Why is it that when Christians can't handle ex-Christians, they say...?

[Mad_at_God]

Why is it that when Christians can't handle ex-Christians, they say they were never Christians?

I used to pray every night. I was very religious. I once took up the cross and proclaimed Jesus as my savior. I was once born again. I was rigorously devout in my beliefs—yet many simple-minded Christians always tell me that I was never a Christian simply because I renounced my Christianity. Why is that? Can they not handle people who turn their back on Jesus?

Christians who reason that faith is permanent (meaning that it is impossible to fall away once someone becomes a born again Christian) and say that any born again Christian who turns his back on Christianity was never really a Christian are using a good example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Someone uses the no true Scotsman fallacy when they try to reinterpret evidence to prevent the refutation of their own position. Counter-examples are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples.

Counter-examples to the idea that faith is permanent (that is, born again Christians who turn their back on Christianity) are written off with the no true Scotsman fallacy: they didn't really have true faith; they were never true Christians.

 

[drich0150]

I used to pray every night. I was very religious. I once took up the cross and proclaimed Jesus as my savior. I was once born again. I was rigorously devout in my beliefs—yet many simple-minded Christians always tell me that I was never a Christian simply because I renounced my Christianity. Why is that? Can they not handle people who turn their back on Jesus?

If you saw first hand some of the atrocities human beings were capable of during WWII or at any other point in our history, would it be possible for you to renounce your Humanity? Could you cease being Human just because you changed your mind about wanting to be associated with those in whom you detest?

All of the things you listed are indeed apart of the Christian experience, but in of themselves do not make you "christian." Following Christ is a life long pursuit. if you decide half way through to no longer follow Christ, then it could be said you were never really a Christian to begin with. A Christian is not pronounced upon the willing completion of a few rituals. True Christianity is rewarded at the day of your final Judgment, as a direct result of the condition of your heart, and through the gift of redemption purchased by the blood of the Lamb...

If you do wish to claim the title of being a member of pop christianity, then it is all yours. (You have the credentials) Just know this title means little to anyone else except to those who replace it for the real thing.

 

[aiki]

Why is it that when Christians can't handle ex-Christians, they say they were never Christians?

1 John 2:19 (NKJV)
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

I used to pray every night. I was very religious. I once took up the cross and proclaimed Jesus as my savior. I was once born again. I was rigorously devout in my beliefs—yet many simple-minded Christians always tell me that I was never a Christian simply because I renounced my Christianity. Why is that? Can they not handle people who turn their back on Jesus?

No, it is because this is what the Bible indicates (see above verse). In Calvinism, this doctrine is called the Perseverance of the Saints.

Christians who reason that faith is permanent (meaning that it is impossible to fall away once someone becomes a born again Christian) and say that any born again Christian who turns his back on Christianity was never really a Christian are using a good example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

No. Not really. If they were dismissing your assertion that you were a Christian in an ad hoc fashion, appealing merely to their own opinion as a basis for doing so, then you might be correct. But the Bible itself tells us that those who fall away from the faith were never truly of it. The Bible, as I'm sure you know, is the source for what we understand Christianity to be; it defines what it means to be a Christian. If this universally-acknowledged authority on the definition of Christianity indicates that a person who has denied their Christian beliefs was never truly of the faith, well, then, that apostasy is, in part, how Christians identify a pretender to the faith.

If the Almighty God of the Universe comes to dwell within you as the Bible says happens at the moment of conversion, you will never be the same again. There is no turning back; the joy and peace of intimate communion with one's Maker is too deep, too rich to abandon.

Peace.

 

[Lukaris]

What caused you to lose your faith? Despair? Just give the general reason (no need for elaboration) & I pray that you will recover your faith which is very possible.

 

[Hentenza]

Why is it that when Christians can't handle ex-Christians, they say they were never Christians?

I used to pray every night. I was very religious. I once took up the cross and proclaimed Jesus as my savior. I was once born again. I was rigorously devout in my beliefs—yet many simple-minded Christians always tell me that I was never a Christian simply because I renounced my Christianity. Why is that? Can they not handle people who turn their back on Jesus?

Christians who reason that faith is permanent (meaning that it is impossible to fall away once someone becomes a born again Christian) and say that any born again Christian who turns his back on Christianity was never really a Christian are using a good example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Someone uses the no true Scotsman fallacy when they try to reinterpret evidence to prevent the refutation of their own position. Counter-examples are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples.

