Empty Professions of Faith

Ye shall know them by their fruits!

 

Your walk talks and your talk walks; but your walk talks farther than your talk walks!

 

Let me give you a good example.
My teen-age daughter for years has been consistent with her testimony. She trusted the Lord when she was young (about 7) in her Sunday School class when her teacher led her to the Lord. She seemed to never doubt that decision. This last week after last week's service she had been on the phone (and email) a lot with her pastor. She came to the realization that the prayer that she made back then was for a person (her teacher) and not for the Lord. This last Sunday she realized that she was lost and trusted Christ as her Saviour. Immediately I saw an attitude change in her life even though she had grown up in a "Christian family." She will be baptized again in a couple weeks. Her first profession didn't count. It was merely a professon without a possession. One must possess Christ in order to be saved. She knows for sure now that she is saved and will go to heaven if she dies. She knows that she has eternal life.
She has an assurance of eternal life. It has made a difference in her life.
A proffession does not necessarily mean that one is saved. The decision must come from the heart.
DHK

[ March 22, 2006, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Amen, DHK!

 

Then if your daughter ever recants you will change your theology?

 

No, once she is saved she is always saved. Why would she recant? Why such hypotheticals? It is not as if we live in a terrorist land and she has a sword held to her throat with someone telling her: "Recant or I will behead you!"
DHK

 

...But does she retain her freewill to turn her back and deny God?

 

No, once she is saved she is always saved. Why would she recant? Why such hypotheticals? It is not as if we live in a terrorist land and she has a sword held to her throat with someone telling her: "Recant or I will behead you!"
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Yet.

 

No, once she is saved she is always saved. Why would she recant? Why such hypotheticals? It is not as if we live in a terrorist land and she has a sword held to her throat with someone telling her: "Recant or I will behead you!"
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Yet. </font>[/QUOTE]It does no good debating speculating on things that could or could not happen. The Lord knows them that are his. Leave it there. I know that I am saved. What happens in the future doesn't matter; I know that I am saved and that is all there is too it. It would be well for some of you to read biographies of Richard Wurmbrandt, Adoniram Judson, and others who underwent untold sufferings for their faith and never recanted. Some weaker Christians may have. Peter denied the Lord. Was he still saved? Of course he was. You can sit here in your comfortable theological armchair and never face a whit of persecution. Until you know what it is like I don't believe you have the right to speak for those who have undergone it.
Christians in Muslim countries face this every day. Radical Muslims put a knife to their throats and tell them to convert to Islam or die. Some give in. They may still be a Christian inwardly but not wanting to face an execution right away. You may do the same thing under the same circumstances. Don't be so bold and brave (like Peter was) until you have been there.
DHK

 

No, once she is saved she is always saved. Why would she recant? Why such hypotheticals? It is not as if we live in a terrorist land and she has a sword held to her throat with someone telling her: "Recant or I will behead you!"
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]...But does she retain her freewill to turn her back and deny God’s free gift?

 

I myself do not think Peter was saved until after The arrest and trial of Jesus.

Bear with me on this one, and C4K, if you have another light on it, I would love to hear.

We christians believe that upon belief, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. Being sealed, I do not believe that we will deny Him, because 1 Cor. 10 tells us no temptation will come upon us more than we can bear.

That being said, let's get back to Peter. After Jesus' arrest, Peter denied Christ three times, actually cursing the third time.

Jesus said in the Gospels that 'He that denieth me before man, him will I deny before my Father.' In the light of Peter denying Christ, Christ would have to deny him.

I believe Peter, when he was repentent and broken for denying the Lord, was saved, but not until.

Thoughts?

 

Matthew 16:16-17 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Why would God the Father reveal things to Peter if he was not saved?

Why would Peter and the other apostles be sent out with the ability to do miracles (by the power of the Spirit of God) and witness of Christ's kingdom if they were not saved?
DHK

 

I agree with DHK, Peter firmly knew and expressed his belief that Jesus was indeed the Son of God before that night of betrayal. Therefore, Peter didn’t deny Jesus in the sense that he denied Jesus as the Son of God, only that he (Peter) on that eventful night didn’t know the man (Jesus). That in my opinion is the difference.

 

When she was 7, she could have turned back and recanted and denied God, and we all would have been puzzled, and said that probably she wasn't saved in the first place. That happens a lot to many, old and young.
Now that she has an assurance of her salvation, I don't conjecture. She will not turn back. So the question, in my mind is not worth asking or answering.
Before and after salvation a person always has a free will. As pointed out, Peter had a free will and denied Christ. What of it? He was still saved was he not? The gift of God is eternal life. Eternal does not become temporary under any circumstances, else Christ is a liar.
DHK

 

That’s a cop-out answer to say that they probably wasn’t saved in the first place and if you really believe that then you don’t believe in OSAS.

But did Peter deny Christ in the sense that he no longer believed that Christ was the Son of God? Peter said he didn’t know (as in acquaintance) the man when asked.

 

That’s a cop-out answer to say that they probably wasn’t saved in the first place and if you really believe that then you don’t believe in OSAS.</font>[/QUOTE]Why is it a cop-out.
It was a false profession. She really didn't know the Lord. Many people make a false profession. How easy it is for a person to "recant" when they never knew the Lord in the first place. There are many in the realm of Christendom that aren't true Christians. They are pretenders. It is not that they will go astray; they have never come to the fold in the first place. What did Jesus say:

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
--There will many that will profess Christ.
And there will be many to whom Christ will say: I never knew you.

Matthew 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

He denied any association with the Messiah. The reason that they took Christ was that he claimed to be the Messiah, the very person that Peter declared him to be. He disassociated himself with Christ the Messiah. The man that they took was the one who was being crucified because he claimed to be the Messiah. Peter denied any association with this person.
DHK

 

"But did Peter deny Christ in the sense that he no longer believed that Christ was the Son of God? Peter said he didn’t know (as in acquaintance) the man when asked. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Matthew 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

He denied any association with the Messiah. The reason that they took Christ was that he claimed to be the Messiah, the very person that Peter declared him to be. He disassociated himself with Christ the Messiah. The man that they took was the one who was being crucified because he claimed to be the Messiah. Peter denied any association with this person.
DHK"

So, was Peter's prior profession that Jesus was the Christ just an empty profession? If not, then eternal security cannot be true. For Jesus would have to have denied Peter before the Father at that point.

But if eternal security is true, then Peter was not truly saved beforehand.

 

Not true. And the same is not true today. Put the question to yourself. What would you have done in the same situation. You would have been just like Peter you say. You boast, like Peter, I would never deny thee Lord. That is what Peter said isn't it? The fact remains that Peter did. You don't know how strong you are until you are put in that situation. Just because he denied his Lord doesn't mean he wasn't saved; it simply means he was under a lot of duress. Ask yourself this: "Did Peter really mean it from his heart?" What is the obvious answer? He wept bitterly and repented. He was sorry that it had ever happened. Does one lose their salvation every time they commit a sin. That would be the position you would be taking.
DHK