Is anyone here an atheist?

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[EverAStudent]

Now scripturally speaking, if I convert someone, I've effectively driven out their 'demon' of unbelief, the cancer of unbelief that afflicted them IN THE NAME OF JESUS. So since I've never ran out of proselytizing naked and bleeding, did I convert them in the spirit? Or rather, fruit that is obviously from god, conversion, was God feigning that as some sort of joke?

There is no "demon of unbelief" in Scripture, so, no, the entire illustration is without merit.  The Holy Spirit is the one who convicts, regenerates, and seals the new convert, not the evangelist.  The evangelist's fruit is not the conversion but the truthful and obedient witness he brings.  Even unbelievers can accidently point persons toward Christ (as Hilary Clinton did by an offhand comment she made in a book) and it is not a fruit of righteousness.

the most insidious thing about this passage, and one of many that forced me to stay well past my time in the church, is that no-one wants to be anything BUT the good soil.

Well of course, because only the "good soil" planted with the seed represents a saved person.  The saved will never be perfect on earth (which is why we get to confess an infinite amount of sins and receive absolute and total infinite forgiveness every time) but the saved will endure in the faith until the end.  The not-yet-saved will find the process tedious and will give up because they have not yet been regenerated into an actual fellowship with Christ.

[danrudeisevil]

If the holy spirit seals the convert, if the convert falls away did he never receive the HS? So when the convert sincerely asks for the HS (as I did), did God simply refuse to answer their prayer? If He didn't then did He actually want them to be a christian? Or if he leaves the faith does the HS also depart?
Or a hypothetical, and by your own admission, if the mark of a true christian is one who dies in the state of belief (perseveres to the end) and true fruit is lasting converts, what would you say if the people I converted stays a christian their whole life? Granted we cant know that but by your logic if it did then I was/still am a christian?
Also when you said that it isn't about conversion, but obedient witness, you are reneging on your past points and bringing up the absurdity of your bias. If nobody comes to Christ, that's proof of God, if someone comes to christ, thats proof of God too. But if someone comes to christ and leaves, that's proof of God too? I know you probably think catholics aren't christians, but for the sake of argument, what about the damning admissions of disbelief from mother theresa that came out a couple of years ago?

Have you ever been an atheist? Or if you say I was never a christian you are able to judge my heart? I thought only God could do that. To say that my deeds, all the effort i put in while a christian never meant a thing, and only would if I subjected myself forever to that selfsame tyrannical thought smacks of hubris.

In terms of doing good, you admitted that GCM has a biblical salvation doctrine, and I agree with you. For all the good they do for 'the kingdom' they do an equal amount of evil (cause this website for instance, doubt in otherwords). If a person does good things for the kingdom, and does evil on earth are they to be judged? How is this different (holistically, not by degree) from the muslims who attacked the world trade center? They were doing what they thought god's will was, and that they were doing good for the kingdom? The degree to which I speak is that GCM wins the 'lost' for the kingdom but does no good in the world, they don't give to charity, they don't help the poor etc. How do you account for this? All these things must be pondered.

I wish to thank you for answering my previous questions sincerely, as this idea that I might not have been a christian is one that I've been thinking about. But the fact that you assume to know my every thought, word and deed and can judge me by scripture is to claim the powers only God has. If i'm not mistaken, that type of hubris is what got satan into trouble in the first place.

When I rail against the evils of religion, I NEVER insinuate that the adherents of that religion are evil. Case in point, if Osama bin Laden had been born in Sweden, no taliban. Its just that his religion gave him the moral licentiousness and justification to order 9/11. Thats why I might get pissy over this point: I'm not sure if I ever was a christian, but for you to come up and say that you know FOR SURE I never was and that I was never noble or good (the good soil) is so demeaning and ludicrously judgmental I'm not sure wether I should laugh at it or be angry.

[EverAStudent]

DRIE wrote: If the holy spirit seals the convert, if the convert falls away did he never receive the HS?

