Will Ex-Christians Like Us Be in Heaven?
I received an email from a good Christian friend of mine who attended a church I preached at. She thinks I'll eventually be in heaven! Isn't she nice!? Any other Christian think this way? Here's what she wrote: John...I find it so interesting that you have turned such a 180 degree around on your belief in God or who He is..You don't have to carry on this persona with me. I know deep down you know God is a loving God...but now that you have strayed away from him..you would have to eat crow to change your mind ..let alone that you are now married to an Atheist.
It does amaze me also that you do not see that you have been deceived of the truth by Satan himself. You know what he has done to you is very typical of how he operates and how you let your guard down to turn away for God. After all..we all know that the Christian life is very hard..it is the hard path. You have now chosen the easy way to deal.
I do believe in "Once saved aways saved" and although I know you are grieving God's very heart by your actions...and will suffer those consequences...I will see you on the other side someday.
42 comments:
Here's what I wrote in response:
Super! I have no worries then.
See ya there on the other side my good friend. ;-)
I would love that to be true because most all atheists would be saved and that would be a gift indeed but i am afraid that is not what the Bible says. Actually in Matthew 7:21-22 it says not everyone who believes in Jesus will go to heaven.
The Bible is clear who will go to heaven. God’s word declares that this is God's plan of salvation; 1. Hear the WORD of God. 2. Believe that Jesus is the Messiah. 3. Repent of your ways that are contrary to God’s will. 4. Be Baptized INTO Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 5. Remain faithful to the Covenant you have made with God.
Step 5 is where most atheist will fail on judgement day unfortunately. Stay in the word John 14:21
I've been told by Christians (Calvinists, even) that I'm still saved.
This is a rather grey area, that many might claim authority, but ultimately can not. Because there is really only one who decides...make that two: you and God.
All I can say, is since I believe that the God I follow is a relational one, the nature of the relationship will be the deciding factor. If you choose to neglect it...well, what happens when you neglect a spouse, child, or good friend? They might stick with you for a while, but how much neclect/abuse are they willing to put up with?
So while I can't tell you for sure (unlike your zealous friend!), the fruits of your relationship will give you a pretty good indicator. Now, since it is rather obvious that you are not interested in building/maintaining any kind of relationship to God, it would be a rather fair assumption that God will treat you in turn.
We all will reap that which we sow. Those who choos to invest their lives in God (note: invest, not just talk about), are promised rewards in heaven.
You obviously don't seem very worried about the subject. I would however say, that I am saddened by that letter. Does that person really believe that anyone would be turn their ways to Chirst after reading such non-scriptual nonsense? Wow!
So, if I don't believe in Santa Claus, do I still get presents?
It's the question I asked when I was little. What I really meant was, will Mommy and Daddy leave presents if I don't believe.
To me it doesn't matter whether I meet the heaven criteria, because I so strongly suspect that heaven is a fantasy. On the other hand, I have trouble maintaining friendships with people who believe I'm going to hell. Do they believe I deserve it? Then they must really hate me. And if they don't believe I deserve it, then what does that say about their beliefs? That they would stand by and watch innocent people burn for eternity?
Belief in the actual places of heaven and hell seems silly. Heaven and hell is just another way of categorizing people.
How is the Christian life "the hard life"? I know that attending church regularly can be annoying, but really, how is it harder than anyone else's life, or how is it harder than that of someone living in Iraq right now, for example?
Once saved always saved sounds very comforting, too bad it's a lie. Today's so called christianity tells people whatever they want to hear. They've figured out that a positive message is MUCH better for the bottom line than the truth as written in the bible. Tell people they might go to hell and they'll go across the street to the church that tells them that they can never go to hell once they've said a few words. Who would'nt want a deal like that! You atheists might as well rattle off the words as an insurance policy just in case the apostate OSAS so called christian crowd is right
I too have been told over and over that I really do believe in God (Ooh?!), and that I will be merely a janitor in heaven because of my atheism (alright, but at least I get in!).
I have a chapter in my coming book dealing with this exact point. I want someone to say that I was "never saved" after reading it. And it is usually after debating this issue with a believer that the person says to me, "Joe, I see that you still know and love the Lord. God will have you with him in heaven!"
OOOOKKKK!
And of course, that leads to the age old question, what happens to people who died without ever knowing about Jesus at all? Do they get a pass or are they toast too?
