S
simspt
Guest
is it not possible there could be an error (eg geographical) in the NT writing and it still be inspired?
- Status
T
tester
Guest
Absolutly,** the originals** are completly free of errors.
that does not mean common figures of speech are not used (Ex: “as the sun rises”, the sun doesn’t really, rise the earth turns)
V
vsedriver
Guest
on what doctrine was Peter fallible?
T
tester
Guest
Galatians 2:11-16
Paul Opposes Peter
- 11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
The actions of Peter and the rest were a practical denial of the gospel. Paul acted decisively when it became apparent to him that “they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel” (v. 14). What Peter did compelled the Gentiles to live like Jews (v. 14), which was, in Paul’s words, “another gospel” The major argument of this section is concerned with this deviation.
Pentecost around 30 AD
Acts 10 around 41 AD
so in Acts 10: verse 34
*34Then Peter began to speak: "**I now realize *how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right
He seemed to believe the opposite/wrong view for the 11 years before his vision.
Acts 10:9-15 Peter had to be told three times that he was thinking wrong about what was impure… comapre Peter’s resonse to that of
*Saul: “Who are you Lord?” (Acts 9:5)
Cornelius: “What is it Lord?” (Acts 10:4)
Peter: “Certainly not, Lord!” 3 times! (Acts 10:14)*
It is not until Acts chapter 10, however, that Peter really begins to think like Jesus. Peter and his fellow-apostles had some distorted ideas about the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. He could only think of Gentiles coming to faith by becoming Jews – that is, they could only enter into the blessings of God’s covenant by converting to Judaism as a proselyte. When Jesus commenced His earthly ministry, He made it very clear that He had come to save both Jews and Gentiles:
Peter did not realize that until Acts 10 (prior to that he held the opposite view)
S
simspt
Guest
How do you know the originals are without any error if we dont have any of them?
J
joe370
Guest
Brakelite, Peter was wrong for eating with the gentiles and then not eating with the gentiles when his compadre’s came around. That is not a fallible doctrine taught by Peter; that is hypocrisy and Paul rightfully made him aware of that fact. However, let’s say that you are right. Certainly something in his 2 letters could be fallible as well? You can’t say that the HS guided Peter to write infallibly regarding one doctrine and then failed to guide Peter regarding another doctrine, without casting some doubt on his infallible writings. When you say that Peter taught fallibly the first thing that comes to my mind is: how do I know that he did teach infallibly regarding other things?
J
joe370
Guest
Hey simspt…
We don’t know…I myself trust that the CC did make an infallible decision because I believe that the HS guided the whole process, but that’s just me. If I didn’t I would always wonder if certain books such as Revelations or Hebrews or 2 and 3 John were never meant to be a part of the canon.
20 books of the NT were never questioned as to their apostolic authenticity, by the CC leaders. 7 however, were for 2 centuries, in certain parts. That was why the CC leaders convoked in the 4th century and settled the matter once and for all. That’s not my opinion; that is a historical fact. Anyone can verify this fact. I am told by my protestant friends that the 4th century CC could not (or any century for that matter) - make an infallible determination, ever, so, if they are right, then the answer to your question must be:
We don’t know…I myself trust that the CC did make an infallible decision because I believe that the HS guided the whole process, but that’s just me. If I didn’t I would always wonder if certain books such as Revelations or Hebrews or 2 and 3 John were never meant to be a part of the canon.
T
tester
Guest
Because the Author is incapable of error
J
joe370
Guest
But the author left the world with His church leadership, and He entrusted truth to fallible people like the apostles and their successors. How do you know that the CC did not fallibly compile the bible? After all, you believe they were wrong about other decisions.
T
tester
Guest
I disagree with your premise:
God via the Holy Spirit directed Peter to write infallibly:
God is the Author not Peter.
There are several places in Acts where Peter is filled with the HS and he spoke infallibly.
Was Peter always thinking or speaking infallibly ?
So prior to Acts 10; Peter’s answer to the doctrinal question “is salvation available for non -Jews?” would be different than after Acts 10
Also Peter’s hypocrisy of his actions was based on his faulty thinking:
So prior to Paul’s rebuke: Peter’s answer to the doctrinal question “do the Gentiles need to follw Jewish laews and custome for holiness?” would be different than after Paul’s rebuke
Verse 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
J
joe370
Guest
Agreed.
Nope.
