Are non Christians "better" than Christians?

[Josheb]

Some can be and some can't be.....what's your point?

My point is the question is dripping with irony.

 

[e v e 21]

A soul cannot on their own simply not sin...
the fleshbody and all its needs and wants belongs to the sin realm....
so the argument of behaving badly or not
on this corrupt earth and situation is moot and very devious..

the key is to meet Him and leave all the rest behind....

 

[CrowCross]

My point is the question is dripping with irony.

I must have missed the dripping and irony.

 

[Josheb]

I must have missed the dripping and irony.

I'd explain it but it would then lose its potency.

 

[CrowCross]

I'd explain it but it would then lose its potency.

Whatever.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I suppose some of those congregants were not true followers of Jesus, but Paul never approved of it nor did he offer any excuses for them.

Where do you find Paul stating they are not "true believers" ?

He really didn't need to actually mention that some of his readers were not true believers. It's just common knowledge that not all those who call Jesus Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven.

Is this an appeal to purity?

No because Jesus explicitly excludes unrepentant sinners from attaining eternal life.

An ordinary reading of the epistles readily shows the authors treated these people as if they love God, were saints, sanctified by Christ, the elect (just to name a few of the labels applied to these people).

Generally, yes, but there are always wolves among the sheep.

So I ask again, do you find the congregants in the first century particularly moral people?

Which congregants? Those who attended church then as now were a mixed lot comprised of the saved and the unsaved.

 

[Josheb]

He really didn't need to actually mention that some of his readers were not true believers. It's just common knowledge that not all those who call Jesus Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven.

I disagree. There are certainly those who claim to know Jesus and do not but, as I believe I mentioned before, the letters are addressed to Christians (bondservants, saints, etc.) and treated as such as a given. They do not apply to those not Christians unless stipulated otherwise in the letters. Even the man sleeping with his dad's wife was treated as a Christian and his eternal disposition assumed.

No because Jesus explicitly excludes unrepentant sinners from attaining eternal life.

I have yet to see any evidence the people in question were unrepentant.

Let's remember the original statement in question was, "I suppose some of those congregants were not true followers of Jesus, but Paul never approved of it nor did he offer any excuses for them." So far that is an assumption based on assumptions and comparisons to things Jesus said before the Christian congregations were established in neglect of Paul's writings. You keep appealing to Jesus' words prior to Calvary. Words spoken to Jews about Jews. Take care not to argue false equivalences on top of the appeal to purity. Start with what we can know about these people and not what you "suppose."

Generally, yes, but there are always wolves among the sheep.

And I have yet to read about any specified wolves in this exchange.

Which congregants? Those who attended church then as now were a mixed lot comprised of the saved and the unsaved.

What is the topic of this op?

 

[Theophilus]

But isn't morality very relevant to anybody's walk with God? Jesus taught that, "You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:16). So I must disagree that comparing the morality of Christians to that of unbelievers is a red herring. If those in the Church are less moral than those who don't know Christ, then we have a theological quandary on our hands.

But Jesus taught us to be perfect. (Matthew 5:48) Yes, we are temporarily imperfect, but when we are regenerated by the Holy Ghost, then we are empowered to live that perfect life Jesus taught us to live. If we do not life that perfect life, then we don't truly know Jesus. (Matthew 25:41).

It is very strange that many unbelievers seem to understand Christ's teaching on sin better than most Christians do. They realize that an imperfect life is a life untouched by God.

Good point and I brought this up in another forum here. Of the 268 uses of the word sinner in the NT not once is it ever used of a believer but always the unbeliever, the ungodly and not the righteous or the saints. You will know them by their fruits. If you live like the world then you will perish like the world. If one really loves God with all their mind, heart , soul and strength they will love others and not self. Like Jesus said to be a disciple a follower they deny themselves take up their cross daily ( dying to self) and follow Him. Sinners serve themselves , please themselves , feed their ungodly appetites , believers do not. They obey their Lord. Not everyone who says Lord Lord will enter the kingdom but he who does His will enters in. The NT is filled with these examples. Paul lists many sins and says and such WERE some of you but you have been washed, cleansed. 1 Cor 6:9-11, Eph 2:1-10, Gal 5:21, 1 Pet 4:3, Those who practice sin shall not enter the kingdom of God. The whole epistle of 1 John also confirms the above is true.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I disagree. There are certainly those who claim to know Jesus and do not but, as I believe I mentioned before, the letters are addressed to Christians (bondservants, saints, etc.) and treated as such as a given. They do not apply to those not Christians unless stipulated otherwise in the letters. Even the man sleeping with his dad's wife was treated as a Christian and his eternal disposition assumed.

