the mistake on the part of man trying to change what the Holy Spirit says in His word? YES! First one...
Yes... here is one obvious mistake that Peter made.
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
believers, 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 believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas
was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Second one...
A believer is not guaranteed control by the Holy Spirit 100% of the time in all he says and does. As you can see from my previous point concerning the Gentile believers in Galatia, Peter entered into flat out error.
We can only trust what the Bibles says after finding good teachers who can tell you what it actually means. Over time we must endure confusion as we await for more truth to come our way. That is one reason why we are told we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Obadiah on Sept 16, 2022 4:20:29 GMT -8
True BaptismCan water baptism bring us out of our death in Adam and into new Life in Christ? What is its purpose? What essential and transforming truth does the baptism of the Holy Spirit signify?
|
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 16, 2022 4:54:44 GMT -8
I am not an inspired Apostle nor do I claim I never make mistakes. But to claim INSPIRATION Makes mistakes is something I don't claim. How do we know what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy wasn't full of mistakes? If Peter was mistaken in Acts 2, then those Jews were still lost for repentance and baptism did not remit their sins. The Lord evidently was mistaken in thinking they were saved by being baptized v47. Why would Peter and the HS commit the same mistake again in Acts 10:47-48 that happen about 7-10 year after Acts 2? Peter did not learn anything in 7-10 years? And Peter and the HS committed the same mistake again years later in 1 Peter 3:21 'baptism doth also now save us'. You're obviously making judgments about mistakes based upon your theological biases going as far as saying inspiration from God is a mistake because it does not fit your biases.
Luke was the one inspired about what he wrote.
Luke included the mistakes Peter made. Paul also made some mistakes. For example.. Paul allowed himself to be talked into going back into the Temple to offer animal sacrifice for ritual that was under the Law. It almost got Paul taken home early (sin onto death) for returning under the Law of Moses.
When Peter wrote, what he wrote was divinely inspired.
When Paul wrote he was divinely inspired.
It was divinely inspired Luke who recorded Peter and Paul's mistakes.
grace and peace ........1) Luke by inspiration of the HS recorded what Peter spoke in Acts 2 and the HS would not make a mistake and have Luke misquote the words Peter spoke. 2) And the sermon Peter gave that is recorded in Acts 2 including v38 was itself inspired by the HS. 3) therefore the sermon Peter preached and what Luke recorded were BOTH inspired. 4) Luke recorded Peter's sermon of Acts 2 about 25 years later after Peter gave it. If Peter made mistakes in that sermon, then why didn't Luke or the HS correct those mistakes when Luke recorded it years later for posterity? 5) if Peter preached mistakes as you claim, then what he preached was NOT inspired by the HS for the HS does not err making mistakes. Therefore what proof do you have to back your claim that the sermon Peter preached in Acts 2 was not inspired? (Citing theological bias is not proof.) |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 16, 2022 5:21:49 GMT -8
Peter, an INSPIRED Apostle, made a mistake? ? The Holy Spirit Who inspired Bible writers as Peter made a mistake? Did the Holy Spirit make another mistake in Acts 10:47-48 in commanding Gentiles to be water baptized??? Was a mistake made by the Spirit in Acts 8 in sending for Phillip to teach and water baptize the eunuch? ?? If the Holy Spirit makes mistakes, how can we ever trust anything the Bible says? Or is the mistake on the part of man trying to change what the Holy Spirit says in His word? YES! First one...
Yes... here is one obvious mistake that Peter made.
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
believers, 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 believers followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas
was led astray by their hypocrisy.
Second one...
A believer is not guaranteed control by the Holy Spirit 100% of the time in all he says and does. As you can see from my previous point concerning the Gentile believers in Galatia, Peter entered into flat out error.
We can only trust what the Bibles says after finding good teachers who can tell you what it actually means. Over time we must endure confusion as we await for more truth to come our way. That is one reason why we are told we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling.
