***Who do Trinitarians understand Peter's God to be?*** ------ **Premise** Acts 3:13 NKJV (Peter speaking) > The **God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob**, the God of our fathers, glorified **His servant Jesus**, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. Acts 2:22 >Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a **man** approved of **God** among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which **God** did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 1Peter 1 >3 Blessed be the **God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ**, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, >4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, >5 Who are kept by the power of **God** through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. > Matthew 16:16 >And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, **the Son of the living God**. Psalm 84:2 > My soul longs, yes, even faints For the courts of **YHWH**; My heart and my flesh cry out for **the living God.**

Jude 6 (ESV) says: > "And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day" Is this saying that demons are all in jail, and we're free from them currently? I thought the consensus is that the devil and his demons are running rampant on earth doing evil things, as it says in 1 Peter 5:8 (ESV): > Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Which is it? Are the devil and demons currently chained in hell or are they roaming around on earth? Thanks all.

There seems to be a contradiction between these two verses. > So the LORD said, "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created--and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground--for I regret that I have made them." Genesis 6:7 > “He paid for you with the precious lifeblood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose Him for this purpose long before the world began, but now in these final days, He was sent to the earth for all to see. And He did this for you.” 1 Peter 1:19-20 In Genesis, God judges mankind and destroys them, seemingly thinking that will fix them. In 1 Peter we're told that salvation through Jesus was the plan since the very beginning. So the motivation for the flood doesn't make sense in this light. How is this apparent contradiction typically explained?

In the New Testament, in addition to the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, The Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles written by Paul, there are other letters (epistles) written by James, Peter, John and Jude. Do we know definitively in what order these letters were written?

Did the early Church Fathers have a complete agreement on how to interpret 1 Peter 3:18-20 or did they also have some differences in the way they interpreted these words by Peter? I specifically mean the words highlighted in the verses below: > For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, **in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey**, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20 ESV ) 1. Who are the spirits? 2. What is the prison? 3. What exactly did Jesus proclaim to them?

We read in Mt 21:31 : > Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. We also read in 1 Pet 4:18: > And “If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinners?” While we see the generosity of Jesus in welcoming one and all to salvation, we see St Peter talking tough. It appears that St Peter is quoting someone, but his source is not clear to the reader. My question, therefore is: According to Catholic scholars, is St Peter quoting someone in 1 Pet 4:18 ? If not, how does his view on salvation reconcile with that of Jesus in Mt 21: 31 ?