There is a vast body of differing Christian opinion on this subject, so I offer my own opinion.  No, someone who has been regenerated cannot be unregenerated, the adopted of God cannot be unadopted into orphans, those who have righteousness credited to their account cannot have the account go bankrupt, and those sealed with the strongest oath possible--which is God Himself (the Holy Spirit is the guarantor of the oath)--cannot have the oath annulled or the guarantee revoked. 


DRIE wrote: So when the convert sincerely asks for the HS (as I did), did God simply refuse to answer their prayer?

Obviously, as I have said before in this thread, only you and God know the genuine nature of your spiritual status, the rest of us humans can only guess based on your present fruit (fruit being lack of faith in this case).  However, if you are not now saved, it is my understanding you never did get to the point of utter dependence on God for repentance, forgiveness, and regeneration.  One who is not regenerated does not “get” the Holy Spirit.  So God did not answer that specific prayer in the affirmative as He is presumably waiting for your future true conversion.


DRIE wrote:   If He didn't then did He actually want them to be a christian?

From an entirely God-oriented perspective, it was not yet your time for an effectual calling, though it may have been the first step in your being summoned to faith.  Perhaps, for whatever reason, this is the process you needed to go through to get to the point of wanting to totally repent, fully depend on God alone, give up self, and live for Him.  Perhaps.


DRIE wrote:   Or if he leaves the faith does the HS also depart?

Someone cannot lose what they never possessed.


DRIE wrote:   Or a hypothetical, and by your own admission, if the mark of a true christian is one who dies in the state of belief (perseveres to the end) and true fruit is lasting converts, what would you say if the people I converted stays a christian their whole life?

Not to be picky here, but it feels like my comments are be combed through to find loopholes.  First, as I have said repeatedly in past posts, your “true spiritual fruit” is NOT whether others are converted due to your witness, rather, your true spiritual fruit is faith, kindness, love for God and neighbors, fellowship with Christ, goodness and repentance, etc.  Second, faith is not like a game, where it fades and strengthens and if you happen to die while it is strong you win, but if you die when it has faded you lose. 

Saving faith in Christ is either something you have (in any “quantity“ at all) or it is something you lack.  Having faith all your life, endurance, DEMONSTRATES the salvation you always possessed, but endurance does not earn that salvation for you.  Giving up your “faith” DEMONSTRATES you never actually possessed even the smallest amount of salvific faith, though you might have thought you did.  Those with even the smallest degree of saving faith will not and cannot do anything but endure to the end, thus DEMONSTRATING its sincerity.


DRIE wrote:   Also when you said that it isn't about conversion, but obedient witness, you are reneging on your past points and bringing up the absurdity of your bias. If nobody comes to Christ, that's proof of God, if someone comes to christ, thats proof of God too. But if someone comes to christ and leaves, that's proof of God too?

To be honest, I cannot grasp either the logic or the point you are trying to make here (aside from a general impression you think I am somehow contradicting myself on a technicality).  Perhaps if you could rework the question?


DRIE wrote:   I know you probably think catholics aren't christians, but for the sake of argument, what about the damning admissions of disbelief from mother theresa that came out a couple of years ago?

My next door neighbor is a devout Catholic, and as far as I am able to detect based on her visible fruits, a strong and vital Christian.  As far as Mother Theresa, her own words indicate she did not accept that Christ was the one true Savior and God.  How can that be salvific faith?


DRIE wrote:   Have you ever been an atheist?

No, I was once unsaved, but at the age of 14 repented, was regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and have remained in the faith since.


DRIE wrote: Granted we cant know that but by your logic if it did then I was/still am a christian? 

As I have said many times before, in this thread and elsewhere, only the person and God know the true state of their spiritual being.  The rest of us can only judge the outside, the visible, the observable fruits and make a best guess assessment.  Even then, there are three parables Jesus told that indicate that if someone is in the church, and those someones do not identify themselves as gross sinners or unbelievers, we must keep them in the church and treat them as believers.  When those someones identify themselves as unbelievers, as you have done, we know they are not in Christ.


DRIE wrote: Or if you say I was never a christian you are able to judge my heart? I thought only God could do that.

