ARCHIVE: Is it ever right to deny Christ?

[geralduk]

Originally posted by Sheepdog


So if a gun toting manic walks up a public street and yells out loud "I'm going to kill every Christian I see today... excuse me sir are you a Christian?" Are you telling me that your going to respond "Yes"? Not me! I would say no, and then we he turns to go after the next Christian, I would then risk my life to save the life of others by jumping on his back and trying to take his gun. What good am I to the other people he is after, if I am laying there dead?

"he who seeks to save his life will lose it but he who loses his life for my sake and the gospel will find it.

What if the Lord had denied Himself so that he might live and go on healing and preaching the gospel?
"if thou be the son of God SAVE THY SELF and step down from the cross and we will believe.
if He had saved himself he would have LOST US.
You assume too much that we as christians are 'PASSIVE' in a situation.
That the gates of hell are ATTACKING the church.
This is a wrong and passive veiw of what real christianity is all about.
"The gates of hell" are the DOORS of a 'city' which will NOT PREVAIL AGAINST THE CHURCH!
Which is ATTACKING!
Therefore a christian should not be if faced with this situation be a passive observer.
When the Lord was about to be arested we read that He stepped FORWARD and the ARMED guards FELL BACKWARDS!
He was the master STILL in the situation.
But who knows what God will do.
She was FAITHfull and gave a good confession.
and was a WITNESS to the truth.
So must we.
So if needs be even if we die for the sake of the gospel and 'lose' our life.
The gates of hell will not prevail then either.
and God will raise us up.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Wow, go to sleep for a few hours, do a few hours of work and come back to the board and you find things will go hay-wire!

Witnessing, is an important part of the gospel, though second to our love and worship of God because it is only a by product of that love and worship. Christ sends out 70, Christ tells those gathered, and us by implication, to take the Gospel to into all the world beginning with Jerusalem.

The implication to share the story of the Gospel through out scripture is clear. From the missionary undertones of God's conversation with Abraham to the clear command of Christ after the Resurection and the example set by Paul himself as he traveled far and wide sharing the story of faith.

 

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Hey, I am the only idiot around here.

:nono: No you're not! You come in second to Freak.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by ebenz47037


:nono: No you're not! You come in second to Freak.

Thank you for the encouraging word, Ebenz.

 

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Freak


Thank you for the encouraging word, Ebenz.

I didn't mean that as a compliment! I think that someone who puts down people the way you do is acting like an idiot.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by ebenz47037


I didn't mean that as a compliment! I think that someone who puts down people the way you do is acting like an idiot.

Ok. Thank you for the uplifting rebuke.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Hey, I just realized, no one responded to one of my objections a few pages back.

I responded about the idea that heart and word go together inseperably and argued that by such logic a person could stop believeing in one's heart but as long as they never verbally denied Christ they would be ok because according to that argument it takes both to do or undo faith.

 

[Freak]

Even in the midst of horrible injustice and wickedness, Jesus never denied who He was. Should we ever deny who we are-----Christians in the spirit of what Jesus did?

 

[Solly]

PA

That is only if the word was seen as disconnected from our person; which, since Christ is Word and Person, I would say not. This is the horror of those who drew nigh unto God with their lips but not with their hearts. Not only were they denying God, they were also denying the very image-and-likeness-of-God-ness that rested in them, by not being truthful.

We live in a day and age where our words are not taken as always being about who we are - that's why we are having such fun on some of the threads here, dealing with that very ambiguity. There used to be the phrase, My Word Is My Bond. It is for God; it should be for us, our yea being yea, our nay being nay; speaking from the heart all the time.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

That is very well said. It seems as if that is at the heart (no pun intended) of what genuine faith is.

 

[cirisme]

Hey, wasn't Knight's defense of Luke 12 that it was addressed to unbelievers?(which, is pretty much impossible considering the fact Jesus constantly addressed "My friends")

If yes... let's for the sake of argument accept that that's true and see for yourself the consequences of such a thing.

 

[Yxboom]

Originally posted by cirisme
Hey, wasn't Knight's defense of Luke 12 that it was addressed to unbelievers?(which, is pretty much impossible considering the fact Jesus constantly addressed "My friends")

If yes... let's for the sake of argument accept that that's true and see for yourself the consequences of such a thing.

Luke 12:41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

 

[cirisme]

Luke 12:

42And the Lord said, "Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season? 43Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 44Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. 45But if that servant says in his heart, "My master is delaying his coming,' and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by cirisme
Hey, wasn't Knight's defense of Luke 12 that it was addressed to unbelievers?(which, is pretty much impossible considering the fact Jesus constantly addressed "My friends")

If yes... let's for the sake of argument accept that that's true and see for yourself the consequences of such a thing.

Uh,,, no.

Jesus was addressing His followers, but He was explaining to them how they should preach the word to unbelievers. Read the account in Matthew and it becomes cyrstal clear. Although Jaltus would reject its the same account.

 

[cirisme]

So you would accept that Jesus condems denying Him in Luke 12?

 

[Jaltus]

Knight,

You CANNOT use the account from Matthew to explain away the context of Luke. If that was possible, I culd use Luke to cancel the context of Matthew. The point is that each author had his own theme, and if you use one synoptic text to cancel the context of another, you are negating scripture, not uplifting it.

Also, do you really think Jesus did a one and done style of teaching? If so, He would be the only person of His day to do so. Realistically, He repeated many words and phrases and sermons over and over again, in different contexts and places. Hence, many of the parallel accounts.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jaltus you can also not use Luke 12 to compare to the specific situation we have been discussing, but that doesn't phase you does it?

Furthermore... if Luke 12 offers no exceptions for denial (as you have stated) why have you conceded that an actor can act like he denies Christ in a play or movie?

 

[Jaltus]

Knight,

I have never said an actor can deny Christ, I said he could use the Lord's name in vain, since it would actually not be in vain.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Jaltus
Knight,

I have never said an actor can deny Christ, I said he could use the Lord's name in vain, since it would actually not be in vain.

OK, so Jaltus is stating that if your son gets the part as Peter in the church play he is condemning himself FOR REAL when he mouths his denial within the context of the church play.

What do all the rest of you think about that?

Is Gods relationship with us THAT hollow?

 

[Jaltus]

Is our relationship with God so hollow that we should verbally deny Him ever?

As for Peter, that may perhaps be more problematic, especially since all the people ask him is if he was with Jesus. Any person living today can easily say no to that.