• Love God, and love one another!

    Share your heart for Christ and others in Godly Love

    https://christianforums.net/forums/god_love/

  • Want to discuss private matters, or make a few friends?

    Ask for membership to the Men's or Lady's Locker Rooms

    For access, please contact a member of staff and they can add you in!

  • Wake up and smell the coffee!

    Join us for a little humor in Joy of the Lord

    https://christianforums.net/forums/humor_and_jokes/

  • Need prayer and encouragement?

    Come share your heart's concerns in the Prayer Forum

    https://christianforums.net/forums/prayer/

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes coming in the future!

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter elijah23
  • Start date Start date
The problem is the only people I've known who speak of being a 'former christian', or a person who has 'tried Christianity but found it didn't work' were unbelievers and atheists. So why would a believer in Christ choose to identify themselves with those who, knowingly or not, have rejected Christ and Christianity through a rejection of the religion of Christianity? It's beyond my spiritual sensibilities to even consider it.

My rebellion against the status quo gets expressed in a sincere desire for all 'Christians' to know truths they may not already know. Then those who really do want to live for and serve Christ can be further transformed into the image of Christ, while those who don't will at least have heard what the truth really is as they continue in the path they've chosen. But to refuse to be called a Christian as a protest against them? I can't do it. Kind of gives a new twist to the term 'Protest-ant'.
 
However, consider that yes and no answers say nothing really and one can read whatever one wants into them. It’s an old lawyers trick.
"Lawyers trick"? Come on. Actually, FC your 'yes' and 'no' answers speak volumes about your dogma. Those disciples of Christ in Antioch who were "in Christ" did wear the name "Christian" as a matter of honor just as Christians have done over the past 2000 years. And to say that Peter would have dishonored Christ by wearing that name is beyond odd. Is this notion from your own imagination or do you belong to a sect that has taught you this dogma?

I know something of the Greek and the meaning of NT words.

Are you claiming to be a Greek expert, FC?

We can’t just discount these things because we want to believe in what we want to believe or what we were taught to believe

But isn't that exactly what you are doing my friend with this whole 'former Christianâ€' spiel? Aren't you simply believing what you want to believe because that is what you were taught?

And we have to be aware that sometimes there are English translations in the English bibles that are very interpretive.

LOL – just as there are Greek phrases in the Greek that are very interpretive—yes? What's your point, exactly? The 'former Christian' dogma doesn't track with what we read in the Bible.
 
Let's try to keep this on topic and not turn it into a debate between individuals and their personal beliefs. Okay to talk about our differences as long as we keep things objective and share in love.
 
Jethro Bodine

Whenever I encounter a person with a "me and the rest of you" attitude in the church I know I'm dealing with someone who's love for the body of Christ, warts and all, is suspect. The love for the people of God, no matter how ugly we are, that is the distinguishing mark of the true follower of Christ. Remember, Christ died for this ugly bunch..when it was much uglier than it is now.

When I was an Atheist, I was a cultural Relativist. And I fully believed in the live and let live philosophy. The idea that we should LOVE everyone that became popular after the 1960’s. I judged no one. I considered the rights and the beliefs of every one to be sacrosanct so long as they kept their fist a foot from everyone else’s nose, their knives sheathed, and their guns holstered.

That changed after I attended my first Christian Church. It was there that I learned to be doctrinally intolerant. I assimilated their view that to tolerate doctrinal views other than one’s own is to be UNLOVING because such doctrine is the truth. And it’s UNLOVING to hide the truth from anyone.

Since becoming a former Christian, I’ve learned to become doctrinally tolerant, thus reinstating my former Relativistic philosophy somewhat. In the view I present, the philosophy of doctrinal Relativism is based on what Jesus and Paul say about LOVE. Not on the Christianity interpretation (which seems to include more than one definition). Personal belief in what one thinks is truth is necessary. But judging the beliefs of others, that they consider just as true as one’s own, is putting oneself in a position of authority that is both unnecessary and unwarranted.

