Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Did Peter lose his salvation?

[Justaned]

The Bible just doesn't support Ed's idea that Peter was not saved. The Bible states repeatedly otherwise. Why not let the Bible speak for itself.

The following clarifies Peter was saved and no Scripture indicates that he spent ten days in an upper room being saved but rather was waiting on the endument of power from on high for service.
John 6:68-69 (KJV)
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

John 13:10 (KJV)
10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.

John 15:3 (KJV)
3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

John 17:6 (KJV)
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

Notice that Peter's name was written in Heaven at the time of this statement:
Luke 10:20 (KJV)
20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

What could be more clearer than the above verse.

John 17:14-16 (KJV)
14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Is this clear enough in John 17:14-16? Again, not my opinions, just Scripture speaking for itself.

Wait wait wait I never said Peter was not saved or was saved. I said Peter's situation before the cross is totally different than ours after the cross. Let us make it perfectly clear I'm not questioning Peter salvation. I'm questioning whether we can use him as a classic example of the person that was saved after the cross and then willfully and deliberately sinned.

His name was written in Heaven - Jesus said so. The ONLY way your name is written there is because you are saved. And, if it was written there, then why did he have to be saved again at Pentecost?

Stop this thread also

If I said that Peter was not saved without adding outside as we today are saved through the work on the cross then I misspoke. We know Peters name is in the Book of Life but his did not get there based on what ours is based on. In other words Peter is an exceptional case. I think all of us will admit that. So we can not use his situation to establish any thing that involves a person that's salvation is realized by his belief in Jesus' sacrificial work on the cross.

[Reuben]

Wait a minute. I'm not making this up on what you believe. You said:

I don't see Peter saved I see him declared clean by Christ to do the work Christ required at the time. I believe after Jesus died on the cross Peter along with the others were saved in the upper room and went on to minister to the world.

The you said:

Wait wait wait I never said Peter was not saved or was saved. I said Peter's situation before the cross is totally different than ours after the cross. Let us make it perfectly clear I'm not questioning Peter salvation.

You're confusing me here. The one quote says you believe he was not saved and got saved at the upper room... the other says you didn't say he was saved or not and then say you are not questioning his salvation.

For some reason I am having a hard time following this.

[Justaned]

Wait a minute. I'm not making this up on what you believe. You said:

I don't see Peter saved I see him declared clean by Christ to do the work Christ required at the time. I believe after Jesus died on the cross Peter along with the others were saved in the upper room and went on to minister to the world.

The you said:

Wait wait wait I never said Peter was not saved or was saved. I said Peter's situation before the cross is totally different than ours after the cross. Let us make it perfectly clear I'm not questioning Peter salvation.

You're confusing me here. The one quote says you believe he was not saved and got saved at the upper room... the other says you didn't say he was saved or not and then say you are not questioning his salvation.

For some reason I am having a hard time following this.

Reuben
Going for the pound of flesh are we.
I said I misspoke if I left you with the impression that Peter wasn't saved. My intent was to say at the timePeter was not saved as we are today by dependence on the work of the Cross. His salvation was exceptional wrought by Christ's word not by any sacrifice on the cross. Therefore that salvation is an exception and should not be used as an example of what is normal today. When Peter denied Jesus he was not throwing the sacrifice of Christ into the mud because that sacrifice had not yet occurred. Also there was a change in Peter he did not have the Holy Spirit to convict him at the time that he did later where he refused to deny Christ. Again all that took place in Peter is not normative todays Christian, no sacrifice, no resurrection, no ascension, no Holy Spirit infilling.

So we can't use Peter as a typical example of being saved, having sinned and being saved again. Pick an example after the cross where we know the person has based his salvation on the cross and has the presence of the Holy Spirit and Christ within him. Born again so to speak, a new creation.

