S/O Ask a REAL Christian

[Dory]

Sooo, they are acting on behalf of God, and KNOW the state of another's soul?

 

I think concern for someone is different then for sure knowing, although there are definitely people who do think they know for sure the state of another's soul. I have met people who were concerned for me with other things. They didn't know for sure that I wasn't doing well, but their concern was nice all the same. It meant they cared. If they had been super pushy about their caring though my response wouldn't be nearly as favorable.

[Carol in Cal.]

Sooo, they are acting on behalf of God, and KNOW the state of another's soul?

 

That's not even remotely the sense of what I said.

[Χά�ων]

That's not even remotely the sense of what I said.

But HOW would they KNOW the state of someones soul?

[Rosie_0801]

But HOW would they KNOW the state of someones soul?

It doesn't have to be about KNOWING. It can be about worrying just in case. People say that sort of thing on here all the time.

[Χά�ων]

It doesn't have to be about KNOWING. It can be about worrying just in case. People say that sort of thing on here all the time.

I am confused. I am up past my bedtime so that might have something to do with it. 

 

Why do people care? Why assume the worst? Why make suggestions of such a personal nature that assumes the worst of the person? To be fair with the last one, that if how *I* would feel. If someone was all about saving my soul and assuming I am in need of saving I would be highly insulted and wondering how they can think so little of me. Are my actions such that I am coming across as a complete jerk? 

 

Seriously, very confused over here and up waaaay too late.

[Rosie_0801]

I am confused. I am up past my bedtime so that might have something to do with it. 

 

Why do people care? Why assume the worst? Why make suggestions of such a personal nature that assumes the worst of the person? To be fair with the last one, that if how *I* would feel. If someone was all about saving my soul and assuming I am in need of saving I would be highly insulted and wondering how they can think so little of me. Are my actions such that I am coming across as a complete jerk? 

 

Seriously, very confused over here and up waaaay too late.

 

Yeah, maybe sleep will help. :D

 

You're looking at it the wrong way around. It is really a compliment. They don't think you are a despicable person who deserves to burn in torment forever, so they are trying to save you from it. It's less about your flaws than it is about the system, I think, saving you from nasty consequences they don't really think you deserve.

[Χά�ων]

That's not even remotely the sense of what I said.

Sorry about that. I took my frustration about the other thread out here. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Sorry about that. I took my frustration about the other thread out here. 

No worries, it is hard to feel tone on the net sometimes.

[Guest]

This topic almost freaks me out.  Sorry.

 

I have only one thing to say.  I am standing alongside one of the most pious (don't read that with snark; read it with this definition:  Sincerely in love with God; devoted in attention to prayer and presence before God; totally committed to loving her difficult husband and beloved son; faithful, repentant, kind, loving, humorous, good person) who is going through HELL as her stbxh has left her, taken away all his things, has demanded the sale of their house and left her to take care of its emptying,  and, as a result, the dismantling of her life's goods, and is now two hours away from taking away from her the only child, her beloved son:  

 

As the hour approaches, she says to me, "Now we will find out if I am a Christian."  "

 

If you don't understand this, don't spit on it.  I can't take that.  She is a holy woman.  And a true Christian.  She is doing as Christ did, complete self-emptying.  It's called "kenosis."  

 

I can't say that any of us can say what is a True Christian.  The thread title makes me shiver. 

 

ETA a parenthese.  :0)

 

[BrookValley.]

 I wish there was an acceptable denomination for the many Americans who believe in God but not necessarily some form of Christ.

 

I can reconcile my atheism and lack of belief in Christ (as God) with the vibe of a liberal Quaker meeting. I don't think I've ever heard Christ mentioned at our local meeting (not that I attend regularly, but when I have).

[Ausmumof3]

I haven't read the whole thread. Just wanted to say the book of James says true religion is taking care of orphans or widows. This can help with defining a true Christian I think.

[Erin]

As the hour approaches, she says to me, "Now we will find out if I am a Christian." "

 

How heartbreaking. :(

I'll pray for both of you.

[Alexigail]

I was taught that if you are concerned for someone's soul, you are meant to pray for them privately and let God take care of the rest.  The only way I would approach someone about something like that is if they were my own child or my husband.  Even then, I would need to pray about whether or not to speak.  Others feel differently, I get that.  But I think that sometimes people feel that they are the only ones who can save another person and I think that's misguided.  God can work in people without such an open show of disapproval.  

For those of you who would approach a friend with love, I'm not looking to put you down.  Of course everyone's situation is different.  I've been approach with judgment and I've also been approached with love and there's definitely a difference.  

[Joanne]

This topic almost freaks me out. Sorry.

 

I have only one thing to say. I am standing alongside one of the most pious (don't read that with snark; read it with this definition: Sincerely in love with God; devoted in attention to prayer and presence before God; totally committed to loving her difficult husband and beloved son; faithful, repentant, kind, loving, humorous, good person) who is going through HELL as her stbxh has left her, taken away all his things, has demanded the sale of their house and left her to take care of its emptying, and, as a result, the dismantling of her life's goods, and is now two hours away from taking away from her the only child, her beloved son:

 

As the hour approaches, she says to me, "Now we will find out if I am a Christian." "

 

If you don't understand this, don't spit on it. I can't take that. She is a holy woman. And a true Christian. She is doing as Christ did, complete self-emptying. It's called "kenosis."

 

I can't say that any of us can say what is a True Christian. The thread title makes me shiver.

 

ETA a parenthese. :0)

I was this woman. It was a major factor in my leaving the faith but the formal and public outing was several years later

[TracyP]

I disagree with this.  I think that sometimes it's out of genuine concern for the state of someone's soul--a matter of life and death.  Not always, but sometimes.

 

Yes, but that doesn't make it any less... wrong.

 

While I was still a Baptist (before becoming a Lutheran), there was a woman who was giving a weekly report on a girl she was trying to "save". The girl was only 16 (I think?) and had cancer, so this was very urgent. I was new to the area, and it took some time for me to connect the dots. But one day I realized who this family was. I knew them. In fact, I had gone to church with them. Why all the angst about this girl's soul? Because she was Lutheran, and therefore not a "real" Christian.  :huh:  You are right. I have no doubt it was genuine concern. That doesn't change the fact that I am still appalled by what went on.

