Who is a Christian?

My argument is sound and rational.

The critical point is being who is a Christian is not confined to time on earth but applicable to eternity in heaven.

The case of the criminals are an exception only in form.
In substance, the criminals still have to agree with God basic expectations to enable them to enter heaven as Christians.
If they have entered heaven as Christians, then they must an implied agreement [covenant] with God.
They could not have agreed as atheists or idolaters to enter heaven.

The difference is only in form, i.e. due to the exceptional last minute circumstances, they did not enter into a covenant to surrender to God and comply with the covenanted terms as in the Gospels here in Earth.

Being a Christian is not limited to time on Earth but it is eternal thus they will have a covenant to comply with the covenanted terms in heaven.

Note there are many cases of people in a terminal situation who had entered into a covenant with Christ and God. In these terminal cases, they would not have the time to love their neighbors, enemies and give the other cheek on Earth as stipulated in the gospels.

Nevertheless, a covenant is still implied.
Note I stated the imperative of the covenant [as emphasized] has a 70% weightage on who is a Christian.

Prismatic,

As I asked, but did not receive an answer, an exception to what rule?

Where did the penitent criminal do that?

Where?


Maybe (hopefully) someone will weigh in and deal with what you’re saying in full, but I feel that those are the pertinent points.

As exception to the general practices.
Being along with Jesus at exactly that same time [2000+ years ago] during his crucifixion is an exception. This is not repeated at all.

As I had stated the agreement is implied otherwise God would not have given them a passage to heaven.
Surely God would not allow the criminals to heaven, if they had not agreed but instead kept shouting at God "F… off, we are atheists, mind your own bloody business.’

So it is implied that the “criminals” agreed with God via a covenant from that point till eternity as a Christian in heaven.

As explained above.

Given your exceptional case, whilst the “criminals” were not Christians during their lifetime, but being granted a passage to heaven as a Christian has to be eternal and thus supported by a covenant that is eternal.
A Christian who is in heaven still have to be covenanted with God in according to the covenanted terms stipulated by God. Surely a Christian in heaven cannot behave as he likes it?

Regardless of whether one is a Christian on Earth or in heaven, there is a binding agreement, i.e. a covenant between God and the Christian.

Prismatic,

What I mean is, how can you know that God/Jesus has not, in a future case from what we’re discussing here, accepted a criminal into heaven who does not fulfil your criteria? Given that he did so on this occasion, what is prohibiting him from doing so again?

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough? As according specifically to the scripture denoting the case of the penitent thief, what did he agree to, implied or otherwise, and what did he actually say that leads you to believe that? Can you quote him as doing so? It is clear as day that this case does not fulfil your criteria, and I don’t think there is a reason to argue that God/Jesus has not accepted people on a similar basis, so I don’t think that your argument, that this case as an exception, is correct.

You go from a non-theist to a theologian in one statement, fan-diddly-tastic.

Personally I DO NOT believe God exists as real. God is an impossibility.

However in this case of who is a Christian I have to discuss within the Framework and System of Christianity which has to accept that God exists are real.
So it is not my personal view rather I am arguing from the perspective of a Christian [which I personally am not] within the Framework and System of Christianity.

How do I know Christ will not accept any one or a criminal who do not fulfill my criteria?
How do you know Christ will accept future criminals?

As I had stated the case of the criminals along with Jesus on the cross has to be an exception as directly reported by the apostles. So this is objective based on what is reported in the NT. Note my argument is empirical [relatively], i.e. based on what is stated in the Gospels, espistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT which all genuine Christians accept as true.

What you are proposing that “Christ may do it” somewhere or in the future is merely a guess.

It is only possible if Christ were to return to earth now or in the future and said or do the same thing, i.e. asking God to accept criminals into heaven. Then we need solid empirical evidence in this case.
Even then the situation will inherently involved an agreement by the criminals since atheist [non-Christians] criminals will not agree to the offer by a Christian God or Jesus. Are you implying non-agreeable criminals will be forced into heaven even if they don’t want it?
As I had stated even if this is the case, then it would have set a very bad moral principle for humanity, thus encouraging people to be criminals without restraints.

