ARCHIVE: Is it ever right to deny Christ?
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Just to clarify...
So Freak if you are going to apply those specific verses in Luke 12 to believers ALREADY in the Body and you think that denial of Christ (even if just acting) causes loss of salvation you can officially now state you are no longer a OSAS person.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Knight sadly Freak no longer knows what he believes. Whereas before he was obnoxious and irritating he knew what he believed now even that is gone.
As it has been said...
Sometimes you have to be lost before you can be found.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
In Freaks defense, I think that what he said is that if one can deny Christ then there was no salvation to begin with. Kind of extreme.
On another note, I have been re thinking my position on OSAS for the past several months due to various TOLers encouragement to re-examine scripture.
See, we do make each other think in good ways!
On another note, I have been re thinking my position on OSAS for the past several months due to various TOLers encouragement to re-examine scripture.
See, we do make each other think in good ways!
Y
Yxboom
Guest
Hopefully before someone sees the horse laying down and thinks it's fatally wounded.
No, that is what I would say.
The whole crux of this debate is surrounding a believer denying Christ (as an act) to thwart an evil murderer. The hypothetical situation is meaningless unless the hypothetical person in question is a believer.
Otherwise, I think we would all agree that if a unbeliever denies Christ he is going to hell no matter what he says to the murderer.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
quite.
And I think that what Freak is arguing is that if someone thought they were a believer, or claimed to be, and then denied Christ, they never really were.
And I think that what Freak is arguing is that if someone thought they were a believer, or claimed to be, and then denied Christ, they never really were.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
The issue seems rather moot if the participant was an unbeliever. It would be of the same value had the debate been "Is it ok for a Muslim to deny Confucius". It is moot.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
This thread is hard to follow since Freak started 2 threads on the same exact issue and for the most part the participants are the same.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
About a dozen times between the 2 threads on this issue. Although the other thread more specifically addresses denying Christ for the sake of saving the life of one's family vs. just their own life.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
So baiscally what you have is Freak telling you that, in fact, you (Knight, Boom, DeeDee) are not a Christian.
Ouch.
Ouch.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
According to Freak's Lexicon
I think we can handle Freak's accusations.
- Knight = Foolish Compromiser
- Yxboom = Boy Know-it-all (Knight's my daddy)
- DDW = Murderous Witch
I think we can handle Freak's accusations.
Thanks AV and yes we have discussed Peter in laborious detail.
Three quick points:
POINT 1: Peter WAS REALLY DENYING Christ! At that moment in Peters mind he was actually denying who Jesus was. Our situation involves ACTING as if you are denying Christ to save the lives of others.
POINT 2: (as YX pointed out) Peter was in a completely different situation than our hypothetical situation. Mainly that in the case of Peter no others life's were directly at stake. In fact Peter himself didn't have shot gun pointed at his face.
POINT 3: Peter was not under the dispensation of the uncircumcision.
I guess so!
Calvinist
New member
And note: Freak has done this without sufficient Scriptural argument. He obviously believes that the Christian Religion, just like all modern arguments, must be examined by feeling alone. Remarkable credulity Freak seems to have about a lot of things. And that added to a muddled, spiritual myopia.
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Knight I contest your assertion that Peter was really denying Christ. It seems that he was trying to avoid being beaten or hurt or even killed when he denied Christ.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that it is not that clear and cut.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying that it is not that clear and cut.
Well, I think if you read the accounts of Peter's denial you will see that Peter was REALLY denying Christ. Why would Peter weep after his denials if he didn't really have doubts about Christ?
Furthermore Peter's life wasn't directly on the line like in our hypothetical. Therefore Peter's denial is even more unwarranted.
Mark 14:70 But he denied it again. And a little later those who stood by said to Peter again, “Surely you are one of them; for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it.” 71 Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this Man of whom you speak!” 72 A second time the rooster crowed. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And when he thought about it, he wept.
Y
Yxboom
Guest
I find it hard to believe that Peter would be so adamant and so sorrowful if he had played the role to deceive his accusers.