You left Christianity to be Atheist or Agnostic? (Biblical, God, believe)

[Tired of the Nonsense]

People don't "leave" Christianity to "become" atheists or agnostics. They simply stop believing it because they no longer find it believable. Unless they choose to subscribe to another religious belief, they are atheist or agnostic by default.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Paul of course did not know what he was talking about. Abraham believed in God, and that was righteous enough. He didn't believe in Jesus. He'd never heard of him. So does that mean he wasn't saved even though he was 'righteous'? (1)

Paul of course did know what he was talking about.
It is not that Abraham believed in God that righteousness was reckoned to him but that he believed God when God said he would have a son even though it was, at that time, impossible for Abraham and Sarah to have children. The point is that Abraham believed God concerning this. It is not about Abraham believing in Jesus. Abraham will be in the kingdom after being resurrected when Christ returns. Abraham was saved for the future kingdom which he looked forward to.

Good grief, Eusebius, so the only ticket to salvation is whether or not you believe in the literal truth of the resurrection-story? Doesn't that strike you as a bit...short of worthiness to be with God? Sorta, like you only get into heaven if you believe in a flat earth in spite of the evidence?

Dear Arequipa, it is not just that one is reckoned righteous because they believe in "the resurrection story." It is that they believe God that Christ died for their sins, was entombed and God roused Him from the dead. If one doesn't believe it, it is because God did not give one faith to believe it. If one doesn't then that just is evidence they are not called to be in the future kingdom of God. It doesn't mean they will never ever be saved.

And what happened to Universal Redemption?

The salvation preached by the 12 is for the Jews who believe to be saved for the coming kingdom to be set up in Israel. The salvation preached by Paul is for the nations and those of the nations who believe have a future celestial/heavenly allotment. The Bible says we are the firstfruits. For there to be firstfruits (at least on the apple farm I lived on, there was a promise of latter fruits to come. Dig?

(1) P.s yes, yes, I could see it coming. He was saved because he was righteous through believing God before Jesus came. But now Jesus has come that is an additional thing (2) we have to believe in order to be righteous.

It is not about """salvation""" when Paul speaks about Abraham in Romans, though surely that is part of it. It is about being declared righteous and being justified through faith that what God has declared is true. Just as it was impossible for Abraham and Sarah to have children, they believed God's promise they would have a son. And like Abraham, we are unable to save ourselves. We trust and believe God that when He declares Christ died for our sins, was entombed and God roused Him from the dead that, like Abraham, we too are declared "righteous."

That is again where Paul's thesis is wrong. The Law (Jewish law) does not save (through being righteous) because Abraham was 'righteous' (enough to be saved presumably) through belief in God before the law was given. But- to use the argument above-which is the only one that can work, it seems to me - once it was given, like 'once Jesus had appeared' it was incumbent to keep it and keeping it would be enough to make people righteous.
And in fact Paul says so in Romans,though he forgets it pretty quick because he does not keep the law and so he argues that faith in Jesus makes the law obsolete. And this is a point taken up and made central to the gospels. Jesus appeared and 'fulfilled' the law which, quite clearly has the effect of making the Law obsolete.

Paul's thesis is actually correct. Of course they had to keep the law once they covenanted with God that they would keep it. But even Joshua told them they couldn't keep the law after they told him they would do it all. No one could keep all the law. By "all" I mean "absolutely all." Therefore no one could truly be righteous by maintaining law. That is why the law was given to make the offense increase (Rom.5:210) and the law was given to be an escort to Christ.
Abraham was not righteous "through belief in God" as you say above but rather by just believing God concerning him having a son. There is a big difference.

In the future God is going to write the law on the Jew's hearts and then they will do all the law while, at the same time believing Christ to be their Messiah. God will have to take out their stoney hearts and replace them (figuratively speaking) with hearts for Him. This is not so with believers of the nations who are not under law.

(2) I love foopnotes within foopnotes. according to Paul that Jesus was the resurrected messiah and according to you, too, in a more Gospel-text -specific way.

Believers of the nations are not told to believe Jesus is the Messiah. That is only for the Israelites.
We believe like Agram believed God that Christ died for our sins etc. It is like we say: Okay God, if you say Christ died for our sins, I'm going to believe you concerning this just like when God told Abraham he would have a son WHILE it was physically impossible for him to have a son, He still believed God could pull it off. And so God said "Abraham, I consider you righteous."

