Are there any real former Christians?

[McCulloch]

The argument is that if someone had been a real born-again, spirit filled Christian, it would have been impossible for them to have denied what they know to be true and to have left the faith.

There are a two approaches that can be taken on this issue

1. Anyone who claims to have been a Christian who now is not, must not have been a true Christian, since all true Christians have personally experienced the Holy Spirit, something which no one could possibly deny.
2. Christianity, like any set of beliefs, can be abandoned by a rational person given contrary evidence or for less rational reasons by less rational persons. Having abandoned the Christian faith in no way invalidates the sincerity or validity of the person's former beliefs.

Questions for debate:

1. Are there any real former Christians?
2. Are there an true spirit-filled, born-again Christians?
3. Do you put sugar on your porridge?
4. Were those who claim to be former-Christians insincere? If sincere, why would God withhold his Spirit from them? If insincere, how could you tell? How could they tell themselves?

No offense intended, McCulloch, but if you had been a real, born-again, Spirit-filled Christian you would have had a significant experience with the Holy Spirit, who would have given you a hunger for, and enlightened you about, the NT. And you would have known beyond the shadow of a doubt that it was all real, to the point where you would today be defending Jesus Christ.

I have grave reservations about the legitimacy of so many people around here claiming to be former Christians, for the same reason I mention above. Going to church for 1 week or 50 years doesn't make anybody a Christian. YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN from above. They may be sincere in thinking they were once Christians, but if they didn't have the born-again experience and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit to the degree that they knew it was real, then I don't believe they were ever real Christians. They would have never left the faith.

[upallnite]

If a Christian claims that I was not a Christian then I can claim they are not one now.

I am sure there are Christians that question the reasons behind Easyrider's posts on this forum. For all we know he is really Richard Dawkins having a chuckle at our expense.

The church I went to considered me a Christian. I am not sure if that same church would consider Easyrider a Christian, but I do.

[nejisan]

I am a former christian. I grew up with christianity as a young child and believed wholeheartedly in the concept. As I got older and experienced more extreme behavior from fellow christians (such as being filled with the holy spirit), I sought to strengthen my relationship with the christian god in an attempt to experience those things also.

I thought that "God" was just really picky. As it turns out, there is no rhyme or reason to who gets filled with the spirit and who does not. I have never been filled with the spirit, and I would challenge those who say I did something wrong to prove such a claim as they do not know me, or my life experiences. It simply never happened. I cannot imagine how a young child or teenager could be deemed unworthy of such a holy experience, especially if they believe from birth.

[Zzyzx]

.

I am a former christian. I grew up with christianity as a young child and believed wholeheartedly in the concept.

Yah, but were you a REAL Christian? Could you have passed inspection by ER and other self-identified "Real Christians"?

As soon as you had doubts, you were "never a Real Christian" (which is a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy).

[Solon]

The argument is that if someone had been a real born-again, spirit filled Christian, it would have been impossible for them to have denied what they know to be true and to have left the faith.



Questions for debate:

1. Are there any real former Christians?
2. Are there an true spirit-filled, born-again Christians?
3. Do you put sugar on your porridge?
4. Were those who claim to be former-Christians insincere? If sincere, why would God withhold his Spirit from them? If insincere, how could you tell? How could they tell themselves?

A) I suppose that would depend upon who is correct about what makes a real Christian. Or perhaps what theology is correct. For instance, if strict Calvinism is correct, then no, perseverance of the saints precludes such a thing from being possible. If Arminianism is true then falling away from the faith is possible for the once faithful.

B) I don't know that I'm qualified to answer this question. I'm not even sure what this would exactly entail or what it would mean. You can take that as you will, but it's a probable indicator that if there is spirit to be had, I haven't any of it.

C) No, I prefer a little butter and call them grits.

D) I couldn't answer for someone else, but it is possible that someone truly thought they were born-again, but not being born again did not posses the proper spirit-led perception to realize their mistake. Which I guess would make them sincere, but incorrect. Not knowing exactly what being spirit filled means or would be like this question is not one I think I can give any answer of weight.

[MagusYanam]

Are there any real former Christians?
Are there an true spirit-filled, born-again Christians?
Do you put sugar on your porridge?
Were those who claim to be former-Christians insincere? If sincere, why would God withhold his Spirit from them? If insincere, how could you tell? How could they tell themselves?

a.) I think we need to make the distinction that Kierkegaard did between cultural 'Christianity' or Christendom, and Christianity (as a deep, individual existential self-definition). To assume the latter kind of makes no sense - you can't say, 'well, I'm a former Christian (sense 2)' any more than you can say 'I'm a former human being'. I think there are real former cultural Christians. I think there are real former cultural Christians who were every bit as well-read and educated and moral as other cultural Christians and Christians (sense 2).

b.) Probably. I don't know any, and I wouldn't be able to tell if there were any or not. Generally, those who claim they are are probably acting in bad faith - if you are genuinely 'born from above', I don't see why you'd have to go around trying to prove it to anyone or using it to browbeat or compare oneself to others.

c.) Sugar? On my porridge?

d.) They were probably as sincere as they knew how to be, but that's something only they would know. Generally, I think we have to assume people are being sincere on a debate site like this, otherwise we wouldn't get very far and things would descend into personal attacks far too frequently. Then, it would depend on what their reasons were for leaving Christianity in the first place, I think.

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

The argument is that if someone had been a real born-again, spirit filled Christian, it would have been impossible for them to have denied what they know to be true and to have left the faith.

There are a two approaches that can be taken on this issue

1. Anyone who claims to have been a Christian who now is not, must not have been a true Christian, since all true Christians have personally experienced the Holy Spirit, something which no one could possibly deny.

This section struck me the most. This is what I constantly encounter in regards to Islam when I tell people of my apostasy!

[Flail]

Most of us are trained by ethnicity and culture that we have to belong...to something...be something....born again...christian....join the herd....why cant we just be....left alone?....why the label?

[Cephus]

Yah, but were you a REAL Christian? Could you have passed inspection by ER and other self-identified "Real Christians"?

As soon as you had doubts, you were "never a Real Christian" (which is a version of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy).

If people like ER are Christians, then I certainly was, I believed that I had the same kinds of experiences that they claim to have, it was only later when I could objectively examine those supposed experiences from outside of the belief system that I realized it was all a sham, I was talking myself into thinking things that I had no good reason to think were actually true.

The same is true of everything ER and company claims, they're just too buried in the dogma to see it.

[MagusYanam]

If people like ER are Christians, then I certainly was, I believed that I had the same kinds of experiences that they claim to have, it was only later when I could objectively examine those supposed experiences from outside of the belief system that I realized it was all a sham, I was talking myself into thinking things that I had no good reason to think were actually true.

The same is true of everything ER and company claims, they're just too buried in the dogma to see it.

Well, there's a problem with cultural Christianity. If you're constantly comparing yourself to and competing against others, then you're not willing yourself to be yourself before God. Can someone really have the Holy Spirit if they devalue it, and treat it so trivially as to say, 'Look at me! Look at me! I got it and you don't!'? I can well imagine that would sour many people to such a faith, so I sympathise there.

But you're definitely right - you can't get at such experiences from objective examination. They are completely personal and a matter of free individual choice, and as such completely subjective.

2. Christianity, like any set of beliefs, can be abandoned by a rational person given contrary evidence or for less rational reasons by less rational persons. Having abandoned the Christian faith in no way invalidates the sincerity or validity of the person's former beliefs.

That's definitely true, from an ethical standpoint which places the universal over the individual in importance. But being a Christian shouldn't be about having reasons for why anyone should believe and justifying oneself on those grounds, just as it would be ridiculous to have to give your wife reasons why anyone should love her as a husband should and justify your own love for her on those grounds.

But think about it this way - a child, a young boy, becomes infatuated with an older woman and starts to think of himself as truly in love with her, with fantasies of marrying her. He might be serious and sincere and wholly earnest, but should we consider him truly in love, with a full understanding of the commitment entailed therein? I think this is the position infants are likely to be put in when baptised, and I think it's criminal that something which ought to be a matter of individual choice and individual commitment on this deep a scale is made into a ritual which is either monstrously coercive or bereft of meaning.