C
cirisme
Guest
Man, this family is more dysfunctional than my own!
ARCHIVE: Is it ever right to deny Christ?
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Man, this family is more dysfunctional than my own!
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
I havn't read through the entire thread but has any body addressed 1John2:22ff.
"Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is anti-christ - he denies the father and the son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the son has the Father also.
"Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is anti-christ - he denies the father and the son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the son has the Father also.
Freak
New member
Great verse, PA! DD and the others are wrong to say that verbal confession is irrelevant. The verbal confession was an important aspect of the Christian life as we see the amount of times "Call upon the Lord" (which denotes a verbal expression) is used throughout Scripture.
Last edited:
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
As in, "If you believe in your heart AND confess with your tongue..."
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
PA, that idea has been addressed when Matthew 10 and Luke 12 were addressed.
Calvinist
New member
Denying Jesus Christ never conforms to the character and will of God; and yet under the right circumstances I would sin and deny Christ: If I had to save the life of my family by doing so, for instance.
But here is the real question for me in regards to this idea of "saving your family" by denial. If you do deny Christ and save your family, are you guilty of the curse of this passage:
Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
And if you don't deny Christ and your family is murdered, are you then guilty of your biblical obligation to your family?
Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Colossians 3:19
Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
(Whole Chapter: Colossians 3 In context: Colossians 3:18-20)
1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Titus 2:4
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
?????
But here is the real question for me in regards to this idea of "saving your family" by denial. If you do deny Christ and save your family, are you guilty of the curse of this passage:
Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
And if you don't deny Christ and your family is murdered, are you then guilty of your biblical obligation to your family?
Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Colossians 3:19
Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
(Whole Chapter: Colossians 3 In context: Colossians 3:18-20)
1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Titus 2:4
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
?????
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear Calvinist:
I dealt with Matthew 10 and Luke 12 in this context as has Knight already.
I dealt with Matthew 10 and Luke 12 in this context as has Knight already.
Calvinist
New member
That's easy, I have it memorized:
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
So you are saying that "like unto it" makes the second part of the commandment subordinate to the first?
:nono:
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
But all you said is that your denial wasn't really a denial because it wasn't a denial in your heart right?
If that is the case, why does Christ clearly say that both the verbal and the heart confession are the requirments of faith?
Or is the verbal confession only a one time thing?
I think of Daniel in the lions den who stood firm and was saved. I think of Abraham lying to save himself from the Kings who took Sarah and almost got into trouble. I believe God will protect those whom he calls his own, but ultimately, even more, I believe that what ever happens, to deny Christ even verbally is sin, so whether I live or die, I must not do it.
If that is the case, why does Christ clearly say that both the verbal and the heart confession are the requirments of faith?
Or is the verbal confession only a one time thing?
I think of Daniel in the lions den who stood firm and was saved. I think of Abraham lying to save himself from the Kings who took Sarah and almost got into trouble. I believe God will protect those whom he calls his own, but ultimately, even more, I believe that what ever happens, to deny Christ even verbally is sin, so whether I live or die, I must not do it.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Also, this terminology of "I dealt with that" or "He dealt with that" is really misleading. You offered an explination that may or may not be cogent but just because you offered an explination or interpretation does not automatically make it the right one.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
To be clear...I believe Christ, in His grace, will forgive the denial. Even as he forgave Peter, the one upon which His church was built.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
As verbal is useless without the heart, so denial is useless without the heart. They go together, and are part of a consistently lived out Christian life, not one time occurences. That has been the whole point. No one is denigrating the verbal, just denigrating the verbal when it is used to the exclusion of the intent.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Tsk, tsk PA. Please. It is not misleading in the context of your inquiry. You asked if a certain idea had been dealt with and I answered in the affirmative. The burden is then upon those who disagreed to prove that it was inadequate. Of course the fact that an explanation is offered does not automatically make it right... way to state the obvious.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Most of the posters here would agree with you. But it is a moot point, since the issue under dispute would be in Knight's specific scenario whether anything was done that would require forgiveness in the first place.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Dee Dee, you say that one goes with the other. If this is the case, then how can the heart confession be valid without the verbal? In your logic, if you take one element away, the other is useless, because, as James says of work and faith, if you separate them you are left with a corpse.
So if you remove the verbal from the heart, and they both go together to make a whole, then, both are negated at the moment one is removed.
By your own logic one could, having made a heart confession and a verbal confession, say in ones heart, "I no longer believe in Christ" but would still be ok as long as they never recanted verbally.
So if you remove the verbal from the heart, and they both go together to make a whole, then, both are negated at the moment one is removed.
By your own logic one could, having made a heart confession and a verbal confession, say in ones heart, "I no longer believe in Christ" but would still be ok as long as they never recanted verbally.