Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ The Sorcerer's Sin

[Hill Top]

I still don't agree that all sin is intentional. There are New Testament examples of sins committed through ignorance.
See Paul's sins committed in ignorance and unbelief which he listed in 1st Timothy 1:13-16, for example. He didn't know he was sinning when he did those deeds and he didn't intend to sin when he did them. Yet, those acts counted towards Paul's being the chief of sinners.

Paul's pre-conversion actions were done under the auspices of the Law.
By the Law, there was no condemnation.
But had they been done in Christ, there would be.
Paul's comment was with NT eyes about OT events.

Ignoring the potential dispensational discussions that we could launch into from here...
Paul's New Testament perspective still included the idea of sins of ignorance. In fact, Paul cites his ignorance as a reason for finding forgiveness.

They were only sins from a NT perspective.
His OT actions were according to the Law of God.
They were not sins when he did them.

All NT sin must include temptation, lust, enticement, and conception.
In James' 1:14-15 formula, there is no room for ignorance.

What do you mean that "they were not sins when he did... his OT actions... according to the [OT] Law"?

Paul's persecution of the then new church was all according to the Jewish Law.
How can obedience to God be called a sin ?

Why did he need mercy for those actions if they were not sinful?

The mercy of God showed Paul his persecutions were not His will.

Didn't he count those sins as being so sinful that they qualified him as the "Chief of Sinners"?

He didn't count them as sinful while he was doing them, as the Law called for them to be done.
In hind-sight, though, he saw that it was not God's will at all.

Why does the James 1:14-15 formula preclude sinning via ignorance or deception?

To show us that lust and intent, etc., are necessary to commit sin.

[Spiritblade Disciple]

I believe Peter sinned in this matter (acting as if eating with and/or entering a Gentile's house was still sin). HIs conscience had been liberated from such beliefs long before this (in the events that led up to his visit with Cornelius and it was clear he had no issue with it until these other Jews showed up).

Why is it a sin for Peter to condescend to visiting Jews who were, I guess, still in the No Gentiles In My House" OT-mindset ?

On Galatians 2:12, Dake wrote, "Peter had already eaten with the Gentiles and had taught that the middle wall of partition was broken down between Jews and Gentiles; but when certain Jews came from James he became fearful, withdrawing all fellowship with Gentiles." I agree with Dake on this. And, according to Paul, Peter was also demanding that the Gentiles live like Jews, even though Peter, himself, did not.

It really sounds like Peter was making it a very serious point of contention. Perhaps, even a salvation issue.

[Spiritblade Disciple]

I don't see how your position (that repentance isn't real if a person later commits the same sin) holds true in light of Peter's conduct. If anyone legitimately had the Holy Ghost before falling back, it was Peter.

Peter didn't commit a sin.
Who was hurt by his deference to the visitors ?

The whole of Galatians seems to be written to address who was being hurt by such teachings and actions. Paul warns them against trying to be justified by the Law, warning that to do so would cause them to fall from grace. And, also warns them that if they get circumcised, Christ won't profit them at all.

There are still folks, today, who claim that Paul was a false apostle over these events. I recently watched a video where the speaker was trying to make the case that the false apostles that the Church of Ephesus was praised for trying in Revelation 2 included Paul, Luke, and Timothy (among others). So, the seeds that were planted via Peter's actions, that day, are still yielding poisonous fruit, today.

The gospel of salvation by grace through faith unto good works is what is at stake. Do you think it is unreasonable to think that many folks will suffer eternal torment due to the fallout from these events?

[Hill Top]

I believe Peter sinned in this matter (acting as if eating with and/or entering a Gentile's house was still sin). HIs conscience had been liberated from such beliefs long before this (in the events that led up to his visit with Cornelius and it was clear he had no issue with it until these other Jews showed up).

Why is it a sin for Peter to condescend to visiting Jews who were, I guess, still in the No Gentiles In My House" OT-mindset ?

On Galatians 2:12, Dake wrote, "Peter had already eaten with the Gentiles and had taught that the middle wall of partition was broken down between Jews and Gentiles; but when certain Jews came from James he became fearful, withdrawing all fellowship with Gentiles." I agree with Dake on this.

Me too.

And, according to Paul, Peter was also demanding that the Gentiles live like Jews, even though Peter, himself, did not.

It may seem like that, but nothing actually testifies to it being the case.

It really sounds like Peter was making it a very serious point of contention. Perhaps, even a salvation issue.

If you are right, I would agree with your take-away.
It also seems like Peter's experience before meeting Cornelius had no effect on those at Jerusalem, who continued to follow Law keeping.
I am always troubled when I read "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:" (Acts 21:20)
I have always felt that that would have been a good time for Paul to explain the NT to those ensconced in tradition.
But he demurred to James, and the elders, to whom he was speaking.
It seems those in charge at Jerusalem didn't realize the passing away of the OC.
It also makes me think the apostles gave away their authority in Jerusalem to someone else: perhaps believing Pharisees.
Who were those elders ?

Tons of questions, and very few answers...

[Hill Top]

I don't see how your position (that repentance isn't real if a person later commits the same sin) holds true in light of Peter's conduct. If anyone legitimately had the Holy Ghost before falling back, it was Peter.

Peter didn't commit a sin.
Who was hurt by his deference to the visitors ?

The whole of Galatians seems to be written to address who was being hurt by such teachings and actions. Paul warns them against trying to be justified by the Law, warning that to do so would cause them to fall from grace. And, also warns them that if they get circumcised, Christ won't profit them at all.

I agree.

There are still folks, today, who claim that Paul was a false apostle over these events. I recently watched a video where the speaker was trying to make the case that the false apostles that the Church of Ephesus was praised for trying in Revelation 2 included Paul, Luke, and Timothy (among others). So, the seeds that were planted via Peter's actions, that day, are still yielding poisonous fruit, today.

The devil is quick to take advantage of every opportunity to sow discord.
It is up to the truly faithful not to slip even a little bit.
I don't know if Peter's Gal 2 incident is really related to Rev 2 in any way, but we can keep fighting against any and all defamations of an apostle, or of their writings.

The gospel of salvation by grace through faith unto good works is what is at stake. Do you think it is unreasonable to think that many folks will suffer eternal torment due to the fallout from these events?

I can't say.
Do you think the "elders of Jerusalem", or, the Judaizers, who clung to Law keeping, will be saved ?