Only God can judge the heart.  However, God also said that no one who is “in Christ” can say that they hate Christ or can say that Christ never came, or otherwise curse Christ.  Denying that Christ is God pretty well places you outside of Christ by your own testimony, so I have no judgment to make.  If you were ever in Christ, you would have endured to the end.



DRIE wrote: To say that my deeds, all the effort i put in while a christian never meant a thing, and only would if I subjected myself forever to that selfsame tyrannical thought smacks of hubris.

“For from days of old they have not heard or perceived by ear, Nor has the eye seen a God besides You, Who acts in behalf of the one who waits for Him. You meet him who rejoices in doing righteousness, Who remembers You in Your ways. Behold, You were angry, for we sinned, We continued in them a long time; And shall we be saved? For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.” (Isaiah 64:4-6)

Quite correct.  If you are in a state of disbelief without repentance, then all your righteous deeds are no better in God’s eyes than a filthy worn out t-shirt, good only for throwing out and worthless for salvation.



DRIE wrote: In terms of doing good, you admitted that GCM has a biblical salvation doctrine, and I agree with you. For all the good they do for 'the kingdom' they do an equal amount of evil (cause this website for instance, doubt in otherwords). If a person does good things for the kingdom, and does evil on earth are they to be judged?

Yes, all our works, good and selfish, are to be judged, and some of us may suffer the loss of all works even though those persons will be saved.  And yes, it seems from the texts that they will cry over that loss.



DRIE wrote: How is this different (holistically, not by degree) from the muslims who attacked the world trade center? They were doing what they thought god's will was, and that they were doing good for the kingdom?

Holistically the Muslims follow a religion made up by men who combined aspects of Judaism, Christianity, paganism, and military tribal ethics whereas GC follows Christ (however imperfectly).  To us, that makes all the difference since Islam can never accomplish anything “for the kingdom of Christ,” only for itself.



DRIE wrote: The degree to which I speak is that GCM wins the 'lost' for the kingdom but does no good in the world, they don't give to charity, they don't help the poor etc. How do you account for this? All these things must be pondered.

I cannot judge, nor can I accept that you have correctly judged, that the individuals in GC “do no good in the world” or that none of them “give to charity,” and that no member of GC “helps the poor.”  Happily, I do know that no member of GC has yet been reported to have destroyed an entire business district in New York City and by doing so killed 3000 people! 



DRIE wrote: I wish to thank you for answering my previous questions sincerely, as this idea that I might not have been a christian is one that I've been thinking about.

I am pleased to talk about most anything of a spiritual nature with anyone who wants to pursue such a discussion honestly.



DRIE wrote: But the fact that you assume to know my every thought, word and deed and can judge me by scripture is to claim the powers only God has. If i'm not mistaken, that type of hubris is what got satan into trouble in the first place.

Many times I have stated that I do not know anyone’s secret thoughts.  What you believe and think you must say aloud for me to also be able to know.  Only then can I judge your words by the Scriptures.  God commands us to be discerning (comparing what we see and hear to the Scriptures) many times in the Bible.  I have not usurped God’s role.



DRIE wrote: When I rail against the evils of religion, I NEVER insinuate that the adherents of that religion are evil.

Though I cannot know your secret heart, I doubt your comment is sincere.  I look at the name you have given to yourself (Dan rude is evil) and I see just such an insinuation.  I read what you have written that no member of GC does any good in this world, only harm and “evil,” and I hear the accusation that GC’s congregants are evil.  You might want to test yourself on this.


DRIE wrote: Case in point, if Osama bin Laden had been born in Sweden, no taliban. Its just that his religion gave him the moral licentiousness and justification to order 9/11. Thats why I might get pissy over this point: I'm not sure if I ever was a christian, but for you to come up and say that you know FOR SURE I never was and that I was never noble or good (the good soil) is so demeaning and ludicrously judgmental I'm not sure wether I should laugh at it or be angry.

It is my sincere hope (and my literal prayer) that you grieve over the very thought of not yet having given yourself over to God.  Jesus made many a person furious for telling them they were lost and bound for Hell.  They were so  enraged over Jesus’ condemnation that they murdered Him.  So I am not surprised that you respond with anger to learn that Jesus said that anyone who does not endure to the end in faith is someone He never knew as a Christian. 

