- Aug 11, 2017
- 25,741
- 8,329
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
The point is that Paul made it absolutely clear that he could deny Christ to the point that Christ would deny Him. Peter didn’t do that but that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t have denied Christ without repentance to the point of condemnation. Look at James 5:19-20.We are going in circles. You are saying virtually the same thing I’m saying, but somehow when you say it, you are right but when I say it I am somehow wrong.
So, according to you, Paul (who DIDN’T deny Christ) can say he could deny Christ and Christ would deny him back, but Peter, who DID deny Christ is good because he repented. There is just no reasoning with this type of argument.
“My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
James 5:19-20 NASB1995
Notice that if someone strays from the truth (of the gospel) his soul is in danger of death but if someone turns him BACK his soul will be saved. Peter turned back, that’s why his soul was saved but both 2 Timothy 2:12 and James 5:19-20 clearly indicate that a true believer can turn away and refuse to repent to the point of condemnation. Both 2 Timothy 2:12 and James 5:19-20 are teaching the exact same situation. James 5 can only be referring to a true born again believer otherwise turning that person BACK wouldn’t save them. So it’s not talking about a false professor because false professors have nothing to turn back to in order to save their soul from death.
Upvote
0