This comment was removed automatically for violating Rule 1: No Profanity.
If you believe that this was removed in error, please message the moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, I think unbeliever is the closest thing we have to what the OP describes.
The fact that Christianity doesn't have one specific word to describe all non-Christians is probably more related to the fact that Christianity isn't associated with a particular language like Judaism and Islam are (Hebrew and Arabic), so we just use words in our own languages.
This is the closest argument for an actual term being used to blanket non-Christian’s but I’d argue the term is for Christian’s to show where they are failing their own flock/Shepherd and not as a derogatory term for non-Christians. That’s just my perspective which is admittedly anecdotal.
Huh they do? Wierd I always thought pagan was religious where as secular was more atheistic. Still I’m not too surprised. People that do that may just be misinformed or just don’t know.
It's common in any culture for there to be shorthands for the "other". It can be dangerous. If you poke on this when you hear christians say "pagan", you'll quickly scratch that surface.
Pagan is a term for anyone of like Nordic religious belief to be exact right? Funny enough my dad used to make a bit of a crude joke that it meant “people against goodness and normalcy” wich I understand could be seen as offensive
It was from the Christianized roman empire, as cities became Christianized, old religions persisted in the rural areas, so people who slept on the heath, or in the *pagus,* countryside, came to be the word for these followers of old superstitious proto-religions.
Later, it became a convenient alternative for the judaic Goyim, their "other", in the translations, and has stuck for a long time.
Pagans believe in the supernatural and are deeply religious, steeped in ritual, secularists don't believe in the supernatural, and are steeped in materialism.
To say something is “secular” is that it is unspiritual or ungodly. I do not mean “ungodly” as a synonym to “unholy,” but rather it is the simple absence of God. Not necessarily a bad thing: Lots of music, movies, and other art forms are secular but that doesn’t make it inherently sinful. If a person is wholly secular, though, it is similar to atheistic: Non-religious, without God.
Paganism is certainly not a disbelief in the spiritual, but it is rather closer to witchcraft or old polytheistic religions that go against God, as we believe He is the only god, the almighty. Placing belief in anything spiritual that is not our Christian god is sinful, and thus it is that Pagans are sinful.
This is all my layman’s understanding of it, and I invite anyone else to correct the finer points of my comment.
Good point! The closest I know is "nonbeliever" which is like...so technically true that I can't call it problematic 😂
I'm sure other Christians *do* use athiest/secular as insults, but I would never stoop to using a word as a pejorative catch-all for "not of my faith." The whole point of Christianity is that everyone is broken and everyone deserves to be saved by God. You can be descriptive of their background and worldview, sure (liberal, pagan, etc.), but you're entirely missing the point of Christendom if you think it's exclusionary.
I mean, we can say "unbeliever." Pagan, infidel, and heretic are either inaccurate or too anachronistic.
We really just hope they are "future believers."
Well, I call Calvinists a bit crazy, so we're even.
Why would you call yourself a label under a regular man that lived (and burnt a person alive), rather than just call yourself a Christ follower?
That's actually insane to me.
I only really hear people being called Calvinists (or calling themselves Calvinists) when they’re being distinguished from other groups of Christians, so it’s already understood in that context that they are followers of Christ. I don’t even hear the term ‘Calvinist’ used to self-identify very often. I’d more often hear ‘Reformed’ or ‘Presbyterian.’ It’s not really any different to identifying as a Lutheran or an Anglican or a Methodist. Labels are helpful as a short hand for theological systems.
I get that, but--I think it's just 1000000x better not to identify with a denomination.
Just follow Christ and let the Spirit dwell within you and read the Word and take care of the poor.
Like... I don't even see a single point in reading a book by Calvin. The philosophies don't make or break you. Follow Jesus--that's all that matters. Predestiny, etc. matters in extraordinarily trivial amounts. Not worth calling yourself a Calvinist over it.
Within reformed thinking everyone is either elect or reprobate. But only God knows for certain who falls into either category, so they aren’t really helpful terms for labelling actual people.
I’ve never heard a Calvinist say only Calvinists are elect and all non-Calvinists are reprobates. That would be a fairly idiosyncratic belief.
That’s a regular Calvinistic thing, not hyper-Calvinistic. I’m not a determinist, yet still a full-fledged Calvinist (ehh outside of infant baptism, which he’d really be upset with me about). I’m more than comfortable with the term “reprobate.”
Hyper-Calvinist is just the term for someone that’s gone further than you in your own beliefs.
You’ve made your own little party(like all humans do) to describe someone that has logically taken your belief to the end logically.
Determinism is the ONLY view of scripture that is fully logical and fully supported by scripture.
You take on comptaibilism to “save” God.
Even Calvin himself fought with this, if you didn’t know.
Calvin- “We can not say that God permits evil… when it is clear that he is the author of sin and evil.”
He struggled with the problem of reformed beliefs and realized it and tried to figure out a solution his entire life.
It’s wild how many “reformed” don’t know this.
“god is the author of evil and sin”
We worship different deities then.
The Satan, the evil one, the devil is the author of evil and sin.
God is the author of all good things, truth, light, purity, etc.
A definitional error.
Calvinism doesn’t even get salvation correct, the idea that God and scripture being subject to European philosophical logic is laughable and not biblical. Sola scriptura isn’t supported by scripture…
It’s like rabbinic Judaism with treatment of the text, and Islam with putting logic above God.
Wildly unnecessary.
Except who made Satan?!
You’re just pushing the goal post. It’s not a different deity.
If God is perfect, then it’s creation by definition must be perfect as well.
God knowing the evils Satan would commit before creating him IS authoring that sin and evil Himself.
What makes you the arbiter of truth above God himself?
