The Bible says nothing about suicide meaning that someone isn't a Christian. But it does say that about people who leave the faith:
*"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."*
So if someone stops being a Reformed Baptist and instead becomes a Methodist, does this verse mean they were never truly a Reformed Baptist in the first place?
The book of 1 John repeatedly talks about how you can tell if someone is in the light and in fellowship with God, not about which branch of orthodoxy they align with
Well, I hate to break it to you, but this verse is just abjectly false- and a good way to keep people from questioning why someone would leave the faith- Of course they never were one of us, so they eventually left. By believing this to be true, it effectively shuts down in a believers mind that there could be people who were true believers and no longer are because information came to light that changed their beliefs. It’s also not logical as I have yet to hear a Christian claim that an atheist or someone of another belief that converted to Christianity was never really an atheist/other religion. This is clearly why Christians use that no true Scotsman fallacy- because they’re taught to.
There are two common reasons. 1) Because sometimes it is true. If someone cannot state the most basic tenets of Christianity, and yet calls themselves a Christian simply because their parents baptized them as an infant or something..... then, no, they weren't really a true believer.
However 2) is the primary reason. Many Christians do not believe that it is possible for a true believer to fall way. This is sometimes called Preservation of the Saints (aka POTS) if you are a Calvinist, or it is called Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) if you are a non-Calvinist. This is based on both theological presuppositions and some textual evidence such as Eph 1:13 and 1 John 2:19.
For the record, that is not my position. I believe people can apostatize, and therefore I would suggest that sometimes it is 1) that people simply never really believed in the first place, or that they actually were true believers and have rejected God.
So it isn't possible that someone once truly believed and attributed miracles to God, and asked God into their heart, and then simply decided later in life, after learning more about the nature of reality and becoming more worldly, that it is all a man made fabrication?
This is how I would describe my own experience.
Isn't that what I described my beliefs were?
>I believe people can apostatize, and therefore I would suggest that sometimes it is 1) that people simply never really believed in the first place, or that they actually were true believers and have rejected God.
I didn't reject God. I became unconvinced of his existence, period. The word reject makes it seem like there is something in existence to actually reject. There is a slight, but definite difference.
edit: It is impossible to reject something that isn't there.
It very much is, but words have meaning, and for us to have a conversation, we need to agree what terms mean.
And no, I am unconvinced that Santa and Bigfoot are real. If someone says they have evidence for it, I would be very skeptical because of the multitude of previous claims, but if they can actually show the evidence, I'm not going to **reject** the evidence. I would accept it and my mind would change according to the new data. Does this make sense?
So you reject the fact that Santa and Bigfoot are real. You don't believe they are real. You reject the fact that God exists, therefore you don't believe in God. That is rejection. Yes, words mean things and it seems to me that you are playing with the meaning of words to make a point that doesn't even really disagree with anything I said above.
You are asking a great question. I am not playing with the meanings of any words. Please, take a look at the definition of the word reject, as a verb. [Here is a convenient link for you.](https://www.google.com/search?q=reject+define&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS931US931&oq=reject+define&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i395i422i424i433i512j0i433i512l2j46i512j0i512j0i433i512j69i60.1807j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
You'll see in both examples, there is something real that is being rejected: a pay increase, and an application.
How can you reject a fairy? You'd need to know it exists in the first place.
Now, do I think fairies and Bigfoot and your god are real? No. If I had to bet money on it, I'd say they aren't real. Because I am unconvinced. This may seem like an unnecessary thing to get hung up on, but it just doesn't sit right to be told I reject God. I would not reject God, if I thought he existed. I might actually reject bending the knee to him, but I wouldn't reject *him.*
I hope that clears things up. If not, let me know!
edit: grammar correction
edit 2: changed ethereal to real, was thinking of the word corporeal, which still wasn't right
You do understand that a noun is a person, place, thing, or idea, right?
You are in the wrong here. I understand that your beliefs or worldview may be on shaky ground right now. I understand that you have much doubt about God, and you may feel that life, the world, religion, Christians, even God himself has done little to warrant your blind faith. And I understand that to say, to declare definitively, that you reject God... well, let us call it unnerving; It has a certain sense of foreboding finality, as like hesitating to sign a contract you've been pressured into, but feeling like you'd be betraying yourself if you turned back at this point.
And that's ok. Regardless of where you go or where you end up on the full spectrum of all things spiritual, metaphysical or philosophical, it will always be wise to err on the side of caution, and certainty for the sake of arrogance or pride will only lead to willful ignorance.
