Who is a Christian?

Prismatic,

Me,

Prismatic,

Sensitivity? You effectively stated that none of my arguments in this topic are sound, that would make it seem as though you want to illicit a strong reaction, given the nature of philosophy forums. In my view you’re entitled to think that, even though I feel that you’re denying some salient points. The problem is that you conversely believe every argument you made in this topic is sound. You think that your points equate to a QED conclusion, because of this, it is likely that every counter-argument provided or view that differs from yours, not just by me, is going to be deemed as not sound by you (as they have been), which I don’t agree with and feel is a bad intellectual policy.

It is very unlikely that you will recant on your position or change your perspective and give up what you feel is QED, once you feel that you’ve achieved it. For me this discussion is not only about arguments and counter-arguments, but also discussion. As I’ve stated, I think this topic is interpretive, but you’re propounding that your arguments are QED, whilst claiming that any arguments that disagree with yours are not sound, which (to me) means that you’re claiming that your interpretation is the prevailing or entirely correct one QED, and that others interpretations which disagree with yours are not sound – which not only implies things about you personally, but also makes it problematic to have a discussion/debate with you.

A Christian being defined by having faith is a moot point, you can’t disagree with that… If that’s the only valid point I made then God help me! [-o<

As I had stated, after all the work I have put, there is no reason for me to relax my position [with proviso of no certainty] until there are reasonable counter arguments to my point.

The above principle is critical in my views against the evil aspects of the ideology of Islam which was the original issue.
Point is the covenant is critical for all the Abrahamic religions [ comprising more than 50% of all religionists].

The terms of the covenant are stated within the main Holy Texts of the Abrahamic religions, note the Quran for Islam.

The Quran - contract terms to be complied by all Muslims contain loads of evil elements, including kill non-Muslim upon some vague definition of threats to the religion.

Therefore all Muslims are contracted to kill non-Muslim upon those ill-defined threats.

At present we have a serious problem of evil with SOME Muslims.
thereligionofpeace.com/TROP.jpg

To deal with the root cause of the above problem, one of the most effective is to start with the covenant and review the contract terms within the Quran.

Your very loose neither here nor there stance re the covenant will not resolve such issues
effectively. You are giving room for the malignant virus to stay dormant and reactivate its evils wherever the situation allows. Note the recent Sri Lanka terrorists attack where 290 [so far] were killed is highly speculated to be from the Muslim jihadists??
I can bet with such a covenant loaded with evil terms, there will definitely be more of such evil acts to come from the Muslims jihadists.

From the strong stance of the criticalness of the covenant between Allah and all Muslims, the solution to eliminate/reduce the Islamists’ evil and violence acts, is to get rid of the evil elements within the terms of Islamic covenant or get rid of the covenant [contract], QED.

It is in the bible… I guess that’s the authority right there, or one might as well be practising any other religion… or even a fake religion. Doesn’t Scientology ask for allegiance to it’s cause by asking it’s followers to adhere to many requirements?

Proof of loyalty, proof of commitment, or why even bother? even non-dogmatic religions require expectations from their followers… or one might as well instead be chatting to one’s mates down the pub.

Agree on all of the above… I repeat, as above: proof of loyalty, proof of commitment, or why even bother? even non-dogmatic religions require expectations from their followers… or one might as well instead be chatting to one’s mates down the pub.

I believe most practicing Christians will agree to the above.

What is significant with the Principle of a Covenant is it will protect any Christians or other followers of religion in defending against any evil and violent acts by their fellow believers.

E.g.
A Christian can easily defend and counter against whatever evil and violence committed by the crusades, inquisition, any recent violence by arguing the following;

  1. A Christian is one who had entered into a covenant [contract] to comply with all the terms [to one’s best ability] contain in the Gospels supported by relevant elements from the Epistles, Acts, and OT.

  2. The Gospels containing the critical terms of the covenant has overriding maxim of love all even one’s enemies and do not contain any verses that condone evils and violence.

As such if any Christian [or group] were to commit evil and violence, it has nothing with do with their contract/covenant within Christianity, i.e. with the Christian God.
Therefore these ‘Christians’ were acting on their own as human beings not in principle as Christians in carrying out any violence. We cannot blame Christianity the religion in this case. The fault lies with the person not the religion.

