Only because this is Scriptural and self-evident. Faith is the antithesis of unbelief, but you say faith=unbelief for one who is a Christian (mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed concepts...hence my concern about unbelieving believers, Christian atheists, Christian Muslims, married bachelors, square circles, etc. that you do not see a problem with).
Attn: godrulz, AMR and Sozo!
- Thread starter Lighthouse
- Start date
- Status
Only because this is Scriptural and self-evident. Faith is the antithesis of unbelief, but you say faith=unbelief for one who is a Christian (mutually exclusive, diametrically opposed concepts...hence my concern about unbelieving believers, Christian atheists, Christian Muslims, married bachelors, square circles, etc. that you do not see a problem with).
Atheists are separated from Jesus and will exist forever.
I agree with you that to be separated from Jesus is not forfeit eternal and abundant life. Life is in the Son. You make it inherent in us apart from the Son (for apostates, at least, who you say are still believers despite their godless unbelief...oxymoron, moron). I Jn. 5:11-13 Those who fall away are not in Christ and do not have life. Those who are in Him and continue in Him (Gk. present tenses) are secure in their eternal life.
You shy away from relational theism and take an exchanged life, metaphysical approach to it. Instead of jumping on what truth, you need to put all soteriological truths in balance to have a biblical theology. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
Mystery
New member
Atheists have NEVER been baptized into the Body of Christ.
You still lack basic biblical understanding of the gospel.
Your denial that the Holy Spirit literally dwells in a child of God, places you outside of the Christian faith and outside of the Body of Christ.
From God's perspective, there is absolutely no difference between you and an atheist.
Faith is not belief.
There is a difference between someone who has always been an atheist, between an atheist who becomes a theist, between a theist who becomes an atheist, between a theist who remains a theist, between an atheist who becomes a theist and then an atheist again, etc. You cannot blur the distinction between all of these.
A godless atheist has never been in Christ. A theist who becomes an atheist could have been in Christ. This is an apostate, someone who falls away. Using godless atheists as a category to negate believers who go on to deny their faith and Christ as God is missing the point.
Confused yet?
Tell that to the NT writers who know Greek compared to you. You are redefining these words to suit your purposes, not doing proper word studies. Words have a semantic range of meaning. They can be used interchangeably or in a different sense, depending on the context or translation.
Jn. 3:16 Is Jesus a liar because He used the verb 'to believe'? Does He contradict Paul who uses both words about faith in or belief in Christ? Can we not distinguish devil 'belief' in James from saving belief (vs unbelief) in John? Yes we can, unless you play sozo/LH word games. Both words can be used to indicate trust in Christ alone, or believe can be devil mental assent without saving trust.
Your statement needs qualifying and does not prove or disprove either position.
Faith is not mere belief (intellectual assent like the devil even has), but it does involve belief. There is true belief/faith and compromised or fake belief/faith. We can have faith in God or a guru. We can believe in God or a guru. We can have unbelief or lack of faith in something true or false, etc. etc.
The key is a word study, not a pat phrase that begs to be qualified.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Word studies alone won't yield consistent theology or interpretation. Word studies are popular because looking at lists of words is easier than examining Scripture as a whole or the context.
Openist Sanders' reliance on word studies yields numerous interpretative train wrecks such as the following (from Barrick, Exegetical Fallacies):
Openist Sanders' reliance on word studies yields numerous interpretative train wrecks such as the following (from Barrick, Exegetical Fallacies):
“John Sanders, in A God Who Risks, interprets paradidwmi with one meaning (“hand over”) in every use of the word in John’s Gospel. He uses this argumentation to claim that Jesus merely said that Judas would “hand him over,” not “betray him.” God has only present and past knowledge, therefore Jesus could not have known what Judas was really going to do. In other words, God cannot know the future. In addition, by applying the meaning “strengthen” to all three Hebrew words employed to describe God’s “hardening” of Pharaoh’s heart (hazaq, kabed, qasah), Sanders has glossed over the clear contextual meaning of these words in their individual occurrences to purge any deterministic sense from the wording of the text. In this way he proposes that “God strengthened Pharaoh’s heart in his rebellion in the hopes that it would help him come to his senses and repent.” Sander’s problem is that he depends too heavily upon word studies, which he skewed to his presuppositions rather than listening to Scripture as a whole or to the individual statements in context. In order to pursue proper word studies, the student must emphasize current usage in a given context (usus loquendi). Any linguistic aids are virtually useless apart from the author’s context.”