Counter-examples to the idea that faith is permanent (that is, born again Christians who turn their back on Christianity) are written off with the no true Scotsman fallacy: they didn't really have true faith; they were never true Christians.

Why are you mad at God as your username depicts?

 

[Aibrean]

That is usually the words of someone who believes in eternal security (which I don't). I believe you can fall from the faith of your own choosing. I believe that yes, you could have been truly saved, and yes you can fall. The devil didn't "snatch you", you chose to leave. That doesn't mean you can't ever go back.

I akin it to this parable in Matt 13:

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables, saying: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. He who has ears, let him hear

They did have faith and did grow, but the faith wasn't strong enough to prevail the challenges.

"Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away. The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."

 

[Celticflower]

That is usually the words of someone who believes in eternal security (which I don't). I believe you can fall from the faith of your own choosing. I believe that yes, you could have been truly saved, and yes you can fall. The devil didn't "snatch you", you chose to leave. That doesn't mean you can't ever go back.

I akin it to this parable in Matt 13:

They did have faith and did grow, but the faith wasn't strong enough to prevail the challenges.

I'm pretty much in line with Aibrean's thoughts here. Maybe you will return to Christianity at some point in the future and your experiences outside the faith will help your faith grow strong.

 

[lucaspa]

Why is it that when Christians can't handle ex-Christians, they say they were never Christians?

I think you gave one answer to your question in the True Scotsman Fallacy.

Can they not handle people who turn their back on Jesus?

Did you really turn your back on Christ? That is, do you think Christ exists but just decide not to worship or follow him? Did you convert to a different religion? Or did you decide that deity does not exist?

My experience is that people who have personal experience of God really don't walk away from that. However, it seems that Christianity has a lot of people who do not have personal experience of God. It sounds like you were one of them.

That is why we see such dependence on the Bible as the "Word of God". People cling to the Bible because they do not have God. They may proclaim themselves "born again", but they are not. That is, they do not have that personal relationship with Christ that is what "born again" means.

So, if you have left Christianity, then you scare them. Perhaps your reasons are valid and they, too, will leave if they stop to examine their feelings. So to answer your question: they answer as they do because you cause them to think they might follow in your footsteps. To reassure themselves, they say you were not a "true Christian".

 

[Mad_at_God]

I explained the no true Scotsman fallacy quite clearly so that people would hopefully realize their illogical argument of saying that I was never a true Christian and respond with something intelligent and substantial. Alas, some of you people are just too narrow-minded and only capable of tendentious thinking, because you used the no true Scotsman fallacy when I showed you that it was illogical.

I made it clear that I was born again; that is, I prayed and accepted Jesus as my savior in prayer one night and felt an external force (the Holy Spirit) making me anew, which is much more than merely performing mundane Christian rituals.

"But the Bible itself tells us that those who fall away from the faith were never truly of it."

Do you know what the Bible also says? It says that the earth is a circle.

Isaiah 40:22

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

The Old Testament Hebrew lexicon, which can be verified in the link below, for the italicized word above, which is "chuwg," can mean either circle, circuit (a line going around until it meets itself) or compass; it never means "sphere" or "ball." Do you not see the two dimensional nature that is inherent to the definition?

Chuwg - King James Version Hebrew Lexicon

As a matter of fact, the very same author in the very same book used the word "ball" in another passage. Why did he not use "ball" or "sphere" to describe the earth, instead using the word "circle"?

Isaiah 22:18

"He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house."

This embarrassing error in the Bible is not a solitary instance. As a matter of fact, errors abound in the Bible. However, I don't need to tire myself by writing every single one of them, because I've made my point: that the Bible is certainly fallible. Likewise, the scripture that contained the no true Scotsman fallacy in the verse that aiki quoted—that any Christian who leaves Christianity was never truly a Christian—is an additional error in the Bible, because there are many Christians, born again or otherwise, who leave Christianity, myself being one such example, which proves that the said fallacy is untrue.

Let me give you all an example. There is a man who lived in Boston. He was an avid fan of the Patriots football team. He went to all of their games. He collected autographs from the athletes. But he later moved to Pittsburgh and became a Steelers fan. Because the Steelers and the Patriots are rivals, he grew to detest the Patriots and quit being their fan. So according to your fallacious logic, this man was never a true Patriots fan in the first place.

 

[ebia]

I explained the no true Scotsman fallacy quite clearly so that people would hopefully realize their illogical argument of saying that I was never a true Christian and respond with something intelligent and substantial.

The "no true scotsman" fallacy assumes the characteristic that is being talked about (topping preference on one's breakfast) is not actually part of the definition of a Scotsman (normally, say, born in Scotland to Scottish parents).