However, we cannot use the same defense for SOME Muslims who committed terrible evil and violent acts shouting verses from the Quran. In this case, the blame must rest primarily on the religion of Islam itself and not much on the believers.

Therefore tracing to the covenant [ within the Abrahamic religions especially Islam] is a very critical element/concept to setting the path towards the prevention of Islamic evil and violence.
If we can exclude the evil and violent verses from the Quran and covenant, then we will be able to prevent Islamic evil and violent acts.

But the problem is the Quran [with its evil and violent elements] must remain intact and commanded to be immutable [cannot be edited].
So to prevent Islamic evil and violent acts, we have to get rid of the Quran thus the religion - which is quite a task.

I donä’t think the bible is clear. It leaves room for metaphorical interpretations of just about everything. I as a non-Christian would hesitate to tell someone who says they are a Christian that they are not because I think they must fulfil criterion X. I don’t think it makes sense for Prismatic, a nonä-Christian, non-theist to tell people in another religion how to interpret their texts and what they must do to be a member of a religion he is not a part of. He cannot appeal to any authority, since he does not believe in them as authorities. He cannot tell, for example, someone who says they feel Jesus in their heart and love Jesus, but is not baptized that they are not Christian. That person would likely be welcomed in all churches and considered Christian by some religious authorities. He has no position from which to say they are wrong.

There are non-dogmatic versions of Christianity, or so it seems from the outside. I cannot appeal to any authority, since I am not Christian, to say those groups are not Christian. ‘Proof of loyalty’ etc. could all be judged in a variety of ways, and Baptism, for example is hardly proof of loyalty. Neither is saying anything at all, even in ritual contexts. We know that many people who are not loyal to Christianity were once baptized. We know in general that saying things in rituals is no guarantee of what we do or feel inside. Grooms have had sex with bridesmaids shortly after taking their marriage vows.

And it sure seemed like Jesus internalized and attitudinalized the Jewish religion in his version that became Christianity.

Note I may not be a Christian and is a non-theist, but that should not disqualified me from defining who is a Christian from the philosophical-epistemological perspective.

The term ‘Christian’ can be quite a loose term which even the lay-Christians would not be certain whether s/he is a Christian-proper or not.

Since we are in philosophical forum, the critical requirement to decide on ‘Who is a Christian’ has to be decided on philosophical-epistemological grounds. I have provided all necessary philosophical justifications.

I believe my epistemological approach on who is a Christian has met the above requirements of the 4 areas mentioned above and the 3 basis questions of epistemology.

I have defined who is a Christian as a person who has professed/act to believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ [Gospels] via the following criteria;

  1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism

  2. A Christian is a person who had surrendered his will to God.

  3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God [Jesus Christ as intermediary] to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT.

Karpel Tunnel,

Given what he’s stated, I think he may argue that the person is not a Christian on epistemological and philosophical grounds, because they do not meet his rigid definition of what constitutes a Christian. As I stated, I don’t think that he’s entirely wrong in what he says, because this topic is open to interpretation, but I do question how important his given grounds are in defining a Christian and if they are, as he believes, QED.

I think that one of the major factors to consider here is that Christianity is a religion, which in my view doesn’t stand up to the rigours of what we could call “a sound philosophy”, which is one of the reasons it rests upon faith rather than logic. Christianity is for the most part concerned with the inclination of the “heart” and focuses heavily on morality. So if a person is as you say above, they would likely (as you say) be accepted as a Christian, and not just by the church, but by anyone they declared their feelings to. I personally would call anyone who professed to believe in Jesus and lived according to his principles a Christian, even if they didn’t fulfil Prismatic’s criteria, or take part in any of the rituals.

I suppose a key question is: Would Jesus accept someone who didn’t fulfil Prismatic’s criteria, but felt as you described? I don’t think we have a reason to believe that he wouldn’t. I think the Bible (NT) shows that Jesus would accept anyone who believed in him, if there was such a strict, conservative and universal definition of a Christian, as Prismatic has inferred, why isn’t it stated in the NT? One thing we can say about Jesus is that he was liberal, which implies things about the nature of God.

He’s not a Christian authority. If he wants to argue most would agree with him, it’s an argument ad populum, and the popularity is amongst people he considers irrational.

Well, sure. But then a Christian at least can appeal to this or that authority. He can’t.

