Already on ArticleSlash?

Forgot your password? Sign Up

Sin Against Peter


Visitors: 352

The apostle Peter has taken a beating among denominationalists.  I would feel sorry for him save for the fact that I would be feeling for the wrong party seeing as how he was an inspired apostle of God and his antagonists are but mere flesh and blood men and totally uninspired.

It was not always the way it is today.  For at least a few hundred years after his sermon in Acts 2 he was honored by those who proclaimed faith in God and belief in Christ as the Son of God.  Today, however, men who claim Christianity pretty much just ignore his sermon that day for they do not like what he said and they no longer believe it.

Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven by Jesus himself in Matt. 16:19, “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. " (NKJV) He used those keys on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 for the first time, did so by preaching God's plan of salvation for man.  I have never heard anyone argue against that point.  It is considered an established fact by all as far as I know.

However, few to no denominationalists believe that what he said that day is bound in heaven thus fight against both Jesus and Peter.  Wow! Is there no one they will not take on?

On that day in Acts 2 when those to whom Peter spoke “were cut to the heart (by Peter's sermon - DS), and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Act 2:37 NKJV) Peter responded to them by saying “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. " (Act 2:38 NKJV) 

Denominationalists say Peter could not have meant what the words seem to be saying - that baptism is for the remission of sins.  Hmmm! I thought he was inspired; I thought the Holy Spirit fell on him and the other apostles that day prior to the sermon.  If so, and I thought it was, I thought God was capable of saying what he meant to say.  Must have been wrong.  But then Jesus did say that “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. " (Mar 16:16 NKJV)

But Jesus words are explained by our denominational friends.  The reality of Mark 16:16 according to their interpretation is “He who believes and is not baptized will be saved. " Ain't it wonderful how smart these guys are? They are like Catholic priests who claim they (the Catholic hierarchy) only have a true understanding of the scriptures (at least that was the old teaching and I suppose it is still true).

But, they would object and say I am misrepresenting them.  They would say they never said that.  Aren't things that are equal to the same thing also equal to each other? If they say baptism does not save us, has no role in doing so, one can be saved without it, they are saying “He who believes and is not baptized will be saved" object all day long if they will.

I guess maybe when I learn some day that the scriptures, Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and others did not really mean what they had to say then maybe I can learn the truth.  Hope so don't you?

Poor Peter though for he never did get it right his whole life, if he could have just received some counseling by today's Christians (?) who are in the know.  In Acts 10:48 he is again commanding people to be baptized at the house of Cornelius.  "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. " (NKJV) The gall of the man, commanding a non-essential.

Sadly, many years later (approximately 30) Peter is still preaching error according to denominationalists for he goes so far as to say now for a second time that baptism is for salvation (Acts 2:38 & 1 Peter 3:21).  He says, “There is also an antitype which now saves us-baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. " (1 Peter 3:21 NKJV)

I am in a minority but I think I will just go with Peter's misunderstanding and let the denominationalists go their own way.  If they are saving a seat for me this coming Sunday it will be free for someone else's use.  I am sure they are nice enough people and people who mean well but at my age I cannot afford to go along with the crowd.  I want to go with Peter.  I'll just take a chance that he knew what he was talking about and that God is able to use language plain and clear enough that a simpleton like myself can understand.  I will take him at his word.

Denny Smith's articles are all listed on his web site - . His site is devoted to his own Christian articles and the the audio sermons of a friend of his who has also been a teacher to him.


Article Source:

Rate this Article: 
The Apostle Peter Wrongly Accused of Racism
Rated 4 / 5
based on 5 votes

Related Articles:

The Man Who Wrote Peter Pan

by: Clarence Threepwood (June 19, 2008) 
(Book Reviews/Biographies Memoirs)

Recognizing the Peter Principle

by: Tim Bryce (July 15, 2008) 

Peter Sellers: Comedian

by: Richard Pettinger (January 10, 2007) 
(Arts and Entertainment)

Peter Weir Interview

by: Matthew Power (May 05, 2011) 
(Arts and Entertainment/Movies TV)

Peter's Honey Biscuits

by: Fred Watson (March 20, 2008) 
(Food and Drink/Recipes)

Mukiwa by Peter Godwin

by: Philip Spires (April 10, 2008) 
(Book Reviews/Fiction)

2 Peter 3 End of the Planet Or Destruction of Jerusalem?

by: William Bell, Jr. (July 09, 2008) 

Pajama Paycheck and Peter Walsh

by: Davin Ogden (January 05, 2007) 
(Internet and Businesses Online)

Hair Loss - Peter's Story

by: Gary Heron (June 17, 2007) 
(Health and Fitness/Hair Loss)

The Apostle Peter Wrongly Accused of Racism

by: Hannah Henderson (July 26, 2008)