Who is a Christian?

Prismatic,

Do you think it would it be incorrect or illogical to claim that: Because all genuine Christians believe in Jesus, the most basic, and most objective definition of a Christian, is someone who genuinely believes in Jesus. From which it follows that, if someone sincerely declares themselves to believe in Jesus then that person is a Christian. Since, the most fundamental condition required of a Christian is that they believe in Jesus, we may consider someone a Christian solely due to the content of their belief and what their belief leads them to do.

If you think the above is incorrect or illogical, can you please explain why?

Also, you stated that:

You’ve claimed that Serendipper is incorrect because he believes 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 don’t know if he stated that exactly, but I’ll take your word for it), but how is that contrary to, or so distant from your conclusion of “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].”? Your conclusion could be something that Serendipper describes as “is necessary to fit that definition”, his conclusion does not preclude yours.

Now, I’m not arguing that your conclusion is wrong, I think it is reasonable to surmise, but very conservative. I don’t believe that it is objective, or defines who is a Christian to such an exact degree that all other definitions should not be considered as valid, it is an interpretation of the NT and I think that what Serendipper claims is too.

Even if Jesus provided a specific definition of who is a Christian in the Bible, we would be free to discuss if we thought that definition was correct or incorrect, but what that would give us is an authority. We don’t have such an authority to refer to in this discussion, so we can’t measure how close or far we are to defining who is a Christian as according to an explicit Biblical definition. We have to rely upon how closely our interpretations, arguments and conclusions mirror that of the NT, and I don’t believe Serendipper’s claim is so far from the message of the NT as to be called “crazy”. This is not an ad populum point, but there are many people who would agree with what Serendipper claims, and I think that the same goes for what you conclude, does that mean that those who agree with him are crazy and people who agree with you are not? I don’t think so, his view represents one of the myriad of views on what constitutes a Christian, as do yours and mine.

I can’t speak for Serendipper, but I think we must consider the topic as one between four people, you me, S and P, who are not Christians, deciding who they each think of as Christian. It is a situation. We are not discussing the composition of water. This is a kind of social, epistemological problem of a completely different kind.

None of us are in a position to separate the wheat from the chaff. For epistemological and social reasons.

I think it makes sense, in general, to accept that anyone who says they are a Christian, is one. For practical reasons and out of epistemological humility on two grounds: we cannot, by definition, know which Christian authority to believe, including individuals and sects,and we cannot know other minds. Perhaps we might later find evidence that seems to contradict this, but otherwise we are dealing with the problem of other minds and also, not being Christians, we cannot bring choose amongst the various Christian authorities to rulle any out.

How the hell do I evaluate if some has surrendered to the will of God? Or even that they believe in Jesus, a very vague concept with no real measurable criteria. And people are notoriously not always correct about what they believe. They have official beliefs, but mixed feelings and counterbeliefs that are egodystonic.

My sense is we can come up with practical definitions for ourselves. What we would tend to accept when Christians assert their identity or people assert they are Christians. What we do with that.

But a bunch of nonChristians, even if one is an ex Christian, thinking they can even define what a Christian is that might rule out someone who thinks they are a Christian is just silly.

P needs to do it, because it is part of his polemic against Islam. Or thinks he needs to.

I see no reason to decide which people are Christians amongst those who claim to be.

Be like me feeling like I could tell people whether they really like their dreams, when they claim to, or that they are not, for example, Giants fans. No, you have to wave the banner more at games.

What I did was very conventional where I put the reference just after the point, otherwise I would have put the reference at the end to cover all the above points.

This inference is based from what I have read of and personal experience with people who are Christians.
Do you have evidence to show doubts in my inference?

Again is from personal experiences and what I have read of.
Those who are baptized without seriously volunteering are those who are Christians because the follow the religion [Christianity] of their spouse, i.e. in name sake only but not serious in the faith or for political convenience, e.g. I don’t believe Trump is a serious Christian, nor did he surrender his will [egoistic, narcissistic] to a God. Note the pastors who are homosexual, pedophiles, etc.

I know the above is the obvious, but you seem to place too high a weightage on Jesus as the critical [sole] criteria in one being a Christian. I have stated Jesus is merely the intermediary or son of God, but the ultimate authority is with God.

I agree, but my focus is on the ultimate authority, i.e God. Those who merely accept Jesus but not God, there are such people, they are merely pseudo-Christians.