And it is really sad that in the 21st century there are still many people who believe in such nonsense that if you don't worship x and do a, b, and c, that you will suffer for all eternity in the afterlife.
"...but i am afraid that is not what the Bible says."
Oh yeah?
The great Greek-speaking theologians of the early church believed that God would save everyone eventually (even John Loftus). Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, e.g. And there are plenty of biblical texts that teach a universal redemption, if you'll indulge me here:
"On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines ... And he will destroy on this mountain the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations; he will swallow up death forever. Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth." (Isa. 26:6-8)
"By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’" (Isa. 45:23)
"From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the Lord." (Isa. 66:23)
"Indeed, God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:17)
"Therefore, just as one man’s [Adam’s] trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s [Christ’s] act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all." Rom. 5:18
"For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all." (Rom. 11:32)
"For as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ." (1 Cor. 15:22)
"He [God] has made known to us the mystery of his will ... as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth." (Eph. 1:9, 10)
"Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:9-10)
"... through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross." (Col. 19-20)
"Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, singing, 'To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever.'" (Rev. 5:13)
So what makes your "exclusionary" texts so much more powerful and convincing? The answer: You've had them drummed into you over and over.
But what if you choose to rebel against god once you get to heaven?
I got a couple of thoughts on this. First off, I'm a believer in God sort of having a sliding scale. It's kind of like what C.S. Lewis mentioned in Mere Christianity, when he says that God knows you have personality problems, or He knows you were born with a disability or into poverty. If you aren't able to do right all the time, then that's okay, He understands. For the people that were born into some kind of rich, well-off Christian family, He expects you to use those gifts to the fullest, and even if you only do as much as that poor crippled guy, He definitely expected more of you.
You guys here, for whatever reason, turned away from Christianity. For one reason or another, you went away, and God understands. Some things are tough to get your head around, and what seems like good sound logic to one person, might be rife with errors. You guys here, even though you turned away, are still trying to get people to think, which is a good thing. People need to question things, they need to debate and discuss, otherwise we'd just degrade into being cavemen. I think God would look at that and say "Well, they did turn away, but there was a lot going against them. At least they kept doing good in the world." And then He'd open those pearly gates.
On another note of this, I have someone who has been like a second father to me in life, but by some people's definitions, he wouldn't get into Heaven. He doesn't go to church regularly or anything like that. I thought to myself though, if Heaven is a place where I am to be perfectly happy, and I know this person is burning in Hell, there is no way I could be happy. For Heaven to really work without obscuring information from people, any "sinner" that was loved by someone in Heaven would have to get in too. So I'm more of the belief of everyone getting to Heaven, eventually. That's not saying anything about purgatory though.
So yeah, I'd say you're alright, at least from my point of view.
SteveJ said...The great Greek-speaking theologians of the early church believed that God would save everyone eventually (even John Loftus).
This is liberal Christianity at its finest!
So, if Calvinisn is correct I'll be in heaven (since it is clear to everyone who knew me that I was saved), and if liberal Christianity is correct I'll be saved too.
WOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO!
That's what I'm talking about.
In the meantime I can rape and steal and kill.
Ahhhhh, the atheist life.
It's better over here.
;-) <--------------
Good list of Scriptures, SteveJ. Of course, they don't fit neatly into most evangelical Christian's theology, nor the theology of hard-liners like dbull (appropriate screen-name) who have an answer for everything. Of course, my tradition (Church of Christ) has always taught you can loose your salvation. My brethren are extremely uncomfortable with scriptures like this one:
"I [Jesus] give them [Christian sheep] eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand." (John 10:28-29)
He did say "no one" right? And check this out:
"In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade—kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter 1:3-5)
He did say our inheritance can NEVER PERISH, right? Right??? John, Steve, Lee, Jim et al...see you all in heaven, boys!
I took a side trip through Universalism on my way to Agnosticism. I found that it is the ONLY way the Christian God makes any sense to me at all. Perhaps it also freed me up to lose my faith without so much fear (not that the cult doesn't try to drag my mind back now and then)
I'd say that Johns response looks like a classic response to wrestling with two incompatible ideas.
and lowendactions response (as usual) looks like he's wrestling with incompatible christian ideas.