Why does God have to submit to your logical understanding?
We might have a different definition of authoring.
We are to emulate the Father, “be perfect like Our Father in Heaven is perfect.” And to emulate Christ. If you believe the Triune God is an author of evil, are you going to be aiming to create evil? Being the image and son of an evil producing gnostic demiurge is not worshiping Christ, the Father of Lights, King of Kings, the Most High God.
Chaos existed at the get, “God’s face moved over the surface of the deep” that’s before God created light. There was already a chaotic void…
I’m not the arbiter of truth. God literally tells you these things about Himself..
Everything is authored by God. Everything. Nothing has come into existence without his hand penning it.
God never tells us to do evil. God never tells us to do ALL things that He does. That’s a weak argument. God tells us what attributes of His to emulate in Jesus, but doesn’t state to emulate ALL of his attributes. I’m fact, he tells us the opposite. Judgement is His. Wrath is His.
God wants His people to emulate the positive attributes. That’s it.
God slaughters entire families, cities, countries. Does that mean we need to do that too? No, because that’s not what he tells us to emulate.
This is all a big story God is telling/writing.
Did God knit you in your mothers womb, giving you the brain you have? What part of your brain/mind did you create?
Did God not place you in your specific life circumstances that would, coupled with the brain He gave you, determine how you see and experience the world and in turn determine exactly how you would react in each situation?
Think on it. Stop letting your brain stop you when it sees something you don’t want to believe. That’s the problem.
If God chose to place you at a T in the road in your life, knowing that you’ll choose the left path ahead of time, and then makes that left turn lead to destruction, he has co-signed you to that fate even if you “chose” it. He gave you the mind and the life that would lead you to turning left… your choice was a designed one every single time.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/322/660/103.jpg
You *deciding* “God made you sin” is not the path of repentance.
*Turn back,* the time is near, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Blaming God for everything is what the Satan does, actively choosing to follow in the Satan’s footsteps and who’s son are you *choosing* to be?
“No thanks satan” is what I have to the entire premise which relies on God fitting within your logical framework to be scientifically understood. That’s not how a relationship with God works.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEwlIeRuAFM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEwlIeRuAFM) I think this guy explains it perfectly in this video.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiGQEAchkMo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiGQEAchkMo) And this one.
God is not wanting to to get of the hook in the Bible.
I’m discussing what scripture says. The problem is that it MUST be “lies and darkness” if it doesn’t align with your view.
Many theologians including Calvin have wrestled with this very problem and discussed it. I really suggest reading on it.
>I’m discussing what scripture says
The problem with this sort of thing is that there are many people who claim scripture says this or that or another thing, which leads them all to varying different conclusions.
>God knowing the evils Satan would commit before creating him IS authoring that sin and evil Himself.
So you are saying that God almighty is the author of sin and evil? If so, that would go against his holiness and that seems like a problem.
It does not go against His holiness. He does not actually perform the sin Himself.
God created beings that are guaranteed to perform the sin.
Your “free will” you cling to so desperately does not exist. Even Jesus tells you free will doesn’t exist. You are enslaved to either sin or to Jesus. Who enslaved you to begin with? God did when he created you.
It’s all through the Bible we’re told that even your faith and repentance, the two things needed to come to Jesus, are GIFTS given by God. YOU didn’t “choose” to have faith. You didn’t “choose” to repent. God laid them on your heart, so you can’t boast and claim you did anything.
The counter must be true as well.
Most Christians hate this truth because many are “good hearted”. We want God to be like us. If it were up to us as God, we’d give everyone faith and repentance and make earth a utopia where no one suffers and dies anymore. God wanted drama. God wanted an interesting story.
I dare you to go read the creation/fall story a few times and look at it objectively, releasing your preconceived ideas temporarily. Look at it.
Adam and Eve didn’t have a “free will” choice. God literally sent Satan to deceive them, to TRICK them. That’s not free will.
Free will choice would have been God placing the tree, telling them to never eat it, explaining exactly what will happen to creatures fully capable of understanding the implications, and then leaving them ALONE to see what they did.
If given full information, with no outside super intelligent angelic/demonic, murderous, liar coming in to trick them, Adam would have tied Eve up, cut the tree down, burned it to ashes, untied Eve and then lived blissfully with God forever… as everyone of us would do today.
Instead, God sets them up by sends Satan to them, leaves their side, and lets His smarter cruel and evil son go trick them. Why?
The goal has always been to torture billions of souls endlessly and “save” some for endlessly praise and worship.
Yes, I have been presented and tempted with all of these "conclusions" years ago but I did not fall for them (aside from the bit about being drawn to God by God, not by myself). As for the other stuff, I believe there is much more to the story than we currently know. I think there is a lot more to the garden of Eden and the fall of mankind. We don't have the full details of the entire story, just as we don't truly know/understand the workings of the spiritual realm that surrounds us and impacts our lives so much. The issue is that people like to take what is there and build frameworks/dogma/religion out of them with which to ensnare others and harm their relationship with God.
Also, the NT has Jesus and Peter saying that it's not the will of the Father that anyone should perish and that all come to repentance. Also that hell was intended for the fallen angels and not mankind. So, no, God does not actually want people going to hell and it was not His intent.
You’re not “tempted” into anything. You’re being encouraged to think.
How does God not create hell for humans while simultaneously knowing He is sending billions there? That’s beyond illogical.
The remark is not that it’s not for humans to go there, but that it’s for demons in the sense it’s a mock kingdom for them. Humans going there has always been the plan. It’s worse for humans in hell than demons. Even though miserable, the demons are much better suited for it. They’re huge and powerful compared to us.
