Did I say I 100% know the truth? Why are you putting words in my mouth and cutting me down at the same time? Last I checked, the thread says, "IN YOUR OPINION...."
In your opinion is the entire Bible "inerrant" or "infallible" as it relates to scripture?
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You guys are missing my point.What did Paul have to correct concerning Peter? Not his writings. Paul had to correct Peter's behavior and Peter learned.
You also have to note that Peter wrote his letters much later than when he was corrected. By the time Peter wrote them, he changed and matured in Christ.
From AI search:
I'm not arguing that Paul's letters contain an error about circumcision, nor am I arguing that Peter's later writings are wrong.
My point is much simpler: people are fallible.
Peter taught and behaved incorrectly regarding the Gentiles until he was corrected (Galatians 2; Acts 10–15). That demonstrates an important principle: even apostles were not above correction. Their teachings and actions were measured against what God had said.
My point isn't, "Paul/ Peter are wrong" like it's a point blank statement.
My point is, we don't begin with the assumption that a man's teaching is beyond examination simply because he is an apostle or because his teaching appears in the Bible. We compare every teaching with God's own words.
That's exactly what the Bereans did (Acts 17:11). They didn't accept Paul's teaching blindly...they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether what he said was true.
So bringing up the fact that Peter was eventually corrected or later agreed with Paul actually supports my point. The correction happened because people can be corrected. If human teaching were beyond question, there would have been nothing to correct in the first place.
How super "Christian" of you to be a hypocrite and do the same thing you're accusing me of.
hey do what you know to be right. I am only answering what I thought was a question not belief of the poster. If I am wrong I have not read every post
Might I offer a few points to consider? First, humans are fallible, and the apostles were humans and thus fallible. Second communication between humans has four parts, what the first person means to communicate, second, what they do communicate, third the message the second person receives and fourth what the second person perceives the message to be. Now where in this process does God intervene to ensure infallibility by overriding human free will?
Another point, Peter has his encounter with Cornelius where he learns that gentiles are acceptable sometime after Paul's conversion but safely before Paul has much else to do with the church. Who is claiming that Paul was so certain about his theology that he would stand up to Peter that soon after his conversion?
And a third point, it is true that Peter links Paul's words with scripture, but the biblical standard for truth is two or three eyewitnesses who can be questioned by anyone, not just believers. Now who in this forum is able to question Peter to ascertain just what he meant and who are the other eyewitnesses whom a nonbeliever may question in order to know the truth?
Another point, Peter has his encounter with Cornelius where he learns that gentiles are acceptable sometime after Paul's conversion but safely before Paul has much else to do with the church. Who is claiming that Paul was so certain about his theology that he would stand up to Peter that soon after his conversion?
And a third point, it is true that Peter links Paul's words with scripture, but the biblical standard for truth is two or three eyewitnesses who can be questioned by anyone, not just believers. Now who in this forum is able to question Peter to ascertain just what he meant and who are the other eyewitnesses whom a nonbeliever may question in order to know the truth?
Yes I agree humans are fallible including the writers. However, it is God who keeps his word not man. The inspiration to write came from GOD. I know you know this. if the idea is Peter taught something, then changed his position. I need to see that in the Bible.
2. If Peter had a disagreement that is seen in the bible and was presented with Scriptures to change his position doesn't equate to teaching a different doctrine .
where in the two books of Peter did he say or write something different than what Paul taught?
I have no problem with God correctly delivering His message to the writers, in both what He meant to deliver and in what He did deliver. My question lies totally at the human level. Did the humans on the receiving end of God's message understand it correctly, if so God overrode their free will. Are you claiming that? Next, did the humans correctly deliver the message, if so, again God overrode their free will, so again are you claiming that? Third those who received the message from the person God delivered it, same issue, did God override their free will, and on down to the present day, does God override human free will?
And a second problem, there are known to be substantial variants in scripture. Isaiah 19:18 has 4 know variants for the named city. Did God intentionally direct the writers to make those changes or have humans done it on their own? If God did it, then can you prove it and explain why the major differences are important? But if humans did it then you have lost infallibility.
I look forward to seeing how you resolve these questions without voiding human free will and making humanity merely robots God plays with.
To write what? Everything? The apostles including Paul didn't consider what they were writing "scripture". So to apply:
2 Timothy 3:16- 17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
And say his writings are "scripture" isn't what Paul was saying. He was talking about the Torah (law), Nevi'im (Prophets), Ketuvim (Writings), like Psalms, Proverbs, Ruth, Job, Ecclesiastes, etc.
So to Apply the NT teachings and claim it is in the same category, is actually inaccurate. Because in essence, you would be saying that Paul is saying all his writings are also "scripture" when he tells people to check him, "I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say." (1 Corinthians 10:15 would contradict the idea that his words are there for infallible.
Galatians 2:11-14
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before 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. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all...
Peter already knew what the truth was from Acts 10 where Peter declared that God showed no partiality (Acts 10), so he was already corrected on it and yet, he drew people astray to the point Paul corrected him in front of everyone.
Now, whether you want to conclude that teaching false doctrine is implied due to people being led astray, or that it was just by the conduct of his actions, is debatable. My point is though that Peter had to be corrected again, after God already corrected him. So that shows fallacy and back to my points in post #224.
I think that is imho wrong questioning because it coming from a secular perspective. I say that respectfully.
This is why. The proper interpretation of the word of God can only be attained by the saved believer who is part of the body of Christ.
The Holy Spirit job is to teach us and lead us into all truth. Not to know all of the word of God on everything or topic or subject.
we are fallible men receive from God through the word of God and the holy Spirit enough for righteous living and appropriate worship of God.
to answer your questions:
Q1,"Did the humans on the receiving end of God's message understand it correctly, if so God overrode their free will."
the context of humans from scripture is holy men of old. Not just humans.
Q2."did the humans correctly deliver the message, if so, again God overrode their free will, so again are you claiming that?"
again, they were not "humans" they were already men of God in agreement with faith in God. That is a very important truth.
And Free will is moot.
Q3,. those who received the message from the person God delivered it, same issue, did God override their free will, and on down to the present day, does God override human free will?
No, God did not override anyone's free will. The word of God stands on the truth, eyewitnesses, Historical narrative, fulfillment of Prophecies and The establishment of the Church where The Lord Jesus Christ is the head of.
At what point does a human cease to be human and become a different type of physical entity, a "holy one of God"? Why is it that in Acts people seem to perceive the apostles as fellow humans, not some different type of entity? And are you saying that when such a transformation occurs that free will vanishes? Or are you saying that somehow select persons roughly 2000 years ago suddenly lost all sin, in contradiction to what is said in 1 John, but that no one else has undergone such a transformation? Or if all believers undergo such a transformation, are you claiming to now be perfect and no longer sinning? Or are you, and quite likely the ancient writers of scripture, still flawed, unperfected humans and capable of error.
Context guy. The opposing was about Circumcision. That was the issue. And Peter did do what Paul said
, however You remove the context and fact that The Church was just formed, and Gentiles were just added not to long ago. Most Christians in the New testament were jews. Your point is long reaching. There is nothing in gal 2 that is stating anything that was not corrected by all. And Peter agreed with. Moving forward as ALL Scripture is for :
2 Timothy 3:16- 17 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
How can you hold Peter or Paul's feet to the fire when the word of God corrected them?
The issue is no seeing this, I think. And building a narrative that is opinionated.