1 Peter 3:18-19 has been one of the most controversial passages in the Bible throughout time. And for good reason. I'd like to address a particular interpretation of the passage, however. >1 Peter 3:18-19 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, You can see the interpretation in this answer here . Essentially, it says that "made alive in the spirit" is a reference to Jesus' resurrection, and "proclaimed to the spirits in prison" is a reference to Jesus preaching the gospel to the spirits of the dead imprisoned in Hades/Sheol *while* He was dead. Now, it's already a major assertion to say that "spirits" refers to *spirits of the dead*, and to say that "proclaiming" refers to *preaching the gospel*, and to say that "prison" refers to *prison in Hades[place of the dead]*, especially since nowhere in the entire passage are the spirits of the dead OR Hades mentioned. But we'll save that for another day. My question is... Why did the proclamation Jesus made take place during His death and not after His resurrection, i.e. what justification is there for such an interpretation? Peter places the event AFTER the event of Jesus being resurrected in his writing, so why isn't it that the event actually took place AFTER Jesus was resurrected(instead of BEFORE Jesus was resurrected)? Here's what I mean. >1 Peter 3:18-19 For Christ also **suffered once for sins[event 1]**, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being **put to death in the flesh[event 2]** but **made alive in the spirit[event 3]**, in which he went and **proclaimed to the spirits in prison[event 4]**, Events 1, 2, and 3 are all in chronological order; each precedes the following with regards to the historical timing of the events. Jesus (1) suffered for our sins, (2) was put to death, and (3) was resurrected, in that order. Does Peter, in the middle of his sentence, break chronological order? Does event 4 precede event 3 chronologically, despite being placed AFTER event 3 in a sequence of chronological events? If event 4(Jesus proclaiming to the spirits in prison) happened *while* Jesus was dead, wouldn't Peter have said, "*being put to death in the flesh, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, then made alive in the spirit*"? That way the event of Jesus proclaiming to the spirits in prison is shown to be chronologically prior to the event of Jesus being resurrected. And if Peter was incapable of putting "*proclaimed to the spirits in prison*" in-between "*put to death in the flesh*" and "*made alive in the spirit*" due to such an act breaking the poetic parallelism(the poetic parallelism of "*put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit*"), why didn't he just clarify what he meant by saying, "*in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison while dead*"? That would be a small price to pay for maintaining the poetic parallelism(presupposing, of course, that Peter not only intends to be poetic but that such poetry would come first and foremost over maintaining chronological consistency. Sure, Peter was most likely employing parallelism in verse 18, but was he required to do so? Does said parallelism take the primary slot? Is chronological consistency less significant than poetry?), and that way there would be no confusion(confusion due to him breaking the chronological sequence he had established) among of his readers. So here are my questions for those that hold to the interpretation laid out in the answer linked above; - Why did Peter break the chronological sequence of events by placing "proclaimed to the spirits in prison" AFTER "made alive in the spirit", when Jesus proclaimed to the spirits in prison BEFORE He was resurrected, while He was dead(that is, according to the interpretation that asserts that)? - What justification is there for saying that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison while He was dead despite the fact that Peter puts it after the event of Jesus being resurrected in a sequence of chronological events? - Why is an interpretation that says that Jesus proclaimed to the spirits in prison while He was dead(before He was resurrected, thus breaking the chronological sequence Peter was laying out[since Peter placed the event of Jesus proclaiming to the spirits after the event of Jesus being made alive in the spirit in a chain of chronological events]) BETTER than an interpretation that says that Jesus proclaimed to the spirits in prison while He was alive(after He was resurrected, thus maintaining the chronological sequence Peter was laying out)?

According to believers in an [intermediate state](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_state) between death and the resurrection: - Did Jesus go to a paradise in Sheol while he was dead (see [Bosom of Abraham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham)) ? > And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, **today you will be with me in paradise**.” [Luke 23:43 ESV] - Did Jesus preach to spirts in prison in Sheol? > 18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 **in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison**, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. [1 Peter 3:18-20 ESV] - If the answer is yes to both questions, how can we reconcile the two facts? Did Jesus visit different compartments of Sheol? Were the "spirits in prison" in paradise? ________ Relevant questions: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89518/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/89140/50422

I understand that there are three popular interpretations of 1 Peter 3:18-20. 1. Jesus preached salvation, a second proclamation of grace to those who are in Hell. 2. Similarly, Jesus preached to those in Hell, but only to those who rejected Noah's preaching while he built the ark. 3. Jesus gave a proclamation of his victory over death to the demons in Hades. I would like to ask a question regarding this third position related to a phrase in verse 20, taking for granted it is the correct interpretation. Verse 20 in the NASB says (emphasis mine) > who once were disobedient, **when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah**, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. — 1 Peter 3:20 Is Peter saying that God was patient with the demons despite their disobedience for a time? In Genesis 6:1-8 > Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. — Genesis 6:1-8 ...it says that the Nephilim intermarried with daughters of men so they bore them children. If it's not clear, I am assuming the Nephilim are demonic entities for the sake of argument. When Peter writes that God was patient, is that referring to a period of time where God chose not to judge these demons and that comes after Christ was in the grave according to this third position? Or is it referring to something else? I understand that Peter is using parallelism of sorts in the surrounding context by comparing baptism to the ark saving (non-salvifically) Noah's family. So maybe there's an element of that as well that I am not understanding.

