Who is a Christian?

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.

There are two perspectives to the above.

Generally most theists will never accept the views there is no God and they will not change their mind, at least in the present.

On the other hand there is the philosophical-epistemological perspective which I am adhering to. In this case, the view I presented is objective to the epistemological perspective which most who are inclined to epistemology will likely to agree to the Justified True Belief which I had presented.

Note you have not argued successfully against my views on an objective basis. You merely disagree with it by your personal subjective feelings.

As stated above, many who disagree with my views will not likely to agree with me, because they had relied on faith [i.e. no proof, logic, reason or justified arguments].

I am confident with my epistemological Justified argument, most reasonable Christians will agree with me. I don’t see how my thesis of who is a Christian, i.e. believing in Christ, surrender to God via a covenant would be rejected by a genuine Christian.

Note so far MagJ, presumably a Christian has agreed with me [even though me a non-theist] I believed my arguments are well justified and grounded to the essence of what is genuine Christianity.

If I state the fruit [below] on the table is an apple, that would not be a view that is novel from me. In that sense, it is not MY [earlier I put that is CAP] view but rather a common and conventional knowledge.

My point re the above is an apple is not MY view is the same with me saying the objective definition of who is a Christian is not MY view. Rather it is a common philosophical-epistemological view.

In contrast I would claim the argument ‘God is an Impossibility to be Real’ in that thread I raised is MY own personal deduced argument.

I have been arguing the concept of believing in Jesus Christ implied a covenant with the Christian God as reflected in the Principles of the Law of Contract. This is why I doubted you re Principles of Contract. If you are well verse or is a lawyer you will definitely agree with me on that without doubt.

If I am not mistaken you confirm you agree with the covenant but not seriously though.
I have read many articles by Christian on this point and they agree with the concept of the covenant.
Show me one main authority of Christianity who disagree with the covenant?

Why?? Because the Principles of the Law of Contract [covenant] state so!

Yes, I do not agree God exists is Justified True Belief [JTB].
I do not believe Santa exists to a young child is JTB, but that fathers/actors disguising and pretending to Santa during Christmas time is JTB.

Btw, have you met a genuine Christian who would disagree with my views re Christian as believe in Christ, surrender to God, enter into a covenant with God. At least I have a Christian [MagJ agreeing with me] and I believe all sincerely Christians will agree with me.
You have any Christian supporter on your view, i.e. covenant is not critical, not implied and not important.

You are not thinking deep enough into the essence of who is a Christian.
Belief in Jesus [John 3:16, etc.] as I had argued implied a surrender and entering into a covenant with God.
If you want to do a house renovation, it is useless in believing the contractor can do a good job. What is effective is the initiation of the relevant contract and the agreed terms between both parties with you as the ‘offeree’ and the contractor the ‘offeror’.

It is also
It is also at least metaphorically similar to me telling you you actually like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate, or that the ghost you see which I do not believe exists is wearing a hat you cannot see.

Prismatic,

Strange, I thought that we resolved this point?

For the record, I stated this:

Any claim you make or reflection of my position in reference to the New Covenant that is outside of this is your interpretation.

I thought that you might take that track, but I was hoping you wouldn’t. When I stated:

It was in response to: [the highlighted sentence]

Not the New Covenant. Given that we had already discussed the Covenant, I didn’t think that it was necessary to make myself that clear. My question related to the highlighted sentence still stands.

I also stated:

So I don’t understand why you’ve stated the above?

I would disagree. I have done more than stated my feelings, if you genuinely believe that then you have a problem with logic.

And of course request, bolded above, continues the problem. The terms ‘authority’ and ‘major’ contain value judgments that a non-theist cannot determine. How can a non-theist know which persons are authorities and how can one rank them in terms of major and minor. And very, very few modern people considered to be religious authorities would have had acceptable beliefs to people from, for example, the Middle ages. They are, in the main, way too liberal about a wide range of issues. IOW there is no consistent ground.

Prismatic,

Faith in what exactly? In my view, people have presented reasonable arguments against your views of who is a Christian. You reject them as being unsound, but that doesn’t mean that they are. It is clear that you are denying some salient points, which question the correctness of what you claim, but the fact that you believe it is QED, makes it problematic in accepting counter-arguments/discussions.

Maybe some Christians would agree with you, maybe some won’t “Who is a Christian?” is very open to interpretation.

Is his agreement subjective or objective?

Hmm, you’ve really convoluted this. I see no reason to alter what I initially stated based upon this. IMV, recognising an apple, and deciding what constitutes a Christian, are two completely epistemological processes. Do we require a philosophical thesis and all of the trappings to discuss what constitutes an apple?

I’m not sure that someone well versed in law or a lawyer would, I think that claim is open to interpretation. There may well be correlating points, but I would not conflate the two. If a judge was deciding if someone was a Christian, I think that they would consider how close that person was to how Jesus behaved, and if they followed his principles, basically if they were or not a reflection of Jesus. Whereas if they were deciding if someone was concordant with the Old Covenant, they could simply check if a person had complied by the rules it stipulated. As far as I’m aware, the New Covenant does not contain a strict list of rules like the Old Covenant. What we know is that it is a belief based covenant between God and man which allows people to enter heaven because of what Jesus did, almost everything we surmise about it is interpreted.

I haven’t asked that of any Christians, I did ask a theist who believes in the Christian God (but doesn’t claim to be a Christian), and they disagreed regarding surrendering your will to God, not that I believe that makes me right. Hmm, where did I claim that the covenant is “not critical, not implied and not important”? Why do you keep claiming this, when I made my position clear?

I don’t think John 3:16 implies that. I think the explicit meaning of the statement is so clear, that there’s no need interpret an implied meaning. I don’t know what other scriptures you’re referring to. Interesting, can you break down and clarify your analogy and how it relates to the covenant between God and man?