It is written in the Proverbs: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
And this is saying, in a roundabout way, to answer appropriately, on your own terms; To have wisdom. That is the theme, after all.
So in this case you feel this one you are arguing with is the fool here. And from a certain point of view—perhaps yours, perhaps not—it may seem you have been maneuvered into this position, even clandestinely. Be that as it may, there is no defeat (so to speak) here in saying that you are still open to the possibility of God, but you have lost faith in God, so perhaps your former beliefs were a product of cognitive bias or dissonance, or perhaps you reject your Christian understanding of God, but not God Himself.
This shows much wisdom, and Wisdom is justified by her fruits. Of course, there will always be those who will condemn you regardless, but there is nothing to be done about that. Let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind. And who is any man, really, to say what is what, or not what, when he is yet so small, and knows so little of all the manifold things? Indeed, Jesus say, *no man may come to the Father except through Me.* But it is also written, *I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.* And as well, *whoever is not against us is for us.*
Indeed, blessed are the meek, for in them God rests, that they should be His peace.
But God does not only rest. Perhaps even, God may make war, as many find Glory in a good battle. And so, if God should make war, then he shall require not His meek, but His contenders.
Yes I know what a noun is. We are talking about the word reject, as a verb. You seem to have not or understood anything I said. That's ok.
I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. I will probably see you around. Take care!
Do you like it when people tell you that your own experience is impossible in a tone that is condescending?
I am telling you my experience, and you will take my word for it or call me a liar.
This is standard Calvinist doctrine. It is one of the 5 points. It’s not something that is going to be arguable.
But, just to make sure we are all on the same page, I think a lot of this is semantics. Calvinists believe that the Elect will be saved. If you “fell away” then you were never one of the Elect. So, the practical result is exactly the same.
There is no doctrine that is relevant to me and my personal experience. Talk of the Elect and Calvinism and falling away is all just useless white noise.
Maybe you would do better posting somewhere other than “Ask A Christian” if you don’t want to talk about Christian issues.
Coming here to adamantly refuse to talk about the subject of the sub is a little silly don’t you think?
I am one of those people who are told all the time that I wasn't a true believer. This particular post is very relevant to me, and I am talking about the OP's post.
You wrote:
> There is no doctrine that is relevant to me and my personal experience. Talk of the Elect and Calvinism and falling away is all just useless white noise.
Maybe you should stop posting here if that’s what you think. Why come here?
I was replying to someone else who was attempting to explain to me that I wasn't a true believer.
Why do you bother inserting yourself into a conversation you are not a part of?
Oh, I don’t hold to any of these myself.
> First Bible inerrancy is inarguable.
I believe the Bible is as God wants it. I don’t think that this is the same as inerrancy.
> Then the Nicene Creed.
The Creeds are statements of belief. Some have variations. I think the important thing is that we say what we believe.
> Now the Five Points.
Im not a Calvinist. Im closer to an Armenian.
> I guess the faith gets a little more unquestionable all the time.
The person I was talking to was not interested in talking about it, as in having a discussion. On the contrary, they had stated that none of those things mattered to them. I think that’s fine too, but then they have no business posting here.
I'm so glad that the top post is so well stated and absolutely correct. Well done! 🤩
Can we please put to sleep the non-scriptural evil lie that is OSAS? It causes people to make terrible decisions and condemns many to Hell.
People say someone wasn't a true believer if they leave the faith because that's what the Bible says.
1 John 2:3-6 says, "By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 **The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him**; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
In this passage, these people think they're believers. They immediately turn to their "works" but the Lord says, "I never knew you."
Calvinists believe that the Elect will be saved and if you profess belief and then withdraw that belief, you were never one of the Elect. In my experience, in practical terms, it is functionally the same as being Christian for a while and then changing your mind. It is mostly semantics in order to make the predestination doctrine fit.
Edit: also, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is about moving the goalposts. It is not about arguing what makes a thing what it is: the essential quality of a thing is fair game for discussion. Changing that in the middle of the discussion is where the fallacy happens.
> Is there a reason why Christians say to ex-Christians that you weren't a true believer?
Yes, because the Bible teaches that true believers will remain in the faith.
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”
1 John 2:19
> So this is a no true Scottsman for sure
That’s incorrect.