I understand. Peter, like Paul and the rest of the apostles, were not always speaking infallibly.
J
jericho777
Guest
Yes until they edited and produced their own. The KJV doesn’t support their doctrines. Would it have mattered if they used a catholic bible as theirs? It is impossible to defend their position from any christian bible. Have you read the translation I posted from John 1:1? Our bibles call the Word, God where as they call Him a god. That takes Him from Deity to a mighty man. I have taken their bible and demonstrated the Deity of Christ to them. They have not totally sanitized it.
J
jericho777
Guest
If your position was correct then why would they be only infallible on faith and morals? You would think they should be infallible in everything they do? There would be no need to be ever wrong. IE meat on friday’s would always be the same and never change.
J
joe370
Guest
Really?
I don’t think so…Jesus, the author of the word, inspired these fallible men to teach infallibly regarding His teachings. Of course, we, as Christians cannot prove this and that is why it’s so hard for me to convince my atheistic friends of this fact. 
J
jericho777
Guest
Why has the doctrine of eating meat on friday’s changed? When I was growing we were taught you would go to hell for the offense.Really?
J
joe370
Guest
I don’t know. Do you think I should leave the CC because of it?
J
jericho777
Guest
You are such a kidder.
J
jericho777
Guest
Hi Jon
Does it really matter. The first point is they keep changing the rules about it so somebody today can do something other people are supposedly in hell for. If it was that serious the rules would not change. Remember God is unchangable. Second it’s not biblical at all and third they claim if you don’t follow you are in danger of hell fire. That’s pretty serious stuff.
J
joe370
Guest
Jericho, I agree with you; the idea that if one eats meat on a certain day, is going to hell, is not biblical. Nor is sola scriptura or sola fida, 2 things to which you subscribe, I think? This was something that bothered me a lot as a former on the fence protestant, but not enough to prevent me from belonging to the church founded by God. Who wouldn’t want to belong to the church founded by God, in spite of a discipline imposed by His church leaders that seems to disturb our sensibilities?
It was not a teaching of Jesus Christ or His apostles, or of the CC. It was a discipline that has to do with binding and loosing. Do you believe that any one church in the world today, as per Matthew, has the authority to bind and loose or has Matthew 16 and 18 been abrogated? A Christian who violated the apostolic teaching in Acts 15 sinned not because the eating of meat was wrong but because he disobeyed a commandment of the Church. I wonder what wolud have happened to those you disobey the apostles commandments and continued to eat food that was polluted by idols, anyway? The following biblical commandment imposed by the apostles, seems a bit harsh to me, and yet look what happened:
It was not a teaching of Jesus Christ or His apostles, or of the CC. It was a discipline that has to do with binding and loosing. Do you believe that any one church in the world today, as per Matthew, has the authority to bind and loose or has Matthew 16 and 18 been abrogated? A Christian who violated the apostolic teaching in Acts 15 sinned not because the eating of meat was wrong but because he disobeyed a commandment of the Church. I wonder what wolud have happened to those you disobey the apostles commandments and continued to eat food that was polluted by idols, anyway? The following biblical commandment imposed by the apostles, seems a bit harsh to me, and yet look what happened:
It’s about the binding and loosing given to Jesus’ church by Jesus. The reason Friday abstinence was imposed in the first place, back them, was very biblical, with the exception of the hell part. The Church recognized that, since meat is a major part of most meals served in most places, and since meat is usually the most valued or expensive part of a meal, abstinence from meat on Fridays is a good way for Christians to unite themselves more closely to the sufferings of their savior Jesus Christ (Rom. 8:16-17, 1 Pet. 2:21) by denying themselves something they enjoy. Abstinence from meat would have been a sacrifice which would have united them in penance and strengthened the solidarity of the Church through mild suffering. It’s also a good form of mortification, which disciplines the soul and strengthens its resistance to concupiscence. Paul practiced and recommended mortification: *“I drive my body and train it, for fear that after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.” *(1 Cor. 9:27) However, I do agree with you about the whole hell thing; it seems that they went overboard. Surely the CC leaders can overzealously and wrongly sanction a discipline, but they are protected from themselves by the power of the holy spirit, who is forever guiding them into all truth, from altering the teachings passed on to the apostles who then passed on those teachings and so on…Celibacy in the priesthood is an example of a discipline that could be altered by another Pope, but apostolic doctrine cannot be altered. God is unchangeable but church discipline is not.
- Status