HelenM

Rad,

When you say "those who were Christians still are", do you mean "those who were truly born-again, still profess to be Christians today"
or do you mean
"those who were truly born-again still are born-again, regardless of what they profess, today"

In other words, do you think it's ever possible for a truly born-again Christian to say "I don't believe any more"? So, they're a 'Christian in denial', as it were...heaven-bound, evidently, but not seeming to have any more faith than an atheist, at this present time...

I'm asking because I think most Christians know people who they really thought were saved and yet now they are definitely not professing to be Christians. One way to resolve that without departing from "once saved, always saved" is to say "I must have been mistaken - they were evidently never truly saved" and another is to say "they surely were saved so they're in some sort of denial" and maybe "God is going to bring them back sooner or later".

Helen

Radorth

That's what I said, several times, so people are just not reading my posts, or reading all kinds of stuff into them.

That's what I said from day one, and tried to explain, yet some skeptics stayed in a major tizzy, claiming I was "heaping guilt" on people, misquoting me as saying "all" backsliders were never Christians (when I clearly said some were and some weren't), that I was mind reading, yada yada.

Rad

emur

With possibly a few exceptions, we are all adults here Radorth. Do you think you are superior to others here? How do you know what is better for someone than they themselves know? Has your speaking in tongues and seeing so-called miracles puffed you up?

In reading your above comments to Bree, you come across like you are speaking for God. Are you? God cannot communicate with Bree directly? How do you know the core of Bree's desires?

Mel

Tercel

Responding to something that was said on pg 1 since I'm reading this thread for the first time...

Well I don't understand why. I make a point of reading Seebs posts because they're coherent, logical, and I agree with 99.999% of everything he says. It's always nice to see that someone's responded already with the response I'd have given: It saves me time and typing.
It's also ironic that we both happen to be computer scientists, and "P"s on Myers-Briggs (you're not an INTP by any chance Seebs?)... although I'm not married.

It's also always nice to see someone intelligent that has very close to the same theology as myself - it gives me more confidence that my reasonings about "True Theology" are correct.

An accusation that "I dunno's" are bad seems strange coming from a board of atheists who reach for the "I dunno's" in grand style anytime things like the cause of the universe are discussed. Apparently if atheists respond "I dunno" they're just being honest, rational, and properly open-minded and various other good things. But if theists respond "I dunno" it's an indication of dodging the question, lack of coherent belief and various other bad things....
A similar situation seems evident to me with regard to "picking and choosing".


BTW, to answer a previous question about why anyone would want to defend the idea of "Once a True Christian, Always a True Christian": It's a Calvinist teaching known as "Perseverence of the Saints". It's basically necessary to Calvinist theologies because under a Calvinist system, God picks who's saved abitrarily and forces them to become a Christian. Since clearly no mere mortal could override God's will and deconvert themselves it stands to reason that all who do deconvert weren't True (ie God abitrarily picked) Christians in the first place. Hence the silly doctrine.
(Okay so I don't like Calvinism and that's very biased portrayal of it. )

Sabine Grant

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel
[B]Responding to something that was said on pg 1 since I'm reading this thread for the first time...

Well I don't understand why. I make a point of reading Seebs posts because they're coherent, logical, and I agree with 99.999% of everything he says. It's always nice to see that someone's responded already with the response I'd have given: It saves me time and typing.
It's also ironic that we both happen to be computer scientists, and "P"s on Myers-Briggs (you're not an INTP by any chance Seebs?)... although I'm not married.

It's also always nice to see someone intelligent that has very close to the same theology as myself - it gives me more confidence that my reasonings about "True Theology" are correct.

An accusation that "I dunno's" are bad seems strange coming from a board of atheists who reach for the "I dunno's" in grand style anytime things like the cause of the universe are discussed. Apparently if atheists respond "I dunno" they're just being honest, rational, and properly open-minded and various other good things. But if theists respond "I dunno" it's an indication of dodging the question, lack of coherent belief and various other bad things....
A similar situation seems evident to me with regard to "picking and choosing".


Hi Tercel... I second the motion. Seebs has demontrated the ability to not sterotype one group or the other and be honest enough to not pertain to detain all truth. That is the sign of a growing individual and willing to grow. It is always a pleasure for me to read his posts.

HelenM

But Rad, when you say to an ex-Christian "If you were a Christian, you still are" they will think "I'm definitely not now - so you're saying I never was!"

It's unlikely that they'll realize you're allowing for the possibility of them being a 'Christian in denial'. I.e. they don't think they are but they are.

Anyway, I think that's somewhat confusing.

take care
Helen

Buffman

Tercel & Sabine

Sorry! I have not found 'seebs' responses to me, even before he elected to ignore further discussion, to be as stellar as you both allege.

However, I do agree that he is attempting to be sincere and honest with his responses to the extent that his, and your, religious conditioning permits...though perhaps a little intellectually timid when faced with issues to which he has not given adequate time and study.

Obviously words such as "sin, soul, saved, grace, God, Hell, miracles, etc." are going to be challenged, or should be, by those who have found them to be useless without verifiable evidence of their natural world definition, meaning and usage. I feel sure that you know that he is quite well aware of that and seldom hesitates to forthrightly admit that he is still seeking answers...as all of us should be doing. The most accurate answers available to us, not simply those based on "faith" beliefs...unless so acknowledged. Whenever I probe his posts, I do so for the benefit of us both, and anyone who cares to read them.

There have been, and currently are, many faith beliefs in the world. Christian faith beliefs are just as diverse as the various denominations calling themselves Christians. However, Christianity is hardly the only faith belief system.

If one can internalize that Faith is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, it goes a long way in understanding why I challenge semantics/semiotics used to promote fiction over fact.

Sabine Grant

Hello Buffman! I think that being able to respond " I do not know" is a quality. Intellectualism does not resolve all unanswered questions. I hardly think of my faith as being the product of reason. Reason prevails in your choices of thoughts Buffman.... but your reason will be limited when it comes to the concept of " what happens after death". Neither you or I can use logic or reason to prove that we detain the truth about " what happens after death" You cannot prove that there will be no more conscious state.... I cannot prove that there will be. You or I can only give honest answers such as " my belief is... or my opinion is.... or I do not know". We cannot prove it. Because there is no experience to relate to. None whatsoever.

Seebs can experience God... so can I. I cannot prove God exists. None has ever proved there is no possibility God exists. There is limit to reason because we have yet to have discovered everything and experienced it. We cannot assert to detain full proof truth.

What you percieve as shy intellectualism I percieve as wisedom.

Radorth

Yes Helen, if that was all I said, but it warn't.

I'm an INTP as well, Tercel. (1.5% of the population as I recall) Ever feel like a square peg? Hopefully you married an extraverted teacher.

Rad

HelenM

I haven't read everything you wrote so I'm not able to respond to what you just said in an informed way.

Helen