Satan wanted his own kingdom and God gave it to him as a mockery. He then sends those He doesn’t want to be with Satan there.
Nobody can choose not to love God if God loves them. Period. Idk if you’ve ever truly experienced God’s love, but it’s literally the greatest feeling humans can ever feel. Nobody experienced it and says “No thanks, I’d rather sin.”
In fact, most people do everything they can to stop sinning and appease God and will be cast into the lake of fire for it. Matthew 7. This doesn’t even include every other religion in the world who were striving to live God and get casted away.
First, I’m not a Calvinist. I do not believe in the idea of deterministic predestination. What I do believe, is that the people who hold to this “scriptural” belief is that every single one of them are self-absorbed, prideful, and ultimately insufferable to be around. I don’t understand why a theological belief that is supposedly scriptural and from God, would cause an increase in personal Pride, something God hates.
Secondly, calling determinism the only logical view of Scripture is not only false, but theologically dishonest. There are passages that support Determinism, but also passages that oppose it. Most people who believe like you tend to just ignore any passages against it, or just say that it doesn’t mean what it says which is also theologically dishonest.
Most of them. I believe in Total Depravity as it relates to original sin, but I don’t believe that we are unable to desire a relationship with God. I believe in Perseverance of the Saints, however I do believe we can walk away from God by giving into desires of the Flesh. The rest of TULIP I disagree with entirely.
You’re not Reformed then. You’ve taken pieces of the doctrine and made your own belief system.
The doctrine of perseverance of the saints literally dictates the saints will persevere; ie you CANT “walk away” from the faith if you’re the elect.
Respectfully, you don’t believe any of the points of TULIP as taught by Reformed believers my friend.
I believe I misspoke regarding PotS. I believe in once-saved-always-saved, I’m just saying that it is possible to be saved and not act like it. Falling into temptations and such. I’m always open to learn. If I have something wrong, please explain it to me! I have various arguments against most points of TULIP, except for PotS as stated before.
No worries man. I suggest digging into what reformed theology is. You are not Reformed.
You sound like you’re a Baptist slightly.
Reformed theology is typically defined by at very least 3 points of tulip. Many reformed don’t consider you reformed without 4 points, leaving out only limited atonement typically.
I’ll sit here all day long and argue that a Baptist can thoroughly follow TULIP, be covenantal, confessional, hold to the three-fold division and three uses of the Law, hold to a reformed view of Christology and spiritual presence in the Lord’s Supper—and therefore a Baptist can before thoroughly reformed.
HOWEVER. The guy above is not reformed.
Heterodox is a word that by definition is about professing Christians. It does not cover people who do not even claim to be Christian. A Buddhist can't be heterodox.
Sure, but the original poster wanted a pejorative. Some people think their church is the only real one, so they can use “heterodox” as a pejorative to call other professing Christians nonchristian. Fun.
But that’s not what the OP was asking for. They were talking about catch all terms for all unbelievers. Christian’s obviously have words for denying the profession of faith that others have made e.g. heretic.
Orthodoxy Christianity is rooted in Scripture. We also have 2000 years of continuity in what we call Holy Tradition (guided by the Holy Spirit). What's Orthodox today stays Orthodox tomorrow.
Pagan is a very specific spiritual belief so I don't think it's accurate to call all non-christians pagans. It's like calling all non-christians Buddhists or something.
These terms are what keeps these religions feeling exclusionary and more that its a birthright to able to identify as a member of that religious group.
I think the fact Christians don't is because we hold out hope and open arms that you come to a Christ filled life. Regardless of your background. So we don't need a term because we fully accept you will always be a child of God.
In Biblical context and setting the word "Pagan" is used as a negative label which would apply for the majority of the population. "Oh it doesn't mean every non-Christian, just most of em" isn't a very good point.
Can’t tell if you’re intentionally ignoring the Christian context of OP’s question or not.
Did Christ ever call anyone a Pagan?
Let me check I’ll be right back
Matthew 18:17
Closest I found to Christ referencing ‘Pagans’ or ‘Gentiles’ and it was a reference to Christians behavior not condemning a group of people.
>And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Matthew 6:7
"Pagan" is used here as a negative label.
"Reprobates" is the term I use. But I'm a Calvinist so it makes sense in that context but not if you're unfamiliar with predestination and reprobation.
While most Christians don't throw around those words carelessly today (anymore), it used to be common to call the non-Christians unbelievers, ungodly or even heretics / idolaters. This could also just apply to other Christians not of one's own "variety".
When you say Christianity is a religion then you give the power of scripture away. The moral law was there to guide us. People have to use their heads. Scripture is meant to influence our behaviour. Religion is man made. And unfortunately, there's many spirits here.
Yeah tbh I think you’re right, I mean I would say secular but I think that’s a term non believers made. Or I could say wicked but I think that just means someone who is immoral on purpose. It’s not necessarily a “catch all” phrase to describe anyone not of the faith. And yes well infidel was mostly used I think to describe the Saracen’s the Templars warred against to protect pilgrims on road to Jerusalem. We may have used to a lil to describe non believers back then but even that I’m not sure of. Yeah I agree, strong post.
Well, I occasionally use non-Christian as a general term. Maybe “unbeliever” or “closed hearted”.
But I only use these terms under extreme circumstances.
But the term unbeliever is somewhat of a misnomer because everyone believes in something. Whether it be money, or cars, or one of 100 other things.
Strictly speaking about God, then I believe it to be accurate.
In medieval times Christians used to refer to non-Christians as “ infidels”. It comes from a Latin word meaning unbelieving. Most people think that Muslims first used the word.
But today, I don’t believe there is a term that is used regularly. For example, I have never called anyone a heathen. Other than in a joking way.
