What happens to someone who goes crazy and then apostasizes?

[Gavin]

Is he/she still a Christian? Are they to be held accountable for their decision to reject Christianity when it was made while they were crazy? Just wondering what you think . . .

[Bill the Cat]

Is he/she still a Christian? Are they to be held accountable for their decision to reject Christianity when it was made while they were crazy? Just wondering what you think . . .

Hi Gavin,

IMO, One is not held responsible for a decision made while not ones self. It is our heart God is after, not our mind.

Blessings,
Bill

[Pilgrim]

Is he/she still a Christian? Are they to be held accountable for their decision to reject Christianity when it was made while they were crazy? Just wondering what you think . . .

God is good so the good and right thing will happen.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Won't the judge of all the world do right?

That is in God's hands. As so for someone who embraces heresy in general - only God knows how fully they have accepted or denied Him - we can make judgment calls on the doctrine, but we have to more circumspect about the person.

[Faramir]

Won't the judge of all the world do right?

That is in God's hands. As so for someone who embraces heresy in general - only God knows how fully they have accepted or denied Him - we can make judgment calls on the doctrine, but we have to more circumspect about the person.

:yeahthat:

I am very careful to say that a heresy is damnable or potentially damnable. I will rarely (if ever) say that an individual is damned because of a particular heresy. It is not my call to make. However, I do not think that God would damn someone for being ligitimately confused. (He might, and He would be just as Pilgrim said, 'the right thing would happen')

For example someone who holds to modalism (i.e. oneness) may do so out of confusion regarding the docrine of the Trinity. That person may be saved. But if a person if fully aware of the doctrine of the Trinity, woe be unto them if they persist in modalism. However, I have no way of knowing where "confusion ends" and "heresy begins".

But most of this is mere speculation, I do not think that scripture explicitly staes one way or the other. (Though the idea of the thief on the cross comes to mind, I seriously doubt he had a well formed idea of the Trinity).

[Gavin]

I am not thinking so much of heresy as much as full-blown apostasy. Certainly God will judge the person fairly, but the question is what will that fair judgement be? I am inclined to think it depends upon the nature and extent of the craziness. It would be difficult in some cases to establish which was the cause the which the effect, the craziness or apostasy? Its a difficult question, at any rate. I heard about this happening, which got me thinking . . .

[Johnny MacManky]

Hi Gavin,

The Church I'm a member of has a definite opinion on this, which would be that a person who was saved prior to losing their mind (I presume you're thinking of mental illness) would be saved 'at the last' despite their irrational behaviour.

The relevant phrase in the 'Article' is "The Atonement is graciously efficacious for the salvation of the irresponsible. . ." (Church of the Nazarene. Manual 2005-2009. Article VI. p32.)

Available for free download (.pdf), online here: http://nazarene.org.uk/resource.html

[Sheepdog]

it begs the question, though, that God will let such a scenario occur in the first place.

For heresy to become damning, 3 or so conditions must be met: it must contradict an essential doctrine of Christianity;* it must be believed (heh, obviously); one must knowingly and willingly reject the essential doctrine at hand.

the 3rd point is the one that is usually important in cases like this. if someone is genuinely out of their mind, then either "knowingly" or "willingly" may not apply.

* (by essential, i mean that without which one does not have orthodox Christianity)

[Johnny MacManky]

it begs the question, though, that God will let such a scenario occur in the first place.

For heresy to become damning, 3 or so conditions must be met: it must contradict an essential doctrine of Christianity;* it must be believed (heh, obviously); one must knowingly and willingly reject the essential doctrine at hand.

the 3rd point is the one that is usually important in cases like this. if someone is genuinely out of their mind, then either "knowingly" or "willingly" may not apply.

* (by essential, i mean that without which one does not have orthodox Christianity)

A couple of folk here know I have a mental illness (a real one, not just my Troutyitis). I've been fairly stable these last few months - betcha just wished you'd seen me back then!

A few years ago it was much worse and and frequently I could find myself 'mood swinging' from devout disciple to fervent atheist and back again within a matter of minutes.

I've never been of the view that 'God allows these things to happen'. I consider that 'life' lets these things happen, but God will cause all things to work together for good. In my case, God certainly used my illness to draw me back to Him, and then to learn to depend upon Him completely. Strange, I can even recall occasions when, as I was in atheist mode, I would still be praying "God, this isn't me thinking, it's someone else".

I've never considered 'correct doctrine' per sé to be essential to salvation. heck, Heaven's gonna be pretty empty if salvation depends on correct doctrine.

I agree with the "knowing and willing" aspect of this, and surely if someone is unable to control their own mind, then neither of these conditions can be met.

One final point (for now) on the teaching my church holds... If someone was sane for several years, and rejected the Gospel while they were capable of accepting it, then later lost their mind - tough - you had your chance. (I've paraphrased the genteel terminology that would normally be used!)

Well, at the risk of appearing too sensible... :b:

[Sheepdog]

i don't say that one has to have "correct doctrine," depending on what you mean by that. you cannot intentfully deny essentials of Christianity, but "God overlooks in times of ignorance."

many Christians in the US believe we will be spooks in the afterlife, sitting on clouds and strumming harps. (a few classic cartoons come to mind). this view directly contradicts the doctrine of the General Resurrection, where we will be bodily raised as Jesus was. And the Resurrection is an essential: Paul outlines the logical conclusion of it's denial in 1Cor 15. however, in most cases it's simply a matter of not knowing better, they don't have a Resurrection doctrine to deny because no one has taught it to them. (BAD CHURCH!)

most doctrines don't qualify as essential. hence you have various eschatological theories, most of which are not damnable. you can be an Arminian, a Calvinist, or even an Open Theist (i know, it's hard to believe ), and be a Christian

i've covered what i think are the essentials on my site.

[Alien]

I hope God understands all these rules about whom He can save and whom he can't.

Luckily, if He gets it wrong there are plenty of people who will be glad to explain it to Him.

[Sheepdog]

believe me, if the rules were up to me, everyone would get in. well, except Joe Pesci, but most everyone. Pesci annoys the crap out of me.

if you want to complain about the rules, take it to Paul, Jesus, et. al when everything's said and done.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Even Tom Cruise?

[Dee Dee Warren]

I hope God understands all these rules about whom He can save and whom he can't.

Luckily, if He gets it wrong there are plenty of people who will be glad to explain it to Him.

That's funny because the thread I'm reading didn't say anything about God's abilities. Please start a Front Desk thread because obviously there is some malfunction where you are reading a different thread. You wouldn't erect a strawman like that on purpose would you?

[Sheepdog]

Even Tom Cruise?