There is a remedy for the anger and the sense of loss. Call upon God and admit He exists, that Christ is God, that you are anguished over your sins, that you cannot save yourself, and that all your good works mean nothing in terms of salvation.  God is gracious, merciful, and willing to forgive all your sins, to regenerate you, and to seal you to the end with His Holy Spirit, that is, to make you His slave.  If you are also willing. 

[Innerlight]

DRIE:

It would take weeks to unpack all that you have thrown onto this website, and try to answer it in any meaningful way.  I applaud EAS for engaging you.  I have ran into many, many people like you, and heard the arguments. 

I'll leave you with some quotes from the world's greatest aethiests.  Interestingly, he had quite the change of heart as he dealt with old age.

PAY PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE LAST ONE:

Sir Fred Hoyle,
The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate mater is one to a number with 40 thousands zeros after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.’

Nobel prize winning biologist Francis Crick,
‘An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going’.

Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate, George Wald,
‘One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation… When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: Creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!’
Let me give you an example of some of the rhetoric coming from the so-called new atheist:

Physicist Steven Weinberg writes, “anything we scientist can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.” Christopher Hitchens writes, “All religions and all churches are equally demented in their belief in divine intervention, divine intercession, or even the existence of the divine in the first place.” Richard Dawkins writes, “The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text know as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.”

Anthony Flew, the world’s foremost atheistic philosopher for more than fifty years recently wrote a book entitled: There is a God. Subtitled: How the worlds most notorious atheist changed his mind.  Irreducible complexity and anthropoid principle convinced him

“Science cannot furnish an argument for God’s existence. But… the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the universe – can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of the world… How, it might be asked, do I as a person respond to the discovery of an ultimate reality that is an omnipresent and omniscient Spirit? I must say again that my journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being. Where do I go from here? In the first place, I am entirely open to learning more about the divine reality, especially in the light of what we know about the history of nature. Second, the question of whether the Divine has revealed itself in human history remains a valid topic of discussion. You cannot limit the possibilities of omnipotence except to produce the logically impossible. Everything else is open to omnipotence. With particular reference to


the Christian claim that God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, as I have said more than once, no other religion enjoys anything like the combination of a charismatic figure like Jesus and a first-class intellectual like Paul. If you’re wanting omnipotence to set up a religion, it seems to me that this is the one to beat!”

[AgathaL'Orange]

Have any of you not-so-theistically-inclined individuals (or anyone else) read any of Frank Schaeffer's recent books, _Crazy for God_ and _Sex, Mom, and God_? I would be interested in hearing opinions if you have.

I've read Crazy for God plus his wonderful fiction trilogy and a few others by him.  I'm looking forward while simultaneously dreading (he's a chronic oversharer, which often makes me wince) reading Sex, Mom, and God.  LOVED, LOVED, LOVED the trilogy (Zermatt, Saving Grandma, and Portofino, not in that order).  Some of his others were angry and painful, Crazy for God was very entertaining and enlightening.

[Captain Bible]

"If you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you Will be saved."

I did this. I have no doubt in my mind that I have believed in my heart.

Christianity is such a confusing religion. All this fighting over who is saved and who is not saved.

Here is how I understand it. Believe in Jesus, Get holy spirit, Live a life of faith and good deeds as proof of the spirit's presence. Stand firm to hear the "well done" at the end.

I think what we are talking about is the Idea that If you believe the message truly, than you will not fall away from the faith. So I must not have believed the message since I am no longer a Christian. Even though no one would have guessed it in all the years I was totally on board. Is that why: "Man look's at the out word, but the Lord looks at the heart?"

But, what about Paul's promise: If you confess and believe Maybe I don't understand the verse?

As far as I have seen in my lifetime in GCM. All this question of salvation comes down to power, if a person is fallowing the pastor and paying the tithe, he or she is saved. Leave the church and you loose the salvation.

 Sacrificing your life for your faith is a slippery slope. The leaders start by asking for small sacrifices and than they escalate on up. It sometimes goes as far as martyrdom, don't forget Herschel martindale at faithwalkers warning of future body bags for GC missionarys coming back from the middle east.

