ARCHIVE: Is it ever right to deny Christ?

[Yxboom]

1 Cor 15:3-4 FHKV (Freak's Hello Kitty Version)

Jesus died for our sins (but was not actually executed because God would not like that), and was buried (because he had died of natural causes and not an execution as stated before God would not have allowed such a thing), and rose again the third day (after dying and not being executed) according to Scripture.

 

[AVmetro]

I can see Knight's etc..point in a sense. But just as it was with the man merely gathering wood on the Sabbath day, so it is with things we seem to take lightly concerning the things of God.

Peter denied Christ and was still saved.

Peter was afterwards given a good butt-chewing as well.

If a crazed gunman were to have your son or daughter at gun point would you deny Christ?

I'm with Cirisme. No.

PA, what if it were somebody else at gunpoint? Someone who was not quite so willing to die for your faith??

Each person is judged individually.

Dying for a cause can be a noble thing. But dying for no cause (which is what it would be since we are dealing with an individual wacko) and taking your family with you is not noble at all!

This is the problem I'm seeing with this thread. The essential difference is still not clear. Peter denied Christ merely to save his hide. He wasn't even threatened directly with death, merely asked the question.

Jesus turned, looked upon Peter which in turn sent him into a fit of depressive crying. Later Jesus posed the same question three times..'Peter do you love me'. He didn't come up to Peter, give 'em a high five and say "Good one bro!"

There is nothing "noble" about the situation.

Let's get one thing clear.....

When a psychopathic murderer wants you to deny Christ or die YOU ARE NOT INTENTIONALLY DENYING CHRIST!!!!

You are UNINTENTIONALLY DENYING CHRIST!!!!

You are ACTING!

You are being coerced!!!!

You don't REALLY deny Christ!!!

You are only mouthing the words to diffuse a wicked situation.

God is smart enough to understand the situation at hand and would be happy to see you thwart the wicked murderer.
Your hopeless!

This is the rub of the incident with Peter. He wasn't REALLY denying Christ! He was saving his hide because he thought they might kill him as well. That's it!

How many times have we gone over this????

Peter, Paul and all the other Christian martyrs WERE NOT IN THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION!!!!!

I understand what you are saying concerning Paul as he was martyred for preaching Christ. That is noble. But what Peter did is not to be classified as "noble" any way you cut it.

Also the situation with your scenario is very similar to the Roman persecution of Christians. You stated that the "crazed killer" was performing what he is to do with the motive that they "might be Christians". This is precisely the motive the Romans possessed.
A crazed, pagan orientated Roman breaks into the home of a Christian in order to kill them on that basis alone. Do you expect the family to hand THEM a 'Chick Tract'? No. But did this cause them to deny Christ unintentionally ONLY to save them from having their skin boiled off of their backs? No!

But this situation is different. And if you cannot see the distinction then frankly your just a fool.

• Peter denys (unintentionally) Christ, his one and only God and Savior, in order to selfishly save his life.
  
• A Muslim breaks in to Avmetro's house, and threatens to kill his wife and 2-year old unless he denies Christ and (heck, let's add to..) praises his 'god' Allah and the honorable prophet [peace be upon him], Elijah Muhammed (unintentionally by Avmetro of course).

No, I do not see the difference. And no, I am not a "fool".

So here is how we stand....

The murderer enters my house, ties me up and threatens to murder my kids because he thinks we might be Christians. I deceive the murderer. He leaves. I call the authorities and hopefully the cops kill the guy in a blaze of gunfire.

Romans enter a Christians house, threatens to murder his/her family because they think they might be Christians. It's almost a direct parallel.

I personally cannot see the reason for all the rampant fear of death on this thread.

If I and my family were to be killed on the basis of being confessed Christians THEN HOW LUCKY CAN I GET! Not only do I now get to eternally look upon the face of my God and Savior whom I love dearly, but I get a martyrs reward in heaven as well!!

God bless--AVmetro

 

[AVmetro]

You really are unable to think aren't you Freak?
No he is not. He is the worst kind of boob. A nog, and a dimwit.

...Onward "Christian" soldiers...