I have already stated the criteria of the covenant carries a weightage of 70%, thus it is the most critical element in deciding who is a Christian.

No matter how whether is on Earth or in heaven, a Christian must have relationship and agreement [implied or explicit], thus a covenant with God for them to be in heaven with eternal life.
This is the principle within the Framework and System of Christianity - nothing to do with my personal and private views.

Note the principle of substance over form.
The special case and circumstances where Jesus asked his Father to accept the “criminals” into heaven is merely a form but the substance has to be the imperative covenant which can be in various forms.

Btw, if I [non-theist] were to be on the cross with Jesus by the side 2000+ years ago then, I would have asked him to mind his own business and get back to his ‘Father’ on his own if he believed God is real.

Prismatic,

Reading from the texts, it seems the reason Jesus accepted the criminal into heaven, was because he believed Jesus was who he claimed to be, thus fulfilling John 3:16. If John 3:16 describes who can have everlasting life or enter heaven, then the case of the penitent thief demonstrates that description in action, it is not claimed in the Bible that this case was an exception. Your criteria wasn’t necessary in this case, so why would it be necessary in all other cases?

I don’t think there is a generic way in which someone becomes a Christian, such that we can define “who is one” by a strict set of criteria that applies in all cases. I have heard a myriad of testimonies of how and why people came to believe in Jesus, all of them different. Maybe such people wouldn’t be considered Christians in an official sense, by the clergy of some denominations, but from my understanding of the NT, that is not what matters to Jesus/God, the inclination of the heart seems to be most important to him. As according to John 3:16, how could any denomination reasonably deny that a person is a Christian, if they believe in Jesus?

I don’t know that he would, but given that he did so on this occasion, I have no reason to believe that he wouldn’t do so in a future case. Whilst you view this case as an exception, it could be a precedent.

I don’t think that the Bible is abundantly clear on the types of people that God accepts. In both the OT and NT, God/Jesus is willing accept anyone if they genuinely believe in him. Even if people disobey him or sin, he forgives them. So I don’t see how you can surmise a strict or even consistent profile of the types of people who can be defined as Christians? Having belief in Jesus and the existence of a covenant are a given, because they are the “bridges” between man and God, but from my perspective, everything else is open to interpretation.

It is more than a guess if it is based upon what he’s previously purported to have done. I think we can reasonably claim that things will occur, if they happened before, and we have no reason to believe that they will not happen again.

Criminals repent and become Christians, because as according to the Bible, they will be accepted by God/Jesus despite what they’ve done in the past, and be allowed to enter heaven. Biblical stories like John 3:16, the penitent thief, the prodigal son etc., give valid reasons to believe that God is accepting of people despite their faults.

Note I listed my criteria of who is Christian as follows’

  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 to obey the words of God via a believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospels of the NT.

I highlighted somewhere, the covenant is the most critical in terms of weightage, i.e. 70% in determining who is a Christian. Therefore if there is no covenant, then the score is only 30% i.e. below 50% to qualify as a Christian proper. I presume you know how weightages work.

If the criminals had accepted John 3:16, then the covenant is implied. John 3:16 is an offer by God via Christ and the acceptance by the criminals would implied a covenant is established. Note the universal principles of contract or covenant in this case.

The criminals situation in this case is an exception since the covenant is established very differently from what most of the Christians would have gone through, i.e. via baptism.

Note I stated 90% of the Christian came through baptism and the wiki article on baptism listed 90% of the denominations practice baptism.
This case of the criminals are the very rare exceptions that comprised the other 10%.

But the point is, it is imperative the covenant must be established to initiate the relationship between God/Jesus and the Christian.

I had already it cannot be a precedent because it is not likely Jesus will be hanged AGAIN on a cross with criminals beside him.
Regardless, the critical point is, a covenant must be established for one to qualify as a Christian-proper.

As I had stated there can be many ways a person become a Christian, the majority via baptism.
But in all cases and different forms, a covenant must be established.

Note morally, God and Jesus would not accept a repeated offender who committed genocides [killing millions] after each repentance. This would set a precedent for people to commit genocide freely and repeatedly and then ask for forgiveness on his final day so that he can go to heaven with eternal life.

