Truth

[Former Christian]

Bonairos

The original Protestants said that the Protestant Church is based on Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone. But is it? There are many Protestant Churches. There is only one Bible. Some say, including the Catholic Church, that their distinctive doctrinal standards are not only based on the Bible, but also on the revealing power of the Holy Spirit. But are they? There is only one Holy Spirit. The adherents of Christianity by calling themselves Christians say they are following Jesus Christ. But are they? There is only one Lord Jesus Christ. And along with Judaism and Islam, Christians say they are following God. But are they? There is only one God.

I am reminded of the saying of Joshua, “choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.†(Jos 24:15 ASV) I would apply that to us today with a modification, putting Christianity in place of the gods other than Jehovah.

Do you see my point? Do you see what is disturbing to me? The Monitors say they believe in Historical and Biblical Christianity. And they ban any discussion about the problem of the denominational nature of Christianity. Do they have a defense for the nature of Christianity? A nature that is so visible that even the historians recognize it? Reading books on the history of Christianity, and the five volume work on the history of Christian doctrine by Jaraslov Pelikan, revealed the truth of the nature of Christianity to me. Then I began to attend different Churches, and I experienced the denominational nature of Christianity first hand. Why would Christians not want to discuss an issue as important as this? Even if it is only among themselves? I can see only one reason. They know what I know and are unable to confront the obvious.

As I said, I detest long posts. This is in answer to your question. I did not fell that I could adequately answer your question with a short paragraph. And I answer it in spite of the threat of being banned because this issue is very important to me. From a Biblical standpoint it is a matter of life and death. And it should be in Christianity as well. From an Atheist standpoint it is just a realization of the truth that Christianity is not what it claims to be. And the latter include the Bible in that estimation. I find it interesting that Christians and Atheists have a common lack of desire to procure a practical resolution to this problem. Understandable for Atheists, not so understandable for the Christian.

I can understand that there might be divisions within the one Church of God in a particular location, on the order of what Paul writes about. I can agree with Paul who said, “For first truly when you come together in the Church, I hear that divisions exist in you, and partly I believe it. For it is necessary also for there to be opinions in you, in order that the acceptable may become shining in you.†(1 Cor 11:18-19)

Now this may be considered a personal opinion or interpretation of these verses. But I note that Paul is using two different words here. Earlier in this letter Paul is obviously against divisions, and he is not condoning it here. But he is acknowledging the value of differences of opinion. The purpose of opinions is to allow the truth to shine by contrast. An interesting choice of words. As Jesus is light, so also is his teaching. Opinions are not supposed to become the basis for a division, let alone a denomination. They are to be seen as being in contrast to the light of the teaching of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not to be understood by interpretation or opinions. It is to be understood by the Holy Spirit, as even many Christian denominations profess to believe.

Most Christians don’t think about the denominational nature of Christianity. They just accept the significance of their own denomination. Most Christians don’t know about the history of Christianity or even their own denomination. Nor do they care. Just having a religion that suits their needs is sufficient. This is the first time that I have seen a moratorium on even considering the matter on a forum. I have seen it in certain denominations that I have attended because the subject is considered divisive. A strange point of view from a denomination.

But in answer to your question in your own words; you are correct in that I have divorced myself from Christianity in the sense that I no longer believe that it is representative of what the Bible describes; but I have not yet divorced myself from the Bible or the God and the Jesus Christ that it describes. But I know of no other Christian forum to take my concerns to that I haven’t already tried. I am afraid that after this one, if I can find no solution to my problem here, my nest stop will of necessity be total Atheism. And I will be as militant as the Atheist Biologist Richard Dawkins, or at least as militant as the Atheist Astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson. Depending on the reactions of Christians and my reactions to them.

Have you ever considered this issue before? If so, what is your solution? Or is it even a problem to you?

By the way, I like your sentence at the end, “Real Christian Living. Real Issues. Real Struggles. Real Answers.†That is why I came on this forum. I hope the monitors realize that.