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I wanted to discuss just for a bit, what I see as the misuse of Matthew 10 and Luke 12 to this discussion, irregardless of what position anyone is taking. Knight has, on another thread, already argued the contextual setting of the passage and its nonapplicability to his point. I will be drawing a bit on Jaltus’ argument:

Knight, you were equating lying with lying about the intent of denying Christ. My point is that verbal denial is all that is called for in Luke 12, there is nothing dealing with intent. You cannot ASSUME your argument in order to prove it, which is what you are doing when you equate what I call denial with lying. You are glossing over the distinction we are arguing about in order to say that there is no distinction. That is an illegitimate argument.

With all due respect that has to be one of the most inane points I have heard in this discussion. Basically Jaltus is saying that despite what someone’s intent is, they are in peril of eternal damnation if they merely utter certain words. That is ridiculous and of course leads to his later ridiculous argument that even an actor is in jeopardy if he utters certain words during a reenactment of Bible story.
In making this statement Jaltus is completely missing a major cultural factor that unlike today, the ancients did not believe that someone really could say one thing and believe it without it manifesting itself outwardly. In other words, they would be terribly unimpressed with our “sinner’s prayer” that did not lead to a radically observable changed life. It would be empty words, and thus meaningless. James touches upon this when he argues that some people “say” they have faith, but he will show his faith by his works.
So here are the verses in question, and I use Luke so that Jaltus is not propelled into orbit:

Luke 12:8-10 – Also I say to you, whoever confesses Me before men, him the Son of Man also will confess before the angels of God. But he who denies Me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

Jaltus has painted himself into a painful corner for intent is not all implied in the high context fiber of the Scriptures, then a true intent to believe is not required for confession of Christ before the angels of God (in Matthew it says before the Father). So all we Christians should be doing is to get people to mouth the sinner’s prayer and that is it, they are saved, right? No. The same then follows for the “denial” mentioned here. It is not just mere words or a one-time occurrence.. it is the entirely of one’s being and life. This is made even more certain by verse 10 which actually talks about “verbal” wrongs done against Christ (i.e. improperly denying one is a Christian even) which will be forgiven, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be. Ever. Why? Because it is the sin of stubborn unbelief that God has gifted that person with the ability to see the truth.

 

[AVmetro]

With all due respect that has to be one of the most inane points I have heard in this discussion. Basically Jaltus is saying that despite what someone’s intent is, they are in peril of eternal damnation if they merely utter certain words. That is ridiculous and of course leads to his later ridiculous argument that even an actor is in jeopardy if he utters certain words during a reenactment of Bible story.
In making this statement Jaltus is completely missing a major cultural factor that unlike today, the ancients did not believe that someone really could say one thing and believe it without it manifesting itself outwardly. In other words, they would be terribly unimpressed with our “sinner’s prayer” that did not lead to a radically observable changed life. It would be empty words, and thus meaningless.

That's a good point Dee Dee.

I wouldn't say this pertains to this discussion in *some* aspects however. Neither I, nor anyone that I know would believe Peter to have genuinely denied Christ *inwardly* as well as outwardly. And the fact of the matter is that he didn't. He didn't REALLY deny Christ, but merely stated it in order to save his neck. To deny Christ in order to spare one's own life is selfish. I think the rest of Peter's story speaks for itself.

God bless--AV

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
In making this statement Jaltus is completely missing a major cultural factor that unlike today, the ancients did not believe that someone really could say one thing and believe it without it manifesting itself outwardly. In other words, they would be terribly unimpressed with our “sinner’s prayer” that did not lead to a radically observable changed life. It would be empty words, and thus meaningless. James touches upon this when he argues that some people “say” they have faith, but he will show his faith by his works.

James obviously thinks that someone could say one thing and believe it without it manifesting itself outwardly. It's just ridiculous that it happens. Ditto with the Pharisees, whom Christ declared honored God with their lips, but not their hearts.

And what do you do with the practices of equivocation and honorable lying?

 

[AVmetro]

I dedicate this thread to....

I dedicate this thread to....

The All New God version 6.0!!

 

[smilax]

The thing about anthropomorphisms bothers me. Is that supposed to be for, or against neo-theism?

And what is the Biblical reason for opposing welfare, public education, and gun control?

 

[Calvinist]

Yes, that's it DDW, keep arguing away... haha.. muhahahahHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Solly]

Re: I dedicate this thread to....

Re: I dedicate this thread to....

Originally posted by AVmetro
The All New God version 6.0!!