>1 Peter 3:18-20: Because even Messiah once suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to Elohim, having been put to death indeed in flesh but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in which also He went and proclaimed unto the spirits in prison, 20 who were disobedient at one time when the patience of Elohim waited in the days of Noaḥ, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight beings, were saved through water, This seems to disprove consciousness ceases at death.

How do followers of [open theology (open theism)](https://www.iep.utm.edu/o-theism/)1 interpret 1 Peter 1:2 (KJV), in particular the emphasized part? > Elect **according to the foreknowledge of God the Father**, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. In what sense was God's plan carried out according to his foreknowledge, in open theology? Note that it is *foreknowledge* that is in focus of my question. According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism#Varieties_of_open_theists) there are four branches of open theism: > - Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents ... - Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable ... - Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false ... - Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain ... So followers of either Nescience branch believes that while there *is* a definite future, God does not know it (either voluntarily or involuntarily). On the other hand, followers of either Omniscience branch believes that the future is not (fully) settled, but that God has perfect knowledge as far as it makes sense to talk about it. Optimally, an answer would deal separately with each branch, or provide an answer that all branches support. 1 *Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. (quoted from linked reference)*

Peter says that Sarah called Abraham "lord" (i.e., master) and that it was a good thing. When did she do this? And how does Peter know this? I can't find it anywhere in scripture. > **1 Peter 3:5,6 ESV** For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, **as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord**. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

In 1 Peter 1:6-7 he talks about suffering being necessary in a Christian's life which at the time, I believe, was prison or death and in the time of Nero suffering for being a Christian was a very real fact. Today however, in first world countries being a christian in some places gives the person a high social status, while in other first world countries the worst form of persecution is online mockery. That's not to say that there isn't any suffering or pain but to say that there isn't one that's caused by being a christian. So my question is, as a christian living in a first world country am I doing something wrong? Is the absence of suffering (at least anywhere close to the one received by first century christians) indicates that I am not living as a christian should live?

> 1 Peter 2:
(7) Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But > to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has > become the cornerstone,"
(8)and, "A stone that causes people to > stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they > disobey the message--**which is also what they were destined for**. Reading the English verse, it leads me to think that it's about Double Predestination. Where verse 7 becomes like this :
*Because I predestined you to be in Heaven
Then you believe
Because you believe
Then the stone is precious to you.* And verse 8 becomes like this :
*Because I predestined them to be in hell
Then they don't believe
Because they don't believe
Then the stone becomes a stumbling block to them* But when I read the verse from the Bible on my own language, the verse's sentences have the sense something like this : *If someone obey My Words
Then he/she will believe the stone
Then the stone is precious to him/her

If someone disobey My Words
Then he/she won't believe the stone
Then the stone is a stumbling block to him/her
* So, the sentence _**which is also what they were destined for**_ in the Bible of my language is not like that in English one. In my language, *"they were destined for"* in verse 8 has a sense that if the "IF" criteria by an external party (someone who disobey) is fulfilled, then the "THEN" follows ---> they are "destined" to stumble. While in English language, it seems to me that it shows Double Predestination, starting from the *"Because I"*. My question:
Is the Bible in my language gives a wrong translation ? ---------- I just searched from the internet, and found a link which telling on what God says : > Peter also speaks of those to whom Christ is the precious Cornerstone > of salvation and those who stumble against him to their eternal > destruction; and of those who are reprobate, he says clearly that > **they were “predestined” to disobey the word and so to perish** (1 Pet. 2:6-8). So, it is the *"Because I"*.

