ARCHIVE: Is it ever right to deny Christ?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Whoa, Dee Dee. That's a bit strong, don't you think?

No, not in light of your comment to me. You have suggested that I regularly make it my habit to call you dumb and stupid and that is simply not true. In fact I don't remember ever saying that to you before (perhaps I have, but it would be rare)... so your use of ALWAYS was unfair.

 

[Freak]

Yes, DD, you have embraced a "cheap Gospel" if you believe there is a circumstance where a denial of Jesus is called for. Stop deflecting you deal with the truth.

I am not judging you but rather rebuking you.

 

[AVmetro]

Oops

Oops

I made that last post before I read Dee Dee's last. I should have worded it slightly differently.

 

[cirisme]

DDW,
You're taking always out of context.

And you have been doing for quite some time recently(past 3 weeks or so).

And will you please respond to my PM, I would like to take this to a private place.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

AV... none of that was TRIVIAL. The labeling of the death of anyone as TRIVIAL is sick.

 

[Freak]

12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

If I misunderstood your use of "always" I apologize. That is certainly what it seemed like you were saying. That was very sloppy wording on your part then, but now that you say I took it out of context... I reread it, and can see how you could have meant it differently. So if I misunderstood you on that, I do apologize.

I don't apologize though for my statement that stating that the death of one's entire family is TRIVIAL TO GOD. That is still sick.

And no, I do not wish to get into a PM discussion right now.

 

[cirisme]

NM

 

[Calvinist]

Donatists anyone? I know I am not worthy because of the low post count and all. But perhaps Church History can be useful...

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I made that last post before I read Dee Dee's last. I should have worded it slightly differently.

No problem AV.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
If I misunderstood your use of "always" I apologize. That is certainly what it seemed like you were saying. That was very sloppy wording on your part then, but now that you say I took it out of context... I reread it, and can see how you could have meant it differently. So if I misunderstood you on that, I do apologize.

I don't apologize though for my statement that stating that the death of one's entire family is TRIVIAL TO GOD. That is still sick.

And no, I do not wish to get into a PM discussion right now.

DD, perhaps a reading of this passage will help:

12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

What does NM mean?? I am not up on all the latest lingo.

 

[cirisme]

So if I misunderstood you on that, I do apologize.

Thank you, Dee Dee. But could we get off the "you're sick if you believe...", that's too much on a personal basis.

 

[cirisme]

What does NM mean?? I am not up on all the latest lingo.

"Nevermind."

I made a post before I saw your last one. :doh:

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Freak get a grip!!! that has nothing to do with whether it is trivial or not. It is precisely because DEATH IS NOT TRIVIAL that to die for one's friends is noble. How do you think that the father of someone who did have his children die a martyr's death would feel to hear that God saw those DEATHS AS TRIVIAL.

Those of you who are arguing with me on this I think are confusing your disagreement with me on one issue with this issue... agreeing with me that God DOES NOT VIEW ANYONE'S DEATH AS TRIVIAL does not mean you agree with me on the whole other thing.

 

[cirisme]

Well, I got to get going for Thanksgiving.

Everybody have a happy turkey day!

I'll see you all when I get back online. (maybe late tonight, or early tomorrow)

 

[Solly]

If I might do a bit of cross stiching here, on another thread Freak is getting a pasting for suggesting that the irrevocable words of Scripture about the death penalty might not be so irrevocable. Now we are to believe that the irrevocable words of Christ about those who deny him he will deny are not so irrevocable.

Hmmm.

DD, I see where you are coming from, and the wrangles you are having; I think most of us have been there, and as I glance up from my keyboard to the pictures of the wonderful family God has given me *pause...* I feel it rise up again.

For me, and I invite you to consider it, the principle is first and foremost: no denial. everything goes from there. Not: no denial but here's an escape clause.

None of us know what we will do in such a circumstance should it arise; Cranmer recanted; when released he preached again what he had recanted of, and when he was put in the flames, he stuck the hand with which he had written the recantation into the midst of the fire. God is merciful, he knows our frames, that we are but dust, that is why even suicide cannot be declared an unforgivable sin.

Peter was a coward, but he learnt, and he suffered for it the more readily.

It's is the principle that needs conceding, and then we give it up to God, not make our own moral concessions about when it does and doesn't apply.

peace in Him

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ciris... let me clarify... because perhaps you are taking me out of context. I am not saying you are a sick person. I would never say that. I am not attacking you as a person, you know me better than that. I am saying that is a sick statement, and you should retract it. We have all probably been guilty of that at one time or another.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Now we are to believe that the irrevocable words of Christ about those who deny him he will deny are not so irrevocable.

Inapplicable. Those verses in context are not talking about this situation directly whatsoever. That was my point earlier in expounding on those verses. I bring to the fore once again Romans 13. The command to obey the government by Paul does not contain any exceptions.. yet we know that there is at least one.

 

[Calvinist]

Originally posted by Solly
If I might do a bit of cross stiching here, on another thread Freak is getting a pasting for suggesting that the irrevocable words of Scripture about the death penalty might not be so irrevocable. Now we are to believe that the irrevocable words of Christ about those who deny him he will deny are not so irrevocable.

Hmmm.

DD, I see where you are coming from, and the wrangles you are having; I think most of us have been there, and as I glance up from my keyboard to the pictures of the wonderful family God has given me *pause...* I feel it rise up again.

For me, and I invite you to consider it, the principle is first and foremost: no denial. everything goes from there. Not: no denial but here's an escape clause.

None of us know what we will do in such a circumstance should it arise; Cranmer recanted; when released he preached again what he had recanted of, and when he was put in the flames, he stuck the hand with which he had written the recantation into the midst of the fire. God is merciful, he knows our frames, that we are but dust, that is why even suicide cannot be declared an unforgivable sin.

Peter was a coward, but he learnt, and he suffered for it the more readily.

It's is the principle that needs conceding, and then we give it up to God, not make our own moral concessions about when it does and doesn't apply.

peace in Him

This is MY point, though I speak of the Donatists who were fought by Augustine with vigor as DDW is doing. (but my post count is low... so what do I know?)