Note if good works is not enough, how can the bad faith of the genocidal killer and other evils doers get to heaven?

Note below;

Note my point above, even good works is not enough for salvation, how can bad faith and evil acts qualify one for heaven.

The Christian God would not stoop so low morally to allow a serial repeating genocidal killer of millions after repenting many times, even if he repented in the last minute, to go the heaven with eternal life.

If a Christian who had sinned and God/Jesus accepted him/her into heaven it must be an exception and God being omnipresent and wise had judged justly on that specific judgment. It has to be case by case situation and judgment.
It cannot be a precedent based on your interpretation, insistent and hope.

Prismatic,

Generally yes, this is quite a rudimentary principle, but misapplied from my perspective. It is a very idiosyncratic way to look at what constitutes a Christian, but if that’s the way you want to go then fine.

Again, this is idiosyncratic. I think that perceiving Christianity through the lens of contract law is not only misleading, but also problematic. Christianity is not as clear-cut as contract law and it certainly isn’t “black and white”. Apart from belief in Jesus, Christianity is all grey, which is why there isn’t one universal interpretation of it. The new covenant is not like a contract or a legal agreement - it is the sacrifice of Christ, so that whoever believes in him can go to heaven. The covenant is not an actual thing that can be explicit or implied, that binds a person to perform as according it’s stipulations, it is the new relationship between God and man. A Christian does not agree to the new covenant, they believe in Jesus. IOW, Jesus is the new covenant.

Same as above.

Obviously I don’t mean the exact same circumstance as in the Bible. I’m referring to a criminal who comes to believe in Jesus in a future case, being accepted by God/Jesus, and that since a criminal was accepted on that occasion, we can reasonably claim that it could happen again, because God’s concern is the inclination of the heart, not so much the actions that people do.

I cannot claim with certainty what God will and will not forgive. I can have ideas based upon the Bible and other Christian authorities, but that is as far as I can go epistemologically. The Bible shows that God forgave all kinds terrible things and terrible people. Therefore there is reason to believe that he will forgive anything if the repentance is genuine, the Bible is not consistent enough to form a certain opinion on this.

You seem to have missed the point in your excerpt where it states that:

The excerpt doesn’t state that anything in your criteria is necessary for salvation. From my perspective, your argument is defeated by the inconsistency of very authority it attempts to stand on.

If good works are not enough to gain a person salvation, and evil acts also don’t lead to salvation, how does anyone go to heaven? The answer propounded by Christianity is belief in Jesus or “right belief”, not conforming to a set of (your) criteria, which basically amounts to good works. Can’t you see that?

Why are you speaking as though you know what God will and will not do? What is the epistemological grounds for you doing so? I didn’t claim that the case of the penitent criminal was a precedent, neither did I insist, or claim that it was my hope. I said that it could be. “Could” is the qualifier, there’s no need to put words in my mouth.

That is the principle that is applied to all knowledge objectively.
My definition is based on the core elements that represent who is a Christian.

Meanwhile you are relying on a very wide, looser and expanded definition to capture the widest exception, e.g. the criminals on the cross, then generalize from that specific case. That is more toward a fallacy, i.e. hasty generalization.
Problem is your approach is too rhetorical.

I did not state it is “black and white.” That is why I introduced the term ‘implied.’
Note all agreements between people or groups of people are reducible to a ‘contract.’ Even a parent child relationship is bounded by a social contract.
If there is force or coercion, i.e. not voluntarily, then there is no valid contract.

In the case of Christian, God gave humans freewill, thus the choice to enter into a covenant [aka agreement, contract] with God via Jesus to estabslish a personal relationship between God and the Christian.

From the Christian Framework and System, Christianity is very objective, not grey.
Note Jesus is not the sole authority. Jesus is merely the son of God, thus God [all powerful] has the final authority. This is objectively reflected in the Bible.

Note a covenant is a divine contract or agreement with its respective covenanted terms that is offered by God and agreed [implied] by the Christian when s/he believe in Jesus Christ’s offer as in John 3:16. This imply a covenant and a personal relationship is established.

