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 )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Which one are you addressing? Me or someone else?

I was addressing Jesse.


Quote:
Who builds what on what? The question is not the greek verb which always should be interpret according to its context (such as you described it). However the verb seems from viewpoint of the context in Luke to imply a meaning close to metanioa.


Rather the question is: Could Peter deny Jesus Christ after his regeneration?
My view is that he could'nt or would'nt. But before he was regenerated he could and did!


epitrepho is certainly not a synonym for metanoia. The simplest understanding is that Christ is saying to Peter 'this is what you are going to do, when you have turned from that strengthen your brethren.'


Quote:
Rather the question is: Could Peter deny Jesus Christ after his regeneration?
My view is that he could'nt or would'nt. But before he was regenerated he could and did!

The next question is of immense importance:
Is it even possible to call an ungenerated man saved?


A man is capable of doing, after his regeneration, anything that he did prior to his regeneration. A regenerate man cannot continue in sin.

My problem with the simple assertion is that I don't actually believe anyone was 'regenerated' until the Spirit came in Acts 2. Regeneration is a verb which has God as its owner. Conversion and repentance both have man as the agent. Anything that man can do he can undo. The question is can man undo what God has done? I think the warnings of Hebrews show that he can but I think we need to read the Hebrews warnings in very clear context. And the indication there is that is a truly regenerate man rejects Christ and turns against him he puts himself in an irretrievable position.

I think there is another indication that Peter was unable to act as Christ in the John 21 incident where Peter cannot bring himself to use the word 'agape' of his own state. He, with all the honesty of the kind of man he was, knows he cannot say 'agapO' having seen what the word really means in the cross of Christ. Such 'agape' is only possible when the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/8/28 6:18Profile
Mangan
Member



Joined: 2007/4/19
Posts: 161
Sweden (Northern Europe)

 Re:

Oh Im sorry, I thought you were addressing me!

Quote i. : "episrepho is certainly not a synonym for metanoia".

Hmm! Im not sure about your account.
"Epistrepho" in a moral sense designates primarily the fulfillment of religious conversion; thus the vb. used in a way similar to that of the LXX. Yet the usage is limited, for the vocabulary of conversion is often represented by metanoeo and metanoia, although in Lukan material epistrepho (14 occurences) predominates over metanoeo (11 times); Exegetical Dictionary of The New Testament Volume 2 page 40.

However I was taught by my greek professor that youve always have to consider the context for any word i NT (a meaning of word is always interconnected with a context). It is right to say that episthrepho and metanoia have different lexikal meanings i.e. they are not substantially synonymous - and Ive never said that. However a greek verb can imply given the context a different meaning from its lexical definition and so in the lukan account. So therefore Im bent to see the use of epitrepho (in this case) as equivalent to metanoia.

Quote ii. "The simplest understanding is that Christ is saying to Peter 'this is what you are going to do, when you have turned from that strengthen your brethren.'"

Turned from what? literally/physical (to walk in another direction) or emotional spiritual as most translations imply (converted)?

iii. The rest of your views I am inclined to agree on. I do agree that the regeneration took part in Acts. I did write about the un- and regenerated Peter that he could/would or could'nt/would'nt deny Jesus Christ, just in case there were any Calvinists around (he he:-P)

Sincerely Magnus :-D


_________________
Magnus Nordlund

 2007/8/29 20:50Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

My Greek teacher would have taught me the same, so take a look at Luke's usage of epistrepho...

Luke 1:16-17; 2:20; 8:55; 17:4, 31; 22:32; Acts 3:19; 9:35, 40; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19, 36; 16:18; 26:18, 20; 28:27

and you will find that the honours are shared fairly evenly between a natural sense of 'return' and the moral sense of 'convert'. Which brings us back to Luke's use in this context. I maintain that this is too tenuous a statement to use as a basis for the notion that Peter was not converted at this time or that he had been and was about to be not converted and then subsequently reconverted. How many times can this process take place. Did he have to be reconverted after his 'hypocrisy' over not eating with the Gentiles (Galatians)?

Quote:
Turned from what? literally/physical (to walk in another direction) or emotional spiritual as most translations imply (converted)?