 

I don't know. I don't like when people make assumptions. It's okay because "their heart is in the right place" doesn't cut it for me. I agree with the pp. Pray to yourself and leave the rest to God.

 

p.s. The young woman died at 19. :( I had become quite close to the family by that time. If they aren't real Christians, then ... good grief, I just don't know who is.

[momto10blessings]

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but I'm a Christian and conversations like this drive me a bit batty. All I can think of is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

It's straight up none of my business whether anyone is a "real Christian" or not. It's like those phrases "real women have curves" and "real men don't cheat". I guess that means something to someone but it's way above my pay grade to speak on whether someone's faith is "real" enough.

Exactly! It bugs me when people say someone isn't a REAL Christian. I honestly thought this was going to be a joke thread.

[PeacefulChaos]

Um, I hope my post didn't lead anyone to think I was judging others on whether or not they were 'real' Christians.  

I was only giving the definition as what it means to me personally.  What I feel like I should be to be 'real'.

 

Anyway, after reading other answers, I just felt like I needed to clarify.  We can't ever know the state of others' hearts - we have no business knowing, and I don't want to know, anyway.   :) (which I think I said in my other post, too... but just wanted to be sure)

[milovany]

And that answer is why if I ever woke up and found myself no longer an atheist but a Christian, I'd head for the closest Orthodox church.

 

 

And you'd be very welcomed, I'm sure. Best to you, Sadie. 

[73349]

Y'all, someone just posted on Twitter a death-threatening (and otherwise filthy) email received from someone who was angry about a previous statement of his (I think opposing taxpayer funding for religious schools).

 

If the sender is a Christian, as he says he is, that is... puzzling, to say the least.

 

On one hand, there are people like the PPs mentioned being really unreasonable and exclusive about who is a "real" Christian--but on the other hand, I think there are extremists who appropriate the label for purposes that are actually opposed to the basics of Jesus' teaching. I don't think that wanting to avoid excessively judgmental attitudes toward others means that anything goes. The difficulty arises in where to draw the line, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

[goldberry]

I believe that all who accept Jesus' sacrifice as the means of salvation and are baptised come under Jesus' headship.  They are carrying the name "Christians" at that point, and thus carry a greater responsibility for their actions, which now reflect upon God and Christ.  The job they do at that point varies!

 

I think of the first chapters of Revelation where Jesus addresses "the congregations".  He is addressing them because they are under his headship.  But they are not all doing a very good job living up to that commitment. He gives them very specific advice to change certain things or they will not be approved by him. 

 

As someone previously mentioned, we are not saved by our works, but faith without works is dead.  So, I do not believe that the mere act of accepting Jesus is a guarantee of salvation or makes one a "real Christian".   It will only be God and Jesus who make that judgment.  On the surface, I consider anyone who accepts Jesus as the means of salvation as a Christian. That is the starting point of the Christian journey. Whether they are a "real" Christian or a "good" Christian is not for me to determine and is not something visible from the outside.  (Although certain extreme behaviors can give great cause for doubt which I try to suppress!) 

 

Disclaimer: This is my personal viewpoint and not the viewpoint of my denomination. ;)

 

ETA, applying the question to myself internally, being a Christian to me means imitating Christ as much as possible in every area of my life.  And not giving up.  I will not always do well, but I will always keep trying with honest intentions and pure motives.  I believe that is all he really asks of us.

[MeghansMom]

I think everyone, especially Christians need to spend time in getting their own individual acts together and stop worrying about everyone else.

 

We are so ready to judge ourselves by our intentions but others by their actions.

 

We need to remember to get the plank out of our own eye before pointing at the speck in someone else's.

 

It is God's judgment about who is real and who is not, only He truly sees into our hearts and minds.

 

Just my two cents.

[Peaceful Isle]

Christian....

 

Repentance,belief, and faith in Jesus and his sacrifice for our sins. Salvation is a gift, not by works. We are told in scriptures to tell the good news of salvation, not twist people's arms into believing because that would not be genuine belief.

 

Love. Love for one another. Not perfection, but love. Love you neighbor. Love your enemies. Love The Lord.

[Mrs. A]

If a Christian is a "little Christ", and if Christ is God, and God is love, then a Christian ought to be one who loves others more than self. To the point of death of self for the sake of the other. I cannot say if someone else is a "real" Christian or not, nor should I. All I can say is that I'm not there yet, so I've got plenty to take care trying to get the plank out of my own eye, before I can even spare a thought for the speck in my brother's eye. God will take care of my brother. He loves him way more than I can anyway. :)

 

 

[LucyStoner]

I've shared this before but I will repeat it here. Growing up Catholic, I learned to shy away from people claiming to be "the REAL Christians". I have a totally apeshit criminal of grandmother who falls into this category of thinking. Among her most obnoxious acts: beating and neglecting my mother until she was disabled. Her epilepsy was caused by head trauma and her hearing loss by severe untreated ear infections.

 

Yet in my mother's last months, her mother redoubled her efforts to "save" my Catholic mother. I haven't spoken to my grandmother since that time and I probably never will. But in her mind, my strongly religious and dedicated church and community volunteer mother is burning in hell while she, the "real Christian" is a perfect angel whose never done *anything* wrong. Honestly, sometimes I wish I was smoking whatever she is, it must be fabulous to be that far gone into a state of denial and to be certain that you are saved despite a great many bad acts.

[Erin]

I would bet most Christians have dealt with people like this as well, hence our fear of BEING one.  

[albeto.]

Unfortunately (for this thread! But fortunately for us all), only God can answer that question.

I admit it sometimes seems like trying to nail jello to a tree and I don't know or understand everything by a long shot.

I can't say that any of us can say what is a True Christian.

 If this is the most important thing for someone to know (because it impacts one's eternal life), then why would it be impossible to know? If it's not the most important thing to know, what is more important that the thing that will result in one's experience for all eternity? It seems to me that any experience one could have on earth would fail in comparison to an eternal experience. It seems to me, this should be the most important thing to know because, well, what if you're wrong? Wouldn't it be important to know? 

