- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by FMFWe are not discussing X, X could be anything. We are specifically talking about Christians. In other words, once a Christian, always a Christian.
Sure thing, but you cannot abdicate responsibility for the substance of what you profess to believe. You either understand and stand up for what you say you believe or you don't; you can't simply palm it off as something you read in a book. 🙂
Say you believe X but I do not believe X.
Now, you insist that you can somehow superimpose X onto my reali ...[text shortened]... way of thinking) if others [who continue to believe X] were say that you had never believed X?
You are your earthly fathers son, regardless of what you believe. So it is in the spiritual realm.
Originally posted by checkbaiterBut this was not so in my case. I am no longer a Christian although I used to be one [for a considerable time]. Where does this leave your assertion about me? If you count me as still being a Christian that makes a complete nonsense of the word "Christian". Surely the word "Christian" becomes meaningless if you apply it both to people who do believe in and follow Christ and those who don't believe in and follow Christ anymore?
We are specifically talking about Christians. In other words, once a Christian, always a Christian.
Originally posted by checkbaiterBut any religionist from any religion could make assertions about you based on their beliefs and insist that they were right "regardless of what you believe". It would be meaningless to you, surely? Just as your insistence that your beliefs somehow trump my beliefs - and create some sort of alleged "reality" for me - is meaningless to me.
You are your earthly fathers son, regardless of what you believe. So it is in the spiritual realm.
Originally posted by checkbaiterJust pointing out the flaw in your logic. What you appear to be claiming is:
We are not discussing X, X could be anything. We are specifically talking about Christians.
~~ A Christian is someone who believes X.
~~ X = the beliefs and actions that define someone as a "Christian".
~~ A Christian is also someone who no longer believes X because, as you claim, "once a Christian, always a Christian".
Doesn't that make a mockery of X?
Perhaps you need to offer a definition of "Christian" - the definition upon which you are basing your "once a Christian, always a Christian" claim?
Originally posted by FMFHow some view reality is of little consequence to my perspective.
If people like you who believe in "the toppings" think you get "the toppings" then I think that is just fine. What I don't really get is how you can seriously think it applies to people who think "the toppings" are a figment of your imagination. Are you willing to concede that you making these kinds of assertions might possibly have nothing to do with me and tha ...[text shortened]... certainty" you feel, both to likeminded people, and to those who are nonplussed by it?
The conclusions I continually come to consistently contradict their view; my analysis remains the same.
It's not as though it is even possible to believe that a universal is somehow limited only to those who accept it!
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course. This is indeed part of the fabric of the comings and goings on this forum. I ought not to have "brandished" reality, perhaps. What I find curious - even though how some may view my reality is of little consequence to my perspective, as you pointed out - is that some people adamantly insist that I was never a Christian when I most certainly was, while others adamantly insist that I am still a Christian when I most certainly am not.
How some view reality is of little consequence to my perspective.
If the implications [of this head-on collision of assertions] in terms of "reality" cannot be fruitfully debated as a result, then - at the very least - the implications in terms of a workable definition of "Christian" [that somehow sits well with these seemingly contradictory assertions from self-declared Christians] surely must be debated what with this being page 8 of the thread and all.
Originally posted by FMFI trust that you are telling the truth regarding your practices and privately held beliefs.
Of course. This is indeed part of the fabric of the comings and goings on this forum. I ought not to have "brandished" reality, perhaps. What I find curious - even though how some may view my reality is of little consequence to my perspective, as you pointed out - is that some people adamantly insist that I was never a Christian when I most certainly was, while ...[text shortened]... ared Christians] surely must be debated what with this being page 8 of the thread and all.
I do not doubt that you no longer put any trust in the salvific work of God.
That being said, the confusion lies in a misunderstanding of what constitutes a Christian.
Contrary to the folksy adage 'if it walks like a duck,' thinking, there are countless people who don the practices of what appears to be the Christian life: make a list of all the good things we consider as virtuous Christian living, and these folks are hitting it, note for note.
Outwardly, of course.
The parable of the sheep and the goats is illustrative of this reality.
The misunderstanding of salvation persists.
"What must I do to be saved?"
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.
There is no reference to continuing your belief in order to obtain salvation; although we are implored to continue in the faith, the work of the Cross is sufficient to bring about salvation for the simple act of acceptance.
That simple act removes all work on the part of man: he can do nothing to gain salvation as it pertains to work.
God has done it all.
