SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Did Peter remain saved during his denial??

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Hi Brother, I woke up with an urgency to just post this while rushing now to Church.


[b]BY FAITH[/b]


All that I wrote above - By Faith.

Childlike - big eyed - expecting everything and anything FROM GOD.

Heb. 11 etc. Without faith, it is impossible to please GOD.

He asks, "When I return - will I find Faith on the earth ?"

BY FAITH!


Thank you. TTYL
Jesus Cares !!!

 2007/7/15 9:41
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re: Did Peter remain saved during his denial??

Laz,

I am going to respond to your original post, at this point it is the only one I have read. Let me remind you of my respect for you as this may be the only area I ever remember disagreeing with you. The more I think it over, though, I think we may have common ground as well as a fourth option.

I rely on Scripture first, which obviously you do, as well. But, I have always tried to put my personal experience secondary, which I think is good. In my case, I think I often have gone with what I have heard preached as doctrine, as long as I don't find contradictions in the Word. In my early Christian experience, I questioned both apostacy and the impossiblity of apostacy. The eternal security side is obviously more outspoken in the argument (at least in my experience), so there was obviously influence there.

While I lean heavily toward the perseverance of the saints side, I must remind everyone that what I hear preached along with the modern eternal security doctrine most of the time is not biblical (telling everyone 'you are saved', never doubt your salvation, look at that date in your Bible, don't let the enemy put second thoughts in your head, etc).

The only other option that I could think of, and this is from personal experience, is that there could be a period for some (or all) that come to the Lord for salvation, where they have genuinely repented of their sins and turned to the Lord, but the work is not completed IN THEM. Make no mistake (as I know many at this point some are already loading cannons at me), I am not saying Christ's work is not done, as I believe all work to cleanse sin was done at the cross, ie: it is finished. What I am saying is that as a brand new believer, I was absolutely scared stiff that my salvation had not taken, that something was undone.

As a result of this, I dug deep into God's Word, prayed many times that if I had not been born again that God would reveal this to me (to be honest I still pray that every once in a while), listened to many sermons, read many commentaries/opinions, went through my life and cut major sins out one by one, etc, etc. When I came out the other side, to my surprise, I was a spiritual leader.

Like I said, I lean heavily toward eternal security, but there are some Scriptures that are hard to answer (but this is the case if you go with either side of the debate). In light of all this and my personal experience, the only concession I make right now is that during the early life of one who is being drawn by the Father, there may be a period where God will allow someone to walk away from His salvation. This could be picture-illustrated as an adoption process or a baby being formed in the womb. God may let this person taste of His heavenly grace, and give them the option to put their hand to the plow or turn and face Sodom. He may:

-call you by name: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem"
-reveal Himself to you "how often would I have gathered thy children together"
-but give us the ability to walk away after He does so "and ye would not"

But I believe that one who is genuinely born again won't fall into non-salvation. I believe that you can deny Christ as a believer, but God will reprove you and change you, if you have been genuinely born-again, just as I surely have told a lie since I was born-again, but I will not be cast into the lake of fire for doing so. I will be reproved.

All this said, I look at modern Christianity and it just seems like a big joke. No praying, no firm doctrine, no fire, etc, etc. So while I line up with many of the mainstream guys on security of the believer, don't let me fool you into thinking I approve of the present state of the church. We are in dire need of revival.

It is hard to say about this matter as it seems you can never put God in a box. Every time I heard a great preacher make some blanket statement about how God saves, if I dug hard enough I found an equally great preacher contradict the first about how people experience God when they are saved. Honestly, at this point, I have made a habit of looking for fruit before I judge a person's salvation. I don't stand in judgment for the sake of doing so, but in order to know how I should pray for this person.

Furthermore, I am a believer in election, but also freewill. Like my friend at church said, just because we see freewill and election as two rails on a track and they don't meet as far as the eye can see, we cannot not be sure that they never do as both are clearly in Scripture, they may just meet in Heaven.

In the case of Peter, I think that he was either in this adoption state process, or he was not yet converted. When one might say that Peter would not have been sent out as 'not yet regenerated', I must remind you that John 6 has Jesus stating that Judas "is a devil", but whatever Judas did or did not do, it must have been everything that the others were doing. With Judas being "a devil" he was commissioned and so forth with all the others, but was still labeled as such by the Lord. "For the gifts and CALLING of God are without repentance" (emphasis added). Remember also the experience of John Wesley prior to his conversion.