So I won’t judge Christians, neither according to their doctrines, nor according to their actions. That which may be wrong may be one’s own. No one but God knows what’s going on within, unless they choose to reveal it. If need be, I’ll just let them alone. I’ve heard too many stories of how people influenced other people just by their daily lives that included no judgment whatsoever. And on the contrary I’ve heard the reverse. Steven Seagal, the movie actor, was once asked why he chose Buddhism over the Christianity he was born into. He made a simple statement. Christianity is too judgmental. I for one, due to personal experience, understand what he meant. If Jesus came not to judge the world but to save the world, it behooves those who claim to follow Christ by calling themselves Christians, to do as they claim. And if I have received more, it behooves me more.

You have totally taken me out of context and judged me to be something I am not. I don’t consider myself in terms of “me and the rest of youâ€. I consider myself the same as all Christians who are truly in Christ. And potentially the same as those Christians who are not. It would be nice if they all saw things as I do or even the same as each other, but that isn’t happening. Do you honestly think I would emphasize that all who are in Christ are intended to walk by the Spirit and keep the unity of the Spirit, to center themselves in Jesus Christ, if I had a “me and the rest of you†attitude? Wouldn’t I rather say everyone should follow me? And if you think I have said that, you would be totally wrong.

I don’t judge the religion that calls itself Christianity. That I leave to God. I simply discern it for what it really is. And can no longer in good conscience consider myself a part of it.

Consider it in these terms. A person believes that the doctrines of a certain Church are wrong. That person is removed from that Church because that Church believes their doctrines are true. That person can no longer be a part of that Church because both sides believe their doctrines are true. So he starts a new community where he believes the doctrines are true.

Martin Luther did that very thing. If you think he was wrong to do so, maybe you should consider becoming a Roman Catholic. The Church that preceded his community. Instead of being “you Protestants against everyone elseâ€.

The difference in that example is that I haven’t started a new community. And I, believe it or not, still attend one of the Churches of Christianity. Covertly, being silent among them about my own doctrinal understanding for fear of being excommunicated. A necessary precaution if I want to continue to fulfill my community obligation. I have chosen not to start a new community that will no doubt eventually just become another denomination of Christianity as soon as I’m no longer there to prevent it. Protestantism is full of such denominations.

I don’t judge the Christians within Christianity. Because however I might judge them matters little to them or to God. They are responsible to their own master. Whomever that may be.

Should I no longer believe what I believe to be true, and conform my faith to the faith of another? Should I become a part of something that I know I shouldn’t be a part of, so that I can “exercise LOVE� Some Christians manage and work in Taverns. Should I go and do likewise because they’re fellow Christians, even though in my mind it’s not something I should be doing? Am I showing a lack of LOVE for my brethren in that way? Am I a poor witness for Christ on that account?

What exactly is LOVE to you?

ADDITION:

Not as FC as done by deciding those who don't agree with him are only 'Christian' and not of Christ while he is 'in Christ'. That is what it means to condemn somebody and not just their doctrine….. So, do I have to rally under the flag of FC's sect to be considered 'in Christ'? When he condemns 'christians' as being 'not in Christ' he is also condemning me who is, and always will be called a christian, but who sympathizes with his frustration but doesn't condemn others over the acceptance or non-acceptance of petty doctrine.

You misrepresent me sir. I’ve never said that. On the contrary, I have said that there are many who are in Christ who call themselves Christian and are within Christianity. Don’t create straw men to fight against. You’ll find it’s a futile practice. I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps you misunderstood me when I said that not all who are Christian are in Christ. It would be similar to your saying that many in Christianity misrepresent the name of Christian.


The problem is the only people I've known who speak of being a 'former christian', or a person who has 'tried Christianity but found it didn't work' were unbelievers and atheists. So why would a believer in Christ choose to identify themselves with those who, knowingly or not, have rejected Christ and Christianity through a rejection of the religion of Christianity? It's beyond my spiritual sensibilities to even consider it.