Yes, that is my reaction. I am not saying I have determined they are a Christian or that other Christians should accept him or her. I am just saying that it works for me to accept that and I have no grounds to say he or she is not.

I think you raised the issue of the other guy being crucified getting into Heaven, despite his not having met the criteria. And I agree that a more openended idea of what a Christian is seems justifiable based on the NT. Of course, I cannot appeal to my interpretation of the NT or even the NT. Hell, perhaps Jesus and God consider the NT badly reported stories with problematic conclusions in them. Maybe the only people who are Christians think baptism is heresy.

For me it is a practical issue. I don’t lose much, as far as I can tell, accepting people’s self-assessment and I recognize I have no ground to disagree with them. If I find they do things that are rather ‘unchristian’ I can point this out or I can question or wondre if they really are Christian, but that’s about it.

The funny thing is that baptised people who ahve surrendered to God have done all sorts of atrocities. And who knows what they actually feel inside or even if they are good at introspection. Perhaps they honestly think they surrended to God, but did not, because they don’t know themselves well. People are certainly good at fooling themselves. His criteria seem meaningless to me and fruit of the poisoned tree. That tree being his unbelief.

Your stance re ‘I must be a “Christian” to define who is a Christian’ is very irrational and very unprecedented in a philosophical forum.

Within the intellectual, academic, legal, social, philosophy, all sort of people are qualify in defining ‘who is X’ as long as they observed the respective rules.
Do I need to be a scientist, politician, actor, carpenter, housewife, CEO, etc. to define who are these respective people?

I mentioned the first evidence of who is a Christian is that of baptism which are carried out on 90% of Christians.
I stated this is merely a form and ritual which do not carry a very strong weightage [say 10%] in deciding who is a Christian.

The more serious consideration of Who is a Christian is a person who genuinely believes in Jesus Christ as son and intermediary of God as imperative.
The above implies [based on supporting verses] the following essence of who is a Christian.

  1. The person has surrendered to God via Jesus Christ.

  2. The person has entered into a covenant [contract] with God [Jesus as intermediary] to obey and comply with the words of God as in the gospels in the NT supported by the Epistles, Acts and the OT.

There are many perspectives in defining who is a Christian and I believe my above approach which is philosophical-epistemological is the most effective.

There is no one absolute definition of who is a Christian. There are many perspectives in defining who is a Christian, e.g.

  1. Personal definition - which you are insisting - the most subjective

  2. Theological

  3. By the respective Christian organizations, Church, etc.

  4. Social- going to church, congregation meetings,

  5. Legal - acceptable by a court

  6. Scientific - this is possible in the future, based on brain activities when a person declares he is a Christian, read the Gospels, the Bible, exposed to images of Jesus Christs, etc.

  7. Economics & Financial - defined re Charity exemptions, etc.

  8. Empirical - by observing what the person is doing and speaking in relation to Christianity

  9. Politics - as propounded by politicians for votes

  10. Cultural

  11. Philosophical - epistemological

I believe the most meaningful and effective meaning of “Who is a Christian” is 11 i.e. philosophical - epistemological.

The worst is no. 1 i.e. yours which the subjective opinion of the individual claiming to be a Christian.

The rest of the definition also has their weaknesses but should work within the rules of the framework. In the case of qualifying for charity exemption, and other government benefits, there would be some legal definition of ‘who is a Christian, thus Christians.’

The above is a strawman.
As I had stated “baptism” is merely a form and ritual which do not carry a high % of weight in defining who is a Christian.

The serious Christian is aware God is all powerful, omnipresent and will not dare to fake a surrender to God otherwise he knows he will not get to heaven with eternal life as promised by God [within the covenant/contract] for believing in God and obeying his words and commands.
This is the essential genuine surrender within a covenant with God that I am referring to re Who is a Christian, i.e. in God’s eyes and not in the public’s eye.

The critical point re Who is a Christian/Muslim/Judaist/Hindu in the impact on the real world is this;
Once the believer has entered into a covenant [contract] with God for a promise of heaven and eternal life in exchange to surrender and obey God’s words and command, then, [at the extreme]

if God’s words state, love all, then the believers must love all;

if God’s words state, kill all nons, then the believers must kill all nons.

The only provision within the covenant is one must do the maximum possible up to the best of one’s ability [depending on whatever handicap] and it is up to God to judge on Judgment Day.