The difficulty in applying it in this case is that the word "Christian" is not so well defined - people use it to mean a variety of subtly different overlapping things, and often equivocate between those different meanings. Additionally they try to force a resolution to the "now but not yet" tension of the New Testament rather than live with that tension.

In practice the thing of which you complain, besides being intellectually annoying, doesn't actually matter: either there are Christians who fall away or its impossible to tell who is a Christian this side of the final resurrection. Either way the implications are similar.



Alas, some of you people are just too narrow-minded and only capable of tendentious thinking, because you used the no true Scotsman fallacy when I showed you that it was illogical.

I made it clear that I was born again; that is, I prayed and accepted Jesus as my savior in prayer one night and felt an external force (the Holy Spirit) making me anew, which is much more than merely performing mundane Christian rituals.

"But the Bible itself tells us that those who fall away from the faith were never truly of it."

Do you know what the Bible also says? It says that the earth is a circle.

Isaiah 40:22

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

The Old Testament Hebrew lexicon, which can be verified in the link below, for the italicized word above, which is "chuwg," can mean either circle, circuit (a line going around until it meets itself) or compass; it never means "sphere" or "ball." Do you not see the two dimensional nature that is inherent to the definition?

Chuwg - King James Version Hebrew Lexicon

As a matter of fact, the very same author in the very same book used the word "ball" in another passage. Why did he not use "ball" or "sphere" to describe the earth, instead using the word "circle"?

Isaiah 22:18

"He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house."

This embarrassing error in the Bible is not a solitary instance. As a matter of fact, errors abound in the Bible. However, I don't need to tire myself by writing every single one of them, because I've made my point: that the Bible is certainly fallible. Likewise, the scripture that contained the no true Scotsman fallacy in the verse that aiki quoted—that any Christian who leaves Christianity was never truly a Christian—is an additional error in the Bible, because there are many Christians, born again or otherwise, who leave Christianity, myself being one such example, which proves that the said fallacy is untrue.

Let me give you all an example. There is a man who lived in Boston. He was an avid fan of the Patriots football team. He went to all of their games. He collected autographs from the athletes. But he later moved to Pittsburgh and became a Steelers fan. Because the Steelers and the Patriots are rivals, he grew to detest the Patriots and quit being their fan. So according to your fallacious logic, this man was never a true Patriots fan in the first place.[/quote]

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[Jpark]

Never mind.

 

[drich0150]

I made it clear that I was born again; that is, I prayed and accepted Jesus as my savior in prayer one night and felt an external force (the Holy Spirit) making me anew, which is much more than merely performing mundane Christian rituals.

Some of us also made it clear that; in saying you were a "christian" and going through rituals, didn't really make you a true christian. At best it made you a christian according to popular beliefs. According to Jesus Himself, not all who claim this title will He recognize.

Just because you "feel" you have covered you bases by providing something like "The no true Scotsman fallacy." Doesn't mean you have an accurate concept of what it is you are trying to refute. At a glance this may "feel" like a legitimate argument, but if you take away the Idea that anything you do except receive the gift of Christ, qualifies you as a "true Christian" your argument crumbles. In case you missed the first time, accepting this gift is not a one time action. It is a life spent producing fruit acceptable to the Lord.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Why is it that when Christians can't handle ex-Christians, they say they were never Christians?

I used to pray every night. I was very religious. I once took up the cross and proclaimed Jesus as my savior. I was once born again. I was rigorously devout in my beliefs—yet many simple-minded Christians always tell me that I was never a Christian simply because I renounced my Christianity. Why is that? Can they not handle people who turn their back on Jesus?

MY DEAR BROTHER,

You are perhaps missing the point that a "TRUE" Christian is one who has met His Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ face-to-face, fallen in Love with his Lord and surrendered himself and his life into our Lord's eternal embrace.

No one who has ever done this has ever turned away! It is an impossibility! Once a person has been changed and transformed, he is a new Creation in Christ and his old persona is dead and buried. There is no possibility of going back any more than a pickle can turn back into a cucumber.

You are obviously deluding yourself by confusing your past mental assent to a list of doctrines and beliefs with having a real intimate relationship with our risen Lord. Acceptance of doctrines and beliefs can, as you have experienced, change and disappear. A bonding with our Lord cannot--it is eternal!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Liz in the rain]

People are threatened by what they see in others as their own weaknesses.

Faith is the foundation of Christianity. If you lose it you are lost in the world.

