1

Is there reason to believe from the text that Peter was no longer included and numbered among the disciples (followers of Jesus, believers, those who would be saved, have eternal life) when the Messenger makes this statement?

“But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭16:7‬ ‭

——————————————

And this on account of Peter’s denial thrice of Jesus

“And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.” ‭‭Mark‬ ‭14:72‬ ‭

And also on account of these words of Jesus

“So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:32-33‬

Which aligns with other texts that speak on the subject of being outside of salvation/eternal life for denying Jesus Christ

“No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” ‭‭1 John‬ ‭2:23‬ ‭

And consequently you cannot have that which you deny

“And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.” ‭‭1 John‬ ‭5:11-12‬ ‭

3
  • Please leave a comment regarding the downvote, curious to know what is wrong with the question. Mar 22 '20 at 5:39
  • I have answer to your question, and here is the link, if you are realy want to know what Scripture says. hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/48116/5840
    – Sam
    Jun 9 '20 at 7:33
  • @Sam your linked response does not address my question. Jun 9 '20 at 12:12
4

Whatever evil was done by Peter in his three-fold denial of the Lord was forgiven upon his three-fold affirmation after the His Resurrection.

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep (John 21:15-17)

In addition, salvation, according to Scripture, is not some one-time binary event. He who endures to the end, said the Lord, will be saved (Matthew 24:13). Life is given to us in order for us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12), following the Gospel commandments as best we can. Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord', He asked, and not do what I tell you? (Luke 6:46)

2
  • No doubt he was forgiven but it seemed necessary that Jesus restore Peter through the three affirmations countering the three denials. Without which Peter’s fate would have been sealed for eternal damnation. Thank you for the response, rather short though. Mar 20 '20 at 16:52
  • 2
    Brief perhaps, but this reflects the simple truths: 2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” and, Rom 3:23, 24, “… for all have sinned … and all are freely forgiven...”
    – Dottard
    Mar 20 '20 at 21:43
3

Perfect story that rejects the folly of eternal security.

In Matthew 16:13–16 (and Mark 8:27–29; Luke 9:18–20) Jesus asks the Apostles who do they say that he is? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Now at that time, Jews were saved by justification by faith, just as Abraham and David were. And Peter also. The fact that Jesus replied to Peter that he had received that answer from The Father corroborates that Peter really did believe it. That would show that he had been justified by faith, thereby being saved.

Now in Matthew 10:33, Jesus states: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

And in Matthew 26:69-75, Peter denies Jesus not once, not twice, but three times. So according to Matthew 10:33, that would unarguably mean that Peter would NOT be in heaven, even though he had been saved. To reject Matthew 10:33 as being relevant in this case would be to call Jesus a liar.

As we know, in John 21, Jesus restores Peter as one of his Apostles. And Peter spreads the Word throughout the nations until he eventually dies as a martyred Saint, showing that he had gotten back on the narrow path to eternal life. If he had died before doing so, as Judas did, he too would not have obtained eternal life.

6
  • Appreciate your response @Bro’Joe but it doesn’t quite meet the standard of this stack. +1 though Jun 12 '20 at 4:03
  • @Bro's Joe It is encouraging that you see the folly of eternal security. However, Matthew 10:33 -"... I also deny before my Father which is in heaven' does NOT mean right then each and every time we deny or sin, rather it refers "at the final. " Jesus is interceding for us at the right hand of God(Rom. 8:34).
    – Sam
    Jun 13 '20 at 15:56
  • Nihil Sine Deo..in which aspect does my comment not meet the standard of this stack? Please elaborate?
    – Bro' Joe
    Jun 13 '20 at 17:25
  • Sam....my comment does not imply that we will obtain eternal life or be denied that eternal life BEFORE death. My final sentence is thus: "If he had died before doing so, as Judas did, he too would NOT have obtained eternal life." I'm confused. Please elaborate what part of my initial comment you find fault with?
    – Bro' Joe
    Jun 13 '20 at 17:33
  • Welcome to BH. Please take the Tour and the Help. I have up-voted your answer because it is a thoughtful application of scripture to the question in hand. We all must endure to the end, to be saved. We all must remain faithful. Like Peter we will all need to be restored for if we die in our sins we shall perish. It is a truth that all Christ's own will be saved, but we all need to make our calling and election sure. I believe you have struck a good balance. We must all be washed by Christ as Peter was instructed when Jesus took a towel. And we all must needs wash one another's feet. (+1).
    – Nigel J
    Jun 17 '20 at 22:48
0

The easy part is proving that Peter did indeed receive forgiveness, and Peter's name is almost certainly in the book of life. The difficult interpretation is to try and understand what exactly is meant by "he who denies me, I will deny him before the father". Peter seemingly denied him and also seemingly will not be denied before the Father. So either

  1. Deny doesn't mean deny, therefore Peter never did the thing that Matthew 10:33 is talking about.
  2. Jesus denying them before the Father isn't damnation, but perhaps loss of heavenly reward or something, or temporary chastening, IDK.
  3. Peter did deny Jesus, who then did deny him before the Father, and Peter is damned forever.

I think only those 3 options are available, and they all raise questions. I see the first one as the obvious option to contend with, as it really only leads to a difficult interpretation of a couple of verses, as opposed to whole Biblical narratives. But if the first option is the case, and Peter saying "I deny Jesus" is not actually Peter denying Jesus, then what does it mean to deny Jesus for real and receive the consequences of being denied before the father?

2
  • I guess option 4 is that salvation isn't actually salvation, and so if Peter happened to die right as he was denying Jesus, then he would go to hell, but if he happened to die right as he was proclaiming Jesus, then he would go to heaven. That's absurd, though, because God elected to write Peter's name down in the book of life at the foundation of the universe, and if he went out from us, it would be proof that he was never of us. If he was a child of God, then certain things would have been true about him---forever.
    – hunter
    May 12 at 20:58
  • Also note, it doesn't work to say that your denial or acknowledgement of Jesus is at the throne on the Day of the Lord, because it specifically says "before men".
    – hunter
    May 12 at 21:00
-1

Apples and oranges here. You are teaching synergistic salvation. Luke 22:32 we see clearly that he has faith during this trial. That faith, faith of a saved man, is what cause him to return through prayer of Jesus. Did Jesus prayed for a unsaved, un-reborn man? No. He prayed for Peter, a man who sinned but was still his sheep (Matthew 26:31). Connecting 1 John 2:23 with Peter's fall is just lazy hermeneutics. I don't wish to open an endless debate, just stating my opinion on the matter.

1
  • 1
    Please see the Tour and the Help as to the purpose and the functioning of the site. This falls far short of the standard normally expected on the site, regarding hermeneutic analysis and courtesy of response.
    – Nigel J
    Apr 16 at 13:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.