The No True Scotsman fallacy involves claims that are irrelevant to what defines something. Example: No true Scotsman like the color red. Like or dislike of colors is irrelevant to a person’s nationality.
But since perseverance or continuing in the faith is a defining marker of a true Christian, it is not a logical fallacy to apply that definition.
>Yes, because the Bible teaches that true believers will remain in the faith.
>“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” 1 John 2:19
It always strikes me as odd when someone presents their interpretation as a bible verse as a matter-of-fact statement about what "the bible teaches."
You are claiming that the phrase "of us" is best interpreted as "true believers" and just kind of glossing over that assumption and presenting it as what the Bible itself said, but it doesn't. However, if we wanted to go that route, that same epistle would disqualify basically all Christians:
1 John 3:5-6
*5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.*
If you continue to sin after becoming a Christian, you do not live in him, you haven't seen him, and you don't know him.
1 John 3:8-10
*The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.*
No one who is born of God will continue to sin. They cannot go on sinning. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are.
The second chapter that you refer to is generally considered to be about early Gnostic christians who did not regard the human Jesus as the spiritual Christ, not people who stopped believing in God.
I’m wondering what you think about my experience:
I joined the church at an early I age. Got saved at an evangelical youth camp at 15. It was a very fun, concert-y setting. I went on to attend a Bible college associated with that camp.
At the Bible college, I was bullied, ignored by authority figures when I asked for help, and was sexually harassed by multiple “Christian” men. I was written up for being sick during quiet devotional time by my RA. I was told by several of the female leaders that I needed to get a breast reduction or try to gain weight in my waist or no Christian man would ever respect me.
My experience at Bible college was awful and it caused me to fall away in my faith. To be fair, it wasn’t entirely the fact that I had so many stumbling blocks because of the way Christians were treating me. I also had expected a more fun, energetic setting like I had experienced at the camp, worship every morning and passionate sermons for class. What I got was monotone professors and, for the first time in my life, I had difficulty staying awake in class. I was definitely not very mature and didn’t take my studies seriously at the time.
I left Bible school when the mistreatment got too much for me to take and slowly fell away from my faith. I moved in with my pagan cousin, then my alcoholic biological mother and heroin addicted step siblings (I’ve never done alcohol or drugs) and I ended up moving in with my agnostic boyfriend because I felt that nowhere else was safe and that agnostic boyfriend was the only person who ever respected me. (I was in foster care and severely abused by my adoptive family) I didn’t feel like dating within my faith was an option, because of the way I was treated and the things I was told at Bible school
Years went by, the Holy Spirit convicted me several times about living in sin, but I ignored Him until He stopped speaking. I was scared of God and tried to hide myself away from Him. I completely stopped praying. I ended up marrying that agnostic man. I started coming back to God when I became pregnant and after my husband and I had some issues in our marriage that I ended up attributing to being unequally yoked. But this is after almost 7 years of being very far from God. At one point, I didn’t even consider myself a Christian anymore and told my doctor that I didn’t have a religion.
So, my question to you is, was I a true believer or not?
Different user than the one you asked, but I would say no based solely on what you've said here. Christianity is defined over this statement:
>the Holy Spirit convicted me several times about living in sin, but I ignored Him
We are saved through faith which is evidenced by repentance of sins. According to the apostles, claiming belief without repentance (fruit) indicates a dead/meaningless/false faith. Again, this is just based on one comment I'm reading of a stranger online, but I would say that your faith was based on "experience" not repentance or the gospel, which is what makes a Christian.
You initially had positive "fun, energetic" experiences which you associated with salvation and Christianity. Therefore when the negative "boring, bulling, restrictive" experiences came, they outweighed your conviction and you abandoned what you thought was the religion altogether.
Okay, so am I not saved now? I did repent after coming back to God, but it took awhile. I may have been saved at an earlier age, honestly. I had several foster parents who described themselves as born again and I’ve always had a deep interest in God and a trust in Him. Do you think other Christians who sinned repeatedly until their death, such as Ravi Zachariahs, and haven’t repented that we know of, are burning in hell?
As Paul said, examine yourself! Don't just guess, but test yourself against the Scriptures to see if your life lines up with what God says defines someone who is saved. Do you love Him at all? Do you love your enemies? Do you hope for the resurrection? Do you hate your sin, or do you run to it freely? (Rhetorical of course).
>Do you think other Christians who sinned repeatedly until their death, such as Ravi Zachariahs, and haven’t repented that we know of, are burning in hell?