Apostles were inspired to receive inspired 'words' from the HS (1 Cor 2:13) and would speak or write down those inspired words. Those "words" were used by the HS to "teach" meaning the words inspired men spoke, (as Peter's sermon in Acts 2) and the letters inspired men wrote were (Acts 2) all inspired by the HS and the HS did not make mistakes. Because men such as Peter and Paul were inspired does not mean they lived perfectly sinless lives, for they all sinned. Yet the issue is their inspiration in receiving words from the HS. Those words from the HS were true, perfect even though the lives of inspired men as the Apostles were not sinlessly perfect. ==== Interestingly you posted " We can only trust what the Bibles says after finding good teachers who can tell you what it actually means." So what you are saying here is myself and others are not capable of reading the Bible and understanding it for ourselves but we must find "good teachers", a teacher that presumably teaches your theological bias, before we can understand? |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 16, 2022 5:42:53 GMT -8
True BaptismCan water baptism bring us out of our death in Adam and into new Life in Christ? Yes. Rom 3:3-6 when one is water baptized, the old man of sin dies to sin, is literally "buried" in a watery grave where the blood of Christ washes away all sins (Rev 1:5) body of sin is removed by God (Col 2:11-12) then he is "raised up from", is resurrected to " walk in newness of life". Hence there is a death, burial and resurrection that takes place when one is water baptized (1 Cor 15:1-4 the gospel is death burial and resurrection of Christ) thereby water baptism is how one "obeys the gospel of Christ" (2 Thess 1:8) for in flaming fire, God will have vengeance upon those who 'obey not" the gospel of Christ. |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Sept 16, 2022 8:03:59 GMT -8
Peter did not write the book of Acts. Luke did.
Luke was the one inspired about what he wrote.
Luke included the mistakes Peter made. Paul also made some mistakes. For example.. Paul allowed himself to be talked into going back into the Temple to offer animal sacrifice for ritual that was under the Law. It almost got Paul taken home early (sin onto death) for returning under the Law of Moses.
When Peter wrote, what he wrote was divinely inspired.
When Paul wrote he was divinely inspired.
It was divinely inspired Luke who recorded Peter and Paul's mistakes.
grace and peace ........ 1) Luke by inspiration of the HS recorded what Peter spoke in Acts 2 and the HS would not make a mistake and have Luke misquote the words Peter spoke. 2) And the sermon Peter gave that is recorded in Acts 2 including v38 was itself inspired by the HS. 3) therefore the sermon Peter preached and what Luke recorded were BOTH inspired. 4) Luke recorded Peter's sermon of Acts 2 about 25 years later after Peter gave it. If Peter made mistakes in that sermon, then why didn't Luke or the HS correct those mistakes when Luke recorded it years later for posterity? 5) if Peter preached mistakes as you claim, then what he preached was NOT inspired by the HS for the HS does not err making mistakes. Therefore what proof do you have to back your claim that the sermon Peter preached in Acts 2 was not inspired? (Citing theological bias is not proof.) Peter's example is what we have to learn for ourselves..... We can be filled with the Spirit. And because of IGNORANCE of God's Word? In that area of Ignorance? Be making a mistake. IGNORANCE of sound doctrine is our enemy.
Where we have knowledge of Sound Doctrine the Holy Spirit can work through us and be one with us.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord." Isaiah 55:8
The Church age had just begun. Peter as a baby Christian had to grow in knowledge by grace. He knew barely nothing of Church age doctrine when he began. No one did. Yet, Peter knew a good deal of OT Scriptures that the Holy Spirit could use through him.