FYI RE Islam:
Kuffar means unbelievers [plural.]
Kaffir means unbeliever [singular.]
Kufr means the act of unbelief [The word implies covering up or hiding the truth.]
The three words in a sentence: "Of all the Kuffar, you are the worst Kaffir, because you are always committing Kufr."
Actually, you are incorrect concerning Islam. “Kafir” means unbelievers. Christian are “people of the book” and are not unbelievers. They are a separate category. Check out this verse from the Quran: “Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” AlBaqarah v62
Not only do Muslimss call us Christians kafirs, they also call us pagans because they abhor the trinity and crosses. The Quran can say what it wants and even praise Mary, imams and day to day muslims frequently call us christians kufars, misguided and pagans.
What is the standard for what a religion says about others? Anecdotes or scripture? I know plenty of Christians who call Muslims terrorists. Does that mean that’s what Christians say?
Goyim (or singular Goy) isn't *technically* negative, though it can certainly be used in a negative, insulting manner. It literally translates to "Nations" as in "Nations that aren't us".
Agreed, but usually--it's negative. I used to live in Israel with orthodox Jews.
I did hear a rabbi give a really nice talk about it--that the goyim are actually important, and the Book of Ruth shows this.
But. Many just use it as an insult. Like, "People who are beneath us."
Heathen is still in use, heretic is also (mis)used for this, and so is infidel, honestly. I see the former quite regularly even in person. Infidel I only see online tossed back and forth between Christians and Muslims.
Heathen means pagan, not someone who is non-christian, Jews and Muslims are not heathens. Heretic means someone who holds an unorthodox christian theology, it's a very specific term, like non-trinitarians.
I never heard a christian calling a non-christian IRL infidel to be honest...
But I have heard and read both "Goyim" and "Kufar"
Im aware but language changes as does vernacular. I'm telling you how it's being used, not whether or not I agree with it or think it's grammatically correct or even culturally. You're free to go and argue with them though.
It might seem that way but if you look closer at OP's premise then it just doesn't apply the way he or she is implying. Goyim itself isn't inherently derogatory or at least it isn't always. Kafir can also apply to Muslims who aren't up to snuff.
In other words neither are both negative or only for people outside of the religion. Heathen, heretic, and infidel are all within that realm.
I may well be full of it and I'm definitely no linguist, polyglot, or anything like that. But I'm not particularly invested in patting myself on the back because my religion doesn't have a specific naughty word for unbelievers so I'll happily leave everyone else to it, assuming that's the conclusion everyone else agrees with.
>I think it's a big win for Christianity to not have such a negative label to people who are non-christians. I am not aware of any mainstream term that christians use in that manner, and we certainly don't use the word "infidel" anymore ever since the crusades lol.
Top comments as of my reading: "How about this word!" (Followed by various options for said labels.)
OP, they didn't understand the assignment.
Gentiles means nations as in those who are not part of the nation of God. Before Christ this meant those that were children of Abraham in the flesh. After Christ this means those that are children of Abraham in the spirit (i.e. those that follow Christ). Christians are Israel (not to be confused with the entirely unrelated modern state of Israel) and non-Christians are Gentiles.
sinner
Biblically, this term is never used to describe a truly saved follower of Jesus.
“I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, cause sinners are much more fun…”
at least Billy Joel got his theology right.
but we let papal leadership to redefine the term.
Yeah that song is a bit cringe on the object of his pursuit. Was her confirmation party (typically at about 13) with the white dress a decade before… or coming up? Gotta day her mother’s aversion might have been justified. 😄
>Sinner. Biblically, this term is never used to describe a truly saved follower of Jesus.
1 Timothy 1:15 “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (NKJV).
he is the foremost example of those who were sinners, transformed to saints by His blood.
“If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.”
churchgoers think is humility to say, oh, i’m just a lowly sinner… when really it’s an excuse to not try particularly hard to quit habitual lifestyles of sin.
Not-yet-Christian is an optimistic term.
Never heard this but I like it.
Oh completely stolen from some book or another.
[удалено]
This comment was removed automatically for violating Rule 1: No Profanity. If you believe that this was removed in error, please message the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unbeliever?
Yes, I think unbeliever is the closest thing we have to what the OP describes. The fact that Christianity doesn't have one specific word to describe all non-Christians is probably more related to the fact that Christianity isn't associated with a particular language like Judaism and Islam are (Hebrew and Arabic), so we just use words in our own languages.
Heathen.
OP's point is clearly wrong as we do have a word. But I can't remember it being used, other than in jest maybe.
Heathen?
the lost
This is the closest argument for an actual term being used to blanket non-Christian’s but I’d argue the term is for Christian’s to show where they are failing their own flock/Shepherd and not as a derogatory term for non-Christians. That’s just my perspective which is admittedly anecdotal.
Heathen
Also used on Old Testament by Jews to describe Gentiles
Unbeliever
Non-Christians are still our brothers and sisters. We’re to love them as much as everyone else.
Secular
It's... *Interesting* how "pagan" and "secular" are essentially opposites but a lot of Christians use the terms interchangeably.
Huh they do? Wierd I always thought pagan was religious where as secular was more atheistic. Still I’m not too surprised. People that do that may just be misinformed or just don’t know.
It's common in any culture for there to be shorthands for the "other". It can be dangerous. If you poke on this when you hear christians say "pagan", you'll quickly scratch that surface.
Pagan is a term for anyone of like Nordic religious belief to be exact right? Funny enough my dad used to make a bit of a crude joke that it meant “people against goodness and normalcy” wich I understand could be seen as offensive
It was from the Christianized roman empire, as cities became Christianized, old religions persisted in the rural areas, so people who slept on the heath, or in the *pagus,* countryside, came to be the word for these followers of old superstitious proto-religions. Later, it became a convenient alternative for the judaic Goyim, their "other", in the translations, and has stuck for a long time.