PC

 

[Former Christian]

Warhorse

You said, “Let me clarify, many who call themselves christians are not. Christian means (follower of christ). Thus there faith in christ has manifested itself into there actions, and now there actions and beliefs reflect christ. We may still have differances in our understanding of scripture, and we will naturally still fail from time to time. We are not perfect, we are in a state of being perfected.
Many so called (believers) call themselves christians, but there actions do not bear that out to be true. Please do not allow yourself to be tripped up by the actions of others. it is your relationship to christ that matters.
Study the bible for yourself and then find a church nearby that seems likeminded. There will be plenty of time after our physical deaths to establish which doctrines are correct.
Oh and if you are intersted the Baptist church is not considered to be protestant because its roots do lead all the way back to the age of christ.â€


There is nothing that you said that I disagree with. And what I currently believe is being expressed by what I have written to Bonairos. To some, what I have written implies that I have never been a follower of Christ. I beg to differ. Paul clearly identifies some true believers as being no different in their actions than those who do not believe (1 Cor 3). I think that I am just a little different from them in that I am interested in my current situation to the extent that I am writing about my concerns, and I still try to live in imitation of Jesus Christ and the Apostolic teachings. And like anyone who is honest with themselves, I realize that it doesn’t always turn out that way.

It isn’t that the actions of individuals bothers me. Believers express their faith in different ways and to different degrees. And I have come to believe that it is not my place to judge them. If my help is asked for, I willing comply, either by helping according to personal experience or by sending them to someone else who I feel is better equipped to help them. What bothers me is the nature of Christianity as a whole, its denominational nature.

Something that I picked up from my years as a Protestant is to study the Bible for myself. It has led me to my current situation of believing that there is a difference between the Bible and Christianity. If I was a Catholic, that could not have happened because they strongly believe that one must study the Bible in light of Church doctrine. There is no such thing as reading the Bible for oneself.

As far as finding a likeminded Church. I haven’t come close to achieving that as yet. I think I already mentioned that I can’t be a Catholic because I don’t believe that we can communicate with the saints already in heaven. And I can’t be a Protestant because I don’t believe in Justification by faith alone. Do you know of a denomination that would accept that? The gay Anglicans maybe. That is until they found out that I believe homosexuality is a sin.

As far as the Baptists not considering themselves to be Protestant, it really all depends on which Baptist faction you talk to. Some consider themselves to be Protestant, especially the larger denominations such as the Southern Baptist Church. Others consider themselves to be the true Church and none of the rest of Christianity to be true Christians. And there may be some Baptist Churches that believe somewhere in between. But so far I haven’t attended one of those. All Baptists that I am aware of have one thing in common with Protestantism and all of Christianity. They tend to emphasize their own interpretations of the Bible and believe that their interpretations are authoritative on a level with the Bible. They will claim like all good Protestants that the Bible is the real authority. But like the Christians who don’t manifest their claim to believe in Christ in their actions, so also Baptists don’t manifest their claim to believe in the higher authority of the Bible. At least, I haven’t as yet attended a Baptist Church that breaks the mold. Please don’t take offense at what I said if you are a Baptist because none was intended. It is just how I see it.

Thanks for responding

PC

 

[Bonairos]

you are correct in that I have divorced myself from Christianity in the sense that I no longer believe that it is representative of what the Bible describes; but I have not yet divorced myself from the Bible or the God and the Jesus Christ that it describes. But I know of no other Christian forum to take my concerns to that I haven’t already tried. I am afraid that after this one, if I can find no solution to my problem here, my nest stop will of necessity be total Atheism.

I am sincerely attempting to follow your thoughts. If I misunderstand, please correct me and we’ll get back on track.

I had to sift through your response. Listening if you were speaking to me or replying to the Moderators/Monitors on matters only you would understand.

So in keeping with my inquiry.

You stated, “It is not that I have divorced myself from what Christianity has become. I have divorced myself from what Christianity is and has been all along.â€

You then stated, “Immediately after the persecutions stopped, an era began that was to reveal the true nature of Christianity.â€


Okay, I’m missing something. So are you saying there was a time when the term/adjective “Christianity†(in your opinion) correctly defined a group of people or beliefs? If so, is it not so much that you have divorced yourself from “Christianity as it has been all along†but rather what the term Christianity is now personally perceived as?