|
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Sept 16, 2022 8:34:23 GMT -8
True BaptismCan water baptism bring us out of our death in Adam and into new Life in Christ? Yes. Rom 3:3-6 when one is water baptized, the old man of sin dies to sin, is literally "buried" in a watery grave where the blood of Christ washes away all sins (Rev 1:5) body of sin is removed by God (Col 2:11-12) then he is "raised up from", is resurrected to " walk in newness of life". Hence there is a death, burial and resurrection that takes place when one is water baptized (1 Cor 15:1-4 the gospel is death burial and resurrection of Christ) thereby water baptism is how one "obeys the gospel of Christ" (2 Thess 1:8) for in flaming fire, God will have vengeance upon those who 'obey not" the gospel of Christ. When one is Spirit baptized what you cited happens. Gomer? If you were not making an error right now? That would mean that all who were water baptized by John the Baptist had their old man die. THINK! Please! "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." Which ONE baptism saves? Not 'two' baptisms. One! Were not the gentiles while hearing Peter first filled with the Holy Spirit? Baptized! Then, Peter out of force of habit ordered them to be water baptized as he had done under Jesus before the Church age began. Here is how ingrained water baptism had become to Peter before the Church age began.... Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John— although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." John 4:1-2 Water baptism at that rate had become second nature to Peter! They were water baptizing more people than even John the Baptist! And example of how Peter could order water baptism would be like when I rent a car. I drive with a stick. I used the clutch with my left foot when engaging the gears. When I rent? I find myself reaching with my left foot to engage the clutch. I have to adjust and stop that. Peter was doing likewise. It was not until the 11th chapter of Acts that he finally realized he no longer had to engage the OT "clutch" any longer. That baptism now was to be automatic. Look again! Jesus spoke (after his resurrection) to his disciples in Acts 1:5. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:5 Did Peter remember those words right away? NO! He did not! It slipped his mind with all the excitement going on around them. It was not until after Peter ordered water baptizing of many new believers that he finally recalled those words! Peter was like someone still shifting with a clutch in his mind! The Church age baptism was still a mystery to him! The baptism of the Spirit was automatically given at salvation! It was not until eleven chapters later after Peter heard Jesus tell him about the new baptism to replace the baptism of John. That it finally sunk in! Here is Peter FINALLY recalling what Jesus had told him about water baptism no longer being the way! Acts 11:15-16 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ Peter finally remembered Jesus words! After water baptizing many upon many! Just like Peter used to water baptize as a Jewish disciple of Jesus before the Church age began! When Peter finally recalled the words spoken to him in Acts 1:5? Before Peter's very eyes many Gentiles were being filled with the Spirit at hearing Peter's preaching! God in his wisdom gave them the gift of tongues, so it would become seen and evident to Peter that they had been Spirit baptized! That is not to say that speaking in tongues is for today. It was needed as a sign back then to reveal that something invisible was taking place at salvation for believers entering into the Church age. That this salvation was no longer like Judaism with overt actions needed to reveal one's faith! grace and peace .......... |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Sept 16, 2022 9:29:52 GMT -8
1) Luke by inspiration of the HS recorded what Peter spoke in Acts 2 and the HS would not make a mistake and have Luke misquote the words Peter spoke.
2) And the sermon Peter gave that is recorded in Acts 2 including v38 was itself inspired by the HS.
3) therefore the sermon Peter preached and what Luke recorded were BOTH inspired.
4) Luke recorded Peter's sermon of Acts 2 about 25 years later after Peter gave it. If Peter made mistakes in that sermon, then why didn't Luke or the HS correct those mistakes when Luke recorded it years later for posterity?
