Spirituality
02 Aug 14
09 Aug 14
Originally posted by PatNovakI cannot say as i don't really read his posts i was merely interested in the charge of a no true Scotsman argument proffered by proper knob. In all honesty i don't think he can even define what a Christian is, for by this definition of having a relationship with God, that would make Satan and the daemonic hordes ex Christians too.
The problem with Kelly's argument isn't so much his view of the status FMF's past Christianity (like you say, it is possible he is correct, although it would only be guesswork on his part). The problem is how he defines being an ex-Christian. By his definition, only someone who is certain that they had a relationship with Jesus/God, and still chooses to lea ...[text shortened]... f existence, and I doubt he can give a single example of an ex-Christian (using his definition).
09 Aug 14
Originally posted by divegeesterYou are not asking a simple straight forward question, as I was pointing
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't understand what you are saying.
Why can't you just answer my simple straight forward question?
out, you can be committed to God on your own terms, or someone else'.
That does not make you right with God! You can believe in God, that
does not make you right with God, even the Devil believes in God.
Kelly
09 Aug 14
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you are being deliberately evasive but I'll play along.
You are not asking a simple straight forward question, as I was pointing
out, you can be committed to God on your own terms, or someone else'.
That does not make you right with God! You can believe in God, that
does not make you right with God, even the Devil believes in God.
Kelly
I am presenting you with a simple scenario:
If a person was a "real" Christian and lost their faith and turned away from Christ renouncing their belief in him - are you saying that in all cases of this particular scenario, that the person could not have been a "real" Christian in the first place?
It's just yes or no. You can of course explain why, but the premise required you to commit one way or the other.
09 Aug 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think Kelly has made it pretty clear at this point that his argument is a No True Scotsman argument. I asked him for a single example, past or present, of an ex-Christian, and he couldn't name one (i.e. No True Christian/Scotsman would become an ex-Christian).
I cannot say as i don't really read his posts i was merely interested in the charge of a no true Scotsman argument proffered by proper knob. In all honesty i don't think he can even define what a Christian is, for by this definition of having a relationship with God, that would make Satan and the daemonic hordes ex Christians too.
Kelly actually mentioned Satan earlier in the thread: "Satan believes in Jesus Christ, he is not a Christian." I actually thought there was a chance Kelly would offer Satan as an example of an ex-Christian, so I had a similar reading to yours of Kelly's definition.
09 Aug 14
Originally posted by PatNovakI think you are correct that Kelly is presenting a version of the "no true Scotsman" argument, although Kelly is stubbornly refusing to admit it.
I think Kelly has made it pretty clear at this point that his argument is a No True Scotsman argument. I asked him for a single example, past or present, of an ex-Christian, and he couldn't name one (i.e. No True Christian/Scotsman would become an ex-Christian).
Kelly actually mentioned Satan earlier in the thread: "Satan believes in Jesus Christ, he is ...[text shortened]... tan as an example of an ex-Christian, so I had a similar reading to yours of Kelly's definition.
The issue I have with him over this is that his argument that a "true" Christian cannot fall away is contradictory to him holding to the doctrine that a Christian can lose their salvation.
09 Aug 14
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterAs I pointed out the warnings in scripture are very clear:
I think you are correct that Kelly is presenting a version of the "no true Scotsman" argument, although Kelly is stubbornly refusing to admit it.
The issue I have with him over this is that his argument that a "true" Christian cannot fall away is contradictory to him holding to the doctrine that a Christian can lose their salvation.
The Peril of Falling Away
Hebrews 6:
6 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits. 4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. 7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; 8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
09 Aug 14
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are starting to sound like me .. be careful 😀
As I pointed out the warnings in scripture are very clear:
The Peril of Falling Away
Hebrews 6:
6 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection o ...[text shortened]... lds thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.