 

 

 

Let's be real, folks. All the talk about "real" Christians is just an ugly way to put others down. It's mean-spirited and it pushes people away from the message of the gospel.

 

I don't think that's a given. I think it may be wielded as such a weapon, but in my experience as a Christian (I am no longer one), people who determined who was a "real Christian" were really trying to determine what "real Christianity" was, or what the "real faith of Christ" was. After all, this would be the faith the grateful believer would be motivated to pursue and embrace. Knowing what kinds of things were understood to honor God as opposed to offend him were of supreme importance. This wasn't for the purpose of putting others down, but for the purpose of doing what we thought was genuinely honoring to someone we genuinely believed we were in some way connected to. One consequence of this would be knowing how to best be of help to others. Like FM says...

 

My job is to be a light to the people  around me.

 

 

 

 

To be meaningful, this question needs to be asked in a context. Is the definition sociological? Historical? Experiential? Theological? Each of those conditions could yield a different answer.

 Why should that be? I understand it is, but it shouldn't be, logically speaking. Either a thing is true or it's not. Either water boils at 212F or it doesn't. Unless faith is a matter of opinion, in which case, people who are of the opinion it is a fact should be encouraged to stop promoting this false belief, as it serves as a distraction and encourages people to believe (and teach) erroneous ideas. 

 

 

 

 

Ps - why 'true Christian' and 'real Christian' talk?  It makes me feel kind of squicky.   :leaving:  :o  :001_unsure:

 I think it matters to people for different reasons. When I was a believer, I didn't come across this term, but I certainly came across the concept in essence. It became a source of embarrassment for me. I didn't want to be associated with people who did/believed things that I didn't want to be associated with. It was a way to separate me from "them," whoever "them" was. So in that sense, it was a matter of preserving my own faith and respect for my faith. I think Carol in Cal's post articulates another component of what I'd understood the importance of this question to be. This was particularly important when raising my children in the faith.

 

 

 

 

I disagree with this.  I think that sometimes it's out of genuine concern for the state of someone's soul--a matter of life and death.  Not always, but sometimes.

 This is my experience. Interestingly, because there is apparently no way to know, there is no way to confirm if TracyP is correct or incorrect in her reply to you. In my opinion, this makes a difference. After all, how can a person who truly wants to honor and worship God do so if they don't know what honors him? How can they worship him if they're worshiping an illusion of who/what he "really" is? I think Pope Benedict referred to this concept as "phantom Jesus," the idea that people see an image, a phantom of the "real Jesus," but are ultimately focused on the wrong thing, an incomplete image rather than the whole deal. Even if one is sincere in her belief, the consequences of being wrong could potentially be horrifying. 

[milovany]

 If this is the most important thing for someone to know (because it impacts one's eternal life), then why would it be impossible to know? If it's not the most important thing to know, what is more important that the thing that will result in one's experience for all eternity? It seems to me that any experience one could have on earth would fail in comparison to an eternal experience. It seems to me, this should be the most important thing to know because, well, what if you're wrong? Wouldn't it be important to know?

 

Well, the church has always taught "He who endures to the end will be saved."  Is it the end yet?  (For me, this earthly life?) No, it's not. I don't know my future.  I don't know if I'll endure all my days to the end.  I hope to!  I purpose to!  I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. I have the witness/example of thousands of saints who have gone before me to encourage me, and I am currently staying active in the life of our church and am trusting Her by faith, etc. Hopefully at "the end" I'll have a soft, repentant heart that pressed on to become more like Christ and stayed faithful to the church He started, but since it's not "the end" yet, I press on.  I endure. 

 

What's more important to know?  I don't know that knowing is the goal.  Union with Christ -- that's the goal. Healing/wholeness -- that's the goal (not a gavel-slamming "Innocent!" at the end). Living the life of faith, being healed at the soul-level -- that's more important than knowing something.  I know that the Church is the ark that brings us to God, I know that Christ conquered death, I know that God is merciful and loving like the father of the prodigal son -- arms open wide to any who would come.  I trust Him.  If I'm not with Him at the end, it's my doing, not His.  I don't believe in a "hell" where God sends people.  I believe in an hellish eternal existence because it's an existence that chose to be apart from God, apart from life and love.  We're given this life to choose -- union with Christ or separation from Him. 

[Erin]

*very* well said

[albeto.]

Well, the church has always taught "He who endures to the end will be saved."  Is it the end yet?  (For me, this earthly life?) No, it's not. I don't know my future.  I don't know if I'll endure all my days to the end.  I hope to!  I purpose to!  I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. I have the witness/example of thousands of saints who have gone before me to encourage me, and I am currently staying active in the life of our church and am trusting Her by faith, etc. Hopefully at "the end" I'll have a soft, repentant heart that pressed on to become more like Christ and stayed faithful to the church He started, but since it's not "the end" yet, I press on.  I endure.

 

Am I understanding correctly that your answer to my question is that it isn't important to know, so the impossibility of knowing poses no problem? The problem I have with that answer is that your answer assumes that your theology is the correct one, and you simply can't know if you're following it "well enough." I can totally get behind not knowing if you're following the right theological truths well enough, and that focus on doing all the steps right is to miss the point of the faith. I can't get behind the implication that your theology is the right one, because, well, how would we know? 

 

Your church has historically taught that there are certain things that can be known, and to deny them is to deny what God says is true [as revealed in sacred scripture and sacred tradition]. One notable example is the dogma surrounding the eucharist and the dogma of the "real presence". During this time in history, Lutherans and Calvinists and subsequent Protestant Christians were not considered Christians missing the fullness of the faith, but instead heretics openly rejecting the faith of Christ and justly punished. It is my understanding that at this time the church taught If someone disagreed, they left the Church -- they left Christianity. In other words, either one recognized the church's authority and the dogma of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, or they send themselves to hell. Speaking through a council that formalizes dogma, the pope is understood to be speaking infallibly about this.  