My life in GC did end in a kind of martyrdom. I was dead by the end of my time in the faith. Maybe that is why I came so close to killing myself, I was already so dead inside.... I am so happy to be out of there and free.  

[Innerlight]

Captain Bible:

For me, once I moved away from the all the popular slogans, sayings and cliche's of popular christianity, and began looking at it from a different perspectives, it was like the proverbial "scales fell from my eyes". 

What I mean is this, going back to seminary, listening to other concepts about salvation (all "orthodox"), but put in different ways, and for me most importantly, what does the "Kingdom of God" mean, and what does it mean that Jesus broke into the world, to redeem it back to him, made it so wonderful, that I now serve Jesus and am constanly looking for ways to advance his Kingdom into a broken world.

Jesus has the right to rule and reign, both in the inner man, and in the world at large.  The Apostle Paul wore himself ragged explaining what this Jewish Messiah meant, and that it was always God's ultimate plan to redeem the whole world...everyone Jew and Gentile alike back to him, through his Son.  Yes, I believe this is the only way for humanity.   

In many ways, once I took the focus off of me, and my personal salvation (although very, very important), and looked at it in the broader historical sense, and had it explained in ways that didn't involve hell and damnation, it became beautiful.

I no longer worry about church politics, personalities, right wing politics all that stuff....  What I want is to know Jesus in deeper more meaningful ways, to use my intellect to understand more, and my gifts to help advance the Kingdom.

I see Jesus and goodness everywhere.  I am genuinely happy to be with people, being polite and accepting of all people, yes I'm still human, and yes I get annoyed, but my personal relationship with Jesus is now a part of me, not something I take on and off.  I want to be his ambassador here on earth. 

Like many people, understanding Romans on a deep level, was the turning point.  If you can read books, or take a class by a christian scholar at a recognized seminary, it will open doors for you.  it did for me. 

Blessings...keep reading, studying and asking.  "Ask, Seek, Knock, and the door will open"

[Janet Easson Martin]

Captain Bible I am soooooooo glad you are on this site.  You must be relieving much isolation that some children of GCx families have felt for years - as to their frustration, hurt, and anger with a "god who demands endless performance".  I'm convinced that what you are expressing are the feelings and thoughts of many children who were raised without Grace and Truth, and others who were spiritually abused in their faith.  Your story reaches not only them but many  who were raised in churches that have the audacity to SPEAK FOR GOD in continual and grave ERROR.  I believe it makes God want to vomit!  Read Galations to see how Paul feels about those types of false teachers/prophets!  

Here is what God says in Jeremiah about those who SPIRITUALLY ABUSE HIS CHILDREN:


"Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you.  THEY ARE MAKING YOU WORTHLESS.  They speak visions from their own minds, NOT FROM THE LORD'S MOUTH...

I did not send these prophets, yet they ran with a message.  I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.  IF THEY REALLY HAD STOOD IN MY COUNCIL, THEY WOULD HAVE ENABLED MY PEOPLE TO HEAR MY WORDS...

the one who has My word should speak truthfully....  Therefore, TAKE NOTE!  I am against the prophets who steal my words from each other.

"I am against the prophets" - the Lord's declaration  "who use their own tongues to deliver an oracle.

It was not I who sent or commanded them, and they are of NO BENEFIT TO ALL THESE PEOPLE" - the Lord's declaration.

_{Jeremiah 23: 16, 21, 28b, 30, 31, 32  Holman}

By the way, I and others understand the parable of the sower and the seed to be about the Believer.  It's up to us how much we trust God and consequently how fruitful or effective we will be.  It's a choice.  The more we abide in His LOVE through His promises the more effective we will be.  The riches and instruction of the Bible to the believer are lost when sin is generalized to be about the lost or unbeliever.  I and others understand  the story of the The Prodigal Son to be about God's family - His Sons - It's actually about both of them.  The second son, the self-righteous one, is the side of the story that doesn't seem to end well.  Remember, Jesus addresses parable to his disciples many times.  There is sooo much that is missed in dismissing the reproof and correction in LOVE to the believer.  The Book, The Prodigal God, gave me a better view of how God sees and loves both kinds of people.  