When God commands to kill all nons as contracted, the most zealous of believers will strive hard to to kill all nons, if not as many as possible, to feel secure they are assured of a passage to paradise with eternal life. It is a psychological game that need to be exposed. This consequence of evil is so evident in real life as committed by SOME zealous believers.

All the above, especially the most evil are grounded on an illusion, i.e. the illusory God. This is why an effective definition of Who is a Christian, thus Muslim, Hindu, etc. is very critical to enable humanity to resolve whatever evils that had arisen and will arise in the future.

Karpel Tunnel,

Likewise. I don’t think its my place to tell someone who believes they’re a Christian, that they are not one according to a strict definition/criteria that isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible. Furthermore, in practical terms, as a non-believer what would I be appealing to in order to substantiate my doing so, my interpretation of a scripture that I don’t believe in? Why would they listen to me on epistemological and philosophical grounds, when there’s a theological case to make for them being Christian?

I did, and I don’t believe that Prismatic properly evaluated that point and how it applies to the validity of his criteria. I agree that the NT should be viewed as a more open-ended covenant, but with that said there is the threat of an eternity in “hell” if one doesn’t believe, so it strikes me as being “passive-aggressive”, one of the inconsistencies within the Christian doctrine. I don’t even understand why Prismatic is attempting to create a logical treatise on the matter, when the authority is inconsistent in this area.

Prismatic claimed:

I am wondering, what is the difference between an objective Christian and a subjective Christian? Do you attribute more truth value to one or the other? In terms of who Jesus accepts, what is the difference?

Even if it was explicitly stated in the Bible. Maybe they are supported by books not included in the Bible. The Gnostic Gospels, say. The Bible is the product of a lot of groups and individuals. Maybe they messed up. A person says to me: I had a vision of Jesus, and he told me which parts of the Bible are false and which are true. I love Jesus. I am a Christian. On what grounds do I say, No, the Bible is the authority on Jesus. Can I claim that the Bible is divinely inspired?

Let’s jump to a scientific belief, since I think Prismatic is using a very odd ad populum argument. Does current neo-darwinism mean that the fittest survive? No, it is those species best adapted to the ecosystem. Not the fittest. Lions are more likely to die out than mice. But more people likely believe in survival of the fittest amongst those who believe in evolution. The majority probably thinks epigenetics smacks of Lamarkianism, if they are that smart, and so would rule it out. We can’t go by majority rule to decide the correct positions on many things.

Exactly.

I think it serves a purpose in his jihad against Islam - not that my little ironic poke at him by using the word ‘jihad’ indicates I like Islam. I can’t remember how it all works, but I think he needs to have a specific sense of Christianity to put Islam in a specific context.

This isn’t a fair representation of my stance and possibly not yours. I am not saying that anyone who claims they are a Christian is a Christian. I am saying that I find it practical to accept this and I cannot have grounds to say they are not. I also cannot say that they are. That is also beyond my abilities.

He is taking a practical reaction as us saying 'this is the criterion that determines if someone is Christian’

When in fact I am saying I have no epistemological grounds to make a ruling. I can however make a decision about how I will act in relation to people who claim to be Christians. And my choice is that I take their claims at face value.

And I cannot weigh in. Though that first question, which I bolded, is really quite hilarious, and it points out the absurdity of this enterprise.

Nope, that is not the point.

It is very explicit in the Quran that Muslims must enter into a covenant with Allah to obey the words of Allah with a promise of eternal life in Paradise. So I don’t have a problem with stating a covenant is imperative for a person to be a Muslim.

19: 87. They [infidels] will have no power of intercession [l-shafāʿata], save [except] him [the Muslim] who hath made a covenant [3HD; ʿahdan;] with his Lord

9:111. Lo! Allah hath bought [ish’tarā; purchased] from the believers [Muslims] their lives [anfusahum; nafs] and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs they [Muslims] shall fight in the way [sabil] of Allah and shall slay and be slain.
It is a promise which is binding on Him [Muslim] in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant [3HD: biʿahdihi; promise] better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain [BY3: bibayʿikumu bāyaʿtum] that ye [Muslims] have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

In my discussion with Serendipper, I knew he is not familiar with the Quran so I used Christianity as a easy way to explain the concept of the covenant which is imperative within the Abrahamic religions. In addition, most posters are not familiar with the Quran, so I used the covenant within Christianity as a reference.

I was very surprised with his insistence that any person can be a Christian by merely declaring oneself to be a Christian and following what s/he deemed is appropriate. This is crazy. Note the Children of God claimed to be Christians and they offer sex in exchange for conversion. Are they genuine Christians?

One practical advantage of accepting the covenant [contract] to be a Christian is, it is a good counter for any Christian against the accusations that Christianity and Christians are evil and violent [crusades, inquisition, Salem, etc.].

The point is all Christians has entered into a covenant [contracted] with the Christian God to comply with the terms of the covenant as in the Gospels with relevant support from the Epistles, Acts and the OT. The covenant terms do not include any evil laden elements that condone violence but instead insisting on loving all even one’s enemies. Therefore Christianity is never an evil nor violent religion.

Because of its advantage as a defense against accusation by others, the concept of the covenant [inherent in Christianity] would definitely be agreeable by all genuine Christians.

The point is, Christianity is good in this sense, i.e. do not condone evil and violence. If Christians commit evil and violence it has nothing to do with Christianity itself as evident in their covenanted terms. Those Christians who commit evil and violence did it on their own free will and has nothing to do with Christianity per se.

Are you denying my point so that you have room to accuse Christianity per se as evil and violent?

There will be times where we have to counter certain people who claim they are Christians but they are on the fringes and are cults.
There are those who claimed to be Christians, e.g. Children of God who offer sex in exchange for conversion.
There are many Christian cults and sects who advocate and condone violence.

To counter the above we need to get to the core and essence of who is a Christian by reference to the covenant and the covenanted terms, i.e. the Gospels and other relevant supporting verses from the other books.
The point with the covenant is, a Christian cannot act willy-nilly except by compliance [to the best of their ability] in accordance to the covenanted terms.

In addition, the philosophical-epistemological [i.e. [b]Justified[/b] True Belief] is a good counter against accusations of Christianity as evil and violence with reference to the crusades, inquisition, Salem, etc.

Your point of view re Who is a Christian is too loose and has no significant benefits for the genuine Christians. Your view is so open that you are complicit to promote more cults.

Prismatic,

If someone is in a sex cult, it’s pretty obvious that they’re not a Christian, qua Jesus. We don’t need a set of criteria to fathom that. But, would you actually tell someone who believes they’re a Christian (in the Biblical sense) that they are not based upon your criteria, by what authority would you do so?

So your criteria allows you to separate the wheat from the chaff? You seem dogmatic towards your own inferences.

What specific terms are you referring to, Prismatic? If they aren’t in the NT, they are interpretive.

And theology isn’t?

As according to?

and further…benefitting Christians who are more likely to appeal to church, priest and biblical authority as opposed to people who are less likely to do this is not necessarily a good thing. Your view is less likely to produce cults, since people do not need to organize to be considered Christian. Reducing the authority of a very old set of texts - the Bible - and religious leaders, seems vastly more likely to contribute to less inter-religious conflict and less conflict with secular people.

It is also an odd criterion in a philosophical discussion - does your belief benefit more conservative Christians?

Karpel Tunnel,

Or like someone saying that they had a vision of Jesus, and he told them that he accepted them and they’re a Christian - which is the kind of thing that Christians claim. How could I claim that person is not a Christian based upon that, by what authority? I cannot affirm the Bible and subsequent religious texts as an authority in the negative and reject them as an authority in the positive. That wouldn’t make any sense.

I’m not sure, but wouldn’t it be like claiming:“I’m a non-theist, and even though you had this vision you’re not a Christian according to my criteria which is supported by the Bible, which I don’t believe is true, QED.”

Note my points is against those who claim a person is a Christian if that person self-declare as a Christian and do what is deemed necessary, e.g. Serendipper’s insistence.

In the case of the children of God on what basis can you tell them or any others they are not Christians if they claim to believe in Jesus Christ.

For me, I would explain to them or get consensus with others on the basis,
if the Children of god want to ensure salvation as promised by God they have to enter into a covenant [implied or otherwise] to comply with God covenanted terms.
The covenanted terms as conveyed via Jesus Christ is only in the Gospels [ no where else] as supported by the epistles, acts, and relevant verses from the OT.

The children of God can counter in whatever ways with me or others, but that is no way they can push their interpretations and argue with God - the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.

As such, in principle, the children of God cannot be Christians if they had not entered into a covenant with God, or the covenant is void if the terms of the covenant include the offer of sex to those who convert [no such thing in the Gospels of Christ].

It is not MY criteria and personal views.

I inferred that from God’s words and the universal principle of the Laws of Contract.
God expect a Christian to believe in Jesus Christ and therefrom enter into a covenant with God based on the covenanted terms in the Gospels.

As I had stated a Christian must believe in Jesus Christ as son of God and intermediary of God.

John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The belief in Christ implied entering into a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms in the Gospels.
In addition, believing in Christ is only the initiation process and one has to obey God’s command to one’s best ability to merit the salvation that is promised in the covenant [contract].

Theology is based on faith [no proof and no reason], thus how can theology be credible as a Justified True Belief.

On the basis of whether the above is Justified True Belief re the philosophical-epistemological perspective.
If you insist your views is true, prove it is justified and rational?

???

Any Tom, Dick and Harry church, priest, biblical authority, cult can claim to be genuine Christianity. But if these pseudo and fake Christians has not believed in Jesus to enter into a covenant with God in accordance to the covenanted terms, they cannot bullshit God who is omniscient, and in God’s eyes they are not true Christians to earn salvation as offered by God.

As per God’s offer,

John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The above is God’s offer and the person has to accept [sincerely, cannot bullshit God in this case] the offer to earn [with a life long compliance to the covenanted terms] a passage of heaven with eternal life.
Note the elements of ‘offer’ and ‘acceptance’ as the critical elements to qualify as a ‘contract’ in this case, a covenant.

As I had argued, to be a Christian one has to enter into a covenant with God to comply with God’s words as in the Gospels delivered via Jesus.

Once a a person has entered into a covenant with God to be a Christian, he has to comply with its most ideal overriding pacifist maxim of love everyone even one’s enemies, give the other cheek,love this & that which will not promote evil and violent acts.

Fanman’s view do not insist on the critical need for a covenant and the strictest compliance to the Gospels, thus there is room for a person who claimed to be a Christian to justify his own evil acts. Note cult leaders like Jim Jones, Koresh and others who went on a killing spree based their own justifications that what they did was condoned by ‘Christianity’ or the Christian God.

Thus the implied covenant approach for a person to be a Christian is thus a pro for humanity, i.e. it ensure no genuine Christians will go on a killing spree on anyone.

Christianity has its negatives, but these negatives are not critical to humanity [as a trade off] at present as compared to the terrible evil and violent acts condoned as a divine duty of all Muslims by Allah.

Prismatic,

I don’t tell people they are not Christians if they claim that they are, its not really my place to do so. With regards to the children of God, I think my view is explained in what I initially said.

So by the authority of the Bible you would tell them the errors of their ways? A non-theist, why would they listen to you? You’d expect members of a cult to listen to what you think is reason?

So why are you defending it? You formulated your argument re: Who is a Christian, into a set of specific criteria, supported them with Wiki, and have propounded that they constitute a QED argument. You therefore, in context, fully agree with the criteria and that they are sound. But, now you’re claiming that the criteria aren’t yours and don’t represent your personal views? You are not a theist, but they are your views on what constitutes a Christian. I don’t understand why you would say they aren’t?

This is common knowledge. Does this mean the rest of your inferred criteria aren’t necessary? The quote from the Bible seems to dictate that only belief in Jesus is necessary.

You need to prove that explicitly, which I don’t believe you can. Why should we believe/accept what you say, when the authority doesn’t say that?

In this context, I think that theology is adequate to defend Christianity, apologetics makes the case for Christ/Christians. Applying strict philosophical-epistemological arguments is difficult when debating something that is related to faith. You don’t believe that Christianity is a justified-true-belief, so how can you argue those grounds on the issues surrounding it? As I stated, I think it would be difficult.

What? You made the claim about the openness of my view… Regardless, what are you saying I have to prove is “justified and rational”? My view that belief in Jesus constitutes a Christian?

[quote=“Fanman”
I’m not sure, but wouldn’t it be like claiming:
“I’m a non-theist, and even though you had this vision you’re not a Christian according to my criteria which is supported by the Bible, which I don’t believe is true, QED.”

[/quote]
Yes, we are on the same page.