Daniel50
New member
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth
knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep
his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret
thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
I often say that words have a semantical range of meaning and that context is king. Even if Sanders is wrong at times, he is not always wrong. One e.g. (which still is debatable) is not a reflection on all of his thoughts and word studies which have a balanced hermeneutic.
We all tend to import our ideas onto a text. As well, the greatest Greek linguists quibble about the exact meaning of words and interpretation of verses. Calvinists assume they are right, while others feel their challenge has a biblical and factual basis (even if not traditional; traditions are not always truth).
We all tend to import our ideas onto a text. As well, the greatest Greek linguists quibble about the exact meaning of words and interpretation of verses. Calvinists assume they are right, while others feel their challenge has a biblical and factual basis (even if not traditional; traditions are not always truth).
Mystery
New member
Never, but you are.
The reason that you believe that a Christian can become an atheist, is based solely on your own personal experience, and has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
It is impossible to know God, or to be known by God and then to unknow God or to be unknown by God. You need a an elementary lesson in the meanings of words.
A person can divorce their spouse, but they cannot unknow them.
Besides, as I've told you already, Christianity is not a marriage. We are sons of God, and members of His Body. You cannot leave His Body, because it's His Body, not yours.
Your anti-Christ doctrine is easy to expose.
You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!
-James 2:19
Analagies are always limited and can often be twisted to support opposite views.
I am a theist, not an atheist, so it is not just anecdote.
Knowing God is different than knowing about God. Reciprocal relationship involves more than a knowledge or belief of concepts. Jesus knows every sinner, but is not in right relationship with all men. I knew about God and Christianity before I trusted Him and knew Him intimately in surrender and love.
LH uses similar know/unknow arguments, but does not distinguish intimate relationship from knowing facts without relationship. JWs make the mistake when they add words to a verse in John to make eternal life about taking in knowledge about God (reading their material) vs KNOWING HIM, the true condition for life (know vs know about the president, get it?).
If a person divorces their spouse and remarries, they do not remain married to two people. They have pictures and memories, but no intimate relationship anymore. Divorce and marriage is an imagery used about Israel, God people, and the Church (marriage in Eph. 5).
You are making a metaphor about the Church as Body (cf. building, army, family, etc.) into a wooden literalism (Jesus' physical body does not have fingers falling off and leaving). Likewise, spiritual rebirth and adoptive sonship is based on relationship, not irreversible metaphysics. It is analagous to human birth and relations, not identical in every sense (so don't press it just to match your theology, because I can also press it to match mine and undermine yours).
The issues include free will, mind, faith vs unbelief, etc., not just assumptions that make physical and spiritual reality identical, not analagous.
Not a bad answer, if I don't say so myself.
Exactly. The word in this CONTEXT is mere mental assent. The same word (check the Greek...I just checked an interlinear and have studied Greek for a B. Th.!) in Jn. 3:16 means something else and includes full trust, love, obedience, surrender, intimate knowledge/relationship (not just head belief).
This is exactly why you guys need to understand basic word studies, exegesis, and hermeneutics. Anyone can proof text to match their preconceived ideas or fall into exegetical fallacies leading to eisegesis. Words do not always mean the same in different contexts, grasshopper.
IF you define words in your own way in your context, then I agree. Faith involves trust and can be contrasted with devil belief. However, the NT uses the same Gk. word for opposite concepts in this case. So, I am being theological and technically correct to say they are the same in many contexts, while you are being narrow (like sozo) and subjective, and object when we rightly call you to task. Go figure.
AMR is good at forcing us to communicate better (even though I disagree with his Calvinism).
Mystery
New member
You are wrong, godless. You deny that the Holy Spirit literally dwells in the body of a Christian.
That proves that you are not saved, and not a child of God. You are outside of the faith, and an enemy of Christ.
Until you stop making metaphors of the reality of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and salvation, you will never come close to the truth.
That proves that you are not saved, and not a child of God. You are outside of the faith, and an enemy of Christ.
Until you stop making metaphors of the reality of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and salvation, you will never come close to the truth.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No duh, Dick Tracy.
It says the Spirit indwells us and I used to have Col. 1:27 engraved on neck jewelry. I believe the Word of God.
Jesus often used metaphors for spiritual truth. You guys wrongly assume that a metaphor is a denial of spiritual reality. Jesus is the Bread of Life. This is a metaphor. To accept the metaphor is to accept truth about Jesus; it is NOT a denial of Jesus as our very sustenance and life. To interpret it with a wooden literalism makes Jesus full of yeast and mold.
So, next time you make a statement like 'faith is not belief', tell us that you are narrowly defining things and qualify your statement (or we will have a stupid sozo argument because he means something by the same words than the rest of us do).
- Status