Deconversion

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians who de-converted from Christianity were never Christians?

The general story goes: an atheist comes and says how they were a devout Christian for years and experienced God in such a strong way and prayed and loved Jesus so deeply and was engrossed in theology and Bible history but then, over time, came to see things from a different perspective due to perhaps various new influences, experiences or relationships. Over a period of time, this devout Christian slowly slips away from the Christian circles and stops going to church and reads some books on different religions and so on and one day this Christian no longer "feels" God and then goes on to become an atheist who thinks his/her past life was more of a delusion than a reality.

The atheist then comes on to this forum or elsewhere and tells the story and the first thing out of the Christians' mouth is: "Well, you weren't a real Christian because you deconverted!" Then they usually quote a Bible verse somewhere along the lines of 1 John 2:19.

I don't understand this. Why isn't the general consensus of the Christians after hearing such a story something along the lines of: "Hmm, perhaps this person did have a very real emotional relationship with God and then stopped working at it due to various personal and/or circumstantial experiences." After all, if you stop working at a marriage or a friendship, you slip away and one day you realize you don't even love the person anymore despite loving them in the past. This is why the majority of divorces happen: one or both members stopped putting the effort in. Rarely do you find divorcees being accused of never loving the person even while in the marriage. Its usually quite obvious that at some point in their relationship, they were deeply in love and had quite a strong conviction that it would last. No one gets married expecting a divorce.

I think that de-converters had all the same experiences with Christianity as you are having today. But the only reason they are no longer Christians is not because they never were, but because they stopped working at the relationship and let it slip away. Why is this not a more common view?

Why is it so hard for Christians to believe that de-converters did experience God in a very real way?

Can we stop having Christians accuse de-converters of being "fake Christians" prior to deconversion?

 

[razeontherock]

Why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians who de-converted from Christianity were never Christians?

I think this is a stand-alone passage of Scripture.

Can we stop having Christians accuse de-converters of being "fake Christians" prior to deconversion?

I agree I think that would be an improvement. I can't imagine how that attitude would help anyone, regardless of what might be the case in any given instance. First and foremost there needs to be compassion, and then understanding. To me, there seems to be no room for that when someone else, a total stranger, determines they know more about it.

 

[xique]

as a believer i find it alarming and perplexing that someone would leave the faith-probably i could and should be more compassionate but the prospect of listening to another person try to convince me that my faith is in something wrong doesn't excite me much-at best such a person is going to find me defensive

 

[drich0150]

Why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians who de-converted from Christianity were never Christians?

"conversion" is a term used to describe the mechanical aspects of any given religion. One can "convert" if he does A+B+C. To de convert all one must do is X+Y+Z and technically He is no longer of a given faith. This is different than a "believer" in Christ becoming a non-believer.

It would be like if I were to say I was married for twenty years and after the divorce I said; I do not believe "she" really ever existed. If "she" did exist then I was not really married to her, even if I spent 20 years going through the motions of a relationship. Gong through the motions of marriage does not make a man "married."

If You had/have a relationship and were married and you can not say "she" never existed. Because no matter what you know this not to be true.
This does not mean you can't fight or even divorce. It just means no matter how bad your divorce was you know that the other person still exists.

So, If a person can say they do not know if God exists after 20 years of churchie-anity, then either they are saying things out of spite (which should give them/us some indication as to the maturity level of the believer" in question.) Or you must take them at face value/their own word, they never knew Christ.

In a very real sense if an new unbeliever takes God out of the existence in their new belief, then it is not those who point out that they never believed, that say they were never really christians, it is the one who says there can't be a God, and then gives their reasons. For if their is no God then they could not have been a follower of Christ.

I don't understand this. Why isn't the general consensus of the Christians after hearing such a story something along the lines of: "Hmm, perhaps this person did have a very real emotional relationship with God and then stopped working at it due to various personal and/or circumstantial experiences." After all, if you stop working at a marriage or a friendship, you slip away and one day you realize you don't even love the person anymore despite loving them in the past.