[EverAStudent]

Hello Janet Easson Martin,

We have never talked before, that I know of, so I hope you take no offense at my hopefully gentle difference of opinion with you.  You wrote, "By the way, I and others understand the parable of the sower and the seed to be about the Believer.  It's up to us how much we trust God and consequently how fruitful or effective we will be."

To assume a meaning like that into the parable is probably not the best interpretive approach.  Jesus told us explicitly what the parable was about: "Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved...[the others] believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away [from believing]." (Luke 8:12-13b)

If we change the intent and meaning from what Jesus told us that the parable means (i.e. who is a believer and who it is that falls away from believing), then the parable becomes merely a fun parlor game where every possible interpretation is valid and Jesus meant nothing specific at all at the time He spoke it. 

Since we know Jesus told us in His own words that the parable is meant to identify who believes and who does not believe, I think the focus of our attention ought to be trying to understand why in the story some do not believe (and so are unprodctive for the Kingdom) and help the unbelievers in real life overcome those same problems and distractions so that they can believe.

Blessings to you Janet.

[danrudeisevil]

For my own sake, as I will be starting my summer schedule monday and will have very little time to appropriate to this website. I will not be posting in this specific thread anymore and will focus on the other one I started

[MidnightRider]

Have any of you not-so-theistically-inclined individuals (or anyone else) read any of Frank Schaeffer's recent books, _Crazy for God_ and _Sex, Mom, and God_? I would be interested in hearing opinions if you have.

I've read Crazy for God plus his wonderful fiction trilogy and a few others by him.  I'm looking forward while simultaneously dreading (he's a chronic oversharer, which often makes me wince) reading Sex, Mom, and God.  LOVED, LOVED, LOVED the trilogy (Zermatt, Saving Grandma, and Portofino, not in that order).  Some of his others were angry and painful, Crazy for God was very entertaining and enlightening.

Oh dear, if you dislike "oversharing", you will be wincing on every page of _Sex, Mom, and God_. A lot of it overlaps _Crazy for God_.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Uh oh.  LOL.  I'm simultaneously compelled and wary of it.  You KNOW I'll have to read it. 

[Janet Easson Martin]

Dear EverAStudent,

Thank you for your gentle correction to my misinterpretation of Luke 8:5 & 11 in my post above.  That verse is about the unbeliever which you so accurately pointed out.  I'm glad you are not interested in an "intellectual" discussion about Truth of God.  As brothers and sisters in Christ, we shoud keep each other accountable to the accuracy of God's Word.  God commands us to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  Thank you, again.

I'm sure you would agree that the last part of this parable is clearly about the believer - verse 8:15.  The interesting thing to me and others (as I have heard it taught more than once) are the two in between.  I'm sure most of us have heard preachings on our worries, riches, and pleasures choking out the word that he scatters to plant in us as believers.  I have recognized it off and on in my life (as a believer).  I have seen it happen in other real believers lives.  And probably most of us have thought about who, what, and where we are doing for lunch during a Sunday Sermon when Jesus is faithfully sowing his WORD to us.  We had the opportunity to grow from what was sown, but we chose not to make it important and missed out.  If we do that often enough we stay as immature christians as verse 14 seems to say.  Perhaps it is possible that the other verse could also be about believers who are not strong in their faith and when hard times or persecution comes (as verse 21 of Matt 13 says) they fall away from trusting God and turn their back on Him.  Personally, I ask myself how could I stand under threat of death for my faith when I don't even obey when I'm just worn out.  And, of course, it's interesting to me why God included Peter's denial of His Son in the scriptures.  He fell away out of fear even though he hadn't received any official threat.  I feel he included it for our encouragment of the extent of his compassion and forgiveness.  