>**1 Peter 4:16-18 (ESV)** Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And **“If the righteous is scarcely saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?”**1 A few things there should be no meaningful contention over: - "Judgement" refers to punishment here ('if judgement ... then how much *more* ... [evil people]') - He does not say that it is scarcely true *that anyone is ever saved* (for example), but, specifically, it is scarcely true that *the righteous* are saved. - "Scarcely" corresponds to the implied "definitely not" of "the ungodly," whence we know that "scarcely" means 'with great difficulty; unlikely.' Question -- How do Calvinists interpret this passage, which claims that the righteous will "scarcely" be saved, if God elects people unconditionally, and works (read: anything on the part of the man) cannot endanger a man's salvation who has been saved ("the righteous")? (After all, it cannot be that *God* can/would have difficulty saving someone.) (The Catholic interpretation, e.g., would say one can be righteous, like Adam, and choose not-God at any time after being saved from their sin.) (If you dispute any of these rather neutral observations, **please ask for clarification in the comments, rather than answering, please!)** Thanks in advance. --- 1 St. Peter is alluding to/paraphrasing/adapting Proverbs 11:31 which concerns the retribution God gives for workers of evil, yet "all the more" to the wicked, who are defined by their sin. He then ties it in (γαρ "for") with "[salvation]."

How do Protestants interpret 1 Peter 1:17? It reads: >**1 Peter 1:13-17 (DRB)** Wherefore having the loins of your mind girt up, being sober, trust perfectly in the grace which is offered you in the revelation of Jesus Christ, 14 As children of obedience, not fashioned according to the former desires of your ignorance: 15 But according to him that hath called you, who is holy, be you also in all manner of conversation holy: 16 Because it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy. **17 And if you invoke as Father him who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every one's work: converse in fear during the time of your sojourning here.** This is something I would expect and take for granted in *Catholic* theology, where we as servants of Christ have a duty to use our talents, or grace, or we can be assigned in Hell (cf. Matthew 24), and there is "no respect of persons" (i.e. just because you are Christian). But how does Protestant theology incorporate this verse, which seems to be a rather clear and direct warning to believers to be holy ***because*** God will judge by our works, *'not faith only?'* In other words, **how isn't there a direct teaching here that our holiness and conduct comes into justification (cf. Hebrews 12:14)?** I say justification, because you don't 'conduct yourself in fear' because you won't recieve a perhaps optimal 'reward.' You conduct yourself in fear because your deeds are to be judged: and no one fears a judgement of their deeds wherein no condemnation is brought against them. Thanks in advance.

I noted from an earlier question that, according to Mormons, the "Sons of God" that married "daughters of men" in Genesis 6 were human males. Based on this I had wanted to ask about three New Testament passages that seem to refer to some wrong actions committed by spirit beings or angels. The passage at 1 Peter 3:19,20 seems to say that the action happened at the time of Noah: > 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 > Which sometime **were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God > waited in the days of Noah**, while the ark was a preparing, wherein > few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The passage at 2 Peter 2:4,5 seems to say pretty much the same as above, but refers to the creatures as "angels" rather than "spirits": > 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to > hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto > judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth > person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the > world of the ungodly; And the passage in Jude 6 and 7 seems to relate their action to the fornication and "going after strange flesh" in Sodom and Gomorrah: > 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own > habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto > the judgment of the great day. 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the > cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to > fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an > example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Possibly related to above passages (but not part of this question) is this one in 1 Corinthians 6:3 : > Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that > pertain to this life? What wrongful action by spirit beings do these passages refer to?

Consider this passage from 1 Peter 3, > 1 Peter 3:1-6 KJV Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; > >While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. > > Whose adorning **let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair**, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; > > But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. > > For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: > > Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Assuming that the Bible is the authoritative word of God, what is an overview of arguments that are given by pastors or congregations who allow female attendees to wear their hair in plaits?

I was reading the other day and I came across these verses > But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: *Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world*, but was manifest in these last times for you, *(1 Peter 1:19-20, KJV)* I came to the conclusion that if Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world then the fall of Adam and eve, and the need for a savior, must have been planned for, expected, or even meant to happen. What is the biblical basis that the fall was the plan all along?

I heard from several Christians that the angels wanted to preach the gospel. They say that based on **I Peter 1:12** (KJV): > Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they > did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that > have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from > heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. But I read this verse to say that the angels desire to "look into" and not to "preach". Does anyone know where that statement came from?