If one agree within an agreement [covenant, contract] then one is bound to comply with the covenanted terms, else the agreement and contract will be null and void. In any agreement there is no need for 100% conformance to the terms, but both parties can decide to agree where the major term is not compromised.

Regardless, a covenant and a personal relationship has to be established between the Christian God and the Christian.

The criminal case is too specific to allow it to be generalized.
It can only happen again if Jesus reappears and then is hanged on a cross or perhaps in a jail as jail mate to some prisoners on death row.
Other than the above or similar, it is a too far fetched speculation.
Even then, a covenant must be established for the criminals to go to heaven at some point, albeit different from the normal process.

Any one can possess ‘faith’ but need not be a Christian. A Muslim and non-Christian can have faith in his specific religion.
The point is a person must first establish a relationship with God/Christ to be a Christian, then the element of faith will come into the picture as stipulated in the covenanted terms in the NT and elsewhere.
Therefore the above article support my point, covenant first, then faith.

Note my criteria of ‘who is a Christian’ do not cover a guarantee of salvation, but merely a promise of salvation by God/Jesus if the covenanted terms are complied with.
But the main point is a covenant, i.e. a relationship must first be activated via a covenant for faith and good works to qualify a recognized Christian for salvation.

Good works is still necessary but it is not the lone criteria that qualify for salvation, thus the need for the underlying “faith”.
Note ‘faith’ here is a very loose term, I see it as covering grace, love of God, reverence, devotion, and the likes.

Your ‘could’ in this case definitely correspond to ‘hope.’

I had argued [epistemologically] your precedent if not, your hope argument is too weak, a near fallacy of hasty generalization.
I insist it is an exception because it is an exceptional case as reported objectively in the Bible, i.e. God’s works and intentions.

There is no declaration by Jesus or God that it will be a general rule ALL criminals shall be entitled to salvation regardless of whatever.

If this is the case, it would put a very dark light on the reputation of the Christian God in condoning the worst evil and violent acts where SOME zealous psycho people will turn to commit evil and violent in the belief they can still go to heaven regardless of their crime.
You are promoting such a reality?

Prismatic,

I have not strictly defined “who is a Christian”. I have stated my view of what I think a Christian is like, which is not static and open to change. Given that criminals do accept Jesus and become Christians, and that Christianity claims that Jesus can forgive any sin, I don’t see why you would claim that the case of the penitent thief cannot happen again?

Let’s look at it your way. If the covenant is eternal it means that everything Jesus established is. If part of the covenant is that Jesus allowed the penitent criminal to enter heaven, and there is no change to the covenant, because it is eternal, then why can it not happen again, in a contractual sense?

So you insist, but I don’t believe it works like that. The choice is to believe in Jesus or face an eternity in hell.

Not as according to the Bible, I have previously stated how the Bible and Christianity explicitly perceives Jesus.

As I stated, I don’t believe it works that way, I’ve stated how I perceive the covenant. So I don’t see a need to repeat myself.

Then why do criminals accept Jesus and become Christians? What leads them to believe that they can become Christians if not, but not limited to, the story of the penitent thief? Do you think that Christian preachers don’t use that case as an example that anyone can have salvation? My argument is not based upon the physical circumstances, it is based upon the principles in the case of the penitent thief. That you cannot understand that is strange for someone of your intellectual ability.

Where (as you quoted) does it support your point? Do you disagree that faith is the sole condition for salvation? It is stated nearly 200 times in the Bible, doesn’t that give it, weightage? :wink:

I don’t understand what this tweak of your argument/position means?

You just stated that good works aren’t enough for salvation and quoted a supporting reference. Now you’re claiming that good works are necessary to qualify a recognised Christian for salvation. The Bible also argues that “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:14-26).

How would you reconcile that with faith (or belief) is the sole condition for salvation, as you quoted?

I don’t think that you can establish a consistent position here, because the Bible argues both that good works are necessary for salvation and that they are not, and you have drawn upon both positions, which are conflicting as you can see below:

I don’t know what “underlying faith” is? I understand why you say that faith includes those things, because someone who genuinely believes in Jesus does take part in them, but I don’t think that faith is a loose term, it has a specific meaning. In this context, it means belief in Jesus, that is not loose from my perspective.

