Prismatic,
So I did. My apologies, I thought that, because of the way that you clustered the points together, they were from the same Wiki quote. I’m not sure if the principles of contract law apply in the same way they do with the New Covenant. So I’m not going to draw a definite conclusion, as you have done.
I don’t think that I am, please show me where the contradiction is?
How do you know this, by inference?
How do you know if the percentage is high or low?
I do, and that is relevant in relation to this discussion, Jesus is the reason for the existence of Christianity. As according to the Bible Jesus is God, he is an authority in and of himself. Consider what he stated in Matthew 28:18. Jesus’ words are construed as the explicit words of God.
By definition, a genuine follower of Jesus acknowledges the authority God. I don’t believe there is an adult Christian who doesn’t understand nature of the relationship between God and Jesus. I think that all adult Christians are aware of what Jesus said in John 10:30-38.
Christianity is the New Covenant, the New Testament conveys the promise of the New Covenant, they are inextricably linked. As such, the New Covenant is otherwise referred to as the New Testament. I’m not going to commit to the idea that the New Covenant is based upon the principles of contract law. There may be similar or correlating elements, but I don’t think they are exactly the same. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, I’m just not sure.
You are entitled to your views, but I think this is difficult to argue. Is this a claim, if so, is there any supporting evidence?
I’m not debating that there is a Covenant.
Perhaps I’ve missed where you’ve referenced the Bible in support of your argument? Does the Bible explicitly state in the NT that a person must surrender their will to God? I’m aware that concept is propounded by Christian’s, but I don’t think it is explicitly stated in the New Testament? If not, how have you inferred that it is implied? It is difficult to claim that interpretations are objective in discussions like these. If, as you claim, your view is objective in respect to this discussion, does this mean that subjective view points are inherently wrong or that yours is prevailing? I don’t think so. Even if the New Covenant correlates with contract law, can you explain why that makes your view objective?
If the New Covenant is subject to the principles of contract law, we would be able to find both the “express and implied terms” within the New Testament. As far as I’m aware, there are very few aspects of the NT that we could define as “express terms” because Jesus explicitly stated they were necessary to enter heaven. Which I believe are:
- Believing that Jesus is the son of God.
- Baptism.
If we are to consider the above as being “express terms” then I think the “implied terms” would be:
- Having faith.
- Being born again.
Personally, I cannot see how a person surrendering their will to God is implied here. Since a person can both believe that Jesus is the son of God and be baptised, without doing so. If a person doesn’t surrender their will to God, do you think that would mean the Covenant is void? I don’t think that it would, because none of the “terms” have been breached.
You are using a Wiki quote as a supporting reference for your conclusion: "“Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].”, I wasn’t completely wrong. I’m not debating that surrender to God’s will is an aspect of Christianity, I just fail to see where it is stated explicitly in the Bible (NT) and I don’t infer how it is implied. From my perspective, it is an interpretation (which may well be correct), not a condition of the New Covenant.
Within Christianity, God and Jesus are recognised as the same being, he is everything that God is. That is why Jesus is worshipped as God.
Supporting your conclusion with Wiki, inferences and interpretations, does not in my view, make it conclusive. I don’t believe that there is a conclusive argument for “who is a Christian”. I am of the opinion that one need only sincerely believe in Jesus to be considered a Christian, I believe that the NT supports that view, but others would disagree.
I did, your conclusion on “who is a Christian” is stated in the OP. My point is, if you’ve reached a conclusion in OP, the question is not open-ended, because you already think that you know the answer. It’s like your asking to be proven wrong or convinced otherwise, rather than openly discussing the subject. If you believed you were right from the start, why bother asking at all? It seems pointless. From my reading of this thread, it seems as though you only accredit validity to arguments which agree with what you’re arguing, as if to disagree with you is to err, which makes it seems as though you’re as though you’re being rhetorical. I do not mean this as a criticism, that is just how I perceive things.