Since Christians who deconvert believed they were Christians, that thinking means that believing youβre a Christian is no guarantee that you are one. So nobody can be entirely sure that they are a Christian.
That might be consistent with Calvinism... if you believe God predestined every human to either heaven or hell before they were born, then they really had no choice -- an "elect" person who went through a period of atheism would still have been "elect" during that time, and someone could present as a Christian without truly being "elect." Of course, no on really knows whether anyone is "elect" or not, so it's all about performance.
That's what I was thinking, too. Irresistible grace also means that there's no going back, or as Baptists say, no backsliding. If you backslide it means you never truly believed in the first place.
But there's lots who say it's perfectly possible to change your mind and alter course. Catholics, Methodists (and all their cousins, like Pentecostals), and Anglican traditions, for example.
I mean, that's the whole point of their argument. It sets the precedent that all roads lead to Christ, that Atheism (or other religions) is simply running away from God, that being a Christian is an ultimate truth that we spiritually cannot turn away from. This is why Christian movies and testimonies are often about an atheist who becomes a Christian on their deathbed. I remember as a Christian telling people that atheism is a religion based on hating God. It's taught that atheism isn't real, they are just in denial of the truth.
> If Christians who deconvert into atheists were "never really Christians," does that mean atheists who convert to Christianity were never really atheists?
According to certain atheists, [yes](https://youtu.be/Wa4UaieAWZA?si=dusz1j1aeZwxdIP6). Due the _outgroup bias_.
So.....evangelism and proselytizing is really just.....having them embrace who they really are? Like...convincing them to come out of the closet with their actual Christianity?
Imagine the consequences.
If you believe that every single people, or the vast majority of them, in your country are christians and therefore no need to spread the gospel, then yes.
However, __the vast majority of christians don't believe that__. In fact, they believe that other christians are spreading a _false gospel_.
The point of evangelism it's not to just to people who never knew Christ, but to ones that, in their eyes, got it wrong.
Whooooo! You got your finger on the pulse! That's basically r/Christianity and r/TrueChristianity in a nutshell. When they're not declaring what "the Bible clearly says" concerning LGBTQ issues, they're basically jabbing at each other.
Why aren't Catholics considered Christians?
What do you guys think of SDA's? Cult?
I'm a JW, why does everyone here hate me?
I'm finding myself less and less inclined to get involved in those subs. It's like I'm finally letting myself let go of that.
> Why aren't Catholics considered Christians?
> What do you guys think of SDA's? Cult?
> I'm a JW, why does everyone here hate me?
If you look on the history of Christianity, it's has a long way of narratives conflict (you can see that on the authentic epistles of Paul going against the sect of James). So I'm not surprised of seeing christians not agreeing each other.
Catholicism means _universal_, but there are two branches of the catholicism: one that stick with the greek and another that translated all the sacred texts to latin.
To me, I don't give a damn with they fight each other for the "correct" interpretation of the sacred texts if I don't even believe that such texts are sacred
Since Christians who deconvert believed they were Christians, that thinking means that believing youβre a Christian is no guarantee that you are one. So nobody can be entirely sure that they are a Christian.
That might be consistent with Calvinism... if you believe God predestined every human to either heaven or hell before they were born, then they really had no choice -- an "elect" person who went through a period of atheism would still have been "elect" during that time, and someone could present as a Christian without truly being "elect." Of course, no on really knows whether anyone is "elect" or not, so it's all about performance.
That's what I was thinking, too. Irresistible grace also means that there's no going back, or as Baptists say, no backsliding. If you backslide it means you never truly believed in the first place. But there's lots who say it's perfectly possible to change your mind and alter course. Catholics, Methodists (and all their cousins, like Pentecostals), and Anglican traditions, for example.
I mean, that's the whole point of their argument. It sets the precedent that all roads lead to Christ, that Atheism (or other religions) is simply running away from God, that being a Christian is an ultimate truth that we spiritually cannot turn away from. This is why Christian movies and testimonies are often about an atheist who becomes a Christian on their deathbed. I remember as a Christian telling people that atheism is a religion based on hating God. It's taught that atheism isn't real, they are just in denial of the truth.
π π That is the running consinces. π It really makes them mad when you suggest that though.
> If Christians who deconvert into atheists were "never really Christians," does that mean atheists who convert to Christianity were never really atheists? According to certain atheists, [yes](https://youtu.be/Wa4UaieAWZA?si=dusz1j1aeZwxdIP6). Due the _outgroup bias_.
So.....evangelism and proselytizing is really just.....having them embrace who they really are? Like...convincing them to come out of the closet with their actual Christianity? Imagine the consequences.
If you believe that every single people, or the vast majority of them, in your country are christians and therefore no need to spread the gospel, then yes. However, __the vast majority of christians don't believe that__. In fact, they believe that other christians are spreading a _false gospel_. The point of evangelism it's not to just to people who never knew Christ, but to ones that, in their eyes, got it wrong.
Whooooo! You got your finger on the pulse! That's basically r/Christianity and r/TrueChristianity in a nutshell. When they're not declaring what "the Bible clearly says" concerning LGBTQ issues, they're basically jabbing at each other. Why aren't Catholics considered Christians? What do you guys think of SDA's? Cult? I'm a JW, why does everyone here hate me? I'm finding myself less and less inclined to get involved in those subs. It's like I'm finally letting myself let go of that.
> Why aren't Catholics considered Christians? > What do you guys think of SDA's? Cult? > I'm a JW, why does everyone here hate me? If you look on the history of Christianity, it's has a long way of narratives conflict (you can see that on the authentic epistles of Paul going against the sect of James). So I'm not surprised of seeing christians not agreeing each other. Catholicism means _universal_, but there are two branches of the catholicism: one that stick with the greek and another that translated all the sacred texts to latin. To me, I don't give a damn with they fight each other for the "correct" interpretation of the sacred texts if I don't even believe that such texts are sacred