Because real love is not based on what the other person does for you. How many mothers can stop loving their little children? How many small children can do for their mothers as the mothers have done for us?

Now if one loves God with every fiber of their being as we are commanded with all of our Hearts, Mind, Spirit, and strength, then this love should trump any love a mother could ever possibly show a child. With this level of love in mind, tell me again how it is possible to turn it off?

This is why the majority of divorces happen: one or both members stopped putting the effort in. Rarely do you find divorces being accused of never loving the person even while in the marriage. Its usually quite obvious that at some point in their relationship, they were deeply in love and had quite a strong conviction that it would last.

The relationship we are to have with God is not a tit for tat type of marriage relationship. We are slaves in Christ bought with a price. The "marriage" (as you have described it) does not happen in this life, but the next.

No one gets married expecting a divorce.

then i guess it stands to reason those who write pre nups never get to write one.

I think that de-converters had all the same experiences with Christianity as you are having today. But the only reason they are no longer Christians is not because they never were, but because they stopped working at the relationship and let it slip away. Why is this not a more common view?

It truly depends of the individual, and how they view God.

Why is it so hard for Christians to believe that de-converters did experience God in a very real way?

One's experience with God has nothing to do with "faith," and or the relationship required to be a follower of Christ. After all, the Pharisees "experienced" Christ in a more real way then most of us could ever hope to know, and yet they were not disciples.

Can we stop having Christians accuse de-converters of being "fake Christians" prior to de conversion?

Again it all depends on what you now believe, and how you choose to "challenge" God and those who do believe.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Can we stop having Christians accuse de-converters of being "fake Christians" prior to deconversion?

MY FRIEND,

The answer to your question is "NO!"

NO human being who has met our Lord Jesus face to face and PERSONALLY experienced His boundless Love for them would EVER even consider turning back and returning to the darkness from which they were delivered. Even the idea is ludicrous!

"Deconversion" is a myth perpetuated by the half-hearted individuals who are not willing to COMPLETELY surrender themselves FULLY to their Lord and pay the price necessary to enter His Kingdom--i.e. EVERYTHING. "I tried my best but nothing happened" translates, "Pleasing my ego was more important to me than pleasing my Lord, so I chose egocentricity over granting our Lord the throne of my Heart." It's as simple as that.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[American Routes]

Why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians who de-converted from Christianity were never Christians?

Many of us use "Christian" and various words meaning "saved" or "born again" interchangably. It's wrong and I'll be the first to admit that I do it, too.

In the past, I've been one of the people you've spoken of who denied that people who were Christians and apostasized were truly Christians.

I now wouldn't argue with somebody who said they were a Christian but deconverted, but I would argue that they were not saved or born again, as the Bible is very clear that, while Christians may apostasize, a saved man cannot lose his salvation.

If you say you were a Christian and you apostasized, then I have no problem with that. After all, the Bible talks about those who were in the church who got close enough to taste salvation and walked away.

But, if you say you were born again and then were somehow "un-born again", you'd have a huge mountain of Biblical evidence to the contrary to climb.

Now, all that having been said, I've never talked to someone who claims to have been a Christian but apostasized who had a very good understanding of Christianity.

So if you want to be a Christian, then knock yourself out. But for your own sake, make sure you have a good understanding of Christian doctrine or else it's going to backfire on you.

 

[99percentatheism]

Why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians who de-converted from Christianity were never Christians?

The general story goes: an atheist comes and says how they were a devout Christian for years and experienced God in such a strong way and prayed and loved Jesus so deeply and was engrossed in theology and Bible history but then, over time, came to see things from a different perspective due to perhaps various new influences, experiences or relationships. Over a period of time, this devout Christian slowly slips away from the Christian circles and stops going to church and reads some books on different religions and so on and one day this Christian no longer "feels" God and then goes on to become an atheist who thinks his/her past life was more of a delusion than a reality.