 

I imagine non Catholics reading this reject the idea that the eucharist really and truly contains the soul and divinity of Jesus. So... who's right? Which belief reflects the real Christian faith? The one that recognizes the true presence of Jesus in the eurcharist as true, or the one that recognizes this as false? If it doesn't matter, why did the church, the "ark that brings us to God," punish people with such frightening loss of property and loss of life for making the wrong choice? If it's not important to know or believe this theological truth, surely the church would recognize that. If the church can't be expected to recognize things like that reliably, what does this mean about the church's proclamations today regarding homosexuality? Birth control? Abortion? Can the RCC be trusted to protect and preserve the "real Christian faith" if major theological beliefs evolve in time to convey opposite "truths" from the ones taught in the past? Can any church? How does one know today which beliefs are even important and which one's aren't? These are questions that I imagine others ask as well, the kind of question that prompted the OP's thread (please don't think I'm expecting you to personally field these questions - they're thoughts that come to my head in times like this). 

 

As I mentioned earlier, I don't agree with the ideas that statements like "real Christian" serve only to be condescending. There is a long tradition of formalizing Christian belief for the sake of the souls of the community of the faithful. The counter reformation functioned for the purpose of letting the faithful know the importance of following the "real Christian faith," for example. The idea that know one can't know and it doesn't really matter in the long run is a relatively new theological development, historically speaking. I think it evolved in response to a growing spread of theological "truths," many of which have compelling reasons to accept as true. It prompts my question, if a belief is important then why is it impossible to know? If something is true, wouldn't it be true everywhere? 

 

What's more important to know?  I don't know that knowing is the goal.  Union with Christ -- that's the goal. Healing/wholeness -- that's the goal (not a gavel-slamming "Innocent!" at the end). Living the life of faith, being healed at the soul-level -- that's more important than knowing something.  I know that the Church is the ark that brings us to God, I know that Christ conquered death, I know that God is merciful and loving like the father of the prodigal son -- arms open wide to any who would come.  I trust Him.  If I'm not with Him at the end, it's my doing, not His.  I don't believe in a "hell" where God sends people.  I believe in an hellish eternal existence because it's an existence that chose to be apart from God, apart from life and love.  We're given this life to choose -- union with Christ or separation from Him.

 

What you refer to as knowing is really a matter of believing. You believe the church is the ark that brings people to God. You believe that Christ conquered death. You believe that God is merciful and loving like the father of the prodigal son. You can't know these things any more than one can know that the priesthood of believers means the office of the pope is unnecessary and actually goes against God's intent as recorded in the bible, or that Christ's resurrection is meant to be read analogously, or that God literally does hate those mentioned in the bible. Your methodology of believing what is true is the same methodology others use to come to the exact opposite conclusion -  read the bible, trust the people in your community to help you interpret the bible correctly, trust your personal experiences confirm this interpretation. The same method brings diametrically opposing conclusions. Which one is right? 

 

I don't know milovany. I can't recall you ever claiming to be a "real Christian," so maybe it's unfair to dump all this on you. Nevertheless, these are the thoughts that come to my mind when people make these claims, especially when people attempt to correct each other's claims based on the same methodology: sincere belief that one's interpretation of the bible is accurate and reliable. 

[albeto.]

I just wanted to add that I think that there are only a few doctrines that are salvific (necessary for being a Christian) and a great many that are not. Christians can differ on a lot more things than they agree on and still be saved. No wonder we have so many denominations!

 

Which ones are these?

[albeto.]

In my opinion, if someone claims to be a Christian, I'm going to take him or her at her word for it.

 

I agree with you, and think this is the only reasonable way to approach it. As this conversation clearly shows, people identify their own faiths as being the "real" one, the one Jesus inspires, the one the bible supports, and yet people differ on what this means. Ultimately, because there is no objective means by which one can measure the accuracy of these claims, self identification is the only criteria that fits across the board. I think people don't like this in general because it means we must accept non orthodox faith claims as being relevant (like Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and even the most socially alienated, Westboro and the KKK). To do it any other way is to employ the No True Scotsman fallacy, as far as I can see anyway. 

 

It's not up to me to judge what constitutes a "real" Christian, and I always find it incredibly arrogant when anyone acts like their own personal definition is the only "real truth."

 

I think the reason "real Christian" feels icky to people is because it reflects the fact that one person is dismissing another person's deeply held, sincere convictions, and that can be emotionally rought. I'm tempted to think of this like the mental equivalent to eating bad food: It's an evolutionary warning system that alerts us of danger by making us feel bad enough to want to avoid the experience in the future. In this case the danger isn't alerted from the stomach but from the brain because deeply held beliefs affect our sense of self, and to rattle one is to rattle the other. We have enormously complex thought processes, and our sense of self is intimately intertwined with how we relate to others. Humans are a social species, we can't help but be compelled to relate with others. The brain can take only so much conflicting information before suffering mental and emotional trauma. To be told one's theology isn't legitimate (not the "real truth"), is to be told your deeply held beliefs are wrong, the way in which we perceive ourselves and relate with others is wrong. It feels bad because it's a dangerous behavior to continue engaging in. If religious faith is protected because it must be maintained, then certain attacks to that faith must be dismissed. We recognize them because they turn our proverbial stomach. It's our body's way of saying, Stay away from this, 'cause this here is gonna hurt you real bad if you don't leave it alone. 

 

 

[Incognito]

FWIW, albeto, milovany is EO, not RC.

[albeto.]

FWIW, albeto, milovany is EO, not RC.

 

 

Heehee.

 

Oops.

 

:laugh:

 

Well, my questions are still valid, just not the example.

 

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

^_^

[milovany]

Heehee.

 

Oops.

 

Well, my questions are still valid, just not the example.

Actually, they're not. You link and quote things about punishment and the inquisition and theology that aren't part of Orthodoxy. I can't answer your questions because they're presupposing a Catholic background. I don't have a Catholic background. Yes, I believe Orthodoxy is original Christianity in its purest form, to answer that one question. I'll be Orthodox -- or not be Christian. That's what it comes down to for me, yes. I couldn't be Catholic at this point, because they came later in the timeline of church history. I can't be Mormon because of the belief that they're the restored church (the church never apostatized so why would it need restoring?). I can't be any form of protestant because I can't take on figuring out church doctrine on my own again (when it's already been done anyway). I think the early church, the original united church, got it right because Christ taught the holy apostles who then taught their disciples, and the church grew, stayed strong and thrived from there. If those early leaders of the church failed utterly within a couple of generations, Jesus sure didn't do a very good job at picking out those who would establish the foundation of his church -- and you'd think since that was his mission on earth (conquering death and establishing a church) and since He is God, he could have done a better job of it.

