Two Questions: If you can lose your salvation, then...

civic

Well-known member
Not sure what you mean by a "practising hypocrite". If you mean somebody who is knowingly and wilfully a hypocrite, and knows that he is, and knows how not to be, but still prefers to be, the answer is no, such a person does not have eternal life.
Yes and add to that a person that is the leader of the Apostles, who causes a weaker brother to stumble(Barnabas) and forces gentiles to obey the the jewish customs.

So by your own words above you have said Peter did not have Eternal Life when in reality he did zerinus.

Galatians 2:11-16

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 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. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas 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?

15 We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

hope this helps !!!
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Those people Christ died for arent charged with sin, God doesnt impute their sins unto them 2 Cor 5 19

19 to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Not without genuine repentance. If you think that scripture means that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ redeems people unconditionally, you are sadly mistaken. That is not what the Bible teaches. That is the recipe for damnation, not salvation.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Not without genuine repentance. If you think that scripture means that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ redeems people unconditionally, you are sadly mistaken.

You are wrong.

But if you want to try to defend your heresy, please list for us (with Scriptural support), what "conditions" someone must "work", in order to be redeemed.

And please make sure any Scriptures you use EXPLICITLY indicate "causation", without the need to ASSUME it.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Not without genuine repentance. If you think that scripture means that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ redeems people unconditionally, you are sadly mistaken. That is not what the Bible teaches. That is the recipe for damnation, not salvation.
It has nothing to do with repentance. Their sins were charged to Christ, thats what it means He was made sin for them 2 Cor 5:21

to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

So God cannot and will not charge them with sins based upon what Christ was made, not based upon their repentance !
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Yes and add to that a person that is the leader of the Apostles, who causes a weaker brother to stumble(Barnabas) and forces gentiles to obey the the jewish customs.

So by your own words above you have said Peter did not have Eternal Life when in reality he did zerinus.

Galatians 2:11-16

When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 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. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas 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?

15 We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

hope this helps !!!
That was a disagreement between Peter and Paul, and we don't know enough about the circumstances of it to be able to pass judgement. For all I know, it could be that Peter was right and Paul was wrong. You are hearing only Paul's side of the story, not Peters side of the story. Secondly, even assuming that Paul was right and Peter wrong, it does not mahe Peter a "habitual hypocrite". It simply means he fell short on that one occasion. My guess is that Paul probably got it wrong, and Peter didn't.
 

civic

Well-known member
That was a disagreement between Peter and Paul, and we don't know enough about the circumstances of it to be able to pass judgement. For all I know, it could be that Peter was right and Paul was wrong. You are hearing only Paul's side of the story, not Peters side of the story. Secondly, even assuming that Paul was right and Peter wrong, it does not mahe Peter a "habitual hypocrite". It simply means he fell short on that one occasion. My guess is that Paul probably got it wrong, and Peter didn't.
We do know and Paul spelled it out in black and white telling him he stood CONDEMNED for his hypocritical behavior and causing Barnabas to stumble and FORCING the Gentiles to live like Jews.

You are just making excuses. Paul didn't make excuses for Peter but confronted his sin as per Jesus instructions in Matthew 18.

Paul did the same thing in 1 Corinthians 5 in confronting a sinning brother, excommunicating him from the fellowship with the intention of genuine repentance as the result. And guess what ? That sinning brother repented as we read in 2 Corinthians 2.

hope this helps !!!
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
That is correct a damnable heresy. It is not biblical.
Sorry its true. You just dont understand the accomplishments of Jesus Christ! Anyone who He died for shall not, not never, have their sins charged to them. That would be double jeopardy, and a overthrow of Divine Justice !
 

zerinus

Well-known member
We do know and Paul spelled it out in black and white telling him he stood CONDEMNED for his hypocritical behavior and causing Barnabas to stumble and FORCING the Gentiles to live like Jews.

You are just making excuses. Paul didn't make excuses for Peter but confronted his sin as per Jesus instructions in Matthew 18.
I stand by what I said, nothing more to add.
Paul did the same thing in 1 Corinthians 5 in confronting a sinning brother, excommunicating him from the fellowship with the intention of genuine repentance as the result. And guess what ? That sinning brother repented as we read in 2 Corinthians 2.

hope this helps !!!
That was a different situation entirely, not comparable with the first.
 

civic

Well-known member
I stand by what I said, nothing more to add.

That was a different situation entirely, not comparable with the first.
sin is sin and you are in opposition to what Paul did in rebuking Peter to his face for practicing being a hypocrite and causing his brother Barnabas to stumble and all those Gentiles as well.

I will call this Paul's sevenfold rebuke of Peters hypocrisy and beak it down with scripture not my opinion.

Paul's words to Peter were as follows:

1) I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
2)he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
3) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy,
4)
so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
5)they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel
6)
You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew
7)you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs

hope this helps !!!
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
That was a disagreement between Peter and Paul, and we don't know enough about the circumstances of it to be able to pass judgement. For all I know, it could be that Peter was right and Paul was wrong. You are hearing only Paul's side of the story, not Peters side of the story. Secondly, even assuming that Paul was right and Peter wrong, it does not mahe Peter a "habitual hypocrite". It simply means he fell short on that one occasion. My guess is that Paul probably got it wrong, and Peter didn't.
What?? For all you know, Peter could have been right and Paul could have been wrong? Peter was wrong, because he accepted correction...
 

zerinus

Well-known member
sin is sin and you are in opposition to what Paul did in rebuking Peter to his face for practicing being a hypocrite and causing his brother Barnabas to stumble and all those Gentiles as well.

I will call this Paul's sevenfold rebuke of Peters hypocrisy and beak it down with scripture not my opinion.

Paul's words to Peter were as follows:

1) I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
2)he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
3) The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy,
4)
so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
5)they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel
6)
You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew
7)you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs

hope this helps !!!
I told you, you are reading far more into it than the context allows. Peter had his own criticism to make of Paul (2 Peter 3:16), which was probably more justified.
 

civic

Well-known member
I told you, you are reading far more into it than the context allows. Peter had his own criticism to make of Paul (2 Peter 3:16), which was probably more justified.
Peter was not criticizing Paul but saying he was very wise and building him up. Peter knew Paul's letter were Scripture and just as authoritative as the OT scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
 

zerinus

Well-known member
Peter was not criticizing Paul but saying he was very wise and building him up. Peter knew Paul's letter were Scripture and just as authoritative as the OT scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
That was Peter's kind way saying it. It was a genuine criticism. It is the misreading of the writings of Paul that has led all you Calvinists astray. Without the misreading of Paul, there would be no Calvinism.
 

civic

Well-known member
That was Peter's kind way saying it. It was a genuine criticism. It is the misreading of the writings of Paul that has all you Calvinists astray. Without the misreading of Pau, there would be no Calvinism.
yikes you really twisting Peters epistle.

I can say he is talking about mormons in that passage. See how absurd you make scripture look ?
 
Top