Point is I did not state ‘New Covenant.’ Whichever, the point is there is in principle an existing valid covenant between a Christian [genuine] and God via Jesus.

You cannot recognized the existence of a contract because you are not that familiar with the principles and imperative elements of a valid contract.

Whilst you earlier denied baptism is critical, but you somehow agree it is below.
I have already provided evidence baptism is done by >90% of Christians re a Wiki listing and analysis I posted somewhere above.
Note the Surrender of Will to God is supported by the Bible, you need to read the full Wiki article, not just the portion I posted.
Covenant is supported by the Principles of the Law of Contract.

I insist the Covenant [implied and explicit] is imperative in one being a Christian.
Only the insincere pseudo-Chrstians will not enforce a real covenant with God.

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.
[/quote]
You have to read the full chapter in this link to note the Biblical verses from NT supported by other verses;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion#In_Christianity

Btw, I googled on the topic and have read at least 20 articles on the subject.

Earlier you doubted baptism, now you are affirming its importance.
Regardless I am giving it only a 10% weightage.

I agree with “Having faith” and thus in surrendering one’s will to God.
As for “being born again” that is a resultant of the above two elements.

As I had stated you have to read the who section in the link I provided as implied in those mentioned. I believe surrender is an essential element in the whole context of the gospels.

The most Jesus get to is being the son-of-God even though Jesus claimed to be God which implied being a representative of God. Jesus is merely ‘a molecule of H20’ within the ocean of God.

As I had stated the above I have inferred from what I have read of Christianity from tons of resources and from personal observations.

You argument is pointless.
Obviously I have to defend my thesis [& premises] until it is proven wrong objectively. it is the same everywhere, i.e. as in Science, Courts, wherever of integrity.

Note Serendipper’s argument was anyone who declares to be a Christian is A Christian!
Whatever that Christian does that is deemed to fit his belief is up to that Christian alone, not a Church’s, a congregation, the Bible, etc.
If this is the case, then these Christians are likely to belong to extreme cults rather than Christian-proper.

Would you accept the Christians of the Children of God [sex oriented] as genuine Christians?
twentytwowords.com/terrifying-f … -god-cult/
They will insist they are the genuine Christians but in principle they are pseudo-Christians.

Your argument is terribly wrong.

Note Christianity is a mainstream religion recognized legally in many countries.
Surely the Laws of these countries has recognized Christianity and Who is a Christian objectively in order to practice the related laws objectively.
This is one obvious point why a Christian cannot be simply be one who simply declares oneself to be a Christian.

What I did was to be more rigorous and deliberate on a more deeper philosophical perspective based on acceptable principles, i.e.

A Christian is;

  1. Where one who is baptized [10% weightage] if not, then imperatively must,
  2. Had surrendered one will to God via “faith-Fanman’s point”
  3. Had voluntarily entered into a covenant [contract] with God.

I had provided evidences for all of the above points.

Fanman,

You claimed to know the principles of the Law of Contract but I wonder.

Here are the essential elements that must be activated for any contract to be valid;

The offer is made by God via Jesus within the Gospels.

The believer will volunteer to accept the offer via baptism or other explicit declarations followed by the consideration.

In most contract the consideration is in terms of a financial consideration, i.e. at least 1$.
There are exception within implied contracts.
The consideration within a contract with God is need not be financial but in this case [note the exception above] it is the faith and surrender/submit of one’s will to God where no believer who declare can bullshit an omnipresent and all-powerful God.

The main terms of the covenant/contract are within the Gospels supported by relevant appendixes from the OT and other chapters in the OT.

Point is regardless of your denial, there exists a covenant/contract that exists between God and a Christian.
This is not only by principle but the covenant [you even mention New Covenant] is implied in the Gospels and Bible.
Read this;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(biblical

In the case of the Covenant between Allah and a Muslim and being a Muslims, it is very clearly stated in the Quran, i.e.

Just as being a Christian, in principles to qualify as a Muslim, one must commit the following;

  1. Declare the Shahadah, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada
  2. Submit one’s will to Allah
  3. Entered into a covenant with Allah to obey Allah’s words as in the Quran.

The above are supported by verses from the words of Allah in the Quran.

I’m going to leave this discussion Prismatic, thanks for your time.

I’d like to make a few points in signing off, as I think that you’ve misrepresented some of my statements.

