Featured Why do young people become atheists?

sorry for the trouble spiderpup but you give me 4 C's and 3 definitions of things that we are born with. My question is; What do you mean or how is a person born with "Creation". Thank you kindly. H. Bass

 

Lets consider the false teaching that we should ask God to miraculously intervene and solve a concern of ours, such as a father that abuses us.
What would these "atheists" say to the premise that our prayers should not put God to the test? If they had, by those "mainline" churches, been taught all that Christ commanded, why did they violate Christ's command and ask for miraculous intervention? How about your church? What is its teaching concerning not putting God to the test?

 

Not a big fan of WLC.

That the unregenerate become practical, if not formal atheists, shouldn't be a surprise. After all, man's default state is enmity with God.

The question isn't why the unregenerate become atheists, but rather, how great is the love the Father has shown us that any of us should be saved and called sons of God.

 

Excellent:thumbs::thumbs:

 

So what's the alternative, Van? If seeking God's help in our life is, apparently, a false teaching...

As an aside, most Christians need to realize that God may not answer their prayer immediately, or even relatively quickly. The offshoot of this unholy combination of the prosperity gospel and the "name it claim it" theology is that God is no longer viewed as the Sovereign Lord of all, but is instead viewed as an ATM machine.

 

Why say seeking God's help is a false teaching. Are you insinuating that is my view. Which of course it is not. I asked for your understanding of Christ's command not to put God to the test. Did you offer an answer? Nope. Instead you suggested a false teaching. Take a gander at Exodus 17:7 and Deuteronomy 6:6, or Luke 4:12.

The issue is not the timing of God's answer, the issue is praying in accordance with what we know is Christ's will to not put God to the test. Are you able to address an important issue to improve our outreach?

 

First, I meant no snarkiness in my response. I'm quite sarcastic and cynical, and I sort of read that into your post. For the record, you called it a false teaching, so I followed your terminology. I was just seeking clarification.

Second, I do not believe praying to God for aid or divine intervention is the same thing as "putting God to the test." But let's look at your listed scriptures.

The people were railing against Moses, and God, in opposition to the commandments of God. There is a big difference in railing against God and seeking the Lord's help in tough situations in your life. Note also that almost as soon as the people had complained against God a punishment rose against them in the form of Amalek.

Not exactly sure what this has to do with your original point, other than to point out that we should love the Lord wholly, though that still does not either support or contradict your point. In fact, loving the Lord would reveal to us that God wants to hear from us, and wants to talk to us, and wants us to talk to Him. This includes praying about events going on in our lives.

This is Satan tempting Christ at a time when Christ was at His physical weakest, before the suffering endured on the cross. It's a good example to us, but we cannot even remotely offer anything as close as what Satan could offer, even though what Satan could offer was far less than the Lord already had, seeing as He owns everything.

Look, if you're praying to God and asking for a million bucks, then yeah, you're probably doing it wrong. If you're asking God to do something for you in order to prove His existence, then you are definitely wrong. But to say "Lets consider the false teaching that we should ask God to miraculously intervene and solve a concern of ours" just doesn't sit right with me. How is it a false teaching? What scripture supports the notion that we should not be asking God to help us?

Please explain, because I'm confused by your premise, Van. Thanks in advance.

 

1) Asking for God's help, such as guidance or insight when we study the word is consistent with scripture.

2) Asking for God's miraculous intervention, in removing the difficulty is putting God to the test.

3) I made a typo, Deut. 6:6 should be 6:16.

4) Since you seem not to think prayers asking for God to solve the problems is putting God to the test, you foster the mistaken prayer of an abused child praying to God to stop the abuse.

5) I did not say seeking God's help is false teaching, you have repeated that misrepresentation twice now. Here is the quote: Lets consider the false teaching that we should ask God to miraculously intervene and solve a concern of ours, such as a father that abuses us.

6) Gill's commentary on the topic is: "saying, is the Lord among us or not? as if they should say, if we perish through thirst, the Lord is not among us, nor takes any care of us; nor was it he that brought us out of Egypt, but Moses; nor is he in the pillar of cloud and fire, as is said; but if he works a miracle, and gives us water, for us, our children, and cattle, then it will appear he is among us; and thus they tempted the Lord, though without this they had full proof, by many instances, that he was among them, and even in a very extraordinary manner."

7) Note that the atheist child who concluded God did not exist because He did not stop the abuse is making the exact same mistake of Exodus 17:7.

 

I take it then that you believe anyone who came to Jesus in the Bible asking to be healed was "putting God to the test." After all, they were seeking God's "miraculous intervention."

Typos happen to all of us, bud. Just proves we're human.

1 Peter 5:7 tells us to cast our cares upon the Lord, for He cares for us. Does that not teach us to just give our problems over to God? All through the Bible we see instances of God fighting battles for His people.

To use your scenario of an abused child, what should the child do? If they are incapable of fighting against the abuse themselves, then why would you tell them that they cannot turn to God to get them out of the situation?

I feel like we're at a point of just misunderstanding one another, though I think we're close. Basically, I'm seeing your argument as stratifying prayers. It's okay to pray for God to guide you through a situation, but it's not okay for God to get you through a situation, but in reality, you're asking for the same thing. Sometimes people just have to admit that they are not big enough to solve their problems and they need God.

Is that not, in essence, very close to what I said?

Right. People who are sick for a long time and pray for healing that doesn't come will sometimes blame God. People who are lonely and looking for companionship will sometimes blame God if they cannot find someone. We all sin, and we all do stupid things.

Like I said, the modern prosperity-"name it claim it" gospel has taught people that God is just an ATM of blessings, rather than the Sovereign power in the Universe, and Creator of all things. It is this modern gospel that has devalued God and taught that God's blessings are immediate when nothing in scripture proves that true.