There is also this verse:   "If anyone's work that he has built survives, he will receive a reward.  If anyone's work is burned up, it will be lost, but he will be saved; yet it will be like an escape through fire."  (1 Cor 3:14-15)  So, on that subject I am uncertain as to how "persevere to the end" would specifically be defined.  The only thing I know is that it is God who gifted me with the faith to believe in the first place, and it is Him who says he will complete it.  Wouldn't be any joy now in my faith if I was constantly worried about whether I was in or out.  I just know I have fellowship with His Son, even though I haved turned my back toward Him sometimes.

While I was in GCx I did doubt my salvation for too long because of the teaching that I received.  It confused me.  Then a friend gave me the best book I'll probably ever read on this subject, Eternal Security by Charles Stanley, and I honestly was not troubled with doubts about it anymore.  Scripture taught in truth really did set me FREE.

Pray that God will continue to use you as you share His Word in Faith,

Janet

[EverAStudent]

Greetings Janet,

Thank you for the thought-filled response.  My take on it would be that the first 3 soil samples represent those who "ultimately" did not believe unto salvation, while the fourth did.  In this parable the metaphor of fruit is used as a catchall for "any faith induced change within the person," in other words, the fruit of the Spirit.  (As an aside, the word fruit in the parable does NOT mean, as GC used to say, that it only stands for those whom you have brought to salavation, or duplicating yourself, or successful evangelism.  That understanding of fruit is simply absent from the context entirely.)

Those who are saved have spiritual fruit within themselves.  They learn to be good, they learn to have faith, they learn how to be kind.  They learn to repent.  They learn to love God.  This fruit of spirituality can multiply within the person to a virtually unlimited degree.  In the parable the fourth person has an "honest and good heart" presumably because of Christ's salvation.

But the person who hears the word but is choked with worries about "riches and pleasures" has no spiritual fruit to come to maturity.  No spiritual fruit matures.  That means that all of his spirituality dies without becoming a reality.  In what spiritual state is someone who dies without loving God (this fruit never became a reality because it never grew up much less multiplied)?  In what spiritual state is someone who never obtained God's righteousness because this spiritual fruit never became a reality?  Such a man is a walking corpse, a hollow shell.  His own hearing of the Word never produced anything of spiritual benefit within him, not even faith or love. 

I do not think Jesus was here talking about our good works being judged.  But He is here talking about our faith producing salvation via a changed life.  Remember, only the last siol is called "good," not the other three, and if the entire theme was salvation vs. falling away from salvation, then only the good soil produced salvation.

Blessings.

[ISU Alumna]

I have found it fascinating to read all the responses to this question, particularly with regard to everyone's current beliefs. If there is anything that we all have learned, it's that a "one-size-fits-all" approach to religion will never succeed.
 
That said, I was wondering whether anyone else has ended up where I now find myself: both a universalist, as well as a Christian. I believe in God, yet I could never believe that God could be offended by somebody's lack of belief. I try to follow the Lord Jesus as honestly as I can, yet I fully expect my spiritual path to lead me in the same direction as that taken by anyone who tries to follow the Lord Krishna as honestly as they can.
 
Like EverAStudent, I also have a son who is an atheist. He has never expressed any anger about our differing beliefs, though. He smiles at me and assures me that nature has simply wired me to be a believer, while I smile at him and assure him that the God who created him to be an atheist loves him unconditionally.
 

[EverAStudent]

Hello ISUAlumna.  No, I am not a univeralist.  If I did not believe there was the possibility of anyone being eternally separated from God, I do not think I would or could bring the good news with a straight face.  "Repent and enter the Kingdom of Christ," I might say.  "What if I don't?"  "Then be a sinner all your life and enter the kingdom of Christ after you die."  "Well, ok then..."    

But I was curious as to what this statement meant, "If there is anything that we all have learned, it's that a "one-size-fits-all" approach to religion will never succeed."  Could you elaborate on that a bit?

Thanks.

[ISU Alumna]

But I was curious as to what this statement meant, "If there is anything that we all have learned, it's that a "one-size-fits-all" approach to religion will never succeed."  Could you elaborate on that a bit?