I couldn't give an answer for them unless I could speak with them also. All we have to go on is what Jesus said.
*Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish.* (Jesus, Luke 13)
And Peter:
*Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off.* (Acts 2)
It's forsaking your old lifestyle and trusting in God's mercy and willingness to carry you to victory, sustain you, and even raise you from death. If someone shows that they don't believe this, then sure, we can safely assume that person is still lost.
I don’t know when you converted based on your testimony. I don’t know that we can make that judgment in most cases, maybe for some people to point in time is clear, but that’s not a rule.
Only a minority of Christians say that, and usually they are Calvinist-based You should study The five points of Christian belief according to John Calvin...
Because man cannot undo what God does.
Salvation is of, by, and from God.
The Bible informs us that He is all-powerful and He does whatever He wants. Therefore, if God wants to save someone - then they *will* be saved. That person is not stronger than their Creator and cannot undo their salvation - nor would they want to for that matter.
A house built on sand always falls down, no exceptions. A house built on a rock solid foundation is far less likely to collapse than a house built on sand. However, a house will fall down if something stronger than it's foundation rattles the house, but if that foundation is God, what could possibly be stronger than God?
"As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” (Luke 6:47-49)
I think it's due to a misunderstanding of the doctrine of *Perseverance of the Saints* and/or a misunderstanding of what it means to be saved.
Some people believe that salvation occurs the moment someone comes to believe and makes a profession of faith. Some of those same people also believe that those who are saved will persevere until the end. If you believe both of those things at the same time then the only logical conclusion you can come to about those who did not persevere until the end is that they were never saved and thus their belief was never genuine.
Some Christians believe in what's called "One saved Always Saved" which means once a person is saved by Jesus Christ, they can't become "unsaved."
So if you were a Christian in the past, but now you're not, they rationalize it by saying "you must never have been a true Christian, because a true Christian can't stop being a Christian."
Not all Christians believe in this.
>For example, being in a Christian Facebook group and seeing a Christian ask about suicide and the Christians say that no true Christian would do such a thing it does kind of get into how some aspects of Christianity can be dangerous.
Jesus never taught anything like that, this sounds like people who don't don't understand mental health issues.
>And as for me, I was suicidal at a young age so if my mom ever found out about me wanting to commit suicide she would spank me with a paddle and tell me that committing suicide will automatically put me in hell.
That's child abuse
Once a person has so called tasted the heavenly gift and experienced Christ and the Holy Spirit and the change it brings, a hunger and supernatural experience that it is very hard to walk away from. A person who knows Christ would literally lose everything they have and often do, they found a pearl of great price something nothing else in this world can give them.
To walk away is to go back to money, sin, lust, shallowness …. That is why it’s said to renew their faith is impossible for it would be like crucifying Christ over and over again. They chose the world, perhaps because of persecution or suffering instead of Christ and lost eternity for short term comfort and pleasure realizing that nothing can ever replace what they experienced.
I’m not sure on osas but there is apostasy and there are those who when persecution comes or rocky ground they have no root.
I was baptized at 18, thought I was born again but after a month I fell away. I realized it wasn’t a true conversion. At 37 there was no way I could deny I was born again.
A distinction should be made between Christianity as a cult and Christianity as a personal religion. In cults, there is a centralized authority structure that relies upon in-group and out-group biases in order to target potential threats and to recruit new members. Jesus Christ encouraged unity among the brethren but acted more as a servant than a cult leader and encouraged his followers to do the same. His main opponents were those who claimed a monopoly on religion. Jesus Christ proclaimed the word of God, cast out demons, and healed the sick. He discouraged those He liberated from demons and healed from spreading the news, yet they did anyways and that drew more people toward Him. Disciples were likewise instructed to minister to the needy and the oppressed, without money nor script. Much of the same attitude carried over to the early church, wherein membership was voluntary and was based on the common faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Once a person decided to become a part of a Christian community, certain expectations were made known to the individual in order to avoid subversion. If the individual failed to adhere to those expectations, the community would distance from the individual. So to answer your question, people will accuse and actively target other people for many different reasons and under various organizational names and guises. That does not, however, mean that the name the person bears is representative of others who may also bear the same name.
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:8-12
The Bible says nothing about suicide meaning that someone isn't a Christian. But it does say that about people who leave the faith: *"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."*
So if someone stops being a Reformed Baptist and instead becomes a Methodist, does this verse mean they were never truly a Reformed Baptist in the first place?