5) if Peter preached mistakes as you claim, then what he preached was NOT inspired by the HS for the HS does not err making mistakes. Therefore what proof do you have to back your claim that the sermon Peter preached in Acts 2 was not inspired? (Citing theological bias is not proof.) In Acts 2, Peter spoke words that the Spirit used because Peter was trained in OT Scripture. What Peter said was all to be referenced by the Torah! That is why if we are IGNORANT of Scripture that anointed men will make a mistake out of ignorance. Now, if a prophet is being given a vision? He may not even know what it is he is being shown. He will write down what he was shown without necessarily himself understanding what it was to mean when the prophesy comes to pass. That was not what Peter was doing in Acts 2. He was explaining something that was coming to pass. And, Peter, like the pope. Was not infallible at all times. Some people give the apostles a 'pope complex.' We must learn to discern what is the truth. That only comes by having a rich supply of Bible doctrine that is properly exegeted. Ignorant men make fools of themselves while thinking themselves wise. A wise man sees that he is ignorant. Even when he was being sure of himself. God wants us to have transformed thinking. Not to offer him our own thinking with great confidence. Don’t correct the impudent, or he will hate you; correct the wise, and he will love you.. Proverbs 9:8 |
|
|
|
Post by gomer on Sept 16, 2022 10:54:19 GMT -8
1) Luke by inspiration of the HS recorded what Peter spoke in Acts 2 and the HS would not make a mistake and have Luke misquote the words Peter spoke.
2) And the sermon Peter gave that is recorded in Acts 2 including v38 was itself inspired by the HS.
3) therefore the sermon Peter preached and what Luke recorded were BOTH inspired.
4) Luke recorded Peter's sermon of Acts 2 about 25 years later after Peter gave it. If Peter made mistakes in that sermon, then why didn't Luke or the HS correct those mistakes when Luke recorded it years later for posterity?
5) if Peter preached mistakes as you claim, then what he preached was NOT inspired by the HS for the HS does not err making mistakes. Therefore what proof do you have to back your claim that the sermon Peter preached in Acts 2 was not inspired? (Citing theological bias is not proof.) In Acts 2, Peter spoke words that the Spirit used because Peter was trained in OT Scripture. What Peter said was all to be referenced by the Torah! That is why if we are IGNORANT of Scripture that anointed men will make a mistake out of ignorance. Now, if a prophet is being given a vision? He may not even know what it is he is being shown. He will write down what he was shown without necessarily himself understanding what it was to mean when the prophesy comes to pass. That was not what Peter was doing in Acts 2. He was explaining something that was coming to pass. And, Peter, like the pope. Was not infallible at all times. Some people give the apostles a 'pope complex.' We must learn to discern what is the truth. That only comes by having a rich supply of Bible doctrine that is properly exegeted. Ignorant men make fools of themselves while thinking themselves wise. A wise man sees that he is ignorant. Even when he was being sure of himself. God wants us to have transformed thinking. Not to offer him our own thinking with great confidence. Don’t correct the impudent, or he will hate you; correct the wise, and he will love you.. Proverbs 9:8 You are attacking the inspiration of the Bible which is blasphemy. You are attacking an inspired Apostle of Christ whom you seem to think you know better than. If you read something in the Bible you do not like, you falsely claim that God's word is errant and fallible therefore you need to correct it which is intellectual dishonesty. I will not waste anymore of my time on this. |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Sept 16, 2022 15:22:32 GMT -8
In Acts 2, Peter spoke words that the Spirit used because Peter was trained in OT Scripture. What Peter said was all to be referenced by the Torah! That is why if we are IGNORANT of Scripture that anointed men will make a mistake out of ignorance. Now, if a prophet is being given a vision? He may not even know what it is he is being shown. He will write down what he was shown without necessarily himself understanding what it was to mean when the prophesy comes to pass. That was not what Peter was doing in Acts 2. He was explaining something that was coming to pass. And, Peter, like the pope. Was not infallible at all times. Some people give the apostles a 'pope complex.' We must learn to discern what is the truth. That only comes by having a rich supply of Bible doctrine that is properly exegeted. Ignorant men make fools of themselves while thinking themselves wise. A wise man sees that he is ignorant. Even when he was being sure of himself. God wants us to have transformed thinking. Not to offer him our own thinking with great confidence. Don’t correct the impudent, or he will hate you; correct the wise, and he will love you.. Proverbs 9:8 You are attacking the inspiration of the Bible which is blasphemy. You are attacking an inspired Apostle of Christ whom you seem to think you know better than. If you read something in the Bible you do not like, you falsely claim that God's word is errant and fallible therefore you need to correct it which is intellectual dishonesty. I will not waste anymore of my time on this. And, sir. I wish you knew what you were talking about. I also wish you were able to be objective in how you relate to reality. For starters? Please show us how we today have only *one* baptism? For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:5 Can you control your emotions and denominational bias long enough to see what that is telling us? grace and truth..... |