But Paul surely realized that not all his readers would be the people he addressed his letters to. If he did assume that only Christians would read them, then he was obviously wrong.

I have yet to see any evidence the people in question were unrepentant.

What evidence do you need to know that not all church-goers today have repented? "Nothing is new under the sun."

Let's remember the original statement in question was, "I suppose some of those congregants were not true followers of Jesus, but Paul never approved of it nor did he offer any excuses for them." So far that is an assumption based on assumptions and comparisons to things Jesus said before the Christian congregations were established in neglect of Paul's writings.

That's odd. Are you saying that what Jesus preached was obsolete in Paul's day?

You keep appealing to Jesus' words prior to Calvary.

Yes I do! What's wrong with what Jesus said? It appears that many people just don't want to obey Him.

Words spoken to Jews about Jews.

Hmmm. So as you see it what Jesus preached only applies to Jews. Gentiles get a free ride on the "sin gravy train"!

Take care not to argue false equivalences on top of the appeal to purity.

I will do so.

Start with what we can know about these people and not what you "suppose."

Sadly, we don't know much about the early Christians, so in some cases we must use reason.

And I have yet to read about any specified wolves in this exchange.

Here's what Jesus told us about those wolves in Matthew 7:

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns or figs from thistles? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

So if the "fruit" is sin, then the "fruit tree" is not good. I think that's a good guideline to discern "wolves."

What is the topic of this op?

It's in the OP.

 

[Josheb]

But Paul surely realized that not all his readers would be the people he addressed his letters to.

He did not address any of his letters to such people.

 

[Josheb]

That's odd. Are you saying that what Jesus preached was obsolete in Paul's day?

No. I am saying any discussion making appeals to scripture about whether or not non-Christians are any better than Christians ought to properly apply the contexts of scripture. Words spoken to Jews about Jews may not apply to Christians. Applying Jewish and Christian measures to atheists to determine who is "better" is fraught with potential mis-steps.

Yes I do! What's wrong with what Jesus said? It appears that many people just don't want to obey Him.

Yes, non-Christians do not want to obey Jesus.


You are playing fast and loose with scripture and I think you need to be more exacting. Jesus spoke to Jews (with a few exceptions). Much, if not most, of what he taught was about pre-Calvary conditions and the fact things would change once he'd finished his work. Paul, on the other hand, was writing in an exclusively post-Calvary world to what theologically was neither a Jewish nor a Gentile audience and whether or not there were fakes in the audience is unrelated to the fact he was writing predominantly as a Christian to Christians about Christians.....

....and it is very, very bad exegesis to take words written specifically about Christians and apply them to non-Christians.

Yes, there were poorly behaved Christians in the Christians congregations of the first century. Yes, there are poorly behaving Christians in Christian congregations of the 21[sup]st[/sup] century. It makes it challenging to discern whether or not the Christians are any better than the non-Christians, especially if we're measuring the non-Christians as if they are Christians and Christians as if they are non-Christians.



If the Bible is true and correct, then this matter of whether or not non-Christins are better than Christians will be decided and decided in favor of the Christians and the detriment of non-Christians. There is one single metric that will divide the two groups.

 

[Josheb]

What is the topic of this op?

It's in the OP.

Yes, it is in the op and you're getting far afield of it. Yes, it is in the op, so there is no reason not to state it, refocus the conversation, and get back to or stay specifically on topic.

What is the topic of this op? It is stated in the title of the op: Are Non-Christians Better Than Christians?

That depends on how you're measuring them because I'm fairly confident atheists don't want to be measured by Christian metrics. I urge caution in the entire endeavor because wanton criticism that serves only to divide the Church is not something Christians are supposed to do and that would be evidence supporting the side saying Christians aren't any better. Furthermore, the fact is behaving badly is not what makes a person non-Christian, nor is it evidence a person isn't a Christian given the fact the Bible provides many examples of people whose Christian status is treated as a given behaving badly. Since there were certainly non-Christians in those audience the ability to discriminate is difficult.

 

[Gary Mac]

A soul cannot on their own simply not sin...
the fleshbody and all its needs and wants belongs to the sin realm....
so the argument of behaving badly or not
on this corrupt earth and situation is moot and very devious..

the key is to meet Him and leave all the rest behind....