 

Why do I *know* (not just believe) the things I mentioned? Because it has been handed down in our tradition (not just because it's in the Bible -- that didn't come for hundreds of years after the events were witnessed and talked about and passed down). We'd still have the story of the prodigal son from Christ even without a book. That's why I'm so committed to this church -- because it's existed unchanged for 2000 years solely through Holy Tradition. That's an amazing feat. -- amazing enough to me to be considered a miracle given that humans are the vessels through which the Holy Spirit is keeping the church established over all this time and distance. The doctrine of the Orthodox Church hasn't changed for 2000 years. Some of the practices have, the way some handle the calendar has, but not the doctrine. Some doctrine was discussed and clarified and established over the first 800 years in the ecumenical councils (I liken it to an infant growing into an adult -- for the first years there's a lot that grows and develops, but once an adult, there's not much change but more of just living one's existence), but nothing new was added. This is a big part of the reason why we chose Orthodoxy over Catholicism; no immaculate conception, no papal supremacy or infallibility, no change to the Nicene Creed, no original sin, etc. because those things weren't part of early church theology.

 

Anyway, I probably went off with my own thoughts a bit there because there was not much in your post that I could reply to. You definitely have a Catholic bent/mindset -- and Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism.

[albeto.]

Actually, they're not.  You link and quote things about punishment and the inquisition and theology that aren't part of Orthodoxy.  I can't answer your questions because they're presupposing a Catholic background.  I don't have a Catholic background.  Yes, I believe Orthodoxy is original Christianity in its purest form, to answer that one question. I'll be Orthodox -- or not be Christian.  That's what it comes down to for me, yes. I couldn't be Catholic at this point, because they came later in the timeline of church history.  I can't be Mormon because of the belief that they're the restored church (the church never apostatized so why would it need restoring?). I can't be any form of protestant because I can't take on figuring out church doctrine on my own again (when it's already been done anyway). I think the early church, the original united church, got it right because Christ taught the holy apostles who then taught their disciples, and the church grew, stayed strong and thrived from there. If those early leaders of the church failed utterly within a couple of generations, Jesus sure didn't do a very good job at picking out those who would establish the foundation of his church -- and you'd think since that was his mission on earth (conquering death and establishing a church) and since He is God, he could have done a better job of it. 

 

Why do I believe the story of the prodigal son?  Because it has been handed down in our tradition (not just because it's in the Bible -- that didn't come for hundreds of years after the story was told and passed down). We'd still have the story of the prodigal son from Christ even without a book.  That's why I'm so committed to this church -- because it's existed unchanged for 2000 years solely through Holy Tradition.  That's an amazing feat. -- amazing enough to me to be considered a miracle given that humans are the vessels through which the Holy Spirit is keeping the church established over all this time and distance.  The doctrine of the Orthodox Church hasn't changed for 2000 years.  Some of the practices have, the way some handle the calendar has, but not the doctrine.  Some doctrine was discussed and clarified and established over the first 800 years in the ecumenical councils (I liken it to an infant growing into an adult -- for the first years there's a lot that grows and develops, but once an adult, there's not much change but more of just living one's existence), but nothing new was added. This is a big part of the reason why we chose Orthodoxy over Catholicism; no immaculate conception, no papal supremacy or infallibility, no change to the Nicene Creed, no original sin, etc. because those things weren't part of early church theology. 

 

Anyway, I probably went off with my own thoughts a bit there because there was not much in your post that I could reply to.  You definitely have a Catholic bent/mindset -- and Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism.

 

I have a Catholic bent because that's most familiar to me and I thought you were also Catholic. As an aside, I didn't know Orthodoxy supported Universalism, so I learned something new today. I can see how my example would be completely and totally out of place in Orthodox context. It doesn't change the question though. The question isn't Why is milovany Orthodox, the question is, How can milovany know her Orthodox faith is the "real Christian faith"? You believe it to be, that much is clear, but what does that say about others who believe just as earnestly in their Catholic, or Baptist, or Mormon beliefs? How can we know you are right and they are wrong?

[Erin]

I thought she's been pretty clear that this is just her experience and impressions…as well as how they relate to her.  

 

Maybe I've missed where she's made the declaration that this should be true for everyone?  

[mommaduck]

It boils down to this...We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not. In other words, yes, there are Christians that believe heretical teachings (what we believe to be heretical, just as they would believe that we believe heretical teachings). Does this mean that they aren't Christians and that we KNOW that where their salvation stands with God? No, absolutely not. We don't know. We are not God and we do not confine God to a box as to where His Grace may be extended. This is a mystery that we accept. Orthodox are okay with mystery. We DO know where WE should be and what WE should believe on certain matters. We do NOT sit in judgement on another's soul and salvation because of beliefs we view as heretical. Life is a journey...and there is a spiritual journey as well. We are always learning, we aren't dead yet, nor has the day of judgment come upon us yet. We should not and cannot judge another. We can be concerned, we can care...but we are called to live as we are taught we should live...to love our God with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind and to love our neighbour as ourselves. These are the greatest commandments. We are not called to tell another the state of their soul or predict where they are standing with God. As a parent, we may speak with our children about things in their lives. We may encourage others. The state of the soul...even a priest is about guidance, not judgement on the soul...but soul matters may be taken up with a priest, about one's OWN soul.

[milovany]

Read the article more carefully. I don't believe Orthodoxy teaches universalism.

 

And I did answer your question. I believe Orthodoxy is the form of Christianity Christ established. It's the Church from the beginning, unchanged. Historically, it has the claim to that (I know my Catholic friends would say RC is, but many things have changed and been added to the RC faith and in the Orthodox POV, these were changes to established doctrine and practice). It was NON Christians here at WTM that helped me start to see the historical claim Orthodoxy has to the Christian Church. Numerous folks said in different threads something like "If any Christian group can claim a historical tie to the early church, its the Orthodox." So I have answered your question about why I believe this form of Christianity to be the fullness of the faith, historically, biblically and spiritually. And, as stated above, if the church still exists unchanged, why would I NOT want to be a part if it? This has been my journey. I know others are on different journeys within Christianity, and that's between them and God.