AV

Do I detect a certain amount of sarcasm in your posts on this thread?

If so, I am not sure in which direction (I don't want to misunderstand your view, and if I presented my view there is a host of TOLers ready to pounce by the looks of things. I was wondering if you were one of them.

peace in Him

 

[AVmetro]

And what is the Biblical reason for opposing welfare, public education, and gun control?

They actually have that on there? Nobody takes away this man's guns!

 

[smilax]

No one is ever sarcastic on TOL.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

James obviously thinks that someone could say one thing and believe it without it manifesting itself outwardly. It's just ridiculous that it happens. Ditto with the Pharisees, whom Christ declared honored God with their lips, but not their hearts.

That made no sense Smilax. The point is that they don't genuinely believe it if it does not manifest itself outwardly consistently. You proved the point by mentioning the Pharisees.


As far as equivocation and honorable lying, those are specific social anomalies for etiquette within specific social situations. Since such things were "expected" you cannot use them to diffuse the whole concept which I already articulated above. Since you and I are obviosly relying heavily upon Holding's work in this area, I refer you to his article on whether or not baptism is required for salvation, which I am sure you are already aware.

 

[Solly]

No one is ever sarcastic on TOL.

Suu-u-u-r-r-ee!! :doh:

 

[AVmetro]

AV

Do I detect a certain amount of sarcasm in your posts on this thread?

If so, I am not sure in which direction (I don't want to misunderstand your view, and if I presented my view there is a host of TOLers ready to pounce by the looks of things. I was wondering if you were one of them.

peace in Him

That link was meant to convey the feeling that if you deny Christ in the face of persecution (of any form) then you are a soft, creme-puff, 21st century Christian.


God bless--AV

 

[smilax]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
That made no sense Smilax. The point is that they don't genuinely believe it if it does not manifest itself outwardly consistently. You proved the point by mentioning the Pharisees.

Ahh, don't eat me. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, but I'm sure we agree in the end.

As far as equivocation and honorable lying, those are specific social anomalies for etiquette within specific social situations. Since such things were "expected" you cannot use them to diffuse the whole concept which I already articulated above. Since you and I are obviosly relying heavily upon Holding's work in this area, I refer you to his article on whether or not baptism is required for salvation, which I am sure you are already aware.

Aye, I was just pointing out that the culture's view on words was more complicated than what I thought you were suggesting. True belief leads to actions, yes. But with words, it's a different beast. But, of course, words caused by belief should lead to action.

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

Can I eat you anyway?? You dared to challenge the Lead Horse and that is JUST NOT to be tolerated in my Posse.

I do think you were reading way too much into what I was saying. All I was pointing out was Jaltus' shallowness in thinking mere words in a one-time event with no intent/disbelief behind them would be what Matthew 10 and Luke 12 were referring to. If so, then mere words without intent/belief would be enough to be saved. The ancients did not put that much stock into mere words.

 

[Solly]

Originally posted by AVmetro


That link was meant to convey the feeling that if you deny Christ in the face of persecution (of any form) then you are a soft, creme-puff, 21st century Christian.


God bless--AV

Then for the record, I'm in the "Say Yes" camp, and damn the consequences - God tells me he'll pick up the pieces.

After all, if God can look after someone when their spouse dies young (and I know two people to whom that might happen soon, one with three young children), or if the family is in a car (auto) accident, or even 9/11, then does the same not apply? And was there not greater good from Columbine because of that one word.
Don't people trust God? When you let your kids out the door, when partner goes to work, when sickness comes, when war breaks out - thinking of our boys going of to Iraq. Why should this be any different?
Lots of strong talk about guns on this site from the Right I see (pardon me AV), but God says trust not in horses and men, but in the Lord your God. And whatever you might want to say about Freak (and I think he's a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic), he's out there, on a front line. He's got expreience. And I pray god that if I get into a situation that demanded the confession from my lips, I would say yes, to a lunatic, a tyrant, or whatever, cos God knows I am there, at that point, not by chance.

That's my rant for the week. As you were.

peace in Him

 

[AVmetro]

Cool post Solly. Any time you deny Christ to save your own neck, you give satan another chance to ROTFL at our Savior

...and btw, I don't really own a gun .

God bless--Jeremiah

 

[AVmetro]

...and I don't care how trivial the matter is, I won't give the devil that chance..