Spirituality
17 Mar 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterWell, you seem to be dancing around the point. From what I can tell, the point of this thread seems to be that 'former Christians' were never 'real' Christians.
I don't know if there is such a thing as "former Christian". Once some one has received Christ, 1 John says it is "seed". Like a natural birth is by seed, so is the spiritual birth by spiritual seed. You cannot get "unborn"... you can however be out of fellowship with God if one continues in the ways of the world and turns away from God. However his stat ...[text shortened]... If what you are looking for is the question of losing one's salvation, I would say no...
You provided the following as a definition of a 'real' Christian.
"A real Christian is known by the fruit he/she manifests...Love, Joy, peace,faith, gentleness, etc....the fruits of the spirit are found in Galations."
You seem to have backpedalled since then.
Now either you believe that the above defines a 'real' Christian or you don't. Either you believe that 'former Christians' can have been 'real' Christians or you don't.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneMy apologies, I should have said a "walking Christian" can be defined by their fruit.
Well, you seem to be dancing around the point. From what I can tell, the point of this thread seems to be that 'former Christians' were never 'real' Christians.
You provided the following as a definition of a 'real' Christian.
"A real Christian is known by the fruit he/she manifests...Love, Joy, peace,faith, gentleness, etc....the fruits of the spiri ...[text shortened]... u believe that 'former Christians' can have been 'real' Christians or you don't.
I do not believe in a former Christian, for reasons I have already explained.
What you call a former Christian, is still a real Christian. I hope that clears up what I believe the bible to state.
Originally posted by PenguinI know of someone elsewhere on the Net who would sign off on those three things. He also claims the following:
My definition of a Christian is somebody who firmly believes in the following:
- Jesus Christ was the son of the one and only God.
- He was crucified and rose again
- Faith in him can ensure us an afterlife
* Calvinism has no Biblical basis.
* The Trinity is a false doctrine.
* The black-letter parts of the Bible have errors.
* Said errors were deliberately planted there by God as a test to see who would stay true to the red-letter words of Jesus.
True Christian or not?
Originally posted by FMFI have merely paraphrased what the bible says, your interpretation of what I said is your choice.🙂
So I take it you'll concede that your analysis is something purely subjective and partisan and does not affect the reality experienced by a "former Christian" or the "former" devotee of any religion?
Originally posted by checkbaiterSure 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. 🙂
I have merely paraphrased what the bible says, your interpretation of what I said is your choice.🙂
Say you believe X but I do not believe X.
Now, you insist that you can somehow superimpose X onto my reality: whether I like it or not, you reckon X applies to me and to all people like me.
If you were to stop believing X, would you believe and accept that X still applies to you in reality, even though you no longer believe X?
And (bonus question) if you were to stop believing X after believing it for decades, would it be true (to your way of thinking) if others [who continue to believe X] were say that you had never believed X?
Originally posted by FMFPerhaps you would get an answer if you would explain what this X is. 😏
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?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf 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 that it's instead about you geeing yourself [like sonship seems to do], and signalling the degree of "certainty" you feel, both to likeminded people, and to those who are nonplussed by it?
Yes.
The work is His.
The glory is His.
We just get the toppings.