Behaving badly? Was Jesus devious when Jesus went into a rage and turned over tables and chairs and made a whip and drove people out? Was he in sin? I bet he was to the ones at the end of that whip.

 

[e v e 21]

Behaving badly? Was Jesus devious when Jesus went into a rage and turned over tables and chairs and made a whip and drove people out? Was he in sin? I bet he was to the ones at the end of that whip.

no he was behaving perfectly well. that was not my point.

 

[e v e 21]

Christ was not angry at helpless souls in that scene you described...

he was angry at Esau types... a different line altogether which is in enmity to Him and to us, His Souls.

 

[Gary Mac]

no he was behaving perfectly well. that was not my point.

I see. What if you were at the end of that whip, how would you conceive this stranger beating up on you? I suppose he would behaving perfectly well. That is the point! Kinda irrational, for today he would be put in jail for assault.

 

[e v e 21]

I see. What if you were at the end of that whip, how would you conceive this stranger beating up on you? I suppose he would behaving perfectly well. That is the point! Kinda irrational, for today he would be put in jail for assault.

I really don't care about that scenario you describe anyway, and I doubt it even happened (as you characterize it!)...I was just commenting
that if christ overturned tables, it would be because esau was who he was angry on, and Esau is not of God,
therefore, thats fine. God hates esau...

as I already have said on the forums esau and that pharisee type who 'wrote the words down '
what they think they heard...lol...
have doctored the entire 'bible' which you often quote...mixing up their own words with God's words.
but those same 'authors' were cursed in the OT, got exiled, and their vision sealed
and then later translations were based on their version (=esau's version).
and they cannot hear Him and are not IN Him.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Are non Christians "better" than Christians?​

Depends on the individual. Some non-Christians are excellent people, caring, kind, loyal, friendly, etc. And some Christians are harsh, judgemental, holier than thou, dismissive, etc.

The only IMPORTANT issue is: WHat happens when they die physically? Those of us who are Born Again of the Holy SPirit have been CLEANSED of our SINS, and are perfect in Christ before God. Non-Christians aren't.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

But Paul surely realized that not all his readers would be the people he addressed his letters to.

He did not address any of his letters to such people.

Your fallacy here is the assumption that the people Paul addressed his letters to were the only people he wanted to communicate his messages to. As anybody who has read his letters knows, Paul's letters include doctrines that are vital for all followers of Christ to know.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's odd. Are you saying that what Jesus preached was obsolete in Paul's day?

No. I am saying any discussion making appeals to scripture about whether or not non-Christians are any better than Christians ought to properly apply the contexts of scripture.

Yes. Of course.

Words spoken to Jews about Jews may not apply to Christians.

Can you post some examples?

Applying Jewish and Christian measures to atheists to determine who is "better" is fraught with potential mis-steps.

It's beginning to look like you've completely misunderstood the OP. I'm not saying that atheists are better than Christians!

Yes I do! What's wrong with what Jesus said? It appears that many people just don't want to obey Him.

Yes, non-Christians do not want to obey Jesus.

I agree there. Anybody who disobeys Jesus is at most Christian in name only.

You are playing fast and loose with scripture and I think you need to be more exacting. Jesus spoke to Jews (with a few exceptions). Much, if not most, of what he taught was about pre-Calvary conditions and the fact things would change once he'd finished his work.

Again, you should post some examples. As far as I can tell, what Jesus preached has universal and eternal applications to the lives of Jews and gentiles alike.

Paul, on the other hand, was writing in an exclusively post-Calvary world to what theologically was neither a Jewish nor a Gentile audience...

I'm not sure what you mean by what is not theologically Jewish or Gentile. I've never heard of a "Gentile" theology.

and whether or not there were fakes in the audience is unrelated to the fact he was writing predominantly as a Christian to Christians about Christians.....

Yes, I suppose you're right here.

....and it is very, very bad exegesis to take words written specifically about Christians and apply them to non-Christians.

Who did that?

Yes, there were poorly behaved Christians in the Christians congregations of the first century. Yes, there are poorly behaving Christians in Christian congregations of the 21[sup]st[/sup] century. It makes it challenging to discern whether or not the Christians are any better than the non-Christians, especially if we're measuring the non-Christians as if they are Christians and Christians as if they are non-Christians.

Just look at who obeys Jesus and who doesn't. That will let you know who the true Christians are.

If the Bible is true and correct, then this matter of whether or not non-Christins are better than Christians will be decided and decided in favor of the Christians and the detriment of non-Christians. There is one single metric that will divide the two groups.

Tell unbelievers that.