The atheist then comes on to this forum or elsewhere and tells the story and the first thing out of the Christians' mouth is: "Well, you weren't a real Christian because you deconverted!" Then they usually quote a Bible verse somewhere along the lines of 1 John 2:19.

I don't understand this. Why isn't the general consensus of the Christians after hearing such a story something along the lines of: "Hmm, perhaps this person did have a very real emotional relationship with God and then stopped working at it due to various personal and/or circumstantial experiences." After all, if you stop working at a marriage or a friendship, you slip away and one day you realize you don't even love the person anymore despite loving them in the past. This is why the majority of divorces happen: one or both members stopped putting the effort in. Rarely do you find divorcees being accused of never loving the person even while in the marriage. Its usually quite obvious that at some point in their relationship, they were deeply in love and had quite a strong conviction that it would last. No one gets married expecting a divorce.

I think that de-converters had all the same experiences with Christianity as you are having today. But the only reason they are no longer Christians is not because they never were, but because they stopped working at the relationship and let it slip away. Why is this not a more common view?

Why is it so hard for Christians to believe that de-converters did experience God in a very real way?

Can we stop having Christians accuse de-converters of being "fake Christians" prior to deconversion?

Why should it cause you any concern what Christians think of the people that reject Christ?

 

[Faulty]

Scripture states that those who went put from us were never actually one of us, and there are any number of passages that state it's those who persevere to the end who are saved.

Perseverance of the saints of one of the signs of a true saint. If one spent persevere to the end they were real to begin with, no matter how many emotional experiences they have had or how adamantly they swear otherwise.

Jesus once told a parable about the four soils where the "seed" of the word of God is spread. One type of soil is a person who receives the word with joy and gladness and even for a time live as they are the real thing, but eventually the cares of the world and their love for this world cause them to fall away, showing them to be this type of soil and never truly born again.

It don't have to stay that way though. Since they've never actually been born again, they don't actually know what a real Christian is. It's not laws, and morality, and "trying your best". It's the difference between a baby in the womb, declaring himself to be born, and one who has actually been birthed.

 

[FaithPrevails]

MOD HAT ON

Some posts have been removed from this thread. If you are a non-Christian and are NOT the OP, you may not respond according to this forum's guidelines.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[CryptoLutheran]

Why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians who de-converted from Christianity were never Christians?

The general story goes: an atheist comes and says how they were a devout Christian for years and experienced God in such a strong way and prayed and loved Jesus so deeply and was engrossed in theology and Bible history but then, over time, came to see things from a different perspective due to perhaps various new influences, experiences or relationships. Over a period of time, this devout Christian slowly slips away from the Christian circles and stops going to church and reads some books on different religions and so on and one day this Christian no longer "feels" God and then goes on to become an atheist who thinks his/her past life was more of a delusion than a reality.

The atheist then comes on to this forum or elsewhere and tells the story and the first thing out of the Christians' mouth is: "Well, you weren't a real Christian because you deconverted!" Then they usually quote a Bible verse somewhere along the lines of 1 John 2:19.

I don't understand this. Why isn't the general consensus of the Christians after hearing such a story something along the lines of: "Hmm, perhaps this person did have a very real emotional relationship with God and then stopped working at it due to various personal and/or circumstantial experiences." After all, if you stop working at a marriage or a friendship, you slip away and one day you realize you don't even love the person anymore despite loving them in the past. This is why the majority of divorces happen: one or both members stopped putting the effort in. Rarely do you find divorcees being accused of never loving the person even while in the marriage. Its usually quite obvious that at some point in their relationship, they were deeply in love and had quite a strong conviction that it would last. No one gets married expecting a divorce.

I think that de-converters had all the same experiences with Christianity as you are having today. But the only reason they are no longer Christians is not because they never were, but because they stopped working at the relationship and let it slip away. Why is this not a more common view?

