I had a discussion with Serendipper who claimed that any one can be a Christian as long as s/he claimed to be a Christian and do what s/he thinks is necessary to fit that definition.
I do not agree and believe there must be an objective definition that should meet God’s definition of ‘who is a Christian’ thus qualify for all the divine rewards as promised by God for believing in God and obeying his commands and words delivered via Jesus as presented the Gospels [not Acts nor Epistles] in the NT.
Regardless of yours, Hitchens, Watts, or anyone’s definition of ‘who is a Christian per se’ there must be some objective standards [God’s] to their definitions.
Per Christian theology, there is no way God will accord ‘eternal life in heaven’ to anyone who merely claimed s/he is a Christian on Judgment Day. God is supposedly all powerful, all knowing and is not stupid in accepting anyone’s subjective claim.
In any case, the omniscient God would already knows a person’s status whether s/he was a Christian or not by God’s own standards.
Thus a Christian must first know what is God’s objective definition of ‘who is a Christian’ rather than relying on his own subjective definition.
Now, from a rational, critical thinking and philosophical perspective, the objective definition of ‘who is a Christian’ has to fall back on the Gospels of the NT, i.e. as per the words and doctrines from God.
As such ‘who is a Christian’ is one who has entered into a covenant [explicitly or implicitly] with God.
The terms of the covenant/contract can only be in the Gospels of the NT.
For any wannabe Christian to claim his/her own subjective definition [anything goes] is an insult to the Christian’s God.
Any dispute the above requirements for an objective definition in conformance with God’s standards of ‘Who is a Christian’?