[NoCapo]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Dear Arequipa, it is not just that one is reckoned righteous because they believe in "the resurrection story." It is that they believe God that Christ died for their sins, was entombed and God roused Him from the dead. If one doesn't believe it, it is because God did not give one faith to believe it. If one doesn't then that just is evidence they are not called to be in the future kingdom of God. It doesn't mean they will never ever be saved.

As I said previously, most of us in this thread did that, and now do not, therefore we were Christians and now are not. What are you fishing for?

-NoCapo

[Pleroo]

The foundation, the beginning point is believing God like Abraham believed God.

It takes faith to believe God concerning Christ dying for us, being entombed and roused again out of death.

So, this is your litmus test? ^^^

Originally Posted by Eusebius

God doesn't require us to go to Bible college or seminary to unravel what actually took place in Christ dying for us. It is so simple. He just asks that we believe Him concerning Christ dying for our sins and offenses, was entombed and rose from the dead. If one believes God concerning this, they are righteous.

God doesn't require us to join a church first, or clean up our act, do so many push-ups etc.

Many people are told if they just make Jesus Lord of their lives they will be saved.
Or they are told if they just accept Jesus into their heart they will be saved.
Or they are told if they just repent of their sins and will live for Jesus they will be saved.

None of the three points above would even save a gnat. Churches are filled with these kind of pagan "Christians."

I'm pretty sure that the people who "thought" they were Christians and also did any of the things that "wouldn't save a gnat" are all going to also say they passed your litmus test.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

That, I believe, is where we are needed. One of the worst things about going through a crisis is thinking that you are the only one-nobody out there understands. We understand only too well.

That's why I encourage posters with problems. Not to preach and advise, but to listen and let them vent. It's a service.

Well in that vein, let me go further:

I could understand why some people might think we are being a little over-dramatic about the experience. But I hope they would consider this: When you finally admit to yourself that you just don't believe god is real, you aren't just giving up the belief in god. You are giving up on the whole way you thought the world worked, and all-at-once you are left to figure out everything you knew all over again.


- You have decide what "right" means as opposed to "wrong".
- You have to decide what is the most likely thing to happen to you after you die, and are faced with the reality that you are finite and someday you just won't exist.
- You have to figure out what the point of life is, and come to terms with the fact that maybe there is no point.
- You have to re-interpret everything you know to determine what is real vs unreal. (For example, things like demons were as real to me as an elephant. They were both things I had never seen but fully believed existed based on supposedly reliable sources. So you have to start going back over things to figure out what is real.)

Those are all really big questions. Most people that grew up without strong religious convictions got to answer those questions gradually as they came of age. But the deconvert has them sprung on him all at once. Literally within 5 minutes of admitting that I didn't believe in god, I faced all of those questions at once. It overwhelms you and keeps you up at night.

So that's the traumatic part. The good news is that the answers to those questions, for the first time, make sense to you. Your world view suddenly becomes coherent and everything starts to come into focus. You realize that you didn't have to feel guilty for things that were morally blameless. You no longer needed to worry about demons or hell or pleasing an arbitrary irrational master called god. There's a huge sigh of relief that comes along with that, as well as the peace it brings to you when you know you have a reasonable and logically consistent world view.

The suddenness of being confronted with all those questions at once, and the relief one feels at the answers to most of those questions, is disorienting. It's overwhelming.

It really is the religious experience most of us were waiting for when we were believers.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

As I said previously, most of us in this thread did that, and now do not, therefore we were Christians and now are not. What are you fishing for?

-NoCapo

I'm not fishing for anything. I just want to know what you folks who said you were Christian but now are not, what it was that you believe made you a Christian to begin with.

I am of the understanding that once God gives one faith to be believing the evangel of Christ dying for our sins that they are sealed for the day of deliverance. They may make shipwreck of the faith but they will still be in that future day of deliverance.

[Eusebius]

Eusebius wrote:
The foundation, the beginning point is believing God like Abraham believed God.

It takes faith to believe God concerning Christ dying for us, being entombed and roused again out of death.

So, this is your litmus test? ^^^

Absolutely it is.

I'm pretty sure that the people who "thought" they were Christians and also did any of the things that "wouldn't save a gnat" are all going to also say they passed your litmus test.