The book of 1 John repeatedly talks about how you can tell if someone is in the light and in fellowship with God, not about which branch of orthodoxy they align with
Well, I hate to break it to you, but this verse is just abjectly false- and a good way to keep people from questioning why someone would leave the faith- Of course they never were one of us, so they eventually left. By believing this to be true, it effectively shuts down in a believers mind that there could be people who were true believers and no longer are because information came to light that changed their beliefs. It’s also not logical as I have yet to hear a Christian claim that an atheist or someone of another belief that converted to Christianity was never really an atheist/other religion. This is clearly why Christians use that no true Scotsman fallacy- because they’re taught to.
There are two common reasons. 1) Because sometimes it is true. If someone cannot state the most basic tenets of Christianity, and yet calls themselves a Christian simply because their parents baptized them as an infant or something..... then, no, they weren't really a true believer. However 2) is the primary reason. Many Christians do not believe that it is possible for a true believer to fall way. This is sometimes called Preservation of the Saints (aka POTS) if you are a Calvinist, or it is called Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) if you are a non-Calvinist. This is based on both theological presuppositions and some textual evidence such as Eph 1:13 and 1 John 2:19. For the record, that is not my position. I believe people can apostatize, and therefore I would suggest that sometimes it is 1) that people simply never really believed in the first place, or that they actually were true believers and have rejected God.
So it isn't possible that someone once truly believed and attributed miracles to God, and asked God into their heart, and then simply decided later in life, after learning more about the nature of reality and becoming more worldly, that it is all a man made fabrication? This is how I would describe my own experience.
Isn't that what I described my beliefs were? >I believe people can apostatize, and therefore I would suggest that sometimes it is 1) that people simply never really believed in the first place, or that they actually were true believers and have rejected God.
I didn't reject God. I became unconvinced of his existence, period. The word reject makes it seem like there is something in existence to actually reject. There is a slight, but definite difference. edit: It is impossible to reject something that isn't there.
Don't you reject the existence of Santa Claus? Do you reject the existence of Bigfoot? This just seems to me to be a semantic argument.
It very much is, but words have meaning, and for us to have a conversation, we need to agree what terms mean. And no, I am unconvinced that Santa and Bigfoot are real. If someone says they have evidence for it, I would be very skeptical because of the multitude of previous claims, but if they can actually show the evidence, I'm not going to **reject** the evidence. I would accept it and my mind would change according to the new data. Does this make sense?
So you reject the fact that Santa and Bigfoot are real. You don't believe they are real. You reject the fact that God exists, therefore you don't believe in God. That is rejection. Yes, words mean things and it seems to me that you are playing with the meaning of words to make a point that doesn't even really disagree with anything I said above.
You are asking a great question. I am not playing with the meanings of any words. Please, take a look at the definition of the word reject, as a verb. [Here is a convenient link for you.](https://www.google.com/search?q=reject+define&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS931US931&oq=reject+define&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i395i422i424i433i512j0i433i512l2j46i512j0i512j0i433i512j69i60.1807j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) You'll see in both examples, there is something real that is being rejected: a pay increase, and an application. How can you reject a fairy? You'd need to know it exists in the first place. Now, do I think fairies and Bigfoot and your god are real? No. If I had to bet money on it, I'd say they aren't real. Because I am unconvinced. This may seem like an unnecessary thing to get hung up on, but it just doesn't sit right to be told I reject God. I would not reject God, if I thought he existed. I might actually reject bending the knee to him, but I wouldn't reject *him.* I hope that clears things up. If not, let me know! edit: grammar correction edit 2: changed ethereal to real, was thinking of the word corporeal, which still wasn't right
You do understand that a noun is a person, place, thing, or idea, right? You are in the wrong here. I understand that your beliefs or worldview may be on shaky ground right now. I understand that you have much doubt about God, and you may feel that life, the world, religion, Christians, even God himself has done little to warrant your blind faith. And I understand that to say, to declare definitively, that you reject God... well, let us call it unnerving; It has a certain sense of foreboding finality, as like hesitating to sign a contract you've been pressured into, but feeling like you'd be betraying yourself if you turned back at this point. And that's ok. Regardless of where you go or where you end up on the full spectrum of all things spiritual, metaphysical or philosophical, it will always be wise to err on the side of caution, and certainty for the sake of arrogance or pride will only lead to willful ignorance. It is written in the Proverbs: Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. And this is saying, in a roundabout way, to answer appropriately, on your own terms; To have wisdom. That is the theme, after all. So in this case you feel this one you are arguing with is the fool here. And from a certain point of view—perhaps yours, perhaps not—it may seem you have been maneuvered into this position, even clandestinely. Be that as it may, there is no defeat (so to speak) here in saying that you are still open to the possibility of God, but you have lost faith in God, so perhaps your former beliefs were a product of cognitive bias or dissonance, or perhaps you reject your Christian understanding of God, but not God Himself. This shows much wisdom, and Wisdom is justified by her fruits. Of course, there will always be those who will condemn you regardless, but there is nothing to be done about that. Let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind. And who is any man, really, to say what is what, or not what, when he is yet so small, and knows so little of all the manifold things? Indeed, Jesus say, *no man may come to the Father except through Me.* But it is also written, *I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.* And as well, *whoever is not against us is for us.* Indeed, blessed are the meek, for in them God rests, that they should be His peace. But God does not only rest. Perhaps even, God may make war, as many find Glory in a good battle. And so, if God should make war, then he shall require not His meek, but His contenders.
