Christianity: the greatest love story ever told

[Philip]

Ken: If "temporary/eternal" life is an oxymoron, why did you bring it up?

Only because of what you have asserted about yourself - but you could only have once been a Christian if such an oxymoron /contradictory position could ever have existed in a person - that is, in ANY person!

1 John 2:18 -19: "... many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 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."

[Kenny]

Ken: If "temporary/eternal" life is an oxymoron, why did you bring it up?

Only because of what you have asserted about yourself - but you could only have once been a Christian if such an oxymoron /contradictory position could ever have existed in a person - that is, in ANY person!

1 John 2:18 -19: "... many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. 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."

Going by that logic, nobody knows if you are Christian till you die. And where does it say only those who are "us" are Christian? And does John really make up the rules? IOW is John's word equal to God's word? Or is this just a man of God voicing his opinion.

[Philip]

Ken: Going by that logic, nobody knows if you are Christian till you die.

While it's true that no one ELSE can know for sure that a person who at least appears saved, and at least SEEMS to believe and follow Christ, for a period, is saved or not. But if they eventually abandon their declared faith and renounce Christ, we can know they were never saved to begin with - which is what John and Paul reference. John was Jesus hand-picked Apostle (as was Paul, with each being affirmed by the other disciples / apostles), who was also in agreement with Jesus being both the completer and sustainer of one's salvation, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit per what he taught - even though you don't believe this. As well, all of the specific things that Jesus taught all come to us from His apostles. And as God is all-powerful, He has the ability to inspire and control what He wants recorded - again, whether you believe that or not.

But, Ken, no matter what you might believe, what you cannot credibly do, is define yourself as having been a prior Christian USING HE BIBLE'S CRITERIA and noted ways of discerning the truth of that - because by your own admission - which we don't have to figure it out - you say you don't believe or have faith in Christ. And the Bible says if you ever truly did, you would have continued in your faith. So, your assertion is in disagreement with what the Bible teaches, regardless of what you assert. And God certainly knows.

[Kenny]

While it's true that no one ELSE can know for sure that a person who at least appears saved, and at least SEEMS to believe and follow Christ, for a period, is saved or not.

No, YOU won’t know either because nobody knows what decisions they will make in life between now and death

But if they eventually abandon their declared faith and renounce Christ, we can know they were never saved to begin with - which is what John and Paul reference. John was Jesus hand-picked Apostle (as was Paul, with each being affirmed by the other disciples / apostles), who was also in agreement with Jesus being both the completer and sustainer of one's salvation, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit per what he taught - even though you don't believe this. As well, all of the specific things that Jesus taught all come to us from His apostles. And as God is all-powerful, He has the ability to inspire and control what He wants recorded - again, whether you believe that or not.

But, Ken, no matter what you might believe, what you cannot credibly do, is define yourself as having been a prior Christian USING HE BIBLE'S CRITERIA and noted ways of discerning the truth of that - because by your own admission - which we don't have to figure it out - you say you don't believe or have faith in Christ. And the Bible says if you ever truly did, you would have continued in your faith. So, your assertion is in disagreement with what the Bible teaches, regardless of what you assert. And God certainly knows.

Before judging me, are you at least gonna answer my questions? Is John’s word equal to God’s word now? Or is this just an example of a man of God voicing his subjective opinion. Also the scripture you mentioned does not even mention Christianity; it says “US”. Where does it say in order to be a Christian you have to be an “us”? It’s not like all Christians are the same, there are different denominations, different beliefs, heck even different Bibles (Ethiopian vs King James version) are all these different beliefs that Christians have under the category of “us”? If so, what do you base this on?

[Philip]

Ken: Before judging me, are you at least gonna answer my questions? Is John’s word equal to God’s word now? Or is this just an example of a man of God voicing his subjective opinion.

Ken, I'm just showing that Scripture does not teach of people being saved who later are no longer saved. But it does teach there are false Christians who initially appear to believe, but that later reveal themselves to have never been saved because they walk away from Christ and reject Him and His Gospel. This would describe you - rather, as you have described yourself. There is NO temporary salvation taught in the Bible!

Ken: Also the scripture you mentioned does not even mention Christianity; it says “US”. Where does it say in order to be a Christian you have to be an “us”?

1 John is a letter written by the Apostle - I won't even get into whether it's inspired by God with an unbeliever who doesn't even believe God exists. Because you should know, if the God of the Bible exists, He has the power of life and death, to design and create a universe. So "if" such a God exists, it's certainly consistent with many other evidences found across Scripture.

And at the very beginning of John's 1 John letter, in his opening three verses, he identifies who "US" is:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. The letter is warning to CHRISTIANS of anti-Christs (all of those who deny Christ as God!). And it reveals those who appeared to be Believers, whom were previously amongst them but that left and later deny Jesus are unsaved and anti-Christs.

So, these words, "us, ours, we" are all used in the context of contrasting those who believe with those who only appeared to - unbelievers do not have an advocate with God, do not know Him, and do not strive to keep His commandments.

Verse 22 details more about those who are not Christians: "22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us[e]—eternal life.

