N
NotWorthy
Guest
What does Scripture say of those that reject Christ?
- Status
O
Odell
Guest
:coffeeread:
S
sandusky
Guest
You seem unable to support your statement; are you unable?
Peter did not reject Jesus (cf Jn 12:48); Peter denied knowing Jesus (Lk 22:54ff).
Odell said:
Question to Odell:
You seem unable to support your statement, as well; are you unable, Odell?
O
Odell
Guest
Lets see what your unable to do
Prove Judas wasnt saved to begin with
Prove that** IN HIM isnt IN HIM**** “IN CHRIST”**
are you unable sandusky?
What about you C2C?
Good luck:thumbsup:
S
sandusky
Guest
So then, you are unable to prove your assertion?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
“I don’t know Him… but I believe in Him and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!”?!?
Is that how you would paraphrase Peter’s denial? How can you do one and the other?
S
sandusky
Guest
I’m still waiting for you to support your statement from scripture.
Are you unable to support your assertion?
You state that Peter, in his thrice denial of Christ, was at first saved, then lost his salvation, then regained his lost salvation.
Did a loss and recapture of salvation occur each of the the many times that Peter contradicted the Lord? Or, did it happen just with his denial?
Also, did the others who fled from Him when He was arrested and crucified lose their salvation as well?
P
Pax
Guest
Judas and Peter were in a similar situation. Peter denied Jesus. Now please note what Jesus has to say about this kind of behavior.
Matt 10:32-33
So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
The difference between Judas and Peter is the repentence of Peter vs. that of Judas. When we read the narratives of the two men and the pertinent events we see a difference between them. Judas had what Paul would describe as a “worldly grief that leads to death” while Peter had what Paul would describe as “a godly grief that produces a repentance that leads to salvation.”[see 2 Cor 7:10] The difference in Peter and Judas is not in the sin. Both committed offenses that would land them in the eternal slammer of hell. The difference was in their repentance.
Peter ultimately turns back to Christ, just as Jesus predicted in Luke 22:32, but Judas loses faith in God’s mercy and forgiveness and commits suicide. Both had faith and turned against Jesus in their own way. Only won properly repented and came back to the Lord.
S
sandusky
Guest
Two different words, two different things; those Jesus speaks of in Mt 10 have rejected Him.
Peter denied that he was acquainted with Jesus—two completely different things.
The root of the denial of those spoken of in Mt 10 is Unbelief. That was the root of Judas’ betrayal as well.
The root of what Peter did is fear of physical harm.
Do you really believe that God would condemn Peter, or anybody else for that matter, for doing what Peter did out of fear of physical harm?
Peter was later martyred; it was then that He was indwelt by the H.S.
That Peter repented, and Judas didn’t is the lesser of the reasons for what finally occurred; the greater of the reasons has to do with God’s predetermined will (Acts 2:22-23; 4:27-28).
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Do you agree that Peter was saved prior to His Denial? (I would reference John’s Gospel at the foot washing to show evidence)
Do you agree that Peter’s denial would have meant losing his Salvation? (Can you deny Christ and still confess that He is Lord and Christ?
Do you agree that Peter was in a saved state throughout Acts? Why do you think Jesus made Peter confess His love three times in John’s Gospel after the Resurrection?
S
sodak
Guest
Peter was in terrible fear, and things were happening very fast. I could see an argument that his denial of Jesus didn’t have full consent, therefore, his sin might not have been mortal.
S
sandusky
Guest
Absolutely.
Yes.
He wanted a total commitment from Peter.
Not even for a second do I believe that Peter lost his salvation.
As many as are the promises of God, in Christ they are yes; (2 Cor 1:20).
A gospel that teaches that one can lose salvation and regain it, lose it and regain it, lose it and regain it, lose it and regain it, teaches not that God’s promises are yes, **but that they are now yes, now no, now yes, now no, now yes, now no, ad infinitum; **IMHO.
Where in that “now yes, now no gospel” is the “yes” to the peace and hope promised in the Gospel that Paul preached?
Will you now give support for your assertion that Peter was saved, lost his salvation, and regained it?
N
NotWorthy
Guest
You and I have discussed this before. The Prodigal Son would be a prime example. “for my son was dead, but has risen again” would indicate that the son had life, lost his life, and yet had life again.
None of God’s promises are “now, yes, now no”. Where do you get that? God’s promises remain forever. We just fail to hold up to our part of the Covenant. All Covenants have blessings and curses don’t they? The New Covenant certainly does. We can participate in the Covenant or face the curses. The choice is ours.