No it doesn’t. I mean “could” in terms of it being a possibility. If I meant hope, I would of said so.

What “hope argument” are you referring to? I have stated my meaning and reasons for why I believe the case of the penitent thief is not exceptional. You are inferring something that I have not explicitly stated, and I only meant what I explicitly stated.

The reality is that Christianity purports, that because of Jesus, God can forgive any sin. It isn’t my place to claim what God will and will not forgive. If I refer to the Bible as an authority then Christianity is right in that sense, but epistemologically it just wouldn’t make any sense for me to claim what God will and will not forgive without appealing to an authority.

My main point is, in the present and eternally, a covenant is imperative to establish a relationship with God regardless of the circumstance of how a person became a Christian.

My point was, it is not likely a situation like Jesus being on the cross along with two criminals besides him and Christ asking for their forgiveness from God, will be repeated.

Within the Christian Framework and God being all powerful, [except for contradiction] can do anything its wishes to do in any specific and qualified conditions.
However God will generalize forgiveness to any criminals from a specific example like Jesus with the criminals that happened only during that specific time 2000+ years ago. To generalize would insult God’s morality.

What’s that??
Before a person become a Christian, he could be a non-theist and thus have a choice not to accept the offer as in John 3:16.
A Christian can also exercise his choice to leave Christianity, thus to hell with God’s threat of hell.

It is a NT fact, Jesus is the son of God as per John 3:16.
Jesus is only given authority from God.

As I had stated, whatever ways [as a prisoner or others] a person is converted to Christianity, the covenant is implied.

Its 200 times in the OT not the NT.
I don’t believe faith is the sole condition for salvation.
It is an necessary underlying condition and other conditions stated in the NT are necessary for salvation. God is all powerful, it is up to God to judge.

Note when a contract is signed between two parties, in the initial stages the expectations from both sides are based on agreed promises. These promises need to delivered by both parties within the stipulated time. There is no guarantee of the promises because any party can default on their promises due to various circumstances. Got it??

It is the same with the Christian covenant. Upon agreement, God made promises in his offer and the Christian promised to comply with the covenanted terms. If a Christian committed sins that are too unforgivable in the eyes of God, then there is no salvation for the Christian.

I stated good works in not enough for salvation but must be accompanied by the underlying faith.
Note it is possible for person indifferent to Christianity to pretend to be baptized, swear all the necessary and be accepted as a “Christian” by a recognized Church. S/he pretended to be a Christian to gain favors like political, recognition, commercial, marriage, etc. then do loads of good works to convince others but sincerely lack the necessary faith required of a genuine Christian. God is all knowing, thus such a ‘Christian’ will not gain salvation because there was not genuine covenant in the first place.

I have not agreed to the “faith alone” verse.

Faith is a loose term but can be specific within what is defined in the NT.

Before a person become a Christian, he has to have faith in believing in a God.
In addition he has to have faith to accept the offer re John 3:16.

Once the person become a Christian after the covenant, then he proceed to carry on with his faith specifically in terms of the NT.

Note my argument why the specific condition of the criminals with Jesus is exceptional.

If Jesus can forgive any sin in any specific conditions, it will be qualified as in the case of the criminals on the cross with Jesus.
I have argued you cannot generalized.
If Jesus forgive any sin, it implied agreement with God and they have good justified reasons to do so, but only when a covenant is in place, earthly or eternally.

I don’t believe Jesus and God will portray themselves as so stupid morally to introduce a generalization principle which can be abused. This has to be a necessary assumption since God is claimed to be all-wise.

I find myself in t he odd position of defending (to some extent) Prism’s premise:

First, P goes too far in demanding a covenant relationship with God be proven from the gospels only, but this is a theological side issue with low relevance to the op…just thought it prudent to mention.