You went on to say, “Reading books on the history of Christianity, and the five volume work on the history of Christian doctrine by Jaraslov Pelikan, revealed the truth of the nature of Christianity to me.â€

And also, “From an Atheist standpoint it is just a realization of the truth that Christianity is not what it claims to be.â€

Then said, “you are correct in that I have divorced myself from Christianity in the sense that I no longer believe that it is representative of what the Bible describesâ€


Again, are we talking about “Christianity†in what you deem the word to generally (now) mean and represent? If so, Am I correct to assume you are distinguishing between the (accepted and used) term and the true nature itself?

If so, and if the term “Christianity†does not apply (because it is now tainted), what word (for the sake of discussion) would describe a life and lifestyle in Christ?



But here’s a more concerning question.


You ended with, “But I have not yet divorced myself from the Bible or the God and the Jesus Christ that it describes. But I know of no other Christian forum to take my concerns to that I haven’t already tried. I am afraid that after this one, if I can find no solution to my problem here, my nest stop will of necessity be total Atheism (doctrine or belief there is no God)†Emphasis mine.


Having been revealed knowledge of “the truth(?) of the nature of Christianity,†How does one come to the conclusion or choose to settle and be associated with Atheism?

Surely it can’t be based on man's feeble attempts to describe in a word the life or lifestyle in Christ. Can it?

You articulate well. There must be more to it than that!

Again, I’m just trying to be clear of what you are saying. Correct me and we'll get back on track.


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Former Christian]

Bonairos

You said, “I am sincerely attempting to follow your thoughts.”

And I appreciate it. And I appreciate the kind thought that I articulate well. But I have to disagree. I’m just an average bloke who does the best he can with what he’s got. That’s why what I say needs clarification.


You said, “I had to sift through your response. Listening if you were speaking to me or replying to the Moderators/Monitors on matters only you would understand.”

You may be right that I am reacting to the Monitors somewhat. But I don’t think that my reactions to them has changed what I am trying to say. Which is, the nature of Christianity is denominational, and the practice of interpretation has culminated in opinions that have become the authoritative basis for denominational distinctions.


You said, “You stated, “It is not that I have divorced myself from what Christianity has become. I have divorced myself from what Christianity is and has been all along.”

You then stated, “Immediately after the persecutions stopped, an era began that was to reveal the true nature of Christianity.”

Okay, I’m missing something. So are you saying there was a time when the term/adjective “Christianity” (in your opinion) correctly defined a group of people or beliefs? If so, is it not so much that you have divorced yourself from “Christianity as it has been all along” but rather what the term Christianity is now personally perceived as?”


Perhaps if I added something, “Immediately after the persecutions stopped, an era began that was to reveal the true nature of Christianity THAT ALREADY EXISTED.” Does that help any?


You said, “You went on to say, “Reading books on the history of Christianity, and the five volume work on the history of Christian doctrine by Jaraslov Pelikan, revealed the truth of the nature of Christianity to me.”

And also, “From an Atheist standpoint it is just a realization of the truth that Christianity is not what it claims to be.”

Then said, “you are correct in that I have divorced myself from Christianity in the sense that I no longer believe that it is representative of what the Bible describes”

Again, are we talking about “Christianity” in what you deem the word to generally (now) mean and represent? If so, Am I correct to assume you are distinguishing between the (accepted and used) term and the true nature itself?

If so, and if the term “Christianity” does not apply (because it is now tainted), what word (for the sake of discussion) would describe a life and lifestyle in Christ?”


I am referring to Christianity as you see it today and as it has developed historically into what you see today. The denominational nature of Christianity is especially apparent today, thanks to Protestantism. But we can’t blame Protestants for a nature that has been there all along. Protestants didn’t create the problem as the Catholics might say. They are just a part of the problem. Which is a shame because the original Protestants were given a chance to change things and didn’t.

What term should we use for “a life and lifestyle in Christ”. A very good question. That isn’t easily answered. The term Christian today includes those who are in Christ and those who are not in Christ but call themselves Christians. For the moment I just call myself a former Christian simply because I am not a Christian in the sense the term is used today. A moniker that is not adequate because it implies that I am a died in the wool Atheist, which I really am not as yet. I have tried calling myself one who is in Christ. And calling those who are in Christ together the Body of Christ. Which just elicits blank stares.

It will always be necessary for those who aren’t in Christ to categorize those who are in Christ. That’s how the term Christian got started in the first place. By those who were not following Christ in any way. But originally it meant just as the name implies. A follower in the sense of following a religious philosopher who was called the Christ. Take that to its ultimate conclusion and it’s the liberals who are the true Christians.

