But in your Post #1283 reply to my #1268 you contradict what I said, and in your total lack of perspicacity called forth Romans 10:10-11, thinking that it supported your interpretation of the Matthew 16:16, that Simon was speaking from his heart.
In fact, the Romans 10:6-11 proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that at that time, Simon was not saved, not speaking what he believed in his heart, because we can see from Matthew 16:20-21 that he not only rejected Jesus' disclosure that He would be killed, then raised from the dead, but remonstrated with the Satanic impulse in his heart that should NOT happen to Jesus. Simon was rebuking Jesus for His prediction, trying to dissuade Him from going down that path, which is exactly what he, Satan, would urge Simon to do. The last thing ever that Satan wanted was for Jesus, the innocent Lamb of God, by His substitutionary Cross-death to take away the sin of the world.
Apparently you have no studied skill in applying hermeneutics--the science of interpretation--and here in your Post #1403 you are again denying the thesis of my interpretation (which is in agreement with the Romans 10 passage, that Peter did profess what The Father put on his lips, but did NOT believe that Jesus was giving them prophetic truth that He was to be raised from the dead. In his remonstration of the /master, Simon was essentially calling Jesus a liar, that such an event was NOT to take place.
For you in your naive lack of even any foresight on what the consequences would be by the introduction of the Romans passage to see that the whole of it shows your opinion to be false and mine correct, that has caused you to stumble logically and fall in your undeserved negative criticism of what it took me a lot of time to research, get lined up with Biblical doctrine, and post.
You need to take more pains to check out the sense of your illogical opinions, my FRiend. That is, if you want anyone to think that your comments are credible, not merely hare-brained as is your post here in #1403.