|
genez
Full Member
Posts: 130
|
Post by genez on Sept 16, 2022 15:26:03 GMT -8
You are pulling statements out of thin air that you cannot prove that have no biblical basis to them. You are attacking the inspiration of the Bible which is blasphemy. You are attacking an inspired Apostle of Christ whom you seem to think you know better than. If you read something in the Bible you do not like, you falsely claim that God's word is errant and fallible therefore you need to correct it which is intellectual dishonesty. I will not waste anymore of my time on this.... For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” Acts 1:5 How many baptisms do we have in the Church age??? One? Two baptisms? What does the Word say? How many? |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Sept 17, 2022 14:43:46 GMT -8
What about infant baptism?
The New Testament nowhere explicitly commands Christians to baptize their infant children. This represents a change from the Old Testament, where there was an explicit mandate for parents to circumcise male babies. But by the same token, there is no explicit prohibition in the New Testament against the baptism of infants. The New Testament does not give explicit instructions in either direction, so the case for or against infant baptism must be made on inferences and implications drawn from the text of Scripture. This factor, more than any other, should cause us to be very careful in our interactions with those who disagree with us on this matter.
The way we handle it at the church I'm a member of is instead of calling him a baptismal ceremony we have a dedication ceremony. I think it's actually pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aeliana on Sept 19, 2022 15:19:30 GMT -8
What about infant baptism? The New Testament nowhere explicitly commands Christians to baptize their infant children. This represents a change from the Old Testament, where there was an explicit mandate for parents to circumcise male babies. But by the same token, there is no explicit prohibition in the New Testament against the baptism of infants. The New Testament does not give explicit instructions in either direction, so the case for or against infant baptism must be made on inferences and implications drawn from the text of Scripture. This factor, more than any other, should cause us to be very careful in our interactions with those who disagree with us on this matter. The way we handle it at the church I'm a member of is instead of calling him a baptismal ceremony we have a dedication ceremony. I think it's actually pretty cool. I think we need to consider the language of 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul gives instructions about marriage and divorce. He writes: To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 1 Corinthians 7: 12–14 How can we understand Paul’s strange assertions that a husband can be made holy because of his wife, that a wife can be made holy because of her husband, and that their children can somehow be made holy in this context? We tend to think of sanctification as that process by which the Holy Spirit brings us into conformity to Christ after our justification. Some people read this text with that idea in mind, saying, “Well, if I’m a believer but my wife isn’t, and if she’s sanctified by virtue of being married to me, then she must also be justified.” If that were true, there would be more than one way to be saved—you could be justified by your own faith or by marrying someone who has faith. But that is against the clear teaching of the New Testament. So the apostle’s teaching about sanctification here obviously does not refer to that process by which we are brought into conformity to Christ after our justification. This is an explicit New Testament affirmation that the infant child of one believer in a marriage is in a state of consecration. The child is not considered unclean but is set apart and considered holy. And the rite that consecrates the child in the new covenant community is baptism. |
|
|
|
Post by Bible Highlighter on Sept 21, 2022 4:36:07 GMT -8
The Essential Baptism 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Colossians 2:11-13 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, Amen. |
|
|
|
Post by Bible Highlighter on Sept 21, 2022 4:36:39 GMT -8
You can`t even get saved until you receive the Spirit Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Very true. |
|
? The Holy Spirit Who inspired Bible writers as Peter made a mistake?
?
