Who is a Christian?

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.

There are verses related to baptism in the Bible, albeit I do not place it as critical as the other two requirements to be a Christian, note this;

30 Top Bible Verses About Baptism
biblestudytools.com/topical … t-baptism/

As for surrender, I have already quoted the wiki article which included the related verses.

As for covenant, i.e. contract I have implied that from the whole context of the Bible using the Principles of the Law of Contract.
In addition, note

You yourself have mentioned the New Covenant;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(biblical#Christian_view

I have mentioned ‘Jesus Christ’ as the son of God and the intermediary to the covenant with God many times. Check my previous posts.

I always try not to trigger my ego.
However I have made a very strong concerted effort to cover all the above, all critical knowledge gap and whatever is necessary to do philosophy to the best of my abilities.

Philosophically I don’t think I have missed out on the critical requirements. You can tell me what I have missed and I will try to cover and narrow the knowledge gap.

Prismatic,

Yes, but in order to define what we believe the terms of the New Covenant are, we should IMV refer to the words of Jesus, because he is obviously the authority, he made the Covenant possible. Jesus did not state that someone has to surrender their will to God, as far as I’m aware he only stated that someone has to believe in him and be baptised in order to be “saved/enter heaven", and as I’ve stated, his words are construed as the explicit words of God. I think that means a person surrendering their will to God is something which has been interpreted. It is difficult to demonstrate that a person has to surrender their will to God in order to be a Christian, because that “term” is not stated anywhere in the Bible in reference to constituting a Christian.

From my perspective, the issue is the claim itself. I’m not going to attempt to tell you where you haven’t fulfilled it, but I would definitely gamble that you’ve made quite a few inferential mistakes.

Note the words of Jesus are all in the Gospels and expounded in the Acts and Epistles, where else?

The term ‘believed in Jesus’ has deep implications [not solely interpreted], since Jesus is only the son and intermediary, it has to encompass the imperative faith and belief in God, thus surrendering of one’s will to God, entered into a contract with God and to comply with every word of God [via Jesus] to one best ability.

Re “saved/enter heaven" upon believing in Jesus is only with reference to something like be given a passport or visa to another country but there is no guarantee one can enter the country automatically without being subject to the respective immigration processes and authority. If the immigration authorities discover any new knowledge the person has not comply to its laws s/he may be deported instantly.

A person can sincerely and easily declare his belief in Jesus Christ, but subsequently be overwhelmed by his selfish desires and commit the greatest sin and many critical sins later. Example, the pastors who were caught as pedophile, adulterers, rapists, killers, etc. Are they saved/will-enter-heaven just because in their earlier years and are acknowledged by the congregation that s/he has believed in Jesus?

One thing we can infer with certainty is, in principle, these sinners had already broken their covenant and contract with God upon their committing the serious sins.

Note

Matthew 19:24 “I’ll say it again-it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!”

Thus there is still a lot of work to be done by a ‘Christian’ after the initial believing in Jesus, surrender one’s will to God, and complying with God’s words to qualify one for a passage to heaven with eternal life.

That is hand waving about nothing.
You can tell me where I am wrong and where I agree, I will take steps to correct it. I have been doing that with feedback from others over the years.

Prismatic,

Then explain why Jesus said the criminal dying next to him on the cross would join him in heaven? He didn’t fulfil the strict requirements of what you claim to be a QED argument. All he did was to believe/have faith - and he was saved. From my perspective, the BIble is not consistent enough to make an argument that defines a Christian conclusively.

I don’t believe this analogy reflects the New Covenant. Where did you get this idea of Christianity from?

I think that sincerity is the hallmark of Christianity, obviously too. It is propounded by pastors (rightly or wrongly) that if a person sincerely believes in Jesus, the desire to sin will disappear. I don’t believe that people who commit the sins you mention will “enter heaven”, but if they repent and sincerely believe in him, their sins will be forgiven. The entire thrust of the NT is faith, not laws or rules like the OT, so I’m not inclined to argue that obeying a set a strict of rules is the mark of a Christian or defines one. From my perspective, Christianity is a state of being, rather than strict accordance to doctrine.

I have heard pastors propound the opposite – that sin does not break the New Covenant, since it is founded on the principles of love and forgiveness, not law and punishment.

Hmm, the meaning of that statement is clear, yet you’ve interpreted something which strikes me as being quite far from what it actually means or intended. It seems as though you’re inferring your claimed QED conclusion from every source you quote. How many meanings do you think that statement has, just the one that confirms what you believe?

I think its a bit more than that, but subtlety is seemingly lost with you. Considering the nature of our discussions, why would I get into a debate with you about where I think you are philosophically/epistemologically right or wrong? The thing is, you claim to be open to discussion about this, but the outcome is so predictable I wouldn’t bother. Also, I’m not qualified in philosophy, so it isn’t really my place to tackle you on those grounds, but I think as we discuss/debate my points of view will come to the surface, so it will be apparent where I think you’re wrong.

It is from common rationality based on taking the whole Bible into context.

Re the criminals or any other initiated Christians, what if they subsequently continually committed genocides on Christians and others, commit all sort of evils and sins. Will they still be able to go to heaven just merely based on their initial belief in Jesus Christ?

Sincerely is not critical. God being omnipresent and all powerful is well aware of the state of the believer.

Yes it is state of being conditioned upon baptism, surrender to god and entering into a covenant with God explicitly or implicitly.

At any time, the person do not comply with the specified critical terms of the covenant, he is no more a Christian.
Of course a person can ask for forgiveness and re enter into a covenant with God, but what is critical here is the existence of the covenant, renewed or otherwise agreeable between God and the believer.

So my point is whatever the case, the ultimate for one to be a Christian, one has must enter into a covenant with God to surrender his will and comply with God’s words.

In principle, if one do not comply with the critical terms, then the contract or covenant is null and void. Thereafter one has to start a new covenant.

The above pastors view is ridiculous, i.e. a person can commit genocide, ask for forgiveness, then start a new contract, commit another genocide the next week and doing the same again till on his final days then ask for forgiveness, according to you, in principle he will go heaven with eternal life?
What sort of God will agree to such a thing?

There may be other meanings but my understanding is a rich man is exposed to loads of potential to sin, pride, greed, or ruthless killings using his money and power, etc.
Thus there is no guarantee a rich man will go to heaven merely based on his initial declaration of belief in Jesus.

Point is based on available evidences and arguments - in this particular case - I am very confident I am right but I am open to critique.
Instead of thinking and guessing, it would be more appropriate to point out where my errors and omissions are.
My earlier views missed [not wrong] out on the process of baptism [MagJ] and faith [yourself] which I have no problem taking up to reinforce my point.

Prismatic,

I’m out, thanks for the discussion.

As I had mentioned many times, the currency within this forum is sound arguments.
If you have them, then we can trade.

Certainly you must have encountered people who think that they will respond to sound arguments, that they are open-minded, but you decide that they are not really open-minded, or not nearly as much, when it comes to ideas dear to them, as they think. Now you are getting feedback from Fanman that you are not open-minded - to more or less summarize a part of his response to you. IOW you have a bias, as we all do somewhere in our evaulation abilities of our own ideas, and that bias is making you think you are rebutting things when you are not and are open when you are not to sound arguments. I have the same reaction to you as he does around a couple of your core ideas. You cannot see where you are making leaps in your arguments, even when this is pointed out well and carefully to you. This happens. I know I have been like this on certain issues. But repeatedly saying that you would respond to a sound argument if it came up means very little. Even very smart people can have huge blind spots when certain ideas and certain lines of reasoning are dear to them. You’ll either consider this feedback or you’ll continue to be certain that you would recognize and acknowledge a sound argument, since you know you have an open mind, so any failure to convince you must be the fault of others. Their positions must be wrong, their critiques of your position must be wrong. Etc. That you have modified your position in reaction to other people demonstrates that on occasion you can modify your position - though in the years of seeing your posts, I see very little core change. Of course you no doubt think that’s because you are right. But perhaps you are actually able only to objectively evaulate arguments that do not threaten core ideas of yours. That deal with small facets and details. I have to say I have the same reaction he does. That might affect you or it might not.

But there’s something rather naive-sounding about saying, basically, well, if you made good arguments I know I would change my mind. We know already that you think that. Everyone thinks that. Saying it becomes an assertion that you could know this, and that is doubtful. We sure all hope we are like that. It sure seems that way, to just about everyone.

Who is going to say…I know this is true, but I doubt I would recognize a damning critique because my mind is closed. So there might be one, but I will never see it.

It’s odd you not knowing that we already know you think you are open to change and purely rational.