Again, how it's worded - shows there are false (in appearance only) Christians, whom were never Christians to begin with (which doesn't mean they might not later embrace a true 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."

Read many theologian commentaries if you do not believe this. But it makes little sense that you don't believe in God but you nonetheless are arguing over Scriptural meanings? Why do you even care about what Scripture asserts, if you reject Christ anyway?

See this post: viewtopic.php?p=253025&hilit=temporary+ ... fe#p253025

[Fliegender]

Then by all means; provide the biblical definition of Christianity; scripture included.

Philip did a pretty good job of that. He’s nicer than I am; I would have said, “as a ‘former Christian’ yourself, you should be able to find the verses in question and would have left you to your own devices.

Of course, you can’t even understand the simple wording of Scripture. You always find problems with it. That’s another sign of a non-Christian. Once God has you, he doesn’t let you go and as a bonus, God removes the blinders from your mind that prevent you from understanding the Bible. Your blinders were never removed, another proof that you were never a Christian. You just practiced some silly jumbo jumbo rituals in church on Sundays and prayed to your made-up god. Face it, you were a fake Christian.

I was born into an atheist family and was raised an atheist. I used to be a member of an atheist association in my 20s & 30s where we would meet every two weeks. Once in a while, “former Christians” like you would show up and join our group. They were always welcomed because we saw them as converts to Reason. Looking back, I know they were self-deceived just like you.

I know that considering yourself a “former Christian” puffs up your ego and gives you the impression that you know what you’re talking about but...save that for atheist forums. It will impress them but it won’t work here because we know better.

[Kenny]

Ken, I'm just showing that Scripture does not teach of people being saved who later are no longer saved.

I never said anything about being saved.

1 John is a letter written by the Apostle - I won't even get into whether it's inspired by God with an unbeliever who doesn't even believe God exists. Because you should know, if the God of the Bible exists, He has the power of life and death, to design and create a universe. So "if" such a God exists, it's certainly consistent with many other evidences found across Scripture.

I didn’t ask if his words were “inspired”, I asked if his words are equal to God’s words when he says something. or is this possible a case of him voicing his opinion.

So, these words, "us, ours, we" are all used in the context of contrasting those who believe with those who only appeared to

As human beings; just because we believe something today, does not mean we will believe it for the remainder of our lives. But to suggest we never believed something just because we no longer do is absurd.

[Philip]

Ken: As human beings; just because we believe something today, does not mean we will believe it for the remainder of our lives. But to suggest we never believed something just because we no longer do is absurd.

Oh, I believe you could have THOUGHT you were a Christian - but I'm using Scripture's definition of what it means to be a Christian and the fact that it asserts, prolifically, throughout and per the writers of the New Testament, that a Christian is an ETERNALLY saved person, and that it is Christ Himself who sustains a Christian's faith until he dies and enters his eternal reward. So, it's not a matter of changing one's mind or just trying hard to maintain one's faith. If that were the case, no Christian could know they would remain one.

And if you want to search the site, there are plenty of posts debating the ideas that God used men to communicate to us, in their own words, and with their own personalities, what it is He wants us to understand.

Here, Dr. Heiser talks a bit of what it means to say the writers of the Bible were inspired by God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRsEuokCS8M

[Kenny]

You just practiced some silly jumbo jumbo rituals in church on Sundays and prayed to your made-up god. Face it, you were a fake Christian.

Aren’t you the one always claiming to be an ex-atheist? How is that any different? Kettle meet pot!

I was born into an atheist family and was raised an atheist.

I was born into a Christian family and was raised Christian

I used to be a member of an atheist association in my 20s & 30s where we would meet every two weeks.

I used to be a member of a Christian church where we would meet EVERY week; sometimes twice a week.

Once in a while, “former Christians” like you would show up and join our group. They were always welcomed because we saw them as converts to Reason. Looking back, I know they were self-deceived just like you.

Once in a while a “former atheist” like you would show up and join our church. They were always welcomed because we saw them as converts to Christ. Looking back, I know they were self-deceived just like you

I know that considering yourself a “former Christian” puffs up your ego and gives you the impression that you know what you’re talking about but...

I know that considering yourself a “former atheist” puffs up your ego and gives you the impression that you know what you’re talking about but…

save that for atheist forums. It will impress them but it won’t work here because we know better.

Save that for your fellow Christians. It may impress them, but it won’t work with me because I know better

[Fliegender]

Good gawd what a revealing post you typed Kenny! You probably don’t even realize that right at the beginning you equated atheism with religion with your “kettle meet pot” comment. Any thinking atheist would have a laugh over that one.

Then you went on to paraphrase my earlier post. Very funny. It served to show me a few things:

1. It’s really important for you to see yourself as a genuine “former Christian”. Really, really important. Why?

2. You actually think you’re smart to have chosen atheism over your former faith in religion. (Actually, you were always an unbeliever but you can’t accept that because it’s an affront to your ego...a bizarre situation!)

3. You consider atheism and faith in religion to be equivalent but opposite. This is admirably demonstrated by your paraphrase of my post.