Why is it so hard for Christians to believe that de-converters did experience God in a very real way?

Can we stop having Christians accuse de-converters of being "fake Christians" prior to deconversion?

Because those Christians adhere to the fifth point of Five Point Calvinism that the elect cannot fall away (Perseverance of the Saints), and thus the the rationalization is that the person was never truly saved/a Christian to begin with--they didn't have real faith (if they had had real faith then they wouldn't fall away).

Most Christians would disagree.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

Many of us use "Christian" and various words meaning "saved" or "born again" interchangably. It's wrong and I'll be the first to admit that I do it, too.

In the past, I've been one of the people you've spoken of who denied that people who were Christians and apostasized were truly Christians.

I now wouldn't argue with somebody who said they were a Christian but deconverted, but I would argue that they were not saved or born again, as the Bible is very clear that, while Christians may apostasize, a saved man cannot lose his salvation.

If you say you were a Christian and you apostasized, then I have no problem with that. After all, the Bible talks about those who were in the church who got close enough to taste salvation and walked away.

But, if you say you were born again and then were somehow "un-born again", you'd have a huge mountain of Biblical evidence to the contrary to climb.

Now, all that having been said, I've never talked to someone who claims to have been a Christian but apostasized who had a very good understanding of Christianity.

So if you want to be a Christian, then knock yourself out. But for your own sake, make sure you have a good understanding of Christian doctrine or else it's going to backfire on you.

The Bible does not say: “ones saved always saved”, but does say your salvation will not be taken from you, you are protected, and you will not be “tempted” beyond the abilities God has provided you.

The Bible does not say your free will is taken away from you when you become a Christian/ saved.

Salvation is a “gift” and as such it is yours like the Hebrew writer comparing it to a birthright and no one can take your birthright from you and even God will not take it from you. But that does not mean you cannot “Give it up” like Esau gave up his birthright. Paul also says we can give up our eternal life Gal. 6:9.

 

[American Routes]

The Bible does not say: “ones saved always saved”, but does say your salvation will not be taken from you, you are protected, and you will not be “tempted” beyond the abilities God has provided you.

The Bible does not say your free will is taken away from you when you become a Christian/ saved.

Salvation is a “gift” and as such it is yours like the Hebrew writer comparing it to a birthright and no one can take your birthright from you and even God will not take it from you. But that does not mean you cannot “Give it up” like Esau gave up his birthright. Paul also says we can give up our eternal life Gal. 6:9.

Since debate is not allowed here, I'll just let my first post speak for itself.

 

[ephraimanesti]

i think that C. S. Lewis has a good take on so-called "de-conversions" which contains a lot of truth:

"Supposing a man's reason once decides that the weight of evidence gives credence to the truth of Christian teachings. I can tell that man exactly what is going to happen to him in the very near future. . . . There will come a moment when he wants a woman, or wants to tell a lie, or feels very pleased with himself, or sees a chance of making a little money in some way that is not perfectly fair, some moment at which it would be convenient if Christianity were not true. And his emotions will carry out a blitz. I am not talking of any moments at which any REAL reasons against Christianity turn up. Those have to be faced, and that is a different matter. I am talking about moments where a mere mood rises up against it. . . . Now faith in the sense in which I am using it is the art of holding onto the things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods change whatever view you reason takes."

 

[LinuxUser]

Why is it that Christians insist that non-Christians who de-converted from Christianity were never Christians?

Because some believe in a doctrine of OSAS (Once saved always saved)

I think that de-converters had all the same experiences with Christianity as you are having today. But the only reason they are no longer Christians is not because they never were, but because they stopped working at the relationship and let it slip away. Why is this not a more common view?

It does say in Scripture

For it is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened—those who have experienced the good things of heaven and shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the power of the age to come— and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people back to repentance; by rejecting the Son of God, they themselves are nailing him to the cross once again and holding him up to public shame.

