The Weekend Word

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Jean says:

    “33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.
    Does this include those who give up the faith?”

    This is a very hard saying. One of those saying that does not fit tidy into a systematic theology book. There was a dispute in the 3rd Century, coined the Novation heresy, which touched on this issue.

    If the issue applies to a person who in the face of active, life threatening persecution, denies Christ, I assume that the dude who gets bored and drops out of Christianity for the next big thing is not going to have Christ as his Advocate before the Father.

    But our sins, deny Christ every day in enumerable ways. We will always depend 100% on His grace and mercy.

  2. Our sins deny Christ – no doubt – but wouldn’t this have been a great opportunity for our Lord to have reassured us with – but I will not deny you before the Father.

    The reason I asked if this applied to those who give up the faith – haven’t they already been the ones who confessed the faith and have Jesus on their side?

    I think only the Christian can ‘acknowledge’ Jesus – but those who deny Christ are those who have not ‘acknowledged’ Jesus and in fact cannot. In fact I think we are speaking of the sheep and the goats here.
    Sheep are always sheep and goats are always goats. A goat cannot become a sheep.

  3. Jean says:

    “Sheep are always sheep and goats are always goats. A goat cannot become a sheep.”

    You are looking from eternity, from above, which usually is a bad way of doing theology. You may also be affirming double predestination. I doubt that is your internet, but is the move of the logician.

    Start with the plain meaning. 🙂

  4. You say we need to depend on his grace and mercy – I do not see Jesus offering grace and mercy in that verse. If I were to take the plain meaning as you suggest, well I don’t see that hope.

  5. This is a good law / gospel passage and. Needs to be handled properly.

  6. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Going back up in the text, I always find that today we are such sissy Christians. Today we speak of the injustice laid out on the Church by governments and how we need to fight for the “rights” of the Church or the individual Christian.
    Here Jesus says that the Church has no rights and will be afforded no comforts before the authorities.

    I was traveling last night during the debate (and was listening to my Dire Straits marathon) but I am sure that the ‘Church’ people were evaluating who was better prepared to protect the Church and protect our rights – while none watched to see who we will be brought before with accusations for the next 4 years.

  7. Jean says:


    The argument I make is that the order of the Government is called to restrain evil SO THAT the orders of the Church and home may function in peace and freedom.

    As long as America is blessed with a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”, Christian citizens should be very interested in electing representatives who promise to carry out the calling of the order of the Government.

  8. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    ***only because Things I Think has not been posted yet**

    So would a Christian be allowed to vote only for a Christian candidate, as I would think that only a Christian would have an understanding of “the order of the church / home?”

    What if in our case both candidates are against the free order of the church and home? Do you abstain as I will?

    I think the RCC must have had it right – the Church controls the government.

    “23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

    Perhaps Jesus should have said – “don’t flee that city – run for city council …” this is the way the Religious Right has interpreted this passage 😉

  9. Jean says:


    As you know from reading your Bible, God rules providentially through pagans as well as Christians. Remember old Nebuchadnezzar? A Christian should vote for candidates who uphold the legitimate roles of government. It doesn’t matter if they understand those rolls through a specifically Christian worldview, although that would be helpful.

    If both candidates are equally against the legitimate roll of government, then one could in good conscious abstain. If you’re not sure, you might want to abstain. But if you think that among two flawed candidates, one is closer to having a proper view of the office they’re running for, then you probably should vote for them.

    I don’t need to respond to the straw man arguments.

  10. Em ... again says:

    “legitimate role of government” … hmmm

  11. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Hmmm, I thought I was more precise with that. I did not argue for a candidate understanding the legitimate use of government – I asked about a non Christian understanding the “order of the Church / The order of the home.” (your point at #7)

    I don’t think this is something that Trump has ever given consideration to at any time and that it would never enter into his governing as he is totally a pragmatist.

    Clinton on the other hand has given consideration and has been very vocal about not giving the church the peace it needs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.