If they did those things that wouldn't save a gnat and ALSO truly believed God that Christ died for our sins, was entombed and God roused Him from the dead, they then are saved before the rest of mankind enter into salvation.

It is one thing to just repeat the so-called "Apostles Creed" once a year like some main-line churches do and quite another to absolutely believe God concerning Christ's death for us.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Paul of course did know what he was talking about.
It is not that Abraham believed in God that righteousness was reckoned to him but that he believed God when God said he would have a son even though it was, at that time, impossible for Abraham and Sarah to have children. The point is that Abraham believed God concerning this. It is not about Abraham believing in Jesus. Abraham will be in the kingdom after being resurrected when Christ returns. Abraham was saved for the future kingdom which he looked forward to.



Dear Arequipa, it is not just that one is reckoned righteous because they believe in "the resurrection story." It is that they believe God that Christ died for their sins, was entombed and God roused Him from the dead. If one doesn't believe it, it is because God did not give one faith to believe it. If one doesn't then that just is evidence they are not called to be in the future kingdom of God. It doesn't mean they will never ever be saved.



The salvation preached by the 12 is for the Jews who believe to be saved for the coming kingdom to be set up in Israel. The salvation preached by Paul is for the nations and those of the nations who believe have a future celestial/heavenly allotment. The Bible says we are the firstfruits. For there to be firstfruits (at least on the apple farm I lived on, there was a promise of latter fruits to come. Dig?



It is not about """salvation""" when Paul speaks about Abraham in Romans, though surely that is part of it. It is about being declared righteous and being justified through faith that what God has declared is true. Just as it was impossible for Abraham and Sarah to have children, they believed God's promise they would have a son. And like Abraham, we are unable to save ourselves. We trust and believe God that when He declares Christ died for our sins, was entombed and God roused Him from the dead that, like Abraham, we too are declared "righteous."



Paul's thesis is actually correct. Of course they had to keep the law once they covenanted with God that they would keep it. But even Joshua told them they couldn't keep the law after they told him they would do it all. No one could keep all the law. By "all" I mean "absolutely all." Therefore no one could truly be righteous by maintaining law. That is why the law was given to make the offense increase (Rom.5:210) and the law was given to be an escort to Christ.
Abraham was not righteous "through belief in God" as you say above but rather by just believing God concerning him having a son. There is a big difference.

In the future God is going to write the law on the Jew's hearts and then they will do all the law while, at the same time believing Christ to be their Messiah. God will have to take out their stoney hearts and replace them (figuratively speaking) with hearts for Him. This is not so with believers of the nations who are not under law.





Believers of the nations are not told to believe Jesus is the Messiah. That is only for the Israelites.
We believe like Agram believed God that Christ died for our sins etc. It is like we say: Okay God, if you say Christ died for our sins, I'm going to believe you concerning this just like when God told Abraham he would have a son WHILE it was physically impossible for him to have a son, He still believed God could pull it off. And so God said "Abraham, I consider you righteous."

Well, I'm not sure. Abraham trusted in God and Paul says this was his righteousness. However one interprets that, the fact is it ws trust in God that made him righteous, not belief in Jesus.That's the point. So I still say that Paul did not know what he was talking about. Your point, even if correct, is irrelevant.

Again your distinction between the resurrection story and what is IN the resurrection story is again rather irrelevant. It is a question of not how a person acts and behaves in themselves (which is rather the emphasis of the gospel teaching), but whether or not one believes that Jesus rose from the dead. As I say, not unlike only getting to heaven if one believes in a flat earth.

I find your rather contradictory ideas on people not believing because God doesn't intend that they should-but everyone is going to be saved anyway rather confusing. And we are talking about the validity of Paul's ideas rather than yours.

Dig? Hardly. All that Paul is talking about is that the Jews failed God by observing the laws in procedure but not acting rightly. He appeals to gentiles that they should act rightly in accordance with the law in their hearts and have faith in Jesus as the risen messiah and they will be saved as much as -in fact more than- the jews. Thus they will shame the Jews into following in Jesus-faith rather than the Law. That is what he is saying and I fail to discover anything about believing nations.