I don’t think that there is such a thing as a Christian who accepts Jesus, but rejects God. It doesn’t seem possible to me, because a Christian believes they are one and the same. Many Jews don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah (Son of God), but I’ve never in my life heard of or encountered a Christian who rejects God. Such a position, from my perspective, borders on being an oxymoron.

??? The New Testament is the New Covenant. It doesn’t matter if you state one or the other, people will know what you mean. Of course there is a covenant, that is a moot point.

#-o How do you know that? The basis of your assertion here is based upon what I’ve written in this topic – that is a hasty conclusion, and as such it is incorrect. I am familiar with contract law, not in the sense of being an expert, but I recognise the principles. That is why I’m not willing to say that I know the New Covenant complies to the principles of contract law. If your going to insult my intelligence so flatly, without even really knowing me, why would I have a discussion with you? That is how you make enemies. At least when I take a pop at you, I do so with a jovial spirit.

You’ve misinterpreted what I stated, perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I don’t think that the act of baptism necessarily makes someone a Christian. I thought that I made it clear when I said “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.” I was referencing what Jesus said was necessary to enter heaven. Not my own opinion.

As far as I’m aware, there is no explicit claim in the New Testament that someone must surrender their will to God in order to validate the New Covenant. The Wiki quote is an interpretation of Biblical verses. I don’t even think the word “surrender”, in the context you mean is explicitly stated in the anywhere in the Bible. I could be wrong, but google isn’t bring up any direct quotes. If it isn’t in the Bible then it is completely inferred. If it was explicitly stated I would find it difficult to argue, within the context of this discussion, but as I can’t find it (after looking) I am fully entitled to agree or disagree. There’s a lot of weight behind the concept of “a person surrendering their will to God”, in terms of how heavily it is propounded, but I’m not certain about it, in the context of this discussion.

Where are the stages of your thesis?

If they sincerely believe in Jesus, I don’t see an epistemological problem. Serendipper’s claim seems liberal, but not inherently wrong.

Read here

It’s been a long time since I studied contract law, but isn’t the source that you’re quoting from referring to the sale of goods? From my perspective, the New Covenant more resembles the laws associated with employment contracts. If you research the Old Testament/Covenant law, I think you’ll see the point that I’m making here.

This is a straw man. What denial are you referring to? If you mean in relation to the New Covenant, where did I state that there was no Covenant between God and a Christian? You need to clarify what you mean here.

I thought it is very obvious re who is a genuine Christian. I was taken by surprise when Serrendipper came out with his version of who is Christian.

I did not intend to insult, not you especially. Objectively, it was my inference based on what you have posted.

Note I come across surrender and submit to God very often in relation to Christianity.

There are many verses but note specifically James 4:7
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

The Principles of the Law of Contract is universal and the contract exists and is valid as long as all the essential elements are present, even if the parties did not consciously establish a contract.
I provided the above example to highlight the essential elements in a contract.
One of the consideration of a contract is it can be explicit or implied.
Note common law marriages without any legal papers are often implied from the acts of the couple.
When one study the Law of Contract, one will encounter many examples on how a court decide [in the absence of explicit evidences] on the existence of an implied valid contract [present of the essential elements] from the circumstances.

From earlier posts you seem to disagree on the criticalness of the existence of a covenant between God and believer in deciding who is a genuine Christian.

For me, who is a Christian is based on the following critical criteria;

  1. Baptism - 10%
  2. Faith and surrender to God
  3. Covenanted or contracted

The above is significant for the following points;

  1. A Christian is contracted with God on the overriding term to love all and [even] his/her enemies.

  2. A Muslim is contracted with Allah with the permission to kill non-Muslims [under the slightest threat to the religion].

As you can see, when a Christian killed, he is not contracted to kill by his religion, i.e. Christianity. In this case, he killed because he could not resist his own inherent murdering nature.

Whereas if a Muslim killed, he is contracted to kill by his religion primarily in exchange for a passage to paradise and not necessary because he is a murderer by nature.

Prismatic,

Can you quote me on that?

Note I proposed this;

Your response [in the same post] to the above was;

I have stated point 2 [surrender] and 3 [covenant] are the critical elements to determine who is a Christian with baptism as a supporting point at 10% weightage.

In later posts you still dispute my point 2 and 3 as the critical determinant of who is a Christian.

