Actually, that is the official teaching of Roman Catholicism only and extends from their teaching that Mary was born sinless and never sinned (Emmaculate Conception). I am not sure how having other children is a conflict on that point.

I think the SBC fellow was trying to squeeze the cultural mandate of “being light and salt’ (but HOW does one do this?), the great commandment of loving one another (but HOW does one do this?) and sharing the great commission (but How would anyone ever want to do this?) was intriguing as a kind of Bible overview. He left out the creation mandate but hey, TV can make us all blink.

Your point seems to be that all this ‘doing’ is not what makes one a Christian nor does it at the root define what a Christian is. The radical belief based on the historically accurate documents (the New Testament) that Jesus is who he says he is and did and does what he says, is what makes one a Christian. One can artificially pump up and perform the other tasks for whatever reasons and motivations, but without this radical, foundational Belief in JESUS himself, it is a fine CNN show… But in the words of the old Wendy’s commercial, “Where’s the beef?”

Don, I haven’t been able to see special, but I agree with your comment about this quote. It was true Peter had to be persuaded by the Lord to go to Cornelius, but in Acts 11 Peter is the one defending the Gentiles’ faith, and there is no conflict in Acts 15 between Peter and Paul.

I guess, if they *got* this idea that Peter thought the gospel was only for Jews, they must have been referring to Pauls remarks and rebuke of Peter in Galatians chapter 2.

In that chapter, Paul notes the deliniation of their respective ministries — Peter to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles. But Galatians 2 is not at all a reason to think Peter thought the message was for Jews alone; it was simply Paul’s understanding of how the Holy Spirit had called each of them to differing ministries, and they had even given each other the “right hand of fellowship” over the matter.

Paul *does* go on to rebuke Peter for hypocrisy, in that at some point Peter isolated himself with the Jews when they were around, because he was caving into fear of the Jews. At that point, Peter would associate with Gentiles when Jews weren’t around, but when Jews came around, Peter would hold himself aloof from the Gentiles.

Paul was very right to rebuke Peter for this, and I am glad Scripture talks about these things, because it shows the apostles holding each other accountable to the revelation they had received, and it also shows that they were not infallible, but needed each other.

In the same way, I am glad to read about the disputes over the widows’ food distribution, and how that was handled, as well as knowing that Paul and Barnabus had a “sharp dispute.” The point is, God allows us to be human and there is room for disagreement, and there are problems to be solved and when leaders go astray from clear revelation (as Peter did) they are well-served with a rebuke from one who points them back to the revelation.

But none of these passages should cause one to declare that Peter thought the gospel message was for Jews alone. Paul’s “open door mission” caused Peter to act hypocritically at one point, but Peter was rebuked for it, and there is no hint of continuing conflict between them about the matter.