Man only rejects that gift when he has spent his entire life refusing to accept it.
Once accepted--- no matter what he does with it afterward--- man is saved.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI trust that you are telling the truth regarding your practices and privately held beliefs.
Good, I also trust that you are not lying about being a Christian either.
I do not doubt that you no longer put any trust in the salvific work of God.
It's not that I do not "put any trust in it", it's that I think it is a figment of Christian imagination and folklore, and I do not think "the salvific work of God" exists at all, except as a belief held by Christians - and one that I no longer subscribe to.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by FMFRomans 10:9 and 10...is the definition of a Christian or rather defines how to become one.
Just pointing out the flaw in your logic. What you appear to be claiming is:
~~ A Christian is someone who believes X.
~~ X = the beliefs and actions that define someone as a "Christian".
~~ A Christian is [b]also someone who no longer believes X because, as you claim, "once a Christian, always a Christian".
Doesn't that make a mockery of ...[text shortened]... definition upon which you are basing your "once a Christian, always a Christian" claim?[/b]
Once you receive Jesus as Lord, there is no turning back.
Originally posted by checkbaiterI received Him but then stopped believing and I do not claim to have received him anymore, although I was once convinced that I had. Now I don't believe there is any such thing as people 'receiving Him' except in their imagination. So I guess my experience disproves your claim that "there is no turning back".
Once you receive Jesus as Lord, there is no turning back.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
There seems to be a lot of discussion here about "real" Christian verses "not real" Christian.
The parable of the wheat and the tares given in Matthew 13:24-30 the explanation of which Jesus gave us in Matthew 13:36-43 really ends the matter.
Disciples of Jesus may not always be able to detect other true disciples from false disciples. That is a major point of the parable and the teaching. Go read it.
Christ's followers may not always be able to tell the wheat from the tares.
The angels at the end of the age will do the separating of wheat (true believers) from the tares (false believers).
No, the teaching does not say followers of Christ should therefore never seek to tell the difference. It is not a call to be blind to the difference. It is a warning that they may not be able to always tell the difference.
Another important aspect of the teaching is that believers should not try to go out into the world and root out false believers. This the Roman Catholic Church did in disobedience to Matthew 13:24-30,36-43. And in the process persecuted and tortured and killed true believers as well as false ones - a clear abomination to the Gospel of Christ.
IE. "And the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where then did the tares come from?
And he said to them, An enemy has done this. And the slaves said to him, Do you want us then to go and collect them?
But he said, No, lest while collectiing the tares, you uproot the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at that time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Collect first the tares and bind them into bundles to burn them up, but the wheat gather into my barns."
The plural usage of bundles may indicate different kinds of counterfeit or false followers of Christ. The burning of the possible different kinds of tares can hardly be thought of as positive.
One other point. The field is the world (v.38).
The teaching is not that believers should loosely tolerate unbelievers in the church. The teaching is that they should not seek to eliminate false Christians from "the world" .
In principle the believers should be wary that pretending unbelievers do no invade the practical church life on earth.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's funny how you picked up on that phrase, evil-lution, which was a copy paste job, not your own words but you use it just like you had invented it.
Do you believe in evil-lution?
I wonder, have you ever had an original thought, thoughts that came from RJ only and not the brainwashing inherent in religious dogma?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
What are pretending unbelievers ?
For example, I participate in a forum where for years a poster expounds the New Testament. You would think that this poster believed in Christ's resurrection. But the poster studiously always avoids discussion of the resurrection as not the point.
In my opinion the person pretends to be Christian but does not believe Christ is the risen Lord.
" ... if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
I don't know why the person is afraid to simply come out an admit that the resurrection of Christ is not part of his or her belief. Probably because they don't believe Jesus is alive.
Remember, the question was concerning a pretending unbeliever. I am not discussing immature Christians, Christians who believe who are lousy guys anyway, defeated believers who bring disrepute to the Gospel, etc.
This exchange is about unbelievers who seem to pretend to be disciples of Jesus.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by sonshipHave you asked this "pretending unbeliever" what he thinks is the point? (Granted, maybe he will avoid that discussion too.)
What are pretending unbelievers ?
For example, I participate in a forum where for years a poster expounds the New Testament. You would think that this poster believed in Christ's resurrection. But the poster studiously always avoids discussion of the resurrection as not the point.
In my opinion the person pretends to be Christian but does not believ ...[text shortened]... etc.
This exchange is about unbelievers who seem to pretend to be disciples of Jesus.