Hi, EAS. What I was thinking about is how we have all had the experience of belonging to churches that take quite a narrow, limiting view of just what is the right way for people to live their lives, and how we have all grown beyond those churches... each in our own, distinct, individual ways. I didn't mean to imply that I expected anyone else to have taken a universalist route, as I have; rather, I was commenting on how people who post here seem to be willing to reserve judgment... at least, long enough to talk things over in a civil fashion, or to begin a polite question with the expression: "I was curious as to what this statement meant."  

Just as an example, how about the question of tithing? That would seem to be relatively innocuous, wouldn't it? But back when I belonged to ISU Bible Studies, we were told that there was only one "right" way to go about tithing. Any other interpretation was wrong. And yet, there are countless matters to take into consideration, such as.... Ten percent? Before or after taxes? .... Ten percent? Directly to the church? Or partly to the elders? .... Ten percent? All to the church? But what about other donations, like to the American Cancer Society? Doesn't God appreciate that, too? .... Ten percent? But what if I'm just a student, and my parents still support me fully. It's meaningless if I'm giving away somebody else's money, isn't it? .... Ten percent? All the time? How about fifteen percent when times are good, and five percent during a recession? .... ad infinitum.

In a GC-church, you can listen to a guy stand up, admit that he has no qualifications for the job (other than that some other, equally unqualified guy recognized that he has "a heart for the Lord"), and then proceed to tell you, unequivocally, that he knows the right way to tithe. And any other way is wrong. Point blank.

That's the "one-size-fits-all" approach that I hope we've all learned not to fall for. And not just when it comes to tithing, but in all things where it's a question of honoring the spirit, rather than the letter of the word.

[EverAStudent]

To ISU Aluminum-person (sorry, no disrespect, it is just when I see certain words, especially in online names, connections just jump into my little brain and the images are hard to set aside), do you see the "one size fits all" concept as being narrowly restricted to what we might call "matters of liberty" (i.e. tithing, smoking, work on Sunday) or do you feel there is no such thing as a "biblical absolute"?  In other words, is there nothing in Scripture that is both clear and binding on all believers? 

Examples of clear and binding "absolutes" might include:  be honest in communications, love God, do not steal, remember the sacrifice of Jesus whenever you celebrate communion, etc. 

In our postmodern age it is becoming increasingly popular to denounce any "biblical truth" as beig not absolute or clear or binding.  I was wondering if that is what you may have meant by not seeing Christianity as "one size fits all" anymore?

Personally, though I detest "legalism" (which I define as inventing and imposing on others any biblical or extra-biblical edict which was not explicitly targeted to the church age) I do see many absolutes in Scripture that are clear and binding on believers today. 

[ISU Alumna]

Aluminum, huh? Well, it's not as valuable as silver or gold, but on the whole, I guess it's not a bad thing to be associated with. 

I've been thinking over your question about "absolutes" that are clear and binding for all Christians. It seems complicated, because on the one hand, Jesus taught that we shouldn't get caught up in legalism (e.g., "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath"); while in other contexts, he stressed that we should take the ten commandments so very, very seriously that we should even ratchet them up a notch (as in the Sermon on the Mount). When I put the two ideas side by side, though, they don't really contradict each other. What they're both pointing to is the importance of our inner motivations.

So if there is anything that I would personally consider clear, binding "absolutes" for the Christian faith, it would have to be things like: love God, love people, be kind, be compassionate, etc. If that's too vague, then I can only apologize for not being a theologian. However, I am not such a creature of the postmodern age that I would say that "everything is relative." Even we universalists have clear moral compasses.

[Mei Chuen]

"I posit that the GCM movement is actually a very good example of how christianity should behave. In order to be a 'true' christian, you must believe the bible to be inerrant."

This is not the doctrine in the (Eastern) Orthodox Church.  This is the doctrine that came out of the Western Reformation 500 years ago and was, and is not to this day, doctrine accepted by the Orthodox Church.  The Bible is part of Holy Tradition, and is useful for clarification of what was believed and practiced in the first century, but not the source of those beliefs and practices.  The Church does not clarify who God is, but only tries to clarify, however feebly, how a God beyond anything we can imagine or define, has broken through into this world's history.  Modern rationalism about doctrine and God, is innovative.  The historic Church was much more vague and mystical in their approach to God, and remains so in the Eastern churches.