As I’ve said before, you were never a Christian when you attended church and prayed to your pipsqueak god. You were just some kid doing what his parents told him to do or what culture expected of you. Parents? Maybe I should write “parent” (singular) as it’s been my experience that many “former-Christians-turned-atheist” have daddy issues of some kind. Whatever the case, atheists of your ilk appeal to “reason”, ”science” and “evidence” to justify their newfound faith in atheism. It’s all bogus. Your atheism likely took root in emotions, then you rationalized it.

Okay, you want to believe you were a Christian. Fine. This is an “Emperor’s New Clothes” situation.

[Philip]

From a Biblical understanding of what it means to be a Christian – as it’s an eternal state sealed by Christ Himself – though both were once atheists, FlieG and Ken’s experiences are obviously not the same. Because Ken only considered himself to be a Christian. Almost every person I have ever encountered, that once claimed to be a Christian and later rejected Christ, did so after only a few years or less of supposedly having embraced Jesus. Perhaps this period from seeming faith to rejection sometimes plays out longer when a person has been brought up in a Christian household, but later Jesus became meaningless to them. Of course, there are always people who simply have been playing “churchianity” their entire lives – in which we just can’t see the truth of their hearts, and of which many of them have deluded themselves as they self-identify as Christians, but it’s really just a political, social or family thing for them. But make no mistake, Ken has declared that Jesus is not God, that there’s no real reason to believe in God at all, and vowed himself an atheist – and he’s been here for years arguing against belief in God and Christ. And the Bible says such people were never truly Christians - which is the point of the passages I've shared. And I’m sure FlieG heard all of the supposedly grand arguments for atheism growing up in such a family – but he was, at some point, open enough that God mercifully helped him to see the truth of Christ, despite his family influences and years of previous unbelief.

[Kenny]

Good gawd what a revealing post you typed Kenny! You probably don’t even realize that right at the beginning you equated atheism with religion with your “kettle meet pot” comment. Any thinking atheist would have a laugh over that one.

No; I equated your claim of used to be atheist with my claim of used to be Christian

Then you went on to paraphrase my earlier post. Very funny. It served to show me a few things:

1. It’s really important for you to see yourself as a genuine “former Christian”. Really, really important. Why?

You are reading waaaay too far into this my friend; being a former Christian means nothing to me; I just mentioned it in passing to someone else because of his claim of being a former atheist; then you jumped in and kept focusing on my claim of being an ex Christian; even to the extent of refusing to reply to my other questions. IMO this is important to you since you are the one who keeps bringing it up.

[Fliegender]

Good gawd what a revealing post you typed Kenny! You probably don’t even realize that right at the beginning you equated atheism with religion with your “kettle meet pot” comment. Any thinking atheist would have a laugh over that one.

No; I equated your claim of used to be atheist with my claim of used to be Christian

Then you went on to paraphrase my earlier post. Very funny. It served to show me a few things:

1. It’s really important for you to see yourself as a genuine “former Christian”. Really, really important. Why?

You are reading waaaay too far into this my friend; being a former Christian means nothing to me; I just mentioned it in passing to someone else because of his claim of being a former atheist; then you jumped in and kept focusing on my claim of being an ex Christian; even to the extent of refusing to reply to my other questions. IMO this is important to you since you are the one who keeps bringing it up.

You were never a “former Christian” kenny. Never, ever. You were just practicing the mumbo jumbo you learned as a kid. I suspect your single mother probably was just practicing mumbo jumbo herself. Nominal Christianity is actually quite common. It’s not your fault, you didn’t know any better. And you’re lying when you say, “being a former Christian means nothing to me”. If it meant nothing, you wouldn’t mention it or use it for validation. You’re not the first Christian-turned-atheist I’ve come across. Your atheist type has a few common characteristics: repressed anger, rationalization, science as proto-religion, daddy issues, lack of introspection.

You’re not aware of what motivates you but I have a pretty good idea.

[Fliegender]

... I’m sure FlieG heard all of the supposedly grand arguments for atheism growing up in such a family – but he was, at some point, open enough that God mercifully helped him to see the truth of Christ, despite his family influences and years of previous unbelief.

Actually, no, a “purebred” atheist (if I may use the term) raised by atheist parents doesn’t come across any anti-church badmouthing as a child. I never did. The few purebred atheists I’ve met have the same experience. Life just goes on without God. We are aware of other people believing in God much as you are aware that ancestor worship exists in African tribes...but it’s of no interest, really.

The first criticism I ever heard about God, religion or church was later in life (in my early 20s) from “half-breed” atheists, the ones who used to go to church and claimed to be former Christians. By and large, Jewish-background atheists and Muslim-background atheists don’t badmouth their former religions. The only really vile criticism of faith/religion I’ve experienced come from those who claim to be former Christians.

Isn’t that interesting?

[Philip]

FlieG: Isn’t that interesting?

I find it VERY interesting. And it just goes to show there's a variety of experiences tied to atheism. And I'm not really sure which I find more dangerous / preventative to coming to faith in Christ.

However, things have probably changed for kids raised in atheist homes nowadays, with the internet and modern sensibilities. When you came up, we weren't nearly as far into a post-Christian culture / influence - as back in the day, even non-believers were much more in line with traditional, Christian-influenced morality.