Thus my point;

Most Christians or Muslims are not consciously aware they have entered into a binding contract with their respective God. But the fact is based on the circumstances there exist a covenant/contract between them and God.

This covenant is pivotal in determining why Christians are contracted to be pacifists while Muslims are contracted and bounded [by the immutable terms of the contract] to be violent.

Prismatic,

I have not disputed that there is a covenant between God and a Christian, the New Covenant. I’d just like to make that clear. If I did, you would have quoted it. Either you’re misinterpreting what I stated, or I or have not been clear enough.

Again, this seems to be a straw man argument. What exactly did I state that has lead you to that conclusion? I don’t recall discussing how critical the covenant is in deciding who is a genuine Christian, maybe I did, I’ll have to check, but if I didn’t, it seems as though you’re trying to paint a picture of the nature of our discussion which implies that I am resistant to obvious points/truths, but the picture you’re painting simply does not exist.

– I have checked my posts in this topic, and I found no discussion between us regarding how critical the existence of a covenant between God and believer is in deciding who is a genuine Christian. What do you infer from that?

In my last post earlier, note I posted your reason for not agreeing the covenant is a critical constituent to who a Christian.

I posted in my earlier post, you stated;

In this case your reference to “your quote from wiki” included [albeit mistakenly] all the three elements, i.e including the need for a covenant as listed in the same post;

To me ‘covenant’ is a critical element that constitutes who is a Christian, you disagree as above.

Therefore from the above,
at that time, you stated and did not believe the covenant is what constitutes a Christian QED.

Prismatic,

If someone doesn’t believe that something represents a QED conclusion, that does not mean they reject, don’t recognize or dispute it’s importance or how critical it is, and I think you know that. “Critical” is a term that you introduced, not me. I did not debate with you how critical the covenant Is in defining who is a Christian, but for some reason, you’ve inferred that I did. From my perspective, the most critical element in determining who is a Christian, is belief in Jesus. Which does not mean I believe that conclusion is QED.

How have you construed that “critical” and “QED” mean the same thing?

Content deleted.

Content deleted.

Sorry, for some reason I triple posted by mistake.

I presented three elements earlier which are essentially necessary for who is a Christian, i.e.

  1. Baptism
  2. Surrender to God
  3. Covenant with God

They are critical to a QED [proof, conclusion] on who is a Christian.
When you do not agree to my QED as condition upon the 3 elements above, the implication is you do not agree the covenant [3] is critically essential for one to be a Christian.
I mentioned baptism is not critical, but 2 and ultimately the necessary covenant [2] is the most critical.

Note a belief in Jesus Christ [the intermediary or agent] implied and leads to a necessary covenant with God.
Jesus is represented as God at times, but Jesus is essentially the son of God.
Jesus is not wholly God. Believers do not enter into a covenant with Jesus Christ specifically but with God.

Note your employment-contract analogy.
If an employee believes in the CEO which is at times the Company [e.g. Steve Job], what is happening in reality is the employee is entering into a contract with Company not the CEO.
It is the same with believing in Jesus Christ which ultimately results in a covenant with God, thus my main point 3 above.

Prismatic,

No it doesn’t, you have implied that. It is clearly your implication, not the implication. Let me be clear here, I did not and have not stated or implied that the covenant is not a critical element in defining a Christian, so I would appreciate it if you stopped saying that I did. I do not believe you’ve shown that “3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.” is QED, for me that position is open to question and interpretation, which does not mean that I think it isn’t critical.

You’ve stated that:

Do you believe this is QED?

Obviously I believe the above is QED, meaning to me it is conclusive proof and conclusion on who is a Christian.
The element of ‘covenant’ [contract] is the imperative premise in determining who is a Christian.
If there is no contract [explicit or implied] with the Christian God, there is no Christian - QED.

Note sure your understanding of QED is the same as mine, i.e.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

Prismatic,

… I don’t agree that it is, which, of course, does not mean that I don’t believe that the covenant is critical in defining a Christian. I take “QED” to mean “thus it has been demonstrated” which I don’t think you have done. Now, I’m not arguing that you’re totally wrong, because IMV the nature of this discussion is interpretation. Regardless, if you believe that what you’ve stated is QED, is there any further point in this discussion? Is your interlocutors task now to prove you wrong or agree? I think that inevitably, that is what it is going to become. If any interlocutors turn up!