I always thought when I get to heaven I'm going to ask why this and why that. In a sense if there is a god, he answered my prayer that day in chapel. He told me he was a euphemism for luck.
so after wrestling with it, like John, as a christian, I couldn't believe that god would not give one last chance at the end, presenting himself in all his glory to the person to accept or deny. But then, if that is the case, what is the point of the famous "test of the problem of evil". what is the point of earthly hardships, where is the fairness in life?
At the end, it only makes sense to burn em all. Some of my other christian acquaintances in life reconcile this by believing that we won't know they are burning in hell, and that earthly concerns will be erased.
what a conundrum.
By the way, did my mom and grandfather who each committed suicide get into heaven? She was very religious at the end and my grandfather was a life-long preacher.
If I get there and they don't I'm going to be so angry.
Super Happy Jen wrote:
"And if they don't believe I deserve it, then what does that say about their beliefs?"
Maybe that they believe, deep down, that they are more merciful than God is. Or more just.
Next question; why do they, then, worship this not-merciful-enough God?
Like Lee, my grandfather was a great evangelist and preacher. He died from an infection which turned to gangrene. He could have saved his life by having his foot amputated, but he refused, stating that he wanted to die with a "whole body." When he was dying, the hospice nurse gave him morphine. The nurse said that grandpa died from the morphine before the gangrene killed him. This presents and interested conundrum: grandpa could have saved his life, but didn't. So he technically committed suicide, right? Furthermore, he was given medical attention (under the watch of my dad, a pastor) which hastened his death in a painless way. So, that was assisted suicide right? Question: will my grandfather and father be in heaven? I can find Scriptures that could support heaven or hell for either of them. What does that ultimately say about the reliability of Christian theology?
God is very good, and the Bible teaches that he rewards those who diligently seek him.
There is always hope for someone who still desires God to be real. Even if for some reason a person has left God. (even if the reason includes the self-deception that it is because of "logic" and "reason" and "evidence")
I used to doubt the existence of God. But since 1991 I am no longer able to doubt Him. The internal testimony is so strong that even when people say "how does your 'experience' prove God?" I say "I am talking about something way beyond experience. I am talking about internal knowing!"
:-)
Besides that, the existence of God is plain and obvious to all who would look around them.
ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com
SteveJ said...
And there are plenty of biblical texts that teach a universal redemption, if you'll indulge me here:
"On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines ... And he will destroy on this mountain the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the sheet that is spread over all nations; he will swallow up death forever. Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces, and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth." (Isa. 26:6-8)
"By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’" (Isa. 45:23)
"From new moon to new moon, and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, says the Lord." (Isa. 66:23)
MY reply...
These and the hundreds of OT passages that refer to salvation were not universal (see Isaiah 45:24; Daniel 12:1-2), and they don't fit with a New Testament and a Christ. Notice the passage in Isaiah 66 refers to the continued keeping of Sabbaths, a thing that supposedly was done away in Christ (Colossians 2:16).
YOU said...
"Indeed, God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:17)
MY reply...
This has to do with intent to save, not the result of salvation efforts.
YOU said...
"Therefore, just as one man’s [Adam’s] trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s [Christ’s] act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all." Rom. 5:18
MY reply...
You have no understanding of the scriptures. If this meant that everyone was automatically saved, then repentance, confession, faith, and baptism, or any other human action would be totally pointless for man as far as "being saved" was concerned. Salvation would be totally passive to everyone after calvary. Original sin would not exist. Adam and Eve under the influence of Satan brought death upon all men. Some (like Enoch and Elijah by not being subjected to death) could avoid it, and the rest of us through the hope of a resurrection could beat it, but this did not mean that salvation was automatic, otherwise, why would Paul in the same book be hoping to save Israel (Romans 10:1)?
YOU said...
"For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all." (Rom. 11:32)
MY reply...
This verse is speaking of the unbelieving nation of Israel. But again, this had to with intent of god, not the result. God wants all to be saved, but that doesn't mean that all will be (though, logically, it should, but not according to the Bible).
YOU said...
"For as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ." (1 Cor. 15:22)
MY reply...
This is akin to "all flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6). It didn't mean that all would experience it. You don't understand the declarative nature of scripture. Jesus himself referred to those who were headed to hell--Matt 23.
YOU said...
"He [God] has made known to us the mystery of his will ... as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth." (Eph. 1:9, 10)
MY reply...