The point I am making is that there are times when we may well find ourselves heading in the wrong direction. To turn around and obey the light is not tantamount to a 'new conversion', and Christ's words to Peter were not indicative that at this point in time (or tomorrow) Peter was an unconverted man.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/8/30 17:20Profile
Servant2U
Member



Joined: 2003/10/10
Posts: 26


 Re:

Let's keep it simple brethren. One simple question... Were you saved when you denied Jesus before the clerk at the 7 eleven when an opportunity presented itself to witness Him? Were you saved when you sat quietly during lunch while your co-workers debated their humanistic Oprah topic of the week?
While we debate and flex our academic and scholarly muscles the world is perishing because we don't speak up.
Just a thought...
Kevin

 2007/8/30 19:15Profile
Mangan
Member



Joined: 2007/4/19
Posts: 161
Sweden (Northern Europe)

 Re:

Thank's for the clarifications. I do not think that Peter was unconverted when he denied Jesus the first time. However, he was not regenerated. I state that in this given context in Luke the meaning of the epistrepho is towards metanoeo/metanoia. In that case it should be understood as repentance.

The salvation concerning Peter was anyway perfected with the sealing of the Holy Spirit and in the belief that Christ was risen from the dead.

With the indwelling of the Spirit, Peter did'nt deny Christ the second time he had the chance to stand before the authorities of the Roman Empire.

He choose rather to be burned at the stake than be burned at the hellfire.

Magnus

:-D


_________________
Magnus Nordlund

 2007/8/31 12:22Profile









 Re: edit

Quote:

moe_mac wrote:
I believe everyone covered this subject very well.At what point he was saved I don’t believe I could make the call. I would say it is hard to tell. He was following to a degree when he said" Lord we have fished all night and have not caught anything, but he cast out into the deep anyway". Afterwards he seemed to understand he was sinful in doubting Jesus’ instruction to cast out into the deep. He said something along the lines of get away from me for I am a sinful man, after the big catch. He seemed to show some doubt when he said, “Lord if it is you tells me to come to you on the water”. He grew in knowledge when he took his eyes off Jesus and began to sink. He really was crushed when he realized what he had done when he denied Jesus three times and cussed one of those times alluding to convince them he was not a follower of Jesus. He went to sleep while Jesus was praying in the garden but afterwards defended Jesus and cut off the soldier’s ear. I believe it is a picture for all of us who follow and fail. After all that, he followed instructions and waited in the upper room until the winds blew and the tongues of fire fell and filled the room and they were filled with the Spirit and he was one of those who wrote the New Testament under the inspiration of that Spirit for a light unto our feet and a lamp unto our pathway today. It requires the same Spirit to understand the scriptures as it did for the Apostles to write them. On the Day of Pentecost that Spirit was made manifest in Peter when he preached Jesus in the same place Jesus was crucified. Just as Peter, we all can look back at some things we had rather forget about we have done and said, but the main thing is after we believed in our heart and confessed with our mouth have we seen the Holy Spirit's power manifested in our life and we can look back and see we have not quit following HIM. The question we should ask ourselves as believers. Do we see any change in our life? Do we see any change that can only be explained by HIS Spirit and HIS POWER? As the Word says examine ourselves to see if we are of the faith.

edit:
Luke 22:31-34
31 "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
33 But he replied, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death."
34 Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."

Acts 2:38-41

38 Peter replied, [b][i]"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.[/b][/i] And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[u]39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.[/u]
40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them,[b] "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation."[/b] 41 [b]Those who accepted his message were baptized[/b], and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
(from New International Version)




 2007/8/31 12:53
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I do not think that Peter was unconverted when he denied Jesus the first time. However, he was not regenerated.



I'm with you on this one.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2007/8/31 17:17Profile
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3698
Ca.

 Re:

I agree also,

Also, Quote:

However it seems to me, that it is impossible to be a Christian without having Christ in you; given the fact that the function of the Holy Spirit is to reveal the presence of Jesus inside of us - and so likwise with Peter. With or without Pauls teaching about Christ in you Peter would surely had an similiar experience.



I am sure Peter was drawn and in his saying thou art the Christ the Son of the living God, He was converted from Israel to Christ, but not regenerated until Pentecost. I don't think that Peter had to repeat himself, to receive the Holy Spirit and the birth of Jesus Christ in Him. For Christ said, "upon this rock I will build my Church," not Peter but the revelation from the Father,

Matthew 16:16-18 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not ((((revealed)))) it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this ((((rock)))) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2007/8/31 17:49Profile





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