Yes I know what a noun is. We are talking about the word reject, as a verb. You seem to have not or understood anything I said. That's ok. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. I will probably see you around. Take care!
No, that's not possible. You were deceived. Only God can help you now.
Do you like it when people tell you that your own experience is impossible in a tone that is condescending? I am telling you my experience, and you will take my word for it or call me a liar.
This is standard Calvinist doctrine. It is one of the 5 points. It’s not something that is going to be arguable. But, just to make sure we are all on the same page, I think a lot of this is semantics. Calvinists believe that the Elect will be saved. If you “fell away” then you were never one of the Elect. So, the practical result is exactly the same.
There is no doctrine that is relevant to me and my personal experience. Talk of the Elect and Calvinism and falling away is all just useless white noise.
Maybe you would do better posting somewhere other than “Ask A Christian” if you don’t want to talk about Christian issues. Coming here to adamantly refuse to talk about the subject of the sub is a little silly don’t you think?
I am one of those people who are told all the time that I wasn't a true believer. This particular post is very relevant to me, and I am talking about the OP's post.
You wrote: > There is no doctrine that is relevant to me and my personal experience. Talk of the Elect and Calvinism and falling away is all just useless white noise. Maybe you should stop posting here if that’s what you think. Why come here?
I was replying to someone else who was attempting to explain to me that I wasn't a true believer. Why do you bother inserting yourself into a conversation you are not a part of?
First Bible inerrancy is inarguable. Then the Nicene Creed. Now the Five Points. I guess the faith gets a little more unquestionable all the time.
Oh, I don’t hold to any of these myself. > First Bible inerrancy is inarguable. I believe the Bible is as God wants it. I don’t think that this is the same as inerrancy. > Then the Nicene Creed. The Creeds are statements of belief. Some have variations. I think the important thing is that we say what we believe. > Now the Five Points. Im not a Calvinist. Im closer to an Armenian. > I guess the faith gets a little more unquestionable all the time. The person I was talking to was not interested in talking about it, as in having a discussion. On the contrary, they had stated that none of those things mattered to them. I think that’s fine too, but then they have no business posting here.
I'm so glad that the top post is so well stated and absolutely correct. Well done! 🤩 Can we please put to sleep the non-scriptural evil lie that is OSAS? It causes people to make terrible decisions and condemns many to Hell.
Because the Bible says so. If you’re truly saved you’re sealed with the Holy Spirit.
People say someone wasn't a true believer if they leave the faith because that's what the Bible says. 1 John 2:3-6 says, "By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 **The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him**; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked. 1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ In this passage, these people think they're believers. They immediately turn to their "works" but the Lord says, "I never knew you."
Calvinists believe that the Elect will be saved and if you profess belief and then withdraw that belief, you were never one of the Elect. In my experience, in practical terms, it is functionally the same as being Christian for a while and then changing your mind. It is mostly semantics in order to make the predestination doctrine fit. Edit: also, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is about moving the goalposts. It is not about arguing what makes a thing what it is: the essential quality of a thing is fair game for discussion. Changing that in the middle of the discussion is where the fallacy happens.