This is referring to Jesus being the focal point of all providential acts of God; god orchestrated his will to the end that Christ was the fulfillment of the mystery of God. That's what Paul is discussing in Ephesians. Has nothing to do with every single person being saved. In fact, Ephesians says just the opposite (1:4-5).
YOU said...
"Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Phil. 2:9-10)
MY reply...
Bowing in fear and judgment and bowing in worshipful adoration are two different things.
YOU said...
"... through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross." (Col. 19-20)
MY reply...
Same explanation as with the Ephesians verses.
YOU said...
"Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, singing, 'To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever.'" (Rev. 5:13)
MY reply...
Once again, you don't understand declarative statements; when John referred in Revelation to all the tribes of the earth mourning for Jesus, he did not mean EVERY person would be mourning for him.
Your understand of the scriptures is bizarre and lacking.
YOU said...
So what makes your "exclusionary" texts so much more powerful and convincing?
MY reply...
Because we understand the biblical message of damnation while you do not, much like you don't understand these passages.
(JH)
Hi thirstyjon,
I am talking about something way beyond experience. I am talking about internal knowing!
How is your experience different from the schizophrenic who is sure someone is in the room with them, or they hear voices, or different from the person who has the experience induced in them by deep brain stimulation, change in blood or oxygen flow, trauma or chemicals?
How do you know your experience is not physiological, biological or psychological?
You know that epileptics report seeing a bright light in a seizure don't you? And the bright light phenomena can be induced in test pilot g-force simulator.
resting your case on your internal experience seems kind of flimsy.
Joe E.H.,
I know there are texts that teach condemnation and exclusion. All that means is that the Bible contradicts itself theologically. So which texts trump the others? Personally, I like the ones that teach universal redemption. They make the gospel good news (your message is only so-so news). Jesus told us to love our enemies, not just those who love us; does God exempt Himself from that standard and apply a lower one to Himself?
John L.,
Clement, Origen et al, may have taught universalism. But they also taught that a person who rapes and steals will suffer severe remedial punishment of some kind before going into the eternal state. So I'd hold off on all the mayhem. You don't want your butt to fry for 40 or 50 years, do you?
By the way, I'm not saying I believe that universalism is absolutely true. My point is that there are many ways to interpret issues like redemption all from the same book.
SteveJ said "So what makes your "exclusionary" texts so much more powerful and convincing? "
SteveJ has a compelling argument for all of us that will be saved but some strong mistakes were made. First to account his verses we must discount all verses that explain otherwise. Some of these verses were taken out of context which is very important for understanding the Bible.
Steve, so what you are doing is missing the basic message of the Bible. There will be punishment for the wicked. Your eisegesis method is damaging to your understanding and you are possibly breaking the 2nd Commandment and creating a God to suite yourself "Personally, I like the ones that teach universal redemption."
How would you interpret Revalations 21:8?
The Bible describes hell as unquenchable fire,(Mark 9:43) outer darkness,(Matthew 22:13) a furnace of fire and a place where people wail and gnash their teeth,(Matthew 13:42) and a lake of fire.(Revelation 20:15) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,(Mark 9:48) and where people are in agony in flames.(Luke 16:24) Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)
The Bible is clear unless taken out of context.
> Steve, so what you are doing is missing the basic message of the Bible. There will be punishment for the wicked.
That's the basic message of the Bible? That doesn't sound like "glad tidings of great joy" to me.
Why do people get so worked up when I suggest that some of the Bible's texts sound like universal redemption? Would that bother you?
All of the imagery of unquenchable fire (simply a fire that you can't put out -- not necessarily eternal), gnashing of teeth, torment, etc., can be applied to the fall of Jerusalem, which burned with unquenchable fire in AD 70. If you want to apply those texts to a torture chamber God has set up in some other world, I doubt that I can talk you out of it. After all, you're in the majority.
As for the Bible being clear, I certainly don't agree that it's always so clear. Why do Christians (including learned, pious scholars) disagree on the interpretation of so many passages?
The basic problem, illustrated by the different scriptures that have been batted around in this thread, is that the pieces just don't fit to begin with. The Bible speaks in broad, sweeping terms about global salvation (Jesus will "reconcile all things to himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven" Col 1:20). Yet in the same breath, the Bible takes a defeatist approach ("Narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" Matt 7:14). It speaks about loosing one's salvation ("you have fallen away from grace" Gal. 5:4), but also about the believer's eternal security ("No one can snatch them out of my hand" Jn 10:28). It's no mistake that you find churches siding with one or another of these positions. It's impossible to reconcile all of them (though some try, rather pitifully). And the issue of atonement isn't the only example, either. You find the Scriptures saying such contradictory things as love your enemy (Matt 5:43), but also hate your enemy (Ps 139:21).
The Bible is simply a collection of writings coming from different religious vantage points, obviously dated in the religious, social and political struggles of history. One cannot make sense of it all unless he imposes an external template upon it. That's why you have so many denominations and theologies today. If the Bible was written in a clear and cohesive way, there would be no reason for sincere, God-fearing believers to disagree about such matters. There would be nothing to debate.
Is this debate about something we understand – what exactly does it mean to “go to heaven”, is it different from “meeting on the other side”? Many of the comments demonstrate a belief in an afterlife – with you there – but as to its exact nature, well why not admit we are all guessing. That said, if you believe in an afterlife are you saying that some people won’t qualify? (won’t die or won’t what?)
Faced with all the apparent vast knowledge of other comments I find some appeal in the simplistic view that “salvation” (whatever that may mean) is through faith (= belief in the revelation of what is good) and works (= the way we live our lives) with the more important being works. So if we lead a beneficial life and assist others to do the same it seems like a good idea – most major religions appear to agree (and so too do some who have no religion).
If we are to be evaluated on our “works” then a question that remains with me is how would you rate the “work” of encouraging people to abandon faith … … … … but you if still extol them to a life of good “works”? … or am I just stirring the pot?
Lee Randolph wrote:
"How is your experience different from the schizophrenic..." (etc.)
My Response:
Actually, my point is that I am not talking about "experience." Experience can be delusional, experience can be real; but it is not an accurate determiner of reality.
I am talking about the internal testimony of the Spirit of God. My observation is that men and women know there is something about God, or at least a spiritual reality. God can put it inside a person to "more than know."
I don't expect you to accept my testimony. You have to follow your own conscience. I am not offering my testimony as "proof" of anything. I just offer it for free.
My testimony is this: God is good and His will towards mankind is good. "Peace on earth, goodwill towards men." That is what was announced when God showed up on the planet in person physically. Anyone who wants to know Him can know Him.
I can't promise there won't be doubts and struggles. I only assert that the Spirit of God is testifying to all men and women internally about the bad stuff in their heart; and He is also testifying about His goodness, reality, and forgiveness.
With an internal knowing that comes from God, His existence and goodness become so obvious that hearts are changed!
:-)
ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com
For those Christians who are too complacent as to our respective 'destinations,' I'd remind you of verses that many early proto-orthodox Christians too quite seriously, Hebrews 6:4-7
"4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,
6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
In other words -- as some early Christians believed -- once you are baptised, one strike and 'yer out.' In fact, according to Bart Ehrman, the Shepherd of Hermas -- which almost made it into the New Testament and is included in it in several early Codices -- was written precisely to answer this. To quote him (from LOST CHRISTIANITIES p. 149)
"Indeed, the entire book is driven by an ethical concern: What can Christians do if they have fallen into sin after being baptized? A number of proto-orthodox Christians insisted that those who returned to lives of sin after joining the church had lost any hope of salvation (cf. Heb. 6:4–6). An alternative view is advanced by the Shepherd. This book maintains, on the basis of its divine revelations, that Christians who had fallen again into sin after their baptism had a second chance (but only one second chance) to repent and return to God's good graces. Those who refused to avail themselves of this opportunity, however, or who reverted to sin, would be forced to face the judgment of God on the day of reckoning that was soon to come."
Hmmm, after baptism you get one chance, at best. I think there are a LOT of Christians who are glad that idea got lost in time.
What fruit will grow in a True Christians life:
1. Repentance - A 180 degree turn away from sinful behavior and towards Godly behavior.
2. Thankfulness - A thankful heart that is grateful for what God has done... and shows itself in a cheerful disposition.
3. Good Works - A life that becomes others centered (helping the aged, feeding the poor, teaching children, etc.) Not self centered (all free time consumed in personal hobbies and interests)
4. Fruit of the Spirit - An ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in the life of the believer.
5. Fruit of Righteousness - Doing the right thing according to the way God defines it in his word. Not according to the way man defines it in his own mind.
We are here to get fruit bearing Christians not decisions for Christ to fill pews.
If we understand the parable in Mark 4:3-13 then it unlocks the secret to all parables: Foolish virgin=false convert Wise virgin=Genuine conversions. The good fish, the bad fish. The man who built his house on rock and the man who built his house on sand. The one who built his house on sand is the one who hears the word of Jesus but doesn't keep them. False Convert.
6 characteristics of a False Convert:
1. Mark 4:5 - Lack depth of understanding. Immediate results impressive changes occur quickly then false convert will fall away from their faith over time and the results and changes disappear.
2. Luke 8:6 - False convert lack moisture in other words they lack the life-giving and life-sustaining power of God's word. To a false convert the Bible is dry and uninteresting and struggles with daily devotions.
3. Matthew 13:6 - False convert have no roots like a plant that dries up when the heat comes because it's roots aren't deep enough to reach water to sustain it. So is the false convert who's faith dries up where persecution comes his roots of faith don't run deep enough to reach the life sustaining water of God's word and Holy Spirit.
Mark 4:16 - False Converts receive the word with gladness. Hears the gospel message with gladness and really seems to latch on to it. He may express, for example, with tear filled eyes of joy. How this is the answer he's been looking for. When any test or trials comes his way, excuses become his trademark he falls away from following Jesus.
5. Matthew 13:20 - Repeats that same point false convert receive the word with joy (at first)
6. Luke 8:13 - Because they do believe for a season this is the one that fools the most people because they do believe, for a short time, the Gospel message. These false converts walk and talk a very good game. They often sincerely believe the Vital truths. That Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death and rose from the earth and that he was fully man and fully God. they believe those things in their mind. When it comes time to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus into test and self sacrifice the false convert displays, slowly but surely, the truth that they never believed in their hearts. Never made that commitment to Christ and eventually becomes distracted by the worries and opportunities of life and lives for himself not Christ.
Taken from True and False Coversion, Ray Comfort
I always rather thought there was much to the supposition that the gospels were to some degree written (as obviously were the epistles of Paul) as response to skeptical questioning both from pagan non-believers and proto-christian sects that focused on differing parts of the 'good news'. Take the parable of the sower of seed. What better way to respond to critics than suggest that only true believers would last in the faith -- and the only proof of being a true believer is to believe until you die. Of course, the problem there was none of them (Paul included) expected to die, but rather to be raptured into the heavenly realms. Look how Paul's letters address these questions more in the later versions, long after the supposed rapture would have taken place. BTW, xtians can refrain from answer, as I have no use for nor belief in a single, solitary verse from your book.
This is such an interesting thread for this site. I can see the glee in the eyes of the “debunkers” at some of the narrow views based on a literal and inerrant bible as they wait to demolish them. I guess though that they may feel a little detached from a debate in something that they believe does not exist, an afterlife.
Who goes where and why in an afterlife or spiritual realm is an interesting topic and I look forward to meeting my atheist friends there (I am sure that heavenly “humble pie” is really good to eat, so I will be denied the satisfaction that watching would bring on earth). Which gets me to the nub of the whole a/theist debate – is there a spiritual realm?
Establishing the existence of a spiritual realm is a prerequisite to a half reasonable debate on the ‘who goes where, when and why’. Have we not put the cart before the horse or did I miss that thread?
Now this point is a bigger challenge for those with a relaxed ability to quote scripture – they will have to do a bit better than that - and as ThirstyJon recognises individual unverifiable experiences carry little weight. So at the risk of side tracking this thread I challenge those who are convinced one way or the other to support their position and help get the horse ahead of the cart.
Hi akakiwibear,
you sound like me.
Establishing the existence of a spiritual realm is a prerequisite to a half reasonable debate on the ‘who goes where, when and why’....So at the risk of side tracking this thread I challenge those who are convinced one way or the other to support their position and help get the horse ahead of the cart.
I have to ask, why don't you take the challenge?
In any case,
I'll take that challenge. I already have an argument worked out but unwritten for the showing that the supernatural is unlikely.
stay tuned, I have four articles in the works,
- prinicples of persuasion in your church
- biological bases for behavior
- Jasons satan debunking
- and now your prove/disprove the supernatural.
I am thinking of starting an email account on gmail where readers can request articles about things they would like to see addressed.
feedback anyone?
thanks in advance.
Lee,
I would be interested in such a practice as that. Sometimes I get interesting ideas, and if you guys don't address them on your own, I tend to forget. An email setup would be helpful.
Lee, if you do this people can ask a question directed specifically to one of us which we could attempt to answer.
Lee, you will find my quick reaction to a similar challenge on my blog
I highly recommend Ravi Zacharias (http://www.rzim.org), born in India, he is now a very good apologist who rationalizes on a similar level to the atheist arguments against God and scripture.
I would recommend reading That Colossal Wreck by Doug Krueger, which is a review of Zacharias' A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism, and An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism by Jeffery Jay Lowder, which is a review of Ravi Zacharias' Can Man Live Without God?
Both of which are available on Infidels.org.
I have at least one of Zacharias' books in my library and used to look up to him as a hero. However, the blusteringly self-confident air of many of his messages I find difficult to relate to anymore. The reviews of Ravi's books are really quite balanced. You should especially read this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
jeff_lowder/zacharias.html
The interesting thing that Krueger, Zacharias and many critics of theism and atheism have in common is the need to point out the failings in the writings of adherents of the opposite view. Indeed, unless we can absolutely prove the existence of God or otherwise to a wide audience there is appears to be little else we can do.
If however we want to avoid our musings becoming completely irrelevant we need to be discerning as to which example of theism or atheism we choose to attack. Atheists have the advantage of being able to attack the scriptures – but only really make headway if starting from the false premise that they are inerrant and literal. Theists on the other hand have the seminal texts of atheism as their fodder and it is field full of opportunity, or perhaps we could pick on the so called “truth” movie Zeitgeist.
So where do we turn instead? Science is able to confirm that certain things in the physical world are testable and repeatable, that is, empirically verifiable in the present. A belief in the intangible is clearly an inappropriate subject for scientific investigation. Also I find the often tortuous argument of philosophy leave me in admiration of the craft of argument but at a loss to see its actual relevance. Like science, philosophy endeavours to arrive at a conclusive proof. I don’t see a belief in God being in that category. If it were I would not be writing this, because the obvious absolute truth would render argument irrelevant.
So again, where do we turn? I would suggest that the problem is not where to turn, but where to start. We can start with a clean slate, devoid of preconceptions – call it a bottom up approach. This is very different from the ‘top down’ approach of taking an established view (theist or atheist) and proceeding to dismantle it (please do not disassemble!). The advantage of a bottom up approach is that one is not easily trapped in debate about the truth of a particular teaching (and missing the point of the quest) or caught hiding in a teapot (and denying there is a quest).
The bottom up approach means that we can’t start with the supposition that there is no God. This position immediately means we have to evaluate the possible existence of God and a spiritual realm when we are confronted with questions such as an afterlife, or miracles. We can’t answer these questions with a sweeping “there is no spiritual realm therefore there can’t be an afterlife”. We have to make rational choices about all that is left unexplained by atheists, e.g. miracles, and seek an unbiased answer.
In progressing along a bottom up path of discovery we soon encounter a choice. How do we treat the events attributed to God or a spiritual realm? More importantly, how do we treat first hand evidence (like that of ThirstyJon for instance)? If we seek out only the accounts of credible witnesses to these events and then further refine our search to those where is has been a serious attempt at sceptical review - then IF we then find but only one account where the logical rational explanation is that the event was brought about by an action/intervention of God or the spiritual realm we have in my view reached a valid conclusion.
Of course once we have found that event we still have to choose if we believe it or not. Many have the blind faith to dismiss such occurrences as irrelevant, fraudulent or not in need of explanation; others, rightfully sceptical, accept the evidence of credible first hand witnesses as a valid source of learning.
Hello this is for the atheist, in the book of revelation( which can be found in the Holy Bible) it talks about a meeting with 10 kingdoms, recently there was a meeting with 12 kingdoms, two got frustrated and left, and then there was 10. Almost everything in the Revelation is coming to past. If I were you I would take it into consideration and get saved by Jesus Christ.
I LOVE YOU, Royalty
Hmm, I was just wondering why a nonbeliver would want to promote his non faith, would it not suffice to allow the ignorant to remain ignorant.......seems that there may be a need to defend ones lack of faith...as faith in nothing. If Christianity is bunk, then so be it.....it will stand or fall on the premis that the question Christ posed to His followers. "Who do you say that I am?" It appears you have decided. Sad, but not all will reamain, Judas comes to mind......
Post a Comment