 

[berachah]

The "once a Christian, always a Christian" is a false doctrine.

There are many zealous Christians who have lost their faith through thw works of the devil - the bible is absolutely clear about this and the need for us "to contend for our faith", "resist the devil", "not neglect the faith" etc etc as well as parables like the 4 soils and much more.

"Mad at God" I feel for you. Perhaps you have gone through some great disapointment and not one of us can meet your need or pain. But if you have had this relationship with God (through Christ) as you say, deep down you will know what you are now confessing now is more anger and a sense of betrayal speaking than anything else. If you truly did not believe in Jesus, i think there would be a lot less emotion in your comments.

All I can say is that devil is the thief, the liar and he came to kill and destroy. And of course he always seems to portion the blame on God somehow.

The end of the matter is God loves us, he sent Jesus (an innocent and only Son) to die for us that we might be reconciled to Him. The Bible is true - forget all the misinterpretations (the moon looks like a circle to me from my house) and address the real issue that has brought you to this place. The rest is just smokescreen stuff that doesn't allow you to address the things that are really on your heart...

I hope you work things out

 

[juvenissun]

Why is it that when Christians can't handle ex-Christians, they say they were never Christians?

I used to pray every night. I was very religious. I once took up the cross and proclaimed Jesus as my savior. I was once born again. I was rigorously devout in my beliefs—yet many simple-minded Christians always tell me that I was never a Christian simply because I renounced my Christianity. Why is that? Can they not handle people who turn their back on Jesus?

Christians who reason that faith is permanent (meaning that it is impossible to fall away once someone becomes a born again Christian) and say that any born again Christian who turns his back on Christianity was never really a Christian are using a good example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Someone uses the no true Scotsman fallacy when they try to reinterpret evidence to prevent the refutation of their own position. Counter-examples are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples.

Counter-examples to the idea that faith is permanent (that is, born again Christians who turn their back on Christianity) are written off with the no true Scotsman fallacy: they didn't really have true faith; they were never true Christians.

There could be different response to your question. Here is mine:

A true Christian recognizes that Jesus is God.

You were a Christian, you recognized that Jesus is God.
Do you still recognize Jesus as God now? If you do, you are still a Christian. If you don't, then by definition, you are not a Christian now. But it does not say you will not be one in the future.

What I said above is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.

 

[jpcedotal]

No such thing as an ex-Christian.

 

[talitha]

I wonder if you have ever considered the possibility that whatever you're mad at God about - wasn't his fault?

You see, when I was in my twenties, I went through a time when I THOUGHT I was an "ex-Christian". I struggled with believing, both intellectually and emotionally. I felt like life, particularly my life, was some kind of cruel cosmic joke. After some years, I returned to God, and from that perspective I could see that although I turned my back on him, he never turned his back on me. I was still the child of my Heavenly Father, just a rebellious one.

I personally do not tend to doubt that ex-Christians were ever really Christians. I just do not believe that God has forsaken them, because I know that He never forsook me.

blessings
tal

 

[aiki]

I explained the no true Scotsman fallacy quite clearly so that people would hopefully realize their illogical argument of saying that I was never a true Christian and respond with something intelligent and substantial. Alas, some of you people are just too narrow-minded and only capable of tendentious thinking, because you used the no true Scotsman fallacy when I showed you that it was illogical.

And I explained why your contention was incorrect.

I made it clear that I was born again; that is, I prayed and accepted Jesus as my savior in prayer one night and felt an external force (the Holy Spirit) making me anew, which is much more than merely performing mundane Christian rituals.

"But the Bible itself tells us that those who fall away from the faith were never truly of it."

Do you know what the Bible also says? It says that the earth is a circle.

Isaiah 40:22

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

The Old Testament Hebrew lexicon, which can be verified in the link below, for the italicized word above, which is "chuwg," can mean either circle, circuit (a line going around until it meets itself) or compass; it never means "sphere" or "ball." Do you not see the two dimensional nature that is inherent to the definition?

Chuwg - King James Version Hebrew Lexicon

As a matter of fact, the very same author in the very same book used the word "ball" in another passage. Why did he not use "ball" or "sphere" to describe the earth, instead using the word "circle"?

This seems rather like a red-herring, to me...That the Bible is figurative in one place doesn't mean it is in all places. This seems pretty obvious to me...The verse from Isaiah that you're going on about is very plainly metaphorical - quite unlike the one I quoted from the apostle John. THese two verses don't really bear the kind of comparison you're trying to make between them.

Peace.