All comments are welcome


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2007/7/17 22:13Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Let me remind you of my respect for you as this may be the only area I ever remember disagreeing with you



I respect you to and think that there can totally be disagreement among brethren, so long as we maintain Christain love no doubt.

Quote:
In the case of Peter, I think that he was either in this adoption state process, or he was not yet converted. When one might say that Peter would not have been sent out as 'not yet regenerated', I must remind you that John 6 has Jesus stating that Judas "is a devil", but whatever Judas did or did not do, it must have been everything that the others were doing. With Judas being "a devil" he was commissioned and so forth with all the others, but was still labeled as such by the Lord.



Here's my two cents:

Respecting the disciples that were sent out we are told that

Jesus commissioned Peter and Judas to preach the gospel, heal the sick, and cast out demons: Luke 10:1-16

He called Peter and Judas his sheep (vs 3), affirmed that Peter and Judas were a part of the Kingdom of God (vs 11) which is only for those who are born again (John 3:3), and that those who reject Peter and Judas reject Christ (vs 16)

Jesus told Peter and Judas that their names were written in the book of life: Luke 10:20


In fact, it was for this very purpose that the 12 (including Peter and Judas) was chosen:

Mark 3:13-15 "And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, [b]that[/b] they should be with him, and [b]that[/b] he might send them forth to preach, And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils"

Therefore I don't believe Judas was a devil at the time Jesus chose Him, nor that Peter was not saved when Jesus picked him. All the 12 disciples were devoted followers at the time of their selection, but Judas fell from it and became a devil and then a betrayer, just as Peter fell from it and became a liar by denying the Lord.

The only other option is that Jesus chose to send out unsaved people to preach the gospel (which is absurd), and even sent out "a devil" to cast out devils (which is unscriptural). Jesus said that Satan cannot cast out satan, for a house divided cannot stand.

But Judas had wordly sorrow that lead to his death, while Peter had godly sorrow that lead to repentance. Both of them were saved when Jesus chose them, both of them fell into rebellion and terrible sin, but one truly repented and was restored while the other was not.

 2007/7/19 4:40
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re: Did Peter remain saved during his denial??

Quote:
Did Peter remain saved during his denial??

3. Peter was saved before denying Christ, fell into temporary backslidings - in which he must have been in a condemned condition, and then later was converted again unto Christ.

I believe this last one makes the most scriptural sense. It means that even a genuine Christian can fall into backsliding, during which he is in a state of condemnation, but can be restored to the faith, and thereby his his spiritual soul saved from eternal death.

Anyways, the only answer to the question is one of the 3 I listed, unless anyone else sees a 4th option which I failed to think of?



Col 2:18 ... intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Not to be unduly harsh or careless with that verse but am finding this whole premise, from the question on very presumptuous. It is largely an argument from silence and less a question than an opportunity for statement. The fourth option is flatly, we do not know one way or the other emphatically and the wonder is of this as a premise being used to support another argument, on it's own worth discussing, but this manner here, what kind of notions is it putting into peoples heads? Speculation? And that as ground for proving?

Consider;

Luk 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:
Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Luk 22:33 And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
Luk 22:34 And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

[b]When thou art converted[/b] - The word “converted” means turned, changed, recovered. The meaning is, when thou art turned from this sin, when thou art recovered from this heinous offence, then use “your” experience to warn and strengthen those who are in danger of like sins. A man may be “converted or turned” from any sin, or any evil course. He is “regenerated” but once - at the beginning of his Christian life; he may be “converted” as often as he falls into sin. ~ Barnes

Mar 14:27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, [b]I will[/b] smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

Mar 14:50 And they [u]all[/u] forsook him, and fled.

Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not [u]I chosen you twelve[/u], and one of you is a devil?

The problem here is one of again trying to peer into the foreknowledge of the Lord and then make conclusionatory statements based on "what if" scenarios, why I ask do we feel so inclined to do these things? The point of the matter is that one ends up having to rewrite the scriptures by inserting speculative things to that which is linear and ongoing and, as far as we are concerned, already has it is conclusions stated by the time you walk through to the end. In other words, it is the wrong question and premise to be basing things on in the first place.

Quote:
If Peter died, while he was in his denial of the Lord, Jesus would deny Peter before the angels of Heaven. Those who deny Christ will be denied by Christ, unless they repent.


That is a miscarriage of assumption and tying a denial wrongly. Have you the mind and state of that mind of Peter in that hour at your disposal? Is this not very much a great problem that we find even more broadly, that of [i]I know what you are thinking\I know your type[/i]? have we forgotten;

1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Quote:
My point is that if someone is not carrying their cross and following Jesus, they cannot be presently in a state of salvation, but must be in a state of condemnation, because they are sinning instead of following Jesus.

Those who seek to save their life will lose it. When Peter denied Christ, he was seeking to save his life, and was not wanting to pick up his cross. He was not presently following Jesus, but later choice to do so and eventually was crucified.



"A state of salvation" and "A state of condemnation"

This is a stretch of credulity and certainly can see both the OSAS abuse and the presumption upon grace eking in as argument, but there is something that doesn't sit right in assumption that is even more bothersome. That is the pride of dicing up things and in effect playing God and playing with scripture to try and make it say something [i]other[/i]. Think about it. 3 years is not a long time over the course of a lifetime but it is still a long time and what we have of the disciples is only but a small snapshot. I take a great deal of umbrage at the things bandied about flippantly with, for instance "Doubting Thomas" as if an incident characterizes the whole of a man's character, heart, soul and spirit beyond even the great overlooking of what also was stated of him. It is still speculative assumption and insinuation, a great deal of us get all up in arms over far less slights upon our persons. No different is it with Peter or the rest, we have only that which is stated in it's ongoing progression. I find far too much pride in our speculative reasonings that can put emphatic "answers" to things already past especially when one is in the middle of a progression and worse assumed into the future. Being on guard, looking at example, warnings ... 'situational ethics' of a spiritual sort are not without merit at all, just when the bounds of [i]knowing[/i] are broken. We end up taking out both the mystery and the [i]impossibility[/i] that is ...

Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

... by date stamping out into the future, ends and conclusions that come from our fleshy thinking and just as well by backdating incidents and moments in time that have already expired. I cannot help twinge at the unbelief that this fosters.

2Co 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
2Co 6:2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

Is not the emphasis on [i]now[/i], [i]today[/i], this moment, presently ... ?





_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/7/19 8:49Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Wrong constitution

Jesse,

[i] ... puffed up by his fleshly mind[/i]

This applies to myself. I owe you an apology for the spirit this was spoken in and a confession of an usurping that I knew at the time was one of silence, but I disobeyed and went ahead anyway.

Forgive me.


_________________
Mike Balog

 2007/7/21 9:43Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

Bro Laz,

I want to go through this with you point by point whether or not we change each other's mind; for if nothing else we are digging deeper into God's Word.

First, the statements in Luke 10 are not made to the 12, but the 70. I had always thought these were two seperate groups, and after a little digging, that seems to be the bend of the scholars, too:

"The account of the designation and mission of these is found only in Luke 10. Some have therefore sought to maintain that we have here only a confused variant of the appointment of the Twelve; but this is impossible in the light of Luke's account of the Twelve in chapter 9."
-The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

"the instructions here given them are much the same with those given to the twelve"
-Matthew Henry's Commentary

So the statements made in Luke 10 are not, as far as I can tell, made to the 12. But rather, the 70 others:

Luke 10:1-2:
KJV: After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also...therefore said he unto them

NAS: Now after this the Lord appointed seventy others...And He was saying to them

As far as Judas' state when he was chosen, I know that the Scripture doesn't state whether Judas was born again, but rather that Jesus knew who would betray him from the beginning. I read the following verses, though, and lean heavily toward Judas being called and never being saved:

John 6:
[64] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
[70] Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
[71] He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

I know that it does seem ubsurd to send out an unsaved betrayer, but I believe this parallels what we see today. God uses false prophets as pawns, I believe. From looking at a [url=http://www.urbanseminary.org/pdf/ASBC_Harmony_of_the_Gospels_chart.pdf]Gospel Harmony[/url], you can see that Judas was named "a devil" very soon after the Commission was given. So if Judas did fall, he was not saved very long. But, though I suppose we could debate this all day, I don't think that is the case from reading over the text.

As far as Satan casting out Satan, I am certainly not an expert of exorcism (in fact, I am not even sure if I spelled that right), but I believe that demons 1) can only do what God commissions them to do 2) will depart / pretend to depart from someone if there is deception to be done. I believe that sometimes they do so (depart or pretend to depart) to restore a false faith or a false sense of security. I have heard of many exorcisms and read up on some where they were not done biblically, and not done by someone I felt was born-again, but yet there seemed to be a point where the demon departed. I think this was the case with Judas.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2007/7/22 1:56Profile
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

Bro crsschk,

I am not posting to try to pull anyone onto my side, or recruit a Calvanist/Arminian, or anything like that, and I don't think that Jessie is, either. I am not standing on the issue we are discussing, and I don't think we are speaking about it in a way that is destructive to one another.

I welcome your comments and opinions, and I am sure you probably get tired of moderating this age-old argument. I think that a Bible student who takes the theologies of the saints gone by, and sees if they do or do not parallel the Word of God is not doing himself a disservice. I think where we go wrong is when we either make enemies of our brothers who have accepted another reasonable doctrine, or where we replace our relationship with the Lord with argument. I don't feel that we have done either here.

But who knows, maybe I will look back at this discussion and realize that it was a waste. But for now, as best I can tell, am am doing my best to rightly divide the Word of God. I think I will cut off here and spend some time in prayer and study so as not to fall into what I have just said.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2007/7/22 2:13Profile









 Re:

I appreciate everyones thoughts on this.

I just wanted to share this one scripture, which states Jesus' purpose in selecting the 12 disciples, including Peter and Judas, which is why I believe [i]all 12[/i] were saved [i]when[/i] Jesus choose them, because Jesus would not send unsaved men to preach the gospel, nor can devils cast out devils:

Mark 3:13-19: And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, [b]that[/b] they should be with him, and [b]that[/b] he might send them forth to preach, And [b]to[/b] have power to heal sicknesses, and [b]to[/b] cast out devils:

And Simon he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

 2007/7/22 2:20
letsgetbusy
Member



Joined: 2004/9/28
Posts: 957
Cleveland, Georgia

 Re:

Laz,

I read over these Scriptures again and while there seems to be room for either of our bends, I still think that it leans the way I am saying, and you probably still the way you are saying.

I guess I am putting emphasis on one Scripture while you are putting it more on another. I don't have any issue with Jesus ordaining one of the twelve to go out without the Holy Ghost, as I believe he calls people regardless of whether they respond. Just as it doesn't make human sense for John to be filled with the Holy Ghost from the womb, it doesn't make sense for Judas to be sent out. But I believe everyone has a call to serve God regardless of whether or not they repent, believe, and serve:

Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

So I don't believe the Scripture about "ordaining twelve" is not an accountability of salvation for each, but rather the call placed on their lives. The same word translated to "ordained" is also used to say "brought forth". I just get the idea that Jesus was calling them out and giving them a job to do, with Judas being a devil from the beginning.

God bless. More later.


_________________
Hal Bachman

 2007/7/25 14:43Profile









 Re:

Quote:

Lazarus1719 wrote:
I appreciate everyones thoughts on this.

I just wanted to share this one scripture, which states Jesus' purpose in selecting the 12 disciples, including Peter and Judas, which is why I believe [i]all 12[/i] were saved [i]when[/i] Jesus choose them, because Jesus would not send unsaved men to preach the gospel, nor can devils cast out devils:

Mark 3:13-19: And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. And he ordained twelve, [b]that[/b] they should be with him, and [b]that[/b] he might send them forth to preach, And [b]to[/b] have power to heal sicknesses, and [b]to[/b] cast out devils:

And Simon he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, [u][b][color=0000FF]and Judas Iscariot [/color][/b][/u] also betrayed him: and they went into an house.

John 17:12
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
KJV
John 6:70-71

70 Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" 71 He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.
NKJV


Judge for yourself!!!!
There is more info to tell who was the son of perdiction.


 2007/8/25 0:28





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy