Who is a Christian?

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!

Obviously to me it is a QED, i.e. demonstrated, completed and proven philosophically.

Since the covenant [contract] is the critical premise in my proof -QED, and
that you disagree with my QED,
it show that you believe the covenant is not a critical in defining a Christian.

If you agree that the covenant is critical to be a Christian, then we both agree.

Prismatic,

Proven philosophically? What do you mean? Please expound upon this.

From this it follows that you believe anyone who disagrees with you is philosophically, and therefore epistemologically incorrect. Now I understand why you called Serendipper’s claim “crazy”, essentially, because it is so far removed from what you believe to be QED. How interesting.

Again, you introduced the term “critical” not me. We had not discussed how critical, or even if your point 3 was critical in defining a Christian until now. I stated that I don’t believe it is QED, and I still don’t, but it is obvious that the covenant is critical in defining a Christian. Not critical in the sense of being “final”, but in the sense of being “important”, which perhaps I should of made clear. I didn’t know that you were going to try to hold me to not recognising that.

I agree that the covenant is critical in defining a Christian, but at this time that is all I believe. I do not think that the rest of your points are wrong, but they are not IMV, QED. That is a massive claim, perhaps too big for anyone, regardless of what they believe, to make. Maybe some people will agree with you, but I don’t. There’s a lot to consider.

In this case, ‘critical’ to me meant imperative and final.
If there is no covenant [contract], then it is invalid.

Even if someone declared they have surrendered to God, it is still not complete [consummated] to be a Christian.

The final point is, in entering into a covenant with God, the person is compelled to adhere to ALL the terms of the contract/covenant, i.e. whatever is stated in the terms of the contract, i.e. the gospels of the NT, with the Acts, Epistles, the OT as a guide [the appendix].

We have all sorts of people claiming to be Christians [from core to fringe cults], but who is objectively a Christian is one who has entered into a covenant with the Christian God via Jesus explicitly or implicitly.

I have given examples,
Whoever is an American legally is one who has a contract with the constitution of the USA.

Whoever is a communist [say in China, Cuba, etc.] is officially a contracted member of the Communist Party of China, whereas the others are merely pseudo-communists at best.

You can’t call yourself a Tory, Labour, UKIP, etc. until you are a contracted member of any one of these political party.

It is the same for a Christian-proper, i.e. is one who has entered into a covenant with the Christian God, thus has to comply with the terms of the contract/covenant.

Philosophically, meant encompassing wider requirements, i.e. whatever is necessary to argue one’s case epistemologically, objectively, rationally, logically, wisely, ethically, etc.

Prismatic,

Do you believe these to be the terms of the New Covenant? If so, where do you believe them to be supported by the Bible? You haven’t used the Bible as a supporting reference, and you haven’t included “believing in Jesus”, do you not see that as one of the terms or is that included in “obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT”?

Why would you claim that you’ve fulfilled all of these requirements, and others that you haven’t mentioned? It makes it seem as though you hold your intellect in too high esteem.