In secular religions, as in Christian denominations, a self describing term is meant to categorize. The purpose of a name is to describe a distinction and limits what is named to the distinction. It describes an emphasis on a person (Buddhism, Lutheranism) or a doctrine (Confucianism, Presbyterians), sometimes both (Islam, Reformed).

The emphasis of those who are in Christ should be on the person of Jesus Christ and what he has done on behalf of humanity and our relationship with this person. It is intended to be timeless because of the Holy Spirit, and thus a relationship that transcends human history. The terms Christian and Christianity certainly don’t have that connotation, neither to Christians nor to non-Christians.

Maybe there is no descriptive term simply because there is no one word that adequately describes what we are in Christ. The writers of the letters and of the Revelation didn’t call themselves anything, not Christians, not disciples. But they used a lot of ideas trying to convey what we are in Christ.


You said, “But here’s a more concerning question.

You ended with, “But I have not yet divorced myself from the Bible or the God and the Jesus Christ that it describes. But I know of no other Christian forum to take my concerns to that I haven’t already tried. I am afraid that after this one, if I can find no solution to my problem here, my nest stop will of necessity be total Atheism (doctrine or belief there is no God)” Emphasis mine.

Having been revealed knowledge of “the truth(?) of the nature of Christianity,” How does one come to the conclusion or choose to settle and be associated with Atheism?

Surely it can’t be based on man's feeble attempts to describe in a word the life or lifestyle in Christ. Can it?

You articulate well. There must be more to it than that!”


I share your concern. It is why I am here.

There is only one solution that comes to mind that doesn’t involve becoming an Atheist. And that would be to start my own congregation that believes like I do. It is a rather common solution, especially in Protestantism. But that solution perpetuates the very thing that I am opposed to by creating another denomination of Christianity. You can see the problem.

Most people who see Christianity for what it is will automatically include the Bible in that assessment. It would be reasonable to assume that the Bible is part of the package, especially if ones roots are in Orthodoxy or Catholicism who believes that the Church gave us the Bible. Why I rejected one and not the other I don’t know. I seem to be unique in that way. Maybe it is because I was a Protestant who didn’t believe that the Church gave us the Bible. I believed that God gave us the Bible. And that made Christianity and the Bible two distinctly different things in my mind, which would be in keeping with the original idea of Sola Scriptura. But I know a few Atheists whose roots were in Protestantism. It didn’t separate the Bible from Christianity in their minds.

I am not choosing to become an Atheist. As with anything in life, sometimes the facts are so overwhelming that one has no choice but to follow reality. The facts so far have lead me into a limbo state between Theism and Atheism. Not Agnosticism or Deism because that implies a lack of belief in the Bible, which I still have at this point. I lack faith that Christianity represents the Bible. And that is the crux of my real struggle.

FC

 

[theLords]

I think you're getting hung up on semantics. I would recommend taking your eyes of the Western Church, that is not always accurately representing Christ, and look into the Church abroad. The Church in the Middle East is underground, strong, and growing. They don't have the luxuries of worshipping in public or going to seminary school to learn doctrines. All they have is the Bible, they read it and then they do it. That's it.

(BTW: I'm a non-denom Christian. You don't have to start a new denomination, all you have to do is abandon them all)

You have an opportunity to represent true Biblical Christianity. Go for it.

 

[Former Christian]

TheLords

Well, I certainly have accomplished abandoning all denominations. And I have abandoned the term Christian as well. So I can’t call myself a non-denominational Christian. That leaves me with something like Biblical in Christness.

I don’t think I am hung up on semantics. Semantics concerns the nature of language. I am concerned with the nature of Christianity, not the semantics of terminology. Even though part of the nature of Christianity includes the use of a term (Christian) that does not represent the true nature of being in Christ.

And my concern does not just include the Western Church. Every denomination is involved, including the so called Eastern and Oriental denominations.

You could be right about the underground Churches in the Mideast and in China. I know very little about them. One would think that they wouldn’t have the luxury of being denominational. Though the persecutions of the first to fourth centuries didn’t seem to curtail the development of denominationalism during that era that became very visible beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. It seems that it takes a conscious effort to overcome the nature of denominationalism, as it does to overcome the lusts of our own flesh.