[albeto.]

I thought she's been pretty clear that this is just her experience and impressions…as well as how they relate to her.  

 

Maybe I've missed where she's made the declaration that this should be true for everyone?  

 

My understanding of the question isn't how faith relates to an individual, but how an individual can support the claim they are a "real Christian." Milovany doesn't support that, or at the very least, I don't recall her saying that, so I'm not operating under that premise. However, she's trying to explain to me how her faith is the "real Christian faith" (which is directly correlated to the claim of being a "real Christian"), and all I can see is her argument that to understand the real Christian faith (Orthodox Christianity), one would heed the teaching of those who adhere to true Christian doctrine (Orthodox Christians). Her's is a lovely appeal, clearly genuine, but it's still circular. The same appeal is made by Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism (Judaism, Islam, etc). It doesn't answer the question how one can know which faith tradition is the right one. Which one represents "real Christianity"? I'm only assuming that the "real Christian faith" would be, well, "real" for everyone. Either Jesus is present in the eucharist, or he is not. Either the sacraments have a particular spiritual effect or they do not. Either the first 8 councils alone are legitimate for clarification of doctrine, or they are not. Either these claims are true, or they are not. kwim? 

[milovany]

I'm not quite sure what you're not getting about my reasons to believe this is authentic Christianity, albeto.  I'm sure I'm wording things poorly but I don't now how to say it differently. I'll try again. I believe Christ started a Church, that his apostles were the leaders of that Church, that this church never apostatized ("the gates of hell will not prevail" against her), that this church still exists today unchanged through time, and that anyone can be a part of it if they want to. This is all outside the Bible in the sense that I'm not using the Bible to support this understanding -- this Church existed before the Bible.  I don't have to figure out the "correct" form of Christianity here 2000 years later by interpreting Scripture according to my personal understanding (something the early church wasn't doing by the way).  I can just align with the church Christ started, and trust that the way the apostles and their disciples established doctrine and church life was the way Christ instructed them and the way the Holy Spirit led them after Christ ascended.  Since the church was united and one for ten centuries before the Great Schism, there's a lot of good reason to take that historicity and unity into consideration.  I trust the Holy Spirit.  The same Holy Spirit that led the bishops of the church to put together and canonize the Bible also led the same bishops of the church in all areas of church life.  As an example, why do I know there's a Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?  Because the early church practiced this Real Presence.  This was pre-Bible.  When the bishops gave us the Bible, the Real Presence was already what they'd been practicing for centuries. Any words in the Bible referring to the Eucharist ave  to mean Real Presence -- the bishops wouldn't have written/included things in Holy Scripture that were opposite to what they believed and practiced, right?

 

Did I do any better that time? 

 

 

[albeto.]

Read the article more carefully. I don't believe Orthodoxy teaches universalism.

That confuses me because the article suggests Orthodoxy does teach just that, and it gives reasons for this belief. I believe you when you say you don't believe it, and you don't believe Orthodoxy teaches it.

 

And I did answer your question. I believe Orthodoxy is the form of Christianity Christ established. It's the Church from the beginning, unchanged. Historically, it has the claim to that (I know my Catholic friends would say RC is, but many things have changed and been added to the RC faith and in the Orthodox POV, these were changes to established doctrine and practice). It was NON Christians here at WTM that helped me start to see the historical claim Orthodoxy has to the Christian Church. Numerous folks said in different threads something like "If any Christian group can claim a historical tie to the early church, its the Orthodox." So I have answered your question about why I believe this form of Christianity to be the fullness of the faith, historically, biblically and spiritually. And, as stated above, if the church still exists unchanged, why would I NOT want to be a part if it? This has been my journey. I know others are on different journeys within Christianity, and that's between them and God.

 

I understood your answer to my question (If this is the most important thing for someone to know, then why would it be impossible to know?) to be that it's not the most important thing for someone to know, and one can't know. That made sense with reference to Universalism, but if eternal separation from God is on the table, that seems to me to be important. I mean, we'er talking eternity, right? Perhaps this is my Catholic-bias / ignorance getting in the way again, but it was my impression that heaven was a spiritual state of unimaginable reward, and hell was a spiritual state of the lack of this reward. It would be like winter all the time but no Christmas, to steal a popular image. For all time. Yeesh.  You know? If God is the source of all good, all love, then to be separated from that source would be to exist without good, without love. That's how I imagined it anyway, but again this is inspired by my Catholic understanding. I'm only assuming hell is worse than heaven as you understand your faith, and that hell is best avoided if possible. If that's the case, wouldn't knowing how to avoid it be important? Wouldn't it be more important than, well, anything on earth that would last 70-80 years if lucky? I mean, what's 80 years against eternity? Does the Orthodox church teach there is the opportunity to change one's mind after death? Maybe that's tripping me up as well.

 

In any case, your explanation of why you yourself are Orthodox is a nice testimony. The claims you offer are offset by claims to the contrary. For this reason I see one step forward, one step back in this kind of thing, if that makes sense. I enjoy reading your step forward, so thanks for sharing.  :)

[albeto.]

I'm not quite sure what you're not getting about my reasons to believe this is authentic Christianity, albeto. 

.

.

.

Did I do any better that time? 

 

I do understand your reasons to believe your religion. Please ignore my last post. It's a follow up to these ideas, but rather unnecessary under the circumstances. I'll let it stand in case it resonates with anyone else. 