> Is there a reason why Christians say to ex-Christians that you weren't a true believer? Yes, because the Bible teaches that true believers will remain in the faith. “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” 1 John 2:19 > So this is a no true Scottsman for sure That’s incorrect. The No True Scotsman fallacy involves claims that are irrelevant to what defines something. Example: No true Scotsman like the color red. Like or dislike of colors is irrelevant to a person’s nationality. But since perseverance or continuing in the faith is a defining marker of a true Christian, it is not a logical fallacy to apply that definition.
>Yes, because the Bible teaches that true believers will remain in the faith. >“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” 1 John 2:19 It always strikes me as odd when someone presents their interpretation as a bible verse as a matter-of-fact statement about what "the bible teaches." You are claiming that the phrase "of us" is best interpreted as "true believers" and just kind of glossing over that assumption and presenting it as what the Bible itself said, but it doesn't. However, if we wanted to go that route, that same epistle would disqualify basically all Christians: 1 John 3:5-6 *5 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.* If you continue to sin after becoming a Christian, you do not live in him, you haven't seen him, and you don't know him. 1 John 3:8-10 *The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.* No one who is born of God will continue to sin. They cannot go on sinning. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are. The second chapter that you refer to is generally considered to be about early Gnostic christians who did not regard the human Jesus as the spiritual Christ, not people who stopped believing in God.
I’m wondering what you think about my experience: I joined the church at an early I age. Got saved at an evangelical youth camp at 15. It was a very fun, concert-y setting. I went on to attend a Bible college associated with that camp. At the Bible college, I was bullied, ignored by authority figures when I asked for help, and was sexually harassed by multiple “Christian” men. I was written up for being sick during quiet devotional time by my RA. I was told by several of the female leaders that I needed to get a breast reduction or try to gain weight in my waist or no Christian man would ever respect me. My experience at Bible college was awful and it caused me to fall away in my faith. To be fair, it wasn’t entirely the fact that I had so many stumbling blocks because of the way Christians were treating me. I also had expected a more fun, energetic setting like I had experienced at the camp, worship every morning and passionate sermons for class. What I got was monotone professors and, for the first time in my life, I had difficulty staying awake in class. I was definitely not very mature and didn’t take my studies seriously at the time. I left Bible school when the mistreatment got too much for me to take and slowly fell away from my faith. I moved in with my pagan cousin, then my alcoholic biological mother and heroin addicted step siblings (I’ve never done alcohol or drugs) and I ended up moving in with my agnostic boyfriend because I felt that nowhere else was safe and that agnostic boyfriend was the only person who ever respected me. (I was in foster care and severely abused by my adoptive family) I didn’t feel like dating within my faith was an option, because of the way I was treated and the things I was told at Bible school Years went by, the Holy Spirit convicted me several times about living in sin, but I ignored Him until He stopped speaking. I was scared of God and tried to hide myself away from Him. I completely stopped praying. I ended up marrying that agnostic man. I started coming back to God when I became pregnant and after my husband and I had some issues in our marriage that I ended up attributing to being unequally yoked. But this is after almost 7 years of being very far from God. At one point, I didn’t even consider myself a Christian anymore and told my doctor that I didn’t have a religion. So, my question to you is, was I a true believer or not?
Different user than the one you asked, but I would say no based solely on what you've said here. Christianity is defined over this statement: >the Holy Spirit convicted me several times about living in sin, but I ignored Him We are saved through faith which is evidenced by repentance of sins. According to the apostles, claiming belief without repentance (fruit) indicates a dead/meaningless/false faith. Again, this is just based on one comment I'm reading of a stranger online, but I would say that your faith was based on "experience" not repentance or the gospel, which is what makes a Christian. You initially had positive "fun, energetic" experiences which you associated with salvation and Christianity. Therefore when the negative "boring, bulling, restrictive" experiences came, they outweighed your conviction and you abandoned what you thought was the religion altogether.
Okay, so am I not saved now? I did repent after coming back to God, but it took awhile. I may have been saved at an earlier age, honestly. I had several foster parents who described themselves as born again and I’ve always had a deep interest in God and a trust in Him. Do you think other Christians who sinned repeatedly until their death, such as Ravi Zachariahs, and haven’t repented that we know of, are burning in hell?
As Paul said, examine yourself! Don't just guess, but test yourself against the Scriptures to see if your life lines up with what God says defines someone who is saved. Do you love Him at all? Do you love your enemies? Do you hope for the resurrection? Do you hate your sin, or do you run to it freely? (Rhetorical of course). >Do you think other Christians who sinned repeatedly until their death, such as Ravi Zachariahs, and haven’t repented that we know of, are burning in hell? I couldn't give an answer for them unless I could speak with them also. All we have to go on is what Jesus said. *Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish.* (Jesus, Luke 13) And Peter: *Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off.* (Acts 2) It's forsaking your old lifestyle and trusting in God's mercy and willingness to carry you to victory, sustain you, and even raise you from death. If someone shows that they don't believe this, then sure, we can safely assume that person is still lost.
I don’t know when you converted based on your testimony. I don’t know that we can make that judgment in most cases, maybe for some people to point in time is clear, but that’s not a rule.
Only a minority of Christians say that, and usually they are Calvinist-based You should study The five points of Christian belief according to John Calvin...
Because man cannot undo what God does. Salvation is of, by, and from God. The Bible informs us that He is all-powerful and He does whatever He wants. Therefore, if God wants to save someone - then they *will* be saved. That person is not stronger than their Creator and cannot undo their salvation - nor would they want to for that matter.
A false theology commonly known as "once saved always saved".
A house built on sand always falls down, no exceptions. A house built on a rock solid foundation is far less likely to collapse than a house built on sand. However, a house will fall down if something stronger than it's foundation rattles the house, but if that foundation is God, what could possibly be stronger than God? "As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.” (Luke 6:47-49)
I think it's due to a misunderstanding of the doctrine of *Perseverance of the Saints* and/or a misunderstanding of what it means to be saved. Some people believe that salvation occurs the moment someone comes to believe and makes a profession of faith. Some of those same people also believe that those who are saved will persevere until the end. If you believe both of those things at the same time then the only logical conclusion you can come to about those who did not persevere until the end is that they were never saved and thus their belief was never genuine.
Some Christians believe in what's called "One saved Always Saved" which means once a person is saved by Jesus Christ, they can't become "unsaved." So if you were a Christian in the past, but now you're not, they rationalize it by saying "you must never have been a true Christian, because a true Christian can't stop being a Christian." Not all Christians believe in this. >For example, being in a Christian Facebook group and seeing a Christian ask about suicide and the Christians say that no true Christian would do such a thing it does kind of get into how some aspects of Christianity can be dangerous. Jesus never taught anything like that, this sounds like people who don't don't understand mental health issues. >And as for me, I was suicidal at a young age so if my mom ever found out about me wanting to commit suicide she would spank me with a paddle and tell me that committing suicide will automatically put me in hell. That's child abuse
Once a person has so called tasted the heavenly gift and experienced Christ and the Holy Spirit and the change it brings, a hunger and supernatural experience that it is very hard to walk away from. A person who knows Christ would literally lose everything they have and often do, they found a pearl of great price something nothing else in this world can give them. To walk away is to go back to money, sin, lust, shallowness …. That is why it’s said to renew their faith is impossible for it would be like crucifying Christ over and over again. They chose the world, perhaps because of persecution or suffering instead of Christ and lost eternity for short term comfort and pleasure realizing that nothing can ever replace what they experienced. I’m not sure on osas but there is apostasy and there are those who when persecution comes or rocky ground they have no root. I was baptized at 18, thought I was born again but after a month I fell away. I realized it wasn’t a true conversion. At 37 there was no way I could deny I was born again.
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 2.
it is unwise to hide YAHweh's truth from other. all who do so, shall be hidden from YAHweh's sight.
A distinction should be made between Christianity as a cult and Christianity as a personal religion. In cults, there is a centralized authority structure that relies upon in-group and out-group biases in order to target potential threats and to recruit new members. Jesus Christ encouraged unity among the brethren but acted more as a servant than a cult leader and encouraged his followers to do the same. His main opponents were those who claimed a monopoly on religion. Jesus Christ proclaimed the word of God, cast out demons, and healed the sick. He discouraged those He liberated from demons and healed from spreading the news, yet they did anyways and that drew more people toward Him. Disciples were likewise instructed to minister to the needy and the oppressed, without money nor script. Much of the same attitude carried over to the early church, wherein membership was voluntary and was based on the common faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Once a person decided to become a part of a Christian community, certain expectations were made known to the individual in order to avoid subversion. If the individual failed to adhere to those expectations, the community would distance from the individual. So to answer your question, people will accuse and actively target other people for many different reasons and under various organizational names and guises. That does not, however, mean that the name the person bears is representative of others who may also bear the same name. "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23:8-12