 

As was clarified already by QF, creation is not something we instinctually come to the conclusion it all just created itself. That atheist view of creation comes at a later point in life after being brainwashed.

 

Folks, Preachtony seems unwilling to identify what putting God to the test means.

1) The folks that came for miracles and received them had "faith" Jesus was the One who made the Lame to walk, blind to see, etc, i.e. they were trusting in God's word. When we are bodily resurrected, all of our physical maladies will be cured. That is my faith.

2) Just what does 1 Peter 5:7 teach, to put God to the test? No, to trust in God and not to worry, He will give you the strength to go through the travail. See Psalm 55:22.

3) The issue is not what the atheist should have done, such as seek the help of his or her church, who might confront the sinning father, or involve the government agencies God ordained to protect the innocent. The issue is presenting God as someone who will resolve the problem rather than sustain us through it.

4) No Tony, you still have not said what was wrong with giving the atheist the expectation that God would remove the travail.

Not putting God to the test is Christianity 101 and as demonstrated thus far, many continue to foster that sinful behavior among new converts, which of course breeds future atheists.

 

I have merely responded to the words you wrote. You also wrote that asking for God to "miraculously intervene" is equivalent to "putting God to the test." However, one can argue that any intervention of God in our lives is miraculous. Of course, you can also adopt the position that any event we experience is foreordained of God...if you wanted to...

There were plenty of people in the Bible who were not healed, though. You say it's wrong for the atheist to want God to remove whatever issue they are facing. So why was it not wrong for a sick or infirm person in the Bible to go to the Lord and ask essentially the same thing?

It's obvious that we should not tempt the Lord. But we're also told that we should talk to God, and that He will bless us and heal us, if we pray. It's not wrong to ask God for things in this life, but it is wrong to treat God like a piggybank or an ATM.

So we shouldn't present God as someone who can solve problems? I guess I'm having a difficult time understanding your point of view, Van. You admit that God can solve their problems, but that we shouldn't present Him as such for fear it will turn someone against Him. While I have often said that I prefer to pray for God's Will to be done, rather than for God to heal, as it might not be the will of God to heal a particular person. But I don't believe that you can consider someone in a bad situation asking God for help to be "putting God to the test." Now, if that person is saying "God, do this for me or I won't believe in you," then that's a different story. But that's a person not seeking to live by faith, but rather requiring a sign. I recall Jesus having some particularly strong words for those type of people.

I hope my responses above have answered your questions, Van.

 

Asked and answered but I will repeat: The testing prayer goes like this, God fix my problem, and if you do not, I will conclude you do not exist. This is what both the folks in Exodus 17:7, and the atheist with an abusive father did. Those Jesus healed believed Jesus was able to heal, they had faith. But their behavior is not the issue, the issue is putting God to the test.

2) Is it wrong to pray for something we do not know is in the will of God? Please back up your answer from scripture.

3) Yes, Tony, I can see you like to ask God for stuff. But I would like you to explain what your meant with not "tempting" the Lord.

4) Now we get the usual misrepresentation of my view, wasting time and muddying the water.

a) "So we shouldn't present God as someone who can solve problems?" The issue is in how we should expect God to "solve problems."
b) "You admit that God can solve their problems, but that we shouldn't present Him as such for fear it will turn someone against Him." The issue is in how we present how God solves problems.​

5) Yes, asking for a sign, such as resolving your problem, would qualify as putting God to a test. But it is more than that. Asking God to sustain us through our travail, no matter the outcome, is not putting God to a test. Asking God to fix our problem, rather than asking God how we should deal with the problem, is putting God to the test. At the end of the day, my prayer goes something like this: Your grace is sufficient for me.

 

We seem to have wandered far from the 7 reasons given for atheists becoming atheists after initially being open to Christ. Unbiblical expections is just one of the seven.

In a survey (non-scientific) these 7 finding stood out:

1) The self proclaimed atheists said they started out as open to the Christian message, contrary to Calvinist screed.
2) The had apparently mainly attended "mainline" rather than "evangelical" churches, i.e. dying churches, not vibrant and growing churches.
3) These churches had presented "warmed over humanism" where doing good and social justice were emphasized. Thus a culture where belief in the need of salvation through Christ is not central.
4) The churches had failed to provide satisfactory answers to their questions, but instead provided "superficial answers." Apparently these questions involved:

a) Evolution- where what they were learning in school differed from the denials offered by the church.
b) Sexuality - where they believe people are born "gay" rather than choose to engage in homosexual activity. Again, this view is expressed and reinforced in all TV and movies coming out of the liberals.
c) Reliability of the Bible - the absence of creative miracles today and the claims of facts disputed by science.
d) Jesus - why is He the only way, why not Hinduism or Islam. ​

5) Most of the self proclaimed atheists said they became atheist, not in college, but when between 14-17, i.e. middle and high schoolers. Should cause us to re-evaluate our ministry priorities, such as the senior pastor being far more involved and the intern not just allowed to babysit.

6) Dr. Lang thought that some of the logical rational intellectual reasons given for adopting atheism were a smokescreen for damaged or abused children making decisions for emotional reasons. Some had prayed for God's intervention, and since the travail had continued, they decided God did not exist.

7) They had been influenced by the Internet and social media (i.e. Youtube) where anti-Christian presentations are available 24/7.

 

The Apostle John answers this in I John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

The explanation of this text is that they were never really truly believers to begin with

 

Here is a quote aimed at defining "mainline churches."

 

Yes, Marooncat, you are spot on, these young converts to atheism had been open to Christianity, perhaps even like the second soil of Matthew 13, but were never born anew, just as your verse from 1 John says.