[milovany]

About the knowing -- what we do KNOW is that "he who endures to the end will be saved." We know that because the Church has taught that through all these centuries.  But "saved" in Orthodoxy isn't a heaven/hell thing as much as it is in the west.  Saved is healed and whole -- union with Christ -- and worshiping God forever.  We believe that all will be in the presence of God at the end, maybe that's what the universalism thing is all about?  I haven't looked into that at all so don't have answers for you on that topic.  Being in God's presence, for some, will be heavenly, but for some it will be hellish. Think about being with someone who loves you, but who you don't really care for.  You go to their house and they are full of love for you and want to hug and kiss you, they keep asking you how you're doing, or keep trying to involve you in activities, etc.Or even if they just sit there and leave you alone, you can't wait to leave because you just can't stand this person. Kinda like that but on a different scale - and you can't leave because all there is is eternity now.  I don't know that Orthodoxy teaches one way or another if this person will have some chance at some point to change their mind / if that experience can become less hellish. 

[TranquilMind]

I have a question about how a person can know if they THEMSELVES are a real Christian.

 

I thought for years that I was a Real Christian. I believed in Biblical Inerrancy. I believed that repentance and trusting in Jesus Christ and his death was the only way to be saved. I believed that other "Christians" who didn't really believe the Bible and believed in other way to Heaven were false Christians. I believed I was born again. I evangelized in several countries, believing I was led by the Spirit of God to share His gospel with those who didn't believe. I was born again when I was 14. I was not from a Christian family, and I believed and followed Christ for 20 years.

 

For those years, I was certain I was one of the Real Christians. I bore the fruit. I saw many of my friends turn to Christ!  I also didn't believe that anyone who was a true Christian--like me--could ever truly fall away, and I believed that anyone who fell away was never a True Christian.

 

So, now, I'm an atheist.

 

Here's my question, if I wasn't a True Christian, can anyone know if they are a True Christian?  How was I supposed to know that? Only now that I don't believe anymore?

 

If that's the case, how can never know that they are a True Christian, until they are on their death bed, and you can see whether you still believe or not at the final moment of earthly life?

 

Any Real Christians who want to answer this, I really want to hear your answers.

How does this possibly happen?

 

I have always wondered that, and I'm truly curious.   How can you have a real encounter with the Living God, KNOW He is real and there, and walk in His Spirit, and then later say, well, that was fun, but now I'm going to believe that it wasn't real.  Or did that personal encounter never happen?   I guess I don't know what to think about the part where "other Christians who didn't believe the Bible were false Christians" - what does that mean?  What did they not believe?  What other ways to heaven did the "false" Christians believe?  Because Jesus Himself tells us that He has "sheep that are not of this fold". Or did they believe things like all paths of any sort of belief leads to God?  I'm curious and you are the first  person who has specifically spelled out this sort of progression.

 

I can't imagine, and since you brought it up, I'd like to know, if you are able to articulate it.    Maybe that's the only way you know is on your deathbed, because scripture tells us that he who perseveres until the end (whatever "the end" is) will be saved.   Maybe it is right after, or at death.   I don't know.  I just know that those whom He has called will be saved, however, whenever. 

[TranquilMind]

Y'all, someone just posted on Twitter a death-threatening (and otherwise filthy) email received from someone who was angry about a previous statement of his (I think opposing taxpayer funding for religious schools).

 

If the sender is a Christian, as he says he is, that is... puzzling, to say the least.

 

On one hand, there are people like the PPs mentioned being really unreasonable and exclusive about who is a "real" Christian--but on the other hand, I think there are extremists who appropriate the label for purposes that are actually opposed to the basics of Jesus' teaching. I don't think that wanting to avoid excessively judgmental attitudes toward others means that anything goes. The difficulty arises in where to draw the line, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

I think your Twitter example is a pretty clear one of someone who is not walking with Christ, because you don't spew ugly, blasphemous death threats if you are, I feel safe in concluding.  ;)

 

Or maybe he is actually a believer, but bound up in bitterness and hate and his "testimony" is uh, ineffective, to say the least.  Pride comes before a fall. 

 

I agree that one should avoid excessively judgmental attitudes toward others.  We don't know the end from the beginning.  Jesus selected some pretty unlikely candidates to walk with Him and spread His word along the way. 

[albeto.]

About the knowing -- what we do KNOW is that "he who endures to the end will be saved."

 

Well see, now I'm going to stop you right there because we cannot KNOW that salvation is even a thing! We can't KNOW that the god of the bible is a real entity any more than we can KNOW that reincarnation is a real phenomenon, or that kami really do inhabit and effect nature. This is a belief, not based on objective information (there is no evidence for or against the existence of the god of the bible, or any god or goddess).

 

We know that because the Church has taught that through all these centuries.

 

 Judaism has taught a different "truth" for more centuries. Buddhism has taught a different "truth" for more centuries. The existence of a belief in history isn't evidence for the credibility of the belief.

 

But "saved" in Orthodoxy isn't a heaven/hell thing as much as it is in the west.  Saved is healed and whole -- union with Christ -- and worshiping God forever.  We believe that all will be in the presence of God at the end, maybe that's what the universalism thing is all about?  I haven't looked into that at all so don't have answers for you on that topic.  Being in God's presence, for some, will be heavenly, but for some it will be hellish. Think about being with someone who loves you, but who you don't really care for.  You go to their house and they are full of love for you and want to hug and kiss you, they keep asking you how you're doing, or keep trying to involve you in activities, etc.Or even if they just sit there and leave you alone, you can't wait to leave because you just can't stand this person. Kinda like that but on a different scale - and you can't leave because all there is is eternity now.  I don't know that Orthodoxy teaches one way or another if this person will have some chance at some point to change their mind / if that experience can become less hellish.

 

Which brings me back to my question - isn't this of enormous importance? I would find it emotionally and mentally torturous to be confined with someone I loathed, someone who was so adversarial to me that I would desire nothing more than escape.  It would be uncomfortable for a year, painful for a century, I imagine I would go insane after 1000 years, but for eternity? That to me is like being forced to endure bullying behavior for eternity. So of course I would want to avoid that. I would want to spare my children that torment. What's 70 years of "free-thinking" if it lands me an eternity of having to endure the presence of someone I want desperately to escape? See why I ask if it's important to know, why is it impossible to know? I consider an eternity of suffering to be important. I mean, it's eternity. There is no end. 

[mommaduck]

(hoping a Jewish person will jump on here and correct or verify this) From my understanding, Judaism teaches that their beliefs are for their people, not that it's for all people (other than the premise that there is a singular God).