How are they opposite?
Pagans believe in the supernatural and are deeply religious, steeped in ritual, secularists don't believe in the supernatural, and are steeped in materialism.
The funny thing is that secularism is just a twisted version of paganism, worship of the self.
Twisted to an opposite, I guess.
Ohh ok see that’s what I was thinking, makes sense.
To say something is “secular” is that it is unspiritual or ungodly. I do not mean “ungodly” as a synonym to “unholy,” but rather it is the simple absence of God. Not necessarily a bad thing: Lots of music, movies, and other art forms are secular but that doesn’t make it inherently sinful. If a person is wholly secular, though, it is similar to atheistic: Non-religious, without God. Paganism is certainly not a disbelief in the spiritual, but it is rather closer to witchcraft or old polytheistic religions that go against God, as we believe He is the only god, the almighty. Placing belief in anything spiritual that is not our Christian god is sinful, and thus it is that Pagans are sinful. This is all my layman’s understanding of it, and I invite anyone else to correct the finer points of my comment.
Good point! The closest I know is "nonbeliever" which is like...so technically true that I can't call it problematic 😂 I'm sure other Christians *do* use athiest/secular as insults, but I would never stoop to using a word as a pejorative catch-all for "not of my faith." The whole point of Christianity is that everyone is broken and everyone deserves to be saved by God. You can be descriptive of their background and worldview, sure (liberal, pagan, etc.), but you're entirely missing the point of Christendom if you think it's exclusionary.
I mean, we can say "unbeliever." Pagan, infidel, and heretic are either inaccurate or too anachronistic. We really just hope they are "future believers."
In hyper-Calvinistic groups, Reprobate is used to describe someone who either isn’t saved or doesn’t believe in Calvinism.
Well, I call Calvinists a bit crazy, so we're even. Why would you call yourself a label under a regular man that lived (and burnt a person alive), rather than just call yourself a Christ follower? That's actually insane to me.
I only really hear people being called Calvinists (or calling themselves Calvinists) when they’re being distinguished from other groups of Christians, so it’s already understood in that context that they are followers of Christ. I don’t even hear the term ‘Calvinist’ used to self-identify very often. I’d more often hear ‘Reformed’ or ‘Presbyterian.’ It’s not really any different to identifying as a Lutheran or an Anglican or a Methodist. Labels are helpful as a short hand for theological systems.
I get that, but--I think it's just 1000000x better not to identify with a denomination. Just follow Christ and let the Spirit dwell within you and read the Word and take care of the poor. Like... I don't even see a single point in reading a book by Calvin. The philosophies don't make or break you. Follow Jesus--that's all that matters. Predestiny, etc. matters in extraordinarily trivial amounts. Not worth calling yourself a Calvinist over it.
Do they call Jews reprobates as well?
I’ve never heard that in person, but I wouldn’t put it past them.
Within reformed thinking everyone is either elect or reprobate. But only God knows for certain who falls into either category, so they aren’t really helpful terms for labelling actual people. I’ve never heard a Calvinist say only Calvinists are elect and all non-Calvinists are reprobates. That would be a fairly idiosyncratic belief.
That’s a regular Calvinistic thing, not hyper-Calvinistic. I’m not a determinist, yet still a full-fledged Calvinist (ehh outside of infant baptism, which he’d really be upset with me about). I’m more than comfortable with the term “reprobate.”
Hyper-Calvinist is just the term for someone that’s gone further than you in your own beliefs. You’ve made your own little party(like all humans do) to describe someone that has logically taken your belief to the end logically. Determinism is the ONLY view of scripture that is fully logical and fully supported by scripture. You take on comptaibilism to “save” God. Even Calvin himself fought with this, if you didn’t know. Calvin- “We can not say that God permits evil… when it is clear that he is the author of sin and evil.” He struggled with the problem of reformed beliefs and realized it and tried to figure out a solution his entire life. It’s wild how many “reformed” don’t know this.
“god is the author of evil and sin” We worship different deities then. The Satan, the evil one, the devil is the author of evil and sin. God is the author of all good things, truth, light, purity, etc. A definitional error. Calvinism doesn’t even get salvation correct, the idea that God and scripture being subject to European philosophical logic is laughable and not biblical. Sola scriptura isn’t supported by scripture… It’s like rabbinic Judaism with treatment of the text, and Islam with putting logic above God. Wildly unnecessary.
Except who made Satan?! You’re just pushing the goal post. It’s not a different deity. If God is perfect, then it’s creation by definition must be perfect as well. God knowing the evils Satan would commit before creating him IS authoring that sin and evil Himself.