I spoke of Peter rejecting Christ.
I don’t know what exactly your theology is (I’m not good at herding cats) but many Christian groups claim that we must profess that Jesus is Lord in order to be saved. To say that “I don’t know Him” would sort of be the opposite.
Jesus speaks in John’s Gospel about those that are part of the vine can be cut off from the vine (John chapter 15, I believe, my time is short tonight…)
S
Sanctus_Paladin
Guest
Summerized Rant:
“I’m bored so I’m going to twist and turn scripture as I see fit to get people going!”
Reply to rant:
“Laaaaaaaaaaame!”
“I’m bored so I’m going to twist and turn scripture as I see fit to get people going!”
Reply to rant:
“Laaaaaaaaaaame!”
S
sandusky
Guest
”Would indicate that….” Please show me something that is certain that says one can be saved, lose his salvation, regain it, lose it again, regain it.
Get saved, lose it, get saved again, lose it, get saved again, etc.
Please cite all of the curses of the New Covenant.
I see.
You said:
You maintain that Peter lost his salvation because of that, but have yet to offer any support; you just keep repeating it over and over. I posted an explanation a few posts ago, and you’ve ignored it; I must conclude that are speculating as to what happened to Peter.
Correct; and, when the vine is cut off, what does the passage say happened to the cut off and cast away vine? And what do Catholics maintain that means?
O
Odell
Guest
I am amazed
I dont know Him and only Christ knows the Heart. I cant say for sure that he was saved than lost it just as you cant say that he was never saved to begin with our that he was saved in the end
Is that what you are looking for?
Now lets see how much longer you can dance around my question
Prove that
**IN HIM **isnt IN HIM
How many time must I ask?
It must get to you knowing you have no answer biblical answer at that:shrug:
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Ah, Sandusky, you seem to forget.
The Prodigal was a child of the inheritance. Is that right?
The Prodigal son squandered his inheritance. Is that right?
What would have happened to the Son had he physically died while he was tending to the pigs in the Gentile regions? According to Catholic theology, he would have roasted in the fires of Gehenna. What do you say? Is he still heaven bound because he is elect? That’s a really beautiful parable if so.
The Prodigal Son “arises” and returns to the Father. He is now saved again. Is that right?
“My son was dead, but is alive again”. This denotes:
a) Life
b) death
c) Life again
In regards to those that are cut off. They are thrown into the fires of hell. But can’t we be grafted back on? What of the power of the Church to forgive sins? Doesn’t this indicate that after our sins are forgiven in Baptism, they can still be forgiven after that?
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
sandusky;3332484Please show me something that is certain that says one can be saved:
To be cut off the branch must be part of the vine, first. The branch is also cut off for not bearing fruit, not for no longer claiming be part of the vine.
Don’t forget a vine can be regrafted to root stock, a common practice in the vineyard.
O
Odell
Guest
another point he has failed to prove is that
Peter **dening Jesus before Men **is not the same as denies me before men
But Sandusky posted this
Again SCRIPTURE says if you deny HIm before men you will be denied. I dotn know what your definition of denile is but you are doing some major TWISTING of scripture but it is very enteresting Id like to see how much longer you can keep this up
Sandusky you said
I dont see scripture saying that if you are in fear you can deny Jesus
Youll have to show me that passage. :juggle:
Ill make it easy for you
Prove that IN HIM isnt IN HIM
Prove that you can deny Jesus when Jesus says if you deny him he will deny you
Prove that if in fear you can deny Jesus
:coffeeread:
S
sandusky
Guest
I’ll say it again, the Greek word translated denial in Mt 10:32 is different from the Greek word for denial used to describe Peter’s action.
The one in Mt 10:32 is a total “rejection” of Christ rooted in unbelief. Peter’s denial was a denial of being acquainted with Jesus rooted in fear for his personal safety—“You’re one of them!” Peter’s response, “No I’m not; I don’t know this guy, and you don’t know what you’re talking about” (Lk 22:54ff).
Obviously Peter neither lost his salvation, nor was he cast into hell as Catholics claim Jn 15:1ff teaches.
However, it does show that Peter, in fear, did that; do you believe that Peter is cut off, and cast away in the fires of hell as Catholics state Jn 15:1ff teaches?
C’mon, Odell; I’ve given an explanation; you can reject what I’ve said, and claim that it proves nothing, that’s fine with me, but I’ve given an explanation.
You tell us the reason for Peter’s denial of Jesus, was it from unbelief, or was it from fear?
- Status