[milovany]

Right, so get on the road to salvation if you want to.  If you don't, then that's a choice you're making and it has consequences (from the Christian POV; I understand that you don't believe this is so).  But God isn't sending anyone to this hellish existence.  People have a choice -- they can either be walking toward Him with the understanding they have or walking away from Him / denying him. I won't make a judgment on anyone's salvation and path.  That's between them and God.  As for choosing to walk toward God, we tend to believe that the Orthodox Church (the Ark he provided) best supplies the tools/path one needs for this eternity with God but that doesn't mean there aren't any lifeboats out there either.  We don't know about those boats -- we just know that the Ark provides the tools useful to us to pursue union with Christ. That's what mommaduck meant above when she said, "We know where the Church is, but we don't know where she isn't."

 

As for the Jewish faith and Buddhist faith -- yes, you're right. They may be older (although with Judaism, the Orthodox perspective is that the Church is eternal -- always existing -- and what came before in time was leading up to its establishment -- I fully respect that this is not what my Jewish friends would say).  I'm limiting myself to Christianity because that's where my faith lies and where I've experienced God in very real, tangible, practical ways. 

 

Off to pick up my daughter at the airport!  She's just getting back from a trip with our church during which they built a house for a poor family in Tijuana.  So excited to see her. 

[albeto.]

How does this possibly happen?

 

I have always wondered that, and I'm truly curious.   How can you have a real encounter with the Living God, KNOW He is real and there, and walk in His Spirit, and then later say, well, that was fun, but now I'm going to believe that it wasn't real.  Or did that personal encounter never happen?   I guess I don't know what to think about the part where "other Christians who didn't believe the Bible were false Christians" - what does that mean?  What did they not believe?  What other ways to heaven did the "false" Christians believe?  Because Jesus Himself tells us that He has "sheep that are not of this fold". Or did they believe things like all paths of any sort of belief leads to God?  I'm curious and you are the first  person who has specifically spelled out this sort of progression.

 

I can't imagine, and since you brought it up, I'd like to know, if you are able to articulate it.    Maybe that's the only way you know is on your deathbed, because scripture tells us that he who perseveres until the end (whatever "the end" is) will be saved.   Maybe it is right after, or at death.   I don't know.  I just know that those whom He has called will be saved, however, whenever. 

 

Not answering for Ipsey, but in my experience it happens by concluding there is no holy spirit in your mind, when one realizes they are talking to themselves, and always have been. 

 

For example, you may recall some of the long-winded posts I posted on Sonlight back in the day. Some of them felt very much like I was inspired by the holy spirit when writing them. I would feel like the ideas coming to my mind couldn't have been mine, they provided much needed emotional comfort for me, so I concluded they had been inspired by God. Subsequent comments from others seemed to confirm this. At the time, my interpretation of these experiences was that Jesus was in some way motivating me, guiding me, or at least the holy spirit was. I have to say, TM, you're really impressively familiar with the bible. Your theological knowledge is solid. You threw out alternatives to things I had thought could only be understood in one way, but you tied ends together I didn't realize were loose. Ultimately I didn't agree with most of what you said, but you certainly caught my attention more than once. Your theological explanations were persuasive from time to time. How could it be that the holy spirit would fail me when a supposedly false prophet was speaking? How could the fruits of the spirit be strong with you if your fruits were from the wrong spirit? Or perhaps they were from the right spirit and I was wrong this whole time. But then milovany is sure she is right, and her theology is different than both of ours! We can't all have heard the same holy spirit whisper undeniable truths to our souls if these truths are diametrically opposing one another.

 

It could be, however, that all three of us interpret the events in our lives according to the theological doctrines we believe[d] to be most accurate. It could be that we all use[d] our imaginations to envision things in such a way as to provide theological explanations when we are confused, and emotional comfort when we most need it. It's more likely that faith is the product of many cognitive processes, including a propensity to find patterns and causal intent in coincidental events, and natural biases that ignore those things that don't fit the pattern. Faith is natural, but so is superstition. We do know that believing something sincerely and deeply isn't evidence that the belief is valid. In the same way you may conclude that my faith was all "in my head," you might understand how I can walk away from it thinking the same, only I attribute this explanation to all believers. 

[Guest]

How does this possibly happen?

 

I have always wondered that, and I'm truly curious. How can you have a real encounter with the Living God, KNOW He is real and there, and walk in His Spirit, and then later say, well, that was fun, but now I'm going to believe that it wasn't real. Or did that personal encounter never happen? I guess I don't know what to think about the part where "other Christians who didn't believe the Bible were false Christians" - what does that mean? What did they not believe? What other ways to heaven did the "false" Christians believe? Because Jesus Himself tells us that He has "sheep that are not of this fold". Or did they believe things like all paths of any sort of belief leads to God? I'm curious and you are the first person who has specifically spelled out this sort of progression.

 

I can't imagine, and since you brought it up, I'd like to know, if you are able to articulate it. Maybe that's the only way you know is on your deathbed, because scripture tells us that he who perseveres until the end (whatever "the end" is) will be saved. Maybe it is right after, or at death. I don't know. I just know that those whom He has called will be saved, however, whenever.

I am not Ipsey, but my story is highly similar; she and I have talked about this before off-forum, too. The only difference is I don't call myself an atheist, but who knows, I might just be chicken. I know I i believe little of what I once believed. Like Ipsey, I was absolutely certain I was a True Christian, that God was leading me into this or that direction. I have had several experiences that were profound; I think they were divine or supernatural. I do still believe this about those experiences, but i don't believe most doctrine anymore.

 

It's like this: your presuppositions influence how you explain experiences. When I was a kid, I remember one time I fiercely defended the existence of Santa Clause to a classmate who said Santa was just parents. I thought my experiences and information was real, so to me, it was. Further evidence later revealed that I was wrong, though. In the face of mounting evidence that there was no Santa, I had to conclude that times I thought I "heard" the reindeer on my roof were explainable in some other way.

 

There was a particular experience that was so remarkable, I still say it was something supernatural, or points to things that cannot be understood in scientific ways. But believing that is a long way from being a die-hard Evangelical.