How do you deal with the fact that being in Christ includes a corporate aspect? So called non-denominational Churches that I’ve attended are very denominational where the rubber meets the road.

FC

 

[theLords]

TheLords

Well, I certainly have accomplished abandoning all denominations. And I have abandoned the term Christian as well. So I can’t call myself a non-denominational Christian. That leaves me with something like Biblical in Christness.

The term Christian simply means follower of Christ (or little Christ). There's nothing wrong with that term. It seems you're more upset that calling yourself a Christian means carrying the shameful actions of so-called "Christians" (people calling themselves follower of Christ, and yet not in Him or of Him). Am I right? Point me in the right direction if I'm not.

I don’t think I am hung up on semantics. Semantics concerns the nature of language. I am concerned with the nature of Christianity, not the semantics of terminology. Even though part of the nature of Christianity includes the use of a term (Christian) that does not represent the true nature of being in Christ.

Christian simply means follower of Christ. It doesn't entail anything more than that.

And my concern does not just include the Western Church. Every denomination is involved, including the so called Eastern and Oriental denominations.

Well, you thought of (associated the term) Church with denominations. Denominations are not the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Eklesia. The Church is a group of people that transcends doctrines, theologies, ideologies, traditions, preferences.

You could be right about the underground Churches in the Mideast and in China. I know very little about them. One would think that they wouldn’t have the luxury of being denominational. Though the persecutions of the first to fourth centuries didn’t seem to curtail the development of denominationalism during that era that became very visible beginning with the Council of Nicaea in 325AD. It seems that it takes a conscious effort to overcome the nature of denominationalism, as it does to overcome the lusts of our own flesh.

That's human nature, but my own life experiences under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has shown me that Christians as a whole are moving further and further away from denominations. Even so, I've seen Lutherans and Pentecostals disagree in matters of theology, but do so within the love of Christ. They are still one in Christ and a part of the Church, despite differing denominations.

How do you deal with the fact that being in Christ includes a corporate aspect? So called non-denominational Churches that I’ve attended are very denominational where the rubber meets the road.

FC

Being in Christ does not entail a corporate aspect. Christ transcends the business and politics of denominations and churches.

 

[childeye]

I hope this clarifies why I call myself a

Former Christian,

I agree with most all you've said yet I still think you believe Christ to be the one True Image of God. You seem to be mad at men or hurt by those who proclaim to be Christian. Men can distrort that which is but yet the Truth is not changed only balsphemed. I advise you not take other's doctrines so seriously. Even scripture verifies what you say, that there would be those that muddy the waters. We all are trying to do our best yet we need mercy and understanding where we fall short. Christianity is not protestantism, Catholicism,etc.... It is having God rule in your heart through faith in His Christ.

 

[Former Christian]

TheLords

The term Christian simply means “follower of the Christâ€. It was originally used in the sense of following a philosopher. Today the term refers to people who are both in Christ and not in Christ. Adding the adjective “true†doesn’t change that. It is a totally inadequate term to describe one who is in Christ, whether in its original meaning or the meaning that is attached to it today.


You said, “Denominations are not the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Eklesia. The Church is a group of people that transcends doctrines, theologies, ideologies, traditions, preferences.â€

I agree. The denominations of Christianity, especially those like the Catholic Church, are of a different opinion.


You said, “That's human nature, but my own life experiences under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has shown me that Christians as a whole are moving further and further away from denominations. Even so, I've seen Lutherans and Pentecostals disagree in matters of theology, but do so within the love of Christ. They are still one in Christ and a part of theChurch, despite differing denominations.â€

If what you say is truly happening, then the next step would be to put away the Tradition of Christian denominationalism altogether So they won’t be Lutherans or Pentecostals.


You said, “Being in Christ does not entail a corporate aspect. Christ transcends the business and politics of denominations and churches.â€

The term Church (ekklesia in the Greek, which also has a different meaning than Church that translates it), the Church in the Bible very much implies a corporate aspect of those who are in Christ. By corporate I don’t mean incorporated as in a Business Corporation. Which many Christian Churches are today, by the way. I mean meeting or gathering together for the purpose of being a Priesthood together (1 Pe 2:1-10) and sharing in the Lord’s Table together (1 Cor 11), practicing Acts 2:42 (as in the KJV) together in a practical way. As you said above, “the Church is a group of peopleâ€, to which I add must express that fact in a practical way here on earth.


FC

 

[theLords]

TheLords

The term Christian simply means “follower of the Christâ€. It was originally used in the sense of following a philosopher. Today the term refers to people who are both in Christ and not in Christ. Adding the adjective “true†doesn’t change that. It is a totally inadequate term to describe one who is in Christ, whether in its original meaning or the meaning that is attached to it today.

Why does it refer to someone who is in or out of Christ? This is news to me, lol.

You said, “That's human nature, but my own life experiences under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has shown me that Christians as a whole are moving further and further away from denominations. Even so, I've seen Lutherans and Pentecostals disagree in matters of theology, but do so within the love of Christ. They are still one in Christ and a part of theChurch, despite differing denominations.â€

If what you say is truly happening, then the next step would be to put away the Tradition of Christian denominationalism altogether So they won’t be Lutherans or Pentecostals.

Yes, and as we move closer and closer to the Return of Christ we'll find this happening. More so, during the reign of the antichrist IMO.

You said, “Being in Christ does not entail a corporate aspect. Christ transcends the business and politics of denominations and churches.â€

The term Church (ekklesia in the Greek, which also has a different meaning than Church that translates it), the Church in the Bible very much implies a corporate aspect of those who are in Christ. By corporate I don’t mean incorporated as in a Business Corporation. Which many Christian Churches are today, by the way. I mean meeting or gathering together for the purpose of being a Priesthood together (1 Pe 2:1-10) and sharing in the Lord’s Table together (1 Cor 11), practicing Acts 2:42 (as in the KJV) together in a practical way. As you said above, “the Church is a group of peopleâ€, to which I add must express that fact in a practical way here on earth.


FC

Ah, yes. I misunderstood you. In the context you mean, yes, the corporateness of the Body of Christ is a blessing :yes

You're very bright. I pray the Lord continues to bring you through this time. Don't allow the actions of some bad apples to cause you to abandon your faith in Christ. Your relationship with Christ is between you and Him. Because your eyes are open, you have the ability to be a light in darkness. Don't give that up. It seems to me your true issue is with Religiosity. Christ came to set us free from religion. You have a good head on your shoulders, I would recommend you forgive those Christians who have hurt you or who's sins have affected you (if you haven't already).

I was once taught that when we sin, our sin affects the entire Body of Christ, and I was very skeptical in believing that. The more life experiences I have, the more I find it to be true.

 

[Bonairos]

I’m just an average bloke who does the best he can with what he’s got.

Average or not, isn’t that all the Lord requires of us; do the best we can with what we have?!

Which is, the nature of Christianity is denominational.

By Whose definition? Who but Christ has the authority to establish the nature of Christianity?

I am referring to Christianity as you see it today and as it has developed historically into what you see today.

As I see it today? I assume that is concluding I fall into the ranks of your definition of Christianity.

For the moment I just call myself a former Christian simply because I am not a Christian in the sense the term is used today. A moniker that is not adequate because it implies that I am a died in the wool Atheist, which I really am not as yet.

So would there have been a better username to describe you without the implications? Yet you still choose to be known by the inadequate name, "FORMER CHRISTIAN?!" Or is it intentional with the added implications?

I have tried calling myself one who is in Christ. And calling those who are in Christ together the Body of Christ. Which just elicits blank stares.

By who? Certainly not we who also declare that we are in Christ and refer to those in Christ as the Body of Christ as well.

Maybe there is no descriptive term simply because there is no one word that adequately describes what we are in Christ.

Maybe. But is that any reason to depart from the Faith’ simply because we don’t have that one word (sufficient to our liking) describing what we are in Christ?

There is only one solution that comes to mind that doesn’t involve becoming an Atheist. And that would be to start my own congregation that believes like I do. It is a rather common solution, especially in Protestantism. But that solution perpetuates the very thing that I am opposed to by creating another denomination of Christianity. You can see the problem.

I can say I see a problem. Perhaps you have come to your end of solutions. But even in that, the only alternative is being associated with Atheism? To deny the existence of the One True God? The One Who has revealed Himself to you?!