Hebrews 6:4-6

I know somewhere in early Church history during the persecutions those who apostatized because of the persecutions were allowed to come back, I can't find it but I remember reading it somewhere.

It's not easy being a Christian, it does require work on our part like you alluded to. Many balk at that and think one is saved no matter what. If you read your Bible and pray you'll grow, grow, grow. If you don't pray and read your Bible you'll shrink, shrink, shrink.

When you go to Church it recharges your batteries. [soapbox]Yes we go to Worship God but it also helps us and that shouldn't be ignored. I think to many just assume that we don't get nothing and only worship, but going to Church does help. When I miss I can really tell it[/soapbox]

Why is it so hard for Christians to believe that de-converters did experience God in a very real way?

Doctrine.

Can we stop having Christians accuse de-converters of being "fake Christians" prior to deconversion?

That probably will never happen as some are good at faking it, while others truly had an experience.

 

[Macarius]

Because those Christians adhere to the fifth point of Five Point Calvinism that the elect cannot fall away (Perseverance of the Saints), and thus the the rationalization is that the person was never truly saved/a Christian to begin with--they didn't have real faith (if they had had real faith then they wouldn't fall away).

Most Christians would disagree.

-CryptoLutheran

As an Orthodox Christian, I second CryptoLutheran's reply. MOST Christians in the world (despite how it may appear) do not believe in the teaching that true Christians CANNOT, by sin or neglect, fall away from their faith. Most (and this includes the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and non-Calvinist Protestant sects - some 1.6 billion of the 2 billion Christians on earth) in fact think it is entirely possible for someone to truly believe and know God, and then to reject God through an act of free will.

This is an immense tragedy, but it is incorrect to say that someone who has left the faith wasn't really part of it at all. There may be some for whom that is true (i.e. some may have been faking their faith), but I would guess many felt their faith to be real and genuine.

My preference is to allow the experience of the person I'm speaking with to stand on its own. If they say their faith was real, who am I to judge? If they say it wasn't, who am I to judge?

The matter is between them and God. All I can do is respect the narrative of their life as they tell it (that is, to love them as they are) and to continue to offer Christ's love to them in a way they can meaningfully receive it, as only by that love can the wounds of division be healed.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

There are no "former Christians."

ephraim

That is not Orthodox doctrine or teaching.

 

[GrayAngel]

It depends on your definition of the word Christian. If you're referring to a belief system, then yes, it is possible to be a former Christian. But many times "Christian" means "saved follower of Christ."

Once saved, we're always saved. Even if a person feels devoted to God for a period of time, they were never saved if they later convert out of Christianity. The Bible says that those of us who are saved were chosen before time even began, and our salvation is guarded in Heaven, where no one can steal it away.

I Peter 1:3-5 - Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! 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. This inheritance is 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.

 

[Hentenza]

The Mod hat below was posted earlier. Please follow the posting rules of this forum. I removed a few nonconforming posts.

MOD HAT ON

Some posts have been removed from this thread. If you are a non-Christian and are NOT the OP, you may not respond according to this forum's guidelines.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[ephraimanesti]

That is not Orthodox doctrine or teaching.

MY BROTHER,

Yes, in the strict doctrinal sense, the Church rightly maintains that we never lose the use of our freewill and thus never lose the ability to freely turn away from God and be lost.

However, here on the ground in the real world of real people dealing with real situations, i do not believe that anyone who has met their Lord face to face and experienced His Love personally for themselves and been transformed thereby--the true definition of what it means to be a "Christian"--would ever dream of spitting in their Lord's Face, turning back towards the darkness outside the Kingdom, and walking away into their eternal doom. i don't believe anyone HAS done this or ever WILL do this--even though technically it would, of course, always remain an option for us to do so.

"THERE ARE NO 'FORMER CHRISTIANS' although the possibility always remains"--is perhaps what i should have said. Thanks for pointing out my lapse!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim