EXACTLY, which further illustrates that the Peter story is simply NOT analogous to the specific hypothetical which is in question.
ARCHIVE: Is it ever right to deny Christ?
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
Having never denied christ in any way we can not know, but I think that any of us, after a denial of any kind, would be saddened by it.
Not me!!!
Heck, if I knew that I just saved my kids lives, my life and who knows how many other lives by lying to some lunatic I wouldn't be sad in the least!! I would be HAPPY!!!!
The good side just outsmarted the bad side!!!
YeePee!!!
I know for a fact that God knew my heart and knew exactly what I was up to! He knew I REALLY wasn't doubting Him or denying Him, He knew I was simply deceiving the wicked in an effort (successful I may add) to save lives!!!
Sad? No!
Elation? YES!!!
Knight,
I understand where you are coming from now, thank you. I'll respond in a later post since I am doing the quick post and am on the wrong page, hehe.
Dee Dee,
Do you want me to ignore you? As it is, you have contributed nothing of worth in at least the last 3-4 days on this thread. All you seem to know how to do is insult people and dodge the issue at hand.
I understand where you are coming from now, thank you. I'll respond in a later post since I am doing the quick post and am on the wrong page, hehe.
Dee Dee,
Do you want me to ignore you? As it is, you have contributed nothing of worth in at least the last 3-4 days on this thread. All you seem to know how to do is insult people and dodge the issue at hand.
Knight,
Your post sure seems to go EXACTLY against what Christ was talking about in Luke 12,
8 "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.
9 But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.
There is nothing in there allowing for you to lie about denial. It either is denial or it is not. Pa also pointed out quite clearly why this distinction does in fact matter between verbal and heartfelt or whatever you want to call it. You lost sight of the point of debate because of the name calling and side issues that have been tracked in.
This portion of Luke is NOT limited to unbelievers denying Christ and hence never gaining salvation. This portion of scripture DOES refer to believers as well, saying that if you deny Christ (intentions aside, for there is no mention of them), then He WILL deny you.
It does not say "He will deny you if you really mean it," it just says He will deny you.
Your post sure seems to go EXACTLY against what Christ was talking about in Luke 12,
8 "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.
9 But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.
There is nothing in there allowing for you to lie about denial. It either is denial or it is not. Pa also pointed out quite clearly why this distinction does in fact matter between verbal and heartfelt or whatever you want to call it. You lost sight of the point of debate because of the name calling and side issues that have been tracked in.
This portion of Luke is NOT limited to unbelievers denying Christ and hence never gaining salvation. This portion of scripture DOES refer to believers as well, saying that if you deny Christ (intentions aside, for there is no mention of them), then He WILL deny you.
It does not say "He will deny you if you really mean it," it just says He will deny you.
And I assert that your interpretation of the verse in a woodenly literal way is comical.
To assert that God has no ability understand our hearts and minds and intentions and is dragged around by our hollow babblings is silly to me. I guess by your logic if a man were heavily medicated and tricked into denying Christ, God have no choice but to condemn this man to hell?
I suppose were at that point where we will just have to agree to disagree!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Though of course this will add no substance to the discussion, and Jaltus may decide to ignore me, (which will have to be 'unofficial' since one of the perks of being a mod is that you cannot be put on an ignore list) - Knight you have hit it right on. It is a wooden literalism that leads to ridiculous outcomes. This has also been pointed out on the thread about lying. If we take it to its logical wooden extreme, mutes cannot be saved since they cannot verbally confess Christ.
Knight,
Also, I think a person must willingly deny Christ, in that the words coming out of their mouth come out for a reason. A person who cannot use their mind cannot be held responsible for ANY of their actions.
I am sure Dee Dee will claim I am inconsistent here, but it really is not inconsistency since Knight's example calls for a willful denial, even if not "heartfelt." The person must actually mean to deny Christ, even if it is done only to deceive. It is not the intention that matters, it is the willfulness (hopefully you see the distinction, otherwise I can explain it more fully).
Dee Dee,
I am done talking to you. God bless.
Your assertion that I said that God is "unable" to understand our hearts is a flat out LIE. I said nothing of the sort.
Also, I think a person must willingly deny Christ, in that the words coming out of their mouth come out for a reason. A person who cannot use their mind cannot be held responsible for ANY of their actions.
I am sure Dee Dee will claim I am inconsistent here, but it really is not inconsistency since Knight's example calls for a willful denial, even if not "heartfelt." The person must actually mean to deny Christ, even if it is done only to deceive. It is not the intention that matters, it is the willfulness (hopefully you see the distinction, otherwise I can explain it more fully).
Dee Dee,
I am done talking to you. God bless.
And he is taking his ball and goin' home!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Yep. I'm just a big ole meanie. He can't take what he tried to dish out to me. He just couches his insults in a more polite veneer. For the record, I am ready and willing to continue to dialog. Jaltus has been a friend both on and offline, and I still consider him so. In fact, Jaltus I am going to be emailing you soon with a Greek question... you can ignore that too if you like.... but I rather hope you don't.
Let me amend what I said.
Dee Dee,
I am done talking to you on this topic. You have repeatedly said in the past that if I stated you were crossing the line, you would back off. Was that a lie?
As for statements said to or about people, I addressed your arguments, never you. The ignorance comment was valid because it was a situation that you were in fact ignorant of. I will not defend myself beyond this post on these counts, as I have no need to.
Knight,
I'll still talk to you.
Dee Dee,
I am done talking to you on this topic. You have repeatedly said in the past that if I stated you were crossing the line, you would back off. Was that a lie?
As for statements said to or about people, I addressed your arguments, never you. The ignorance comment was valid because it was a situation that you were in fact ignorant of. I will not defend myself beyond this post on these counts, as I have no need to.
Knight,
I'll still talk to you.
Aww... gee thanks!
But haven't we said all we can say?
You have made yourself clear, and I have made myself clear-er (just kidding).
Any other tangents you would like to take?
Oh, I will be out for the next three hours. At the rink!
God bless!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jaltus... I disagree that I have crossed the line and attacked you as a person.. as I have not. I have responded in kind to you and addressed your arguments and in the exact same manner as Knight has. You are free to do as you wish. Knight can thrash you just as well as I can...
P
Pilgrimagain
Guest
See, this would be a perfect thing to take to a TOL court!
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Nah, this would not need the TOL Court. Jaltus and I are mature enough, and have known each other long enough to work it out amonst ourselves. So... here is my effort. Jaltus, if I ever appeared to attack you as a person, rather than just your doctrines, I apologize. You are a friend, and I would not do that. And you now that.... but I do feel strongly that your doctrines in this area are in gross error, and even just saying that can sting.
I don't care if you think my "doctrines" are in gross error (I hesitate to call this a discussion of doctrine). I think your talking down to me and saying (without proving) that I am inconsistent or incoherent was totally uncalled for.
If nothing else, I am a very (sometimes overly) logical thinker, and if my position is inconsistent, I recognize it and try to amend it.
That said, I think you and those that hold to your position are promoting sin, a blatant disregard for who Christ is and who Christians are called to be. I see your take on this issue as an attack on Christology and on the nature of living in the Spirit.
If nothing else, I am a very (sometimes overly) logical thinker, and if my position is inconsistent, I recognize it and try to amend it.
That said, I think you and those that hold to your position are promoting sin, a blatant disregard for who Christ is and who Christians are called to be. I see your take on this issue as an attack on Christology and on the nature of living in the Spirit.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And thank you for your gracious (not!) response to what was an apology. I have proven my point in saying you are incoherent on this subject. Obviously you don't think I have, for if you did, you would change your position.