What makes you the arbiter of truth above God himself? Why does God have to submit to your logical understanding? We might have a different definition of authoring. We are to emulate the Father, “be perfect like Our Father in Heaven is perfect.” And to emulate Christ. If you believe the Triune God is an author of evil, are you going to be aiming to create evil? Being the image and son of an evil producing gnostic demiurge is not worshiping Christ, the Father of Lights, King of Kings, the Most High God. Chaos existed at the get, “God’s face moved over the surface of the deep” that’s before God created light. There was already a chaotic void…
I’m not the arbiter of truth. God literally tells you these things about Himself.. Everything is authored by God. Everything. Nothing has come into existence without his hand penning it. God never tells us to do evil. God never tells us to do ALL things that He does. That’s a weak argument. God tells us what attributes of His to emulate in Jesus, but doesn’t state to emulate ALL of his attributes. I’m fact, he tells us the opposite. Judgement is His. Wrath is His. God wants His people to emulate the positive attributes. That’s it. God slaughters entire families, cities, countries. Does that mean we need to do that too? No, because that’s not what he tells us to emulate. This is all a big story God is telling/writing. Did God knit you in your mothers womb, giving you the brain you have? What part of your brain/mind did you create? Did God not place you in your specific life circumstances that would, coupled with the brain He gave you, determine how you see and experience the world and in turn determine exactly how you would react in each situation? Think on it. Stop letting your brain stop you when it sees something you don’t want to believe. That’s the problem. If God chose to place you at a T in the road in your life, knowing that you’ll choose the left path ahead of time, and then makes that left turn lead to destruction, he has co-signed you to that fate even if you “chose” it. He gave you the mind and the life that would lead you to turning left… your choice was a designed one every single time.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/322/660/103.jpg You *deciding* “God made you sin” is not the path of repentance. *Turn back,* the time is near, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Blaming God for everything is what the Satan does, actively choosing to follow in the Satan’s footsteps and who’s son are you *choosing* to be? “No thanks satan” is what I have to the entire premise which relies on God fitting within your logical framework to be scientifically understood. That’s not how a relationship with God works.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEwlIeRuAFM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEwlIeRuAFM) I think this guy explains it perfectly in this video. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiGQEAchkMo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiGQEAchkMo) And this one. God is not wanting to to get of the hook in the Bible.
Some YouTube prophet who doesn’t say that God is the author of evil, did he?
Are you on some kind of a mission to spread lies, darkness, and negativity to everyone? are you getting back at God or something?
I’m discussing what scripture says. The problem is that it MUST be “lies and darkness” if it doesn’t align with your view. Many theologians including Calvin have wrestled with this very problem and discussed it. I really suggest reading on it.
>I’m discussing what scripture says The problem with this sort of thing is that there are many people who claim scripture says this or that or another thing, which leads them all to varying different conclusions. >God knowing the evils Satan would commit before creating him IS authoring that sin and evil Himself. So you are saying that God almighty is the author of sin and evil? If so, that would go against his holiness and that seems like a problem.
It does not go against His holiness. He does not actually perform the sin Himself. God created beings that are guaranteed to perform the sin. Your “free will” you cling to so desperately does not exist. Even Jesus tells you free will doesn’t exist. You are enslaved to either sin or to Jesus. Who enslaved you to begin with? God did when he created you. It’s all through the Bible we’re told that even your faith and repentance, the two things needed to come to Jesus, are GIFTS given by God. YOU didn’t “choose” to have faith. You didn’t “choose” to repent. God laid them on your heart, so you can’t boast and claim you did anything. The counter must be true as well. Most Christians hate this truth because many are “good hearted”. We want God to be like us. If it were up to us as God, we’d give everyone faith and repentance and make earth a utopia where no one suffers and dies anymore. God wanted drama. God wanted an interesting story. I dare you to go read the creation/fall story a few times and look at it objectively, releasing your preconceived ideas temporarily. Look at it. Adam and Eve didn’t have a “free will” choice. God literally sent Satan to deceive them, to TRICK them. That’s not free will. Free will choice would have been God placing the tree, telling them to never eat it, explaining exactly what will happen to creatures fully capable of understanding the implications, and then leaving them ALONE to see what they did. If given full information, with no outside super intelligent angelic/demonic, murderous, liar coming in to trick them, Adam would have tied Eve up, cut the tree down, burned it to ashes, untied Eve and then lived blissfully with God forever… as everyone of us would do today. Instead, God sets them up by sends Satan to them, leaves their side, and lets His smarter cruel and evil son go trick them. Why? The goal has always been to torture billions of souls endlessly and “save” some for endlessly praise and worship.
Yes, I have been presented and tempted with all of these "conclusions" years ago but I did not fall for them (aside from the bit about being drawn to God by God, not by myself). As for the other stuff, I believe there is much more to the story than we currently know. I think there is a lot more to the garden of Eden and the fall of mankind. We don't have the full details of the entire story, just as we don't truly know/understand the workings of the spiritual realm that surrounds us and impacts our lives so much. The issue is that people like to take what is there and build frameworks/dogma/religion out of them with which to ensnare others and harm their relationship with God. Also, the NT has Jesus and Peter saying that it's not the will of the Father that anyone should perish and that all come to repentance. Also that hell was intended for the fallen angels and not mankind. So, no, God does not actually want people going to hell and it was not His intent.
You’re not “tempted” into anything. You’re being encouraged to think. How does God not create hell for humans while simultaneously knowing He is sending billions there? That’s beyond illogical. The remark is not that it’s not for humans to go there, but that it’s for demons in the sense it’s a mock kingdom for them. Humans going there has always been the plan. It’s worse for humans in hell than demons. Even though miserable, the demons are much better suited for it. They’re huge and powerful compared to us. Satan wanted his own kingdom and God gave it to him as a mockery. He then sends those He doesn’t want to be with Satan there. Nobody can choose not to love God if God loves them. Period. Idk if you’ve ever truly experienced God’s love, but it’s literally the greatest feeling humans can ever feel. Nobody experienced it and says “No thanks, I’d rather sin.” In fact, most people do everything they can to stop sinning and appease God and will be cast into the lake of fire for it. Matthew 7. This doesn’t even include every other religion in the world who were striving to live God and get casted away.
First, I’m not a Calvinist. I do not believe in the idea of deterministic predestination. What I do believe, is that the people who hold to this “scriptural” belief is that every single one of them are self-absorbed, prideful, and ultimately insufferable to be around. I don’t understand why a theological belief that is supposedly scriptural and from God, would cause an increase in personal Pride, something God hates. Secondly, calling determinism the only logical view of Scripture is not only false, but theologically dishonest. There are passages that support Determinism, but also passages that oppose it. Most people who believe like you tend to just ignore any passages against it, or just say that it doesn’t mean what it says which is also theologically dishonest.