If I was an Atheist or an unbeliever there would be no reason to be dishonest about it. I am a believer in the God and the Son of God described in the bible. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to be such a believer. I don’t equate Jesus Christ with the religion that uses his name. Former Christian means just what it says. I once considered myself a Christian who is a believer. Now I consider myself a former Christian who is a believer. Why should I call myself a Christian on your account? Especially since in my mind it would give a false impression, it would be a lie? You equate believing in Christ with calling oneself a Christian. I don’t. It’s as simple as that. Don’t blame your Spiritual sensibilities on a natural revulsion. If you’re in Christ and I’m in Christ we’re brothers, whether one, both or neither refers to himself as a Christian. Or do I have to refer to myself as a Christian before you can accept me as a brother? Did you before mistakenly say that I’m a Christian whether I like it or not? Do I have to agree with you, before I can become acceptable to you?

My rebellion against the status quo gets expressed in a sincere desire for all 'Christians' to know truths they may not already know. Then those who really do want to live for and serve Christ can be further transformed into the image of Christ, while those who don't will at least have heard what the truth really is as they continue in the path they've chosen. But to refuse to be called a Christian as a protest against them? I can't do it. Kind of gives a new twist to the term 'Protest-ant'.

Your truth or God’s? Will you protest against those who don’t believe in your truth? When you look at me, are you putting a mirror between us and looking at your own reflection?

And remembering something you said to Smaller, who are you to think you have the authority to chastise me? Are you God my Father? Are you Jesus Christ my brother? Are you my Spiritual Father? Are you guilty of the arrogance you accuse others of having?


FC
 
Zeke

"Lawyers trick"? Come on. Actually, FC your 'yes' and 'no' answers speak volumes about your dogma. Those disciples of Christ in Antioch who were "in Christ" did wear the name "Christian" as a matter of honor just as Christians have done over the past 2000 years. And to say that Peter would have dishonored Christ by wearing that name is beyond odd. Is this notion from your own imagination or do you belong to a sect that has taught you this dogma?

As you wish.

Are you claiming to be a Greek expert, FC?

Do I have to be Greek expert? Do I have to be an expert in American English before I can understand and speak the language with sufficient fluency?

And we have to be aware that sometimes there are English translations in the English bibles that are very interpretive.


LOL – just as there are Greek phrases in the Greek that are very interpretive—yes? What's your point, exactly? The 'former Christian' dogma doesn't track with what we read in the Bible.

I think you’ll find creating straw men and fighting against them to be a futile experience. Read whatever you want into what I said. Read whatever you want into the bible. The only one who will suffer loss is you.



And Now

In compliance with the wisdom of WIP, this is the last I’ll speak of this matter on this thread. I’ve said all I wanted to say. You and Jethro Bodine can have the last word.

FC
 
Do I have to be Greek expert?

You appeared to be making that claim. I was simply asking for clarification and you didn't answer the question---are you?

I think you’ll find creating straw men and fighting against them to be a futile experience. Read whatever you want into what I said. Read whatever you want into the bible. The only one who will suffer loss is you.

No straw-men my friend - simply trying to understand your notion that appears to be at odds with the Bible.

And Now

In compliance with the wisdom of WIP, this is the last I’ll speak of this matter on this thread. I’ve said all I wanted to say. You and Jethro Bodine can have the last word.

Again, those disciples of Christ in Antioch who were "in Christ" did wear the name "Christian" as a title of honor and to say that Peter would have dishonored Christ by wearing that name is beyond odd. If you choose to wear the moniker, *former-Christian* that is your option but to say disciples of Christ today should reject the name Christian is something you are not authorized by God to do.
 
I simply discern it for what it really is. And can no longer in good conscience consider myself a part of it.
But what you have mistakenly done is say that all of Christianity is bad. I, too, firmly resist so much of what is wrong in Christianity today, but I know it would be a serious error of judgment to say there is no correct Christianity in the world today. I already know from experience this simply is not true. Those you acknowledge who secretly do serve God correctly are indeed very much Christians. You can't decide 'Christian' means something else just because many don't represent it well, while others do.



Consider it in these terms. A person believes that the doctrines of a certain Church are wrong. That person is removed from that Church because that Church believes their doctrines are true. That person can no longer be a part of that Church because both sides believe their doctrines are true. So he starts a new community where he believes the doctrines are true.

Martin Luther did that very thing. If you think he was wrong to do so, maybe you should consider becoming a Roman Catholic.
Martin Luther did not rebel against plain scripture. Quite the opposite. And he certainly didn't abandon the 'church' and the name 'Chrisitainity' in a misguided protest against those who considered themselves a part of it and who called themselves Christians.



I don’t judge the Christians within Christianity.
Well, actually you have. How else could you form the basis upon which to separate yourself from them and their name? We're entitled to discern. What we are not entitled to do is condemn.


Should I no longer believe what I believe to be true, and conform my faith to the faith of another?
That depends on whether or not the faith you are being persuaded to conform to is true or not.


Should I become a part of something that I know I shouldn’t be a part of, so that I can “exercise LOVE”?
In regard to disputable matters, "Yes", not as a rule or a command, but in the name of love. Read Romans 14. But not being ashamed of being a Christian is not a disputable matter not covered by scripture.


Some Christians manage and work in Taverns. Should I go and do likewise because they’re fellow Christians, even though in my mind it’s not something I should be doing? Am I showing a lack of LOVE for my brethren in that way?
No. But don't decide that those who do aren't also acting in Christlike love just because you wouldn't be if you did that. This is a disputable matter that is open to one's own judgment about it. Not being ashamed of the name of Christian is not a disputable matter.


Am I a poor witness for Christ on that account?
No. In this case, your witness for Christ is to stay away from Taverns...but to also not condemn the one who is witnessing for Christ that way and decide you're going to make a public statement separating yourself from them. (Read Romans 14). This a disputable matter, not a matter of plain scripture as not being ashamed of the name 'Christian' is.


What exactly is LOVE to you?
"...in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12 NIV1984)

10 "Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:10 NIV1984)



I am a believer in the God and the Son of God described in the bible. One doesn’t have to be a Christian to be such a believer. I don’t equate Jesus Christ with the religion that uses his name.
You've made a very big mistake in assuming that Christianity is not being represented correctly by some believers even in this time in history. Christ is indeed still equated with Christianity in the lives of some people. You've made a very serious error of judgment.



Why should I call myself a Christian on your account?
Besides the Bible plainly says to do so and not be ashamed of that name, you harm your brothers and sisters in the Lord who do rightly identify themselves with the name of Christ and Christianity, but whom you choose to not identify yourself with, creating division and confusion that only hinders the church, not somehow reveals truth that others need to see...especially in the eyes of the world who already can't deal with the many protests and divisions in the church.


If you’re in Christ and I’m in Christ we’re brothers, whether one, both or neither refers to himself as a Christian. Or do I have to refer to myself as a Christian before you can accept me as a brother?
It depends on what I felt was the true motivation for you choosing not to identify with the name 'Christian'. As you probably well know, we are all entitled to discern who we feel is really a brother or not, for our own protection. If I knew you personally and I felt the motivation for your abandonment of the 'church' and 'Christianity' was because you really don't belong to us anyway, I would not accept you as a brother. If you think that's unBiblical, to not consider a person a believer, read Matthew 18.



Did you before mistakenly say that I’m a Christian whether I like it or not?
It wasn't a mistake. You have an opinion about Christ and choose to follow him in some way. That makes you a Christian. Just as a Buddhist has an opinion about Buddha and follows him and which makes him a Buddhist. That's why I say when you call yourself a 'former Christian' you are identifying yourself outside of Christ in the eyes of everybody else, in and out of the church. You've chosen a very destructive way to protest 'Christianity'.


Do I have to agree with you, before I can become acceptable to you?
As I've said, that depends on whether I think, from all the evidence available, that you really are a Spirit-sealed brother in Christ. In and of itself adopting the name "former Christian" does prove it either way. But the reasons you do that does help show that. It's a title that suggests to me a lack of love for the body of Christ--the defining characteristic of a true believer.



And remembering something you said to Smaller, who are you to think you have the authority to chastise me? Are you God my Father? Are you Jesus Christ my brother? Are you my Spiritual Father? Are you guilty of the arrogance you accuse others of having?
"16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom..." (Colossians 3:16 NIV1984)
 
Back
Top