[Reuben]

Reuben
Going for the pound of flesh are we.
I said I misspoke if I left you with the impression that Peter wasn't saved. My intent was to say at the timePeter was not saved as we are today by dependence on the work of the Cross. His salvation was exceptional wrought by Christ's word not by any sacrifice on the cross. Therefore that salvation is an exception and should not be used as an example of what is normal today. When Peter denied Jesus he was not throwing the sacrifice of Christ into the mud because that sacrifice had not yet occurred. Also there was a change in Peter he did not have the Holy Spirit to convict him at the time that he did later where he refused to deny Christ. Again all that took place in Peter is not normative todays Christian, no sacrifice, no resurrection, no ascension, no Holy Spirit infilling.

So we can't use Peter as a typical example of being saved, having sinned and being saved again. Pick an example after the cross where we know the person has based his salvation on the cross and has the presence of the Holy Spirit and Christ within him. Born again so to speak, a new creation.

So now you do believe Peter was saved. However, not born-again or a new creation? This is what you believe about Peter? If that is true then a person could be saved but not born-again or a new creature?

You said:

Peter was not saved as we are today by dependence on the work of the Cross.

How was he saved - by what means?

[Justaned]

Reuben
Going for the pound of flesh are we.
I said I misspoke if I left you with the impression that Peter wasn't saved. My intent was to say at the timePeter was not saved as we are today by dependence on the work of the Cross. His salvation was exceptional wrought by Christ's word not by any sacrifice on the cross. Therefore that salvation is an exception and should not be used as an example of what is normal today. When Peter denied Jesus he was not throwing the sacrifice of Christ into the mud because that sacrifice had not yet occurred. Also there was a change in Peter he did not have the Holy Spirit to convict him at the time that he did later where he refused to deny Christ. Again all that took place in Peter is not normative todays Christian, no sacrifice, no resurrection, no ascension, no Holy Spirit infilling.

So we can't use Peter as a typical example of being saved, having sinned and being saved again. Pick an example after the cross where we know the person has based his salvation on the cross and has the presence of the Holy Spirit and Christ within him. Born again so to speak, a new creation.

So now you do believe Peter was saved. However, not born-again or a new creation? This is what you believe about Peter? If that is true then a person could be saved but not born-again or a new creature?

You said:

Peter was not saved as we are today by dependence on the work of the Cross.

How was he saved - by what means?

Jesus proclaimed his heart was pure and you said that made him saved. You tell me.
You certainly can't claim he was filled with the Holy Spirit or was depending on the cross to pay for his sins since neither had occurred yet.

[Rocky]

STOP!
Before this goes any further let me say if I said Peter was saved or wasn't saved without making it clear that I was talking about salvation as we know it, that is after the cross I misspoke.

What I meant to say was Peters spiritual state whatever it was, was unique to the Peter and the situation. It is not the normative it was not based at the time on sacrifice that was not yet made.

Hebrew 10 very clearly states the is no repentance since there no longer remains a sacrifice. That is pivotal to this discussion. At the time of Peters denial the sacrifice had not yet been completed nor was he depending on it for his salvation.

Ed but what do you do with other scriptures that does not line up with your understanding of these verses?

[branham1965]

hey there Canada,
i love your honesty.for what its worth.
if someone did that to your baby.....or to my loved ones...if someone tried to hurt my kimbo ...or poor little monty rip or ...my dear ziggy rip ....id bash their brains in with a baseball bat.thats the honest answer.

Hi!
I think that :
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Does'nt mean that someone under pressure in a moment of weakness or under torture for example loose his salvation. I see it like sinning and practicing sin. Some one who continualy deny Christ is not the same as someone that fail under extreme circumstances.
I don't know what i would do if a bunch of soldier treatened me to drive a knitting pin from an ear to the other of my baby girl. i know there is a special grace in such a moment but would i lose my salvation under such a circumstance if i failed? I dont think so. What would you do?

[Justaned]

STOP!
Before this goes any further let me say if I said Peter was saved or wasn't saved without making it clear that I was talking about salvation as we know it, that is after the cross I misspoke.

What I meant to say was Peters spiritual state whatever it was, was unique to the Peter and the situation. It is not the normative it was not based at the time on sacrifice that was not yet made.

Hebrew 10 very clearly states the is no repentance since there no longer remains a sacrifice. That is pivotal to this discussion. At the time of Peters denial the sacrifice had not yet been completed nor was he depending on it for his salvation.