In any case, as I say, Paul is wrong because the law being given it is to be observed just as Jesus coming is to be believed, but as Abraham was righteous before the law, Jews are righteous before Jesus,
righteousness through the law is not to be discarded just because Jesus was sent and mot than righteousness through trust in God is to be set aside because the law was given. Paul was wrong to say so- just because it made things easy for hi,

You are missing the point. Righteousness is a means to an end - sure- that end is salvation. It is arguable whether Abraham would be saved- though surely is the Jews had salvation through the Law (Paul at first does not deny that) Abraham should have had salvation through his trust in God. But the point is righteousness does not depend on faith in Jesus but also observing the law that was given to Moses. It is rather a false objection that no-one can keep all the law. The fact is that just believing in Jesus does not save. Even Paul realized that.

Now we have repentance to get back to credit with Jesus even if one never stopped believing. Well, the Jews had rites and rabbis to stop people offending, and repentance when they did. What is wrong with that? Paul sidelines it because it was too heavy a burden on the Gentiles and - it seems too heavy a burden for him, too. He is wrong because he thinks he is justified by Jesus - as a Jew he is not as (as he says in Romans - but as I said-conveniently forgets it) he is required to observe the Law. Clearly he does not. If he is wrong about his own justification through Jesus-faith, how can we believe his very convenient sidelining of God -given law just tomake it easy for his gentile fellow citizens?

P.s we have better make this a short exchange as this is off the topic.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Well, I'm not sure. Abraham trusted in God and Paul says this was his righteousness. However one interprets that, the fact is it ws trust in God that made him righteous, not belief in Jesus.That's the point. So I still say that Paul did not know what he was talking about. Your point, even if correct, is irrelevant.

And just why can't God account Abraham as righteous for believing Him concerning Him telling him he would have a son, and years later account one righteous who believed Him when He tells us Christ died for our sins, was entombed and was roused the third day?

Again your distinction between the resurrection story and what is IN the resurrection story is again rather irrelevant. It is a question of not how a person acts and behaves in themselves (which is rather the emphasis of the gospel teaching), but whether or not one believes that Jesus rose from the dead. As I say, not unlike only getting to heaven if one believes in a flat earth.

There are three parts to the declaration God wants us to believe, Christ dying for our sins, Christ was entombed and God roused him from the dead the third day. Even Paul said if Christ did not rise from the dead, vain is your faith.

I find your rather contradictory ideas on people not believing because God doesn't intend that they should-but everyone is going to be saved anyway rather confusing. And we are talking about the validity of Paul's ideas rather than yours.

Suppose Ford Motor Company was building a plant next to a small town of 500 and Ford told them, we are going to choose just so many to be part of our company for the first 2 years who pass an exam and then the rest of the town can work there afterward. Do you find that contradictory?

God only needs x number of people to be in His corporation to work among the celestial realms for the next two eons. Once the eons are over the rest of mankind are saved. I see nothing contradictory about it.

Eusebius wrote before: The salvation preached by the 12 is for the Jews who believe to be saved for the coming kingdom to be set up in Israel. The salvation preached by Paul is for the nations and those of the nations who believe have a future celestial/heavenly allotment. The Bible says we are the firstfruits. For there to be firstfruits (at least on the apple farm I lived on, there was a promise of latter fruits to come. Dig?

Dig? Hardly. All that Paul is talking about is that the Jews failed God by observing the laws in procedure but not acting rightly. He appeals to gentiles that they should act rightly in accordance with the law in their hearts and have faith in Jesus as the risen messiah and they will be saved as much as -in fact more than- the jews. Thus they will shame the Jews into following in Jesus-faith rather than the Law. That is what he is saying and I fail to discover anything about believing nations.

Hardly? You don't know about the feast of Firstfruits and latter fruits and the feast of Jubilee when all went free?
The 12 are going to rule on twelve thrones in Israel during the Millennium. Neither Paul nor believers of the nations under Paul will be on the earth with the 12 during the millennium or new earth.
So you don't think the term "firstfruits" does not mean there will be more fruit coming later? Believers are the firstfruits.

[/quote]

So, the point is that one is a **believer** because they believe God. A true Christian is one who believes God that Christ died for their sins, was entombed and roused the third day as Paul reiterates in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

[TRANSPONDER]

We are getting off the subject of what Paul said about it, let alone the topic. Nor am I into petty point -scoring about who knows most about this or that in the OT. I concede that you are an expert in that line of stuff.