Most people who see Christianity for what it is will automatically include the Bible in that assessment . . . It would be reasonable to assume that the Bible is part of the package . . . I believed that God gave us the Bible.

Still trying to follow. God gave us the bible but He did not give us “Christianity” (the term, in your opinion that is weakly used) to describe the followers of His Christ as outlined in the bible He gave us?

I’m not connecting. Though I am trying.

I am not choosing to become an Atheist. As with anything in life, sometimes the facts are so overwhelming that one has no choice but to follow reality.

And in that reality, there is no other option but to deny the existence of, "The God of the Bible?”

I lack faith that Christianity represents the Bible. And that is the crux of my real struggle.

Ah, perhaps we have reached the heart of the matter. The struggle is not that you contemplate Atheism (denying the Holy One’s existence), or that you are a former Christian (its’ intended original meaning), but rather realizing that a relationship with Jesus (as reflected in the bible), cannot be presently described (in your opinion) through watered down words such as Christianity or Christian.

Yet, the truth of that life does indeed exist!

Even so. One can still choose to proclaim that life (and not abandon its’ Truth) regardless if it fits the definition of others (especially that of non-believers).


Am I wrong?

Perhaps a PM is in order? You decide.


Be blessed, Stay blessed, and be Bold!

 

[Former Christian]

TheLords

You said, “Why does it refer to someone who is in or out of Christ? This is news to me, lol.â€

In the first century the term Christian referred to a definite group of people who were in Christ. This group did not call themselves Christians. They were called that by outsiders. And the term had a specific meaning wherein the ones who were in Christ were thought to be followers of a religious philosopher, a radical religious philosopher, which was the probable reason for most of the persecution from the Romans. There were those of course, especially among the Jews who persecuted the ones who were in Christ only because of the prodding of Satan through their own fleshly desires. We have to recognize that Satan is not behind everything that happens to those who are in Christ. Sometimes its just a matter of human nature. But we also have to recognize that Satan is behind some things. And often discerning which is which is difficult.

Today the term Christian is associated with Christianity and its meaning has changed in that it has a broader meaning that includes more than just the ones who are in Christ. And, of course, it is no longer a term that is just used by those who are outsiders. It refers to the liberal element as well as the conservative. Most liberals are Christian philosophers who believe that Jesus was just a man who was a greater philosopher than themselves, and they don’t believe that Jesus redeems them in any other way than through the gaining of wisdom. They don’t believe in the miracles described in the Bible thus denying the supernatural, and most think that the Bible was written by men, that the Bible is just a common book that contains some wisdom. And it also refers to the element in conservative Christianity who are more interested in doctrines about Jesus than in Jesus himself. But it also refers to people who are actually in Christ. I really don’t like to judge who is who. But with a few it is self evident.

Because of the origin of the term Christian, and the broad meaning that it has now, as well as its association with denominational Christianity; I don’t call myself a Christian anymore. But that doesn’t mean that I have disassociated myself from those who are in Christ.


You said “Yes, and as we move closer and closer to the Return of Christ we'll find this happening. More so, during the reign of the antichrist IMOâ€

Perhaps. Though Paul seemed to think that things would get worse rather than better.


You said, “Don't allow the actions of some bad apples to cause you to abandon your faith in Christ.â€

I’m used to bad apples and recognize them for what they are. They don’t bother me and I tend to stay away from them. What will cause more of a problem for me is if I begin to see that the Bible is the root of the denominational nature of Christianity. So far I see that it is not. I’ve been able to keep the Bible separate from Christianity. The two do not express the same thing.


You said, “It seems to me your true issue is with Religiosity. Christ came to set us free from religion.â€

Religiosity. Yes, an interesting term. I’ve met very few people who were excessively religious. In the sense of believing and worshipping God, if anything, most need more religion. But I think you, like most who use that term, mean being religious without knowing the God they are worshipping. It’s a big problem among Catholics where outward religion is more the practice than inward religion. But don’t think that Protestants are immune. Again I usually can recognize people who are like that and I am not bothered by them.

You said, “I was once taught that when we sin, our sin affects the entire Body of Christ, and I was very skeptical in believing that. The more life experiences I have, the more I find it to be trueâ€

Oh yeah it’s definitely true. Look how the denominational nature of Christianity is affecting people. It has had a very negative affect on me. But for others it has just had a deadening effect.

FC