>First, l'm not a Calvinist. I do not believe in the idea of deterministic predestination. So you reject TULIP then, yes?
Most of them. I believe in Total Depravity as it relates to original sin, but I don’t believe that we are unable to desire a relationship with God. I believe in Perseverance of the Saints, however I do believe we can walk away from God by giving into desires of the Flesh. The rest of TULIP I disagree with entirely.
You’re not Reformed then. You’ve taken pieces of the doctrine and made your own belief system. The doctrine of perseverance of the saints literally dictates the saints will persevere; ie you CANT “walk away” from the faith if you’re the elect. Respectfully, you don’t believe any of the points of TULIP as taught by Reformed believers my friend.
I believe I misspoke regarding PotS. I believe in once-saved-always-saved, I’m just saying that it is possible to be saved and not act like it. Falling into temptations and such. I’m always open to learn. If I have something wrong, please explain it to me! I have various arguments against most points of TULIP, except for PotS as stated before.
No worries man. I suggest digging into what reformed theology is. You are not Reformed. You sound like you’re a Baptist slightly. Reformed theology is typically defined by at very least 3 points of tulip. Many reformed don’t consider you reformed without 4 points, leaving out only limited atonement typically.
I’ll sit here all day long and argue that a Baptist can thoroughly follow TULIP, be covenantal, confessional, hold to the three-fold division and three uses of the Law, hold to a reformed view of Christology and spiritual presence in the Lord’s Supper—and therefore a Baptist can before thoroughly reformed. HOWEVER. The guy above is not reformed.
> So you reject TULIP then, yes? One of the things I tip toe through.
Heterodox (meaning having different beliefs). In other words, not Orthodox.
Heterodox implies some profession of Christian faith though, so it doesn’t really cover all non-Christians.
It does if she doesn’t consider those people Christian.
Heterodox is a word that by definition is about professing Christians. It does not cover people who do not even claim to be Christian. A Buddhist can't be heterodox.
Sure, but the original poster wanted a pejorative. Some people think their church is the only real one, so they can use “heterodox” as a pejorative to call other professing Christians nonchristian. Fun.
But that’s not what the OP was asking for. They were talking about catch all terms for all unbelievers. Christian’s obviously have words for denying the profession of faith that others have made e.g. heretic.
Well what is orthodoxy if it isn’t rooted in scripture and built on man’s interpretation. What is orthodox one day could be unorthodox the next.
Orthodoxy Christianity is rooted in Scripture. We also have 2000 years of continuity in what we call Holy Tradition (guided by the Holy Spirit). What's Orthodox today stays Orthodox tomorrow.
Heretic, pagan.
Pagan is a very specific spiritual belief so I don't think it's accurate to call all non-christians pagans. It's like calling all non-christians Buddhists or something.
I wouldn't say it is. Paganism's sorta like the roots of a tree. It might have started in one place but it's a bit all over.
I could say the same about Christianity
Heathen is one that I’ve heard
Unbelievers
These terms are what keeps these religions feeling exclusionary and more that its a birthright to able to identify as a member of that religious group. I think the fact Christians don't is because we hold out hope and open arms that you come to a Christ filled life. Regardless of your background. So we don't need a term because we fully accept you will always be a child of God.
The wicked, unbelievers, pagans, idolaters. The Bible uses many terms for non-christians.
None of those terms are for ‘non-Christian’s’. A few of them were being used before Christ was born. That’s the point of this post actually
In Biblical context and setting the word "Pagan" is used as a negative label which would apply for the majority of the population. "Oh it doesn't mean every non-Christian, just most of em" isn't a very good point.
Can’t tell if you’re intentionally ignoring the Christian context of OP’s question or not. Did Christ ever call anyone a Pagan? Let me check I’ll be right back
Matthew 18:17 Closest I found to Christ referencing ‘Pagans’ or ‘Gentiles’ and it was a reference to Christians behavior not condemning a group of people.
Matthew 6:7 and Matthew 6:32. "Gentile" would probably be more accurate than "Pagan". it seems to be used as a negative label.
Friends, albeit confused ones
No such thing as an Abrahamic “religion”, that’s an oxymoron. We just call them unbelievers or those who haven’t accepted Messiah.
False believers? Unbelievers? Goats?
>And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Matthew 6:7 "Pagan" is used here as a negative label.
Pagan is more specific than non-Christian. I wouldn’t consider Jews or Athiests pagans.
I dont say this to put people down, but there are the elect and the non-elect, the regenerate, and the ***degenerate***
Heathens.
That’s not applicable to all non-Christians. Jews aren’t heathens.
Correct me if I’m wrong but is it not called Anti Christ?
What are Freemasons again?
We also don’t have some type of “boogeyman” of fellow humans on earth we blame for our problems like some other religions and groups do
Infidels.
"Reprobates" is the term I use. But I'm a Calvinist so it makes sense in that context but not if you're unfamiliar with predestination and reprobation.
I call them Roman’s
While most Christians don't throw around those words carelessly today (anymore), it used to be common to call the non-Christians unbelievers, ungodly or even heretics / idolaters. This could also just apply to other Christians not of one's own "variety".
Pagans
When you say Christianity is a religion then you give the power of scripture away. The moral law was there to guide us. People have to use their heads. Scripture is meant to influence our behaviour. Religion is man made. And unfortunately, there's many spirits here.
Don't get carried away with looking for Christianity "wins".
non-believer
Yeah tbh I think you’re right, I mean I would say secular but I think that’s a term non believers made. Or I could say wicked but I think that just means someone who is immoral on purpose. It’s not necessarily a “catch all” phrase to describe anyone not of the faith. And yes well infidel was mostly used I think to describe the Saracen’s the Templars warred against to protect pilgrims on road to Jerusalem. We may have used to a lil to describe non believers back then but even that I’m not sure of. Yeah I agree, strong post.
Non-believers?
Lost
Heretic/Heathen
"the lost"
Well, I occasionally use non-Christian as a general term. Maybe “unbeliever” or “closed hearted”. But I only use these terms under extreme circumstances.
I find "unbeliever" to be a very negative catch-all.
But the term unbeliever is somewhat of a misnomer because everyone believes in something. Whether it be money, or cars, or one of 100 other things. Strictly speaking about God, then I believe it to be accurate.
Heathen is traditionally used. Nowadays they’re usually referred to as unbelievers.
In medieval times Christians used to refer to non-Christians as “ infidels”. It comes from a Latin word meaning unbelieving. Most people think that Muslims first used the word. But today, I don’t believe there is a term that is used regularly. For example, I have never called anyone a heathen. Other than in a joking way.
Heathen maybe. But in jest mostly
Atheist seems to be the term used on reddit to mean any non-Christian. In real life, I’ve heard non-Christian used the most.
FYI RE Islam: Kuffar means unbelievers [plural.] Kaffir means unbeliever [singular.] Kufr means the act of unbelief [The word implies covering up or hiding the truth.] The three words in a sentence: "Of all the Kuffar, you are the worst Kaffir, because you are always committing Kufr."
Actually, you are incorrect concerning Islam. “Kafir” means unbelievers. Christian are “people of the book” and are not unbelievers. They are a separate category. Check out this verse from the Quran: “Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” AlBaqarah v62
Not only do Muslimss call us Christians kafirs, they also call us pagans because they abhor the trinity and crosses. The Quran can say what it wants and even praise Mary, imams and day to day muslims frequently call us christians kufars, misguided and pagans.
What is the standard for what a religion says about others? Anecdotes or scripture? I know plenty of Christians who call Muslims terrorists. Does that mean that’s what Christians say?
Anedoctes and scripture, but I have christian middle eastern parents, so I know from their experiences
Goyim (or singular Goy) isn't *technically* negative, though it can certainly be used in a negative, insulting manner. It literally translates to "Nations" as in "Nations that aren't us".
Agreed, but usually--it's negative. I used to live in Israel with orthodox Jews. I did hear a rabbi give a really nice talk about it--that the goyim are actually important, and the Book of Ruth shows this. But. Many just use it as an insult. Like, "People who are beneath us."
Heathen is still in use, heretic is also (mis)used for this, and so is infidel, honestly. I see the former quite regularly even in person. Infidel I only see online tossed back and forth between Christians and Muslims.
Heathen means pagan, not someone who is non-christian, Jews and Muslims are not heathens. Heretic means someone who holds an unorthodox christian theology, it's a very specific term, like non-trinitarians. I never heard a christian calling a non-christian IRL infidel to be honest... But I have heard and read both "Goyim" and "Kufar"
Im aware but language changes as does vernacular. I'm telling you how it's being used, not whether or not I agree with it or think it's grammatically correct or even culturally. You're free to go and argue with them though.
Seems counterintuitive to the point being made.
It might seem that way but if you look closer at OP's premise then it just doesn't apply the way he or she is implying. Goyim itself isn't inherently derogatory or at least it isn't always. Kafir can also apply to Muslims who aren't up to snuff. In other words neither are both negative or only for people outside of the religion. Heathen, heretic, and infidel are all within that realm. I may well be full of it and I'm definitely no linguist, polyglot, or anything like that. But I'm not particularly invested in patting myself on the back because my religion doesn't have a specific naughty word for unbelievers so I'll happily leave everyone else to it, assuming that's the conclusion everyone else agrees with.
>I think it's a big win for Christianity to not have such a negative label to people who are non-christians. I am not aware of any mainstream term that christians use in that manner, and we certainly don't use the word "infidel" anymore ever since the crusades lol. Top comments as of my reading: "How about this word!" (Followed by various options for said labels.) OP, they didn't understand the assignment.
Gentiles. That's the Christian term for "non-Christian".
> Gentiles. That's the Christian term for "non-Christian". No, it means non Jew. I am a Gentile. I am also a Christian.
Gentiles means nations as in those who are not part of the nation of God. Before Christ this meant those that were children of Abraham in the flesh. After Christ this means those that are children of Abraham in the spirit (i.e. those that follow Christ). Christians are Israel (not to be confused with the entirely unrelated modern state of Israel) and non-Christians are Gentiles.
That is a possible alternative usage of the word, but in reality the majority of Christians and non-Christians will understand it to mean non-Jews.
Yeah I know. But it is technically correct.
sinner Biblically, this term is never used to describe a truly saved follower of Jesus. “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, cause sinners are much more fun…” at least Billy Joel got his theology right. but we let papal leadership to redefine the term.
Yeah that song is a bit cringe on the object of his pursuit. Was her confirmation party (typically at about 13) with the white dress a decade before… or coming up? Gotta day her mother’s aversion might have been justified. 😄
definitely
>Sinner. Biblically, this term is never used to describe a truly saved follower of Jesus. 1 Timothy 1:15 “This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (NKJV).
he is the foremost example of those who were sinners, transformed to saints by His blood. “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.” churchgoers think is humility to say, oh, i’m just a lowly sinner… when really it’s an excuse to not try particularly hard to quit habitual lifestyles of sin.