Ed but what do you do with other scriptures that does not line up with your understanding of these verses?

I don't see any verses that do not line up with my understanding. That seems to be more your problem than mine.
It is your theology that has people being Saved then being unsaved, then being saved, then being unsaved.
I guess they are not only born again but born again over and over and over. And apparently the new creation that is created upon their rebirth is so short lived that they are back into sin and need to be reborn again.

Sorry I just don't see Christians getting saved, unsaved, saved, unsaved. Nor do I see people being reborn, cut off, reborn, cut off, reborn, cut off. Nor do I see God's new creations going from a walk of holiness to a walk of damnation, being reborn to a walk of holiness and back to a walk of damnation.
Nor do I see God adopting us, disinheriting us, adopting us, disinheriting us. Even a corrupt human would not do that their child yet that is how you believe our Heavenly Father treats some of his adopted.
No I don't have problems with other scriptures but you do.

[Reuben]

Reuben
Going for the pound of flesh are we.
I said I misspoke if I left you with the impression that Peter wasn't saved. My intent was to say at the timePeter was not saved as we are today by dependence on the work of the Cross. His salvation was exceptional wrought by Christ's word not by any sacrifice on the cross. Therefore that salvation is an exception and should not be used as an example of what is normal today. When Peter denied Jesus he was not throwing the sacrifice of Christ into the mud because that sacrifice had not yet occurred. Also there was a change in Peter he did not have the Holy Spirit to convict him at the time that he did later where he refused to deny Christ. Again all that took place in Peter is not normative todays Christian, no sacrifice, no resurrection, no ascension, no Holy Spirit infilling.

So we can't use Peter as a typical example of being saved, having sinned and being saved again. Pick an example after the cross where we know the person has based his salvation on the cross and has the presence of the Holy Spirit and Christ within him. Born again so to speak, a new creation.

So now you do believe Peter was saved. However, not born-again or a new creation? This is what you believe about Peter? If that is true then a person could be saved but not born-again or a new creature?

You said:

Peter was not saved as we are today by dependence on the work of the Cross.

How was he saved - by what means?

Jesus proclaimed his heart was pure and you said that made him saved. You tell me.
You certainly can't claim he was filled with the Holy Spirit or was depending on the cross to pay for his sins since neither had occurred yet.

I only echo what Jesus plainly stated. He said (not me) that Peter was clean/pure. Jesus said (not me) that Peter's name was written in Heaven. So, was he saved or not?

[branham1965]

HE WAS REVEREND REUBEN.THE BIBLE PLAINLY AND LITERALLY SAYS HE WAS.

Reuben
Going for the pound of flesh are we.
I said I misspoke if I left you with the impression that Peter wasn't saved. My intent was to say at the timePeter was not saved as we are today by dependence on the work of the Cross. His salvation was exceptional wrought by Christ's word not by any sacrifice on the cross. Therefore that salvation is an exception and should not be used as an example of what is normal today. When Peter denied Jesus he was not throwing the sacrifice of Christ into the mud because that sacrifice had not yet occurred. Also there was a change in Peter he did not have the Holy Spirit to convict him at the time that he did later where he refused to deny Christ. Again all that took place in Peter is not normative todays Christian, no sacrifice, no resurrection, no ascension, no Holy Spirit infilling.

So we can't use Peter as a typical example of being saved, having sinned and being saved again. Pick an example after the cross where we know the person has based his salvation on the cross and has the presence of the Holy Spirit and Christ within him. Born again so to speak, a new creation.

So now you do believe Peter was saved. However, not born-again or a new creation? This is what you believe about Peter? If that is true then a person could be saved but not born-again or a new creature?

You said:

Peter was not saved as we are today by dependence on the work of the Cross.

How was he saved - by what means?

Jesus proclaimed his heart was pure and you said that made him saved. You tell me.
You certainly can't claim he was filled with the Holy Spirit or was depending on the cross to pay for his sins since neither had occurred yet.

I only echo what Jesus plainly stated. He said (not me) that Peter was clean/pure. Jesus said (not me) that Peter's name was written in Heaven. So, was he saved or not?