A literal reading of the Bible produces the sorts of strict requirements for membership in God’s family we seek, and determinations of God’s desires, character and the commands for membership also follows from the literal. There is, I gently suggest, a higher symbolic reading of the texts–which, contrary to most folks’ conception that symbolism and rationality are separate creatures, is in fact quite coherent and unified–by which one unorthodox interpretation can be gleaned in two aspects. 1) membership in God’s family in agents in time, rather than applied strictly to groups constituted by whole persons, is applied partially and progressively to every individual. From this point of view, every person is simultaneously both enemy and friend of God through Christ, a ‘work in progress’ if you will. Every person is “partially configured” in terms of cleanliness of the soul [truth-bearingness] and the abilities for moral belief that follow from this condition. The literal concentrates only on wholes. This results in discussion constantly taking place about trees while the forest is ignored.

  1. The second aspect is a temporal/eternal dualism. In eternity all are already members of God’s family and within His covenant. In time, there are factions, differences, oppositions, etc. But from this pool of ‘partially configured’ persons, there are individuals who have attained sufficient stature (I call them ‘suitably oriented agents’) by virtue of overcoming [with the limited power of the will available to effect the change] the natural propensity to believe falsely. These, often quite reluctantly, unite with [believe] truth sufficient to enter into the process of further cleansing (theological sanctification) to attain suitably oriented status in time by faith. The inner truth-bearingness necessary to attain suitable orientation isn’t rigidly defined. If it was, the sorts of clear-cut definitions Prism is seeking would be apparent. There are doubtless different requirements of truth-bearingness from God for each person because each person is constituted differently psychologically and physically. (Physical falsification–i.e., genetic deficiencies leading to below normal abilities to grasp and embrace moral content–logically create different requirements than healthier persons.)

So both literal (groups of individuals saved by faith; suitably oriented agents) and symbolic (partial ‘value configuration’ within each person/child of God) are concurrently valid realities. This, btw, is consistent with Paul’s astonishing elucidation in Rom 11 of a concurrent grafting in and/or out of the tree of life in Christ [vv. 17-24] by choice in contrast with–and apparent contradiction to–his announcement that all Israel will be saved [vv. 25-26]. The first speaks to the temporal reality, the second to the eternal. Include this as representation of my disagreement with Prism that only the gospels hold the salvation message.

One observation: a literal mindset leads to the idea that belief is a requirement for salvation, while the symbolic and allegorical reveals that belief is the natural outcome of being cleansed to a suitably oriented state (faith). Thus, Christ’s call to belief isn’t a command but a description of a state of being that must be attained in order to believe.

As I had stated the common ‘currency’ here is logical, sound and objective arguments. I believe I have provided that. If there is to be an agreement it would be based on the objective points.

My starting premise from the gospels is John 3:16, i.e.

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 obviously an offer of salvation [i.e. eternal life] by God to any one.
If anyone accept [acceptance] the above offer, i.e. believe in Jesus Christ, then there is an implied covenant with God via Jesus Christ as the intermediary.

A covenant is an agreement [or a divine contract] with God to establish a personal relation.
The above elements of ‘offer’ accompanied by an ‘acceptance’ constitute the basic foundation of a contract, in this case a divine contract or covenant.

Another critical element of any contract are the contractual terms, either explicitly or implicitly accepted and to be complied by both parties.
In this case, the contractual or covenanted terms are from God and that can only be from the Gospels.
The epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT are merely appendixes to the main contractual terms.
Thus to believe in Jesus Christ mean to agree with what the terms of the contract transmitted via Jesus Christs and recorded in the Gospels.

From the above, a Christian of Christianity per se is a person who has entered into a personal relationship with God via the establishment of a covenant [a divine contract] with God and the Christian to comply with the covenanted terms in the Gospels to the best of his/her abilities.

I don’t think there is anything extra can be stated in relation to the above covenant or divine contract a Christian had established with God via Jesus Christ. All the relevant element of a covenant or contract is present in a Christian’s relationship with the Christian God, i.e.

  1. Offer - John 3:16
  2. Acceptance - believe in Jesus Christ
  3. Terms of contract - as in the Gospels
  4. Considerations - surrender to God

Anything to do with Paul, epistles, acts, relevant verses from the OT, they must be aligned in principle with the main contractual terms within the Gospels.

One good analogy is, a husband and wife relationship, there must a sense of offer, a proposal by the male, and acceptance by the female. This agreement can be made legal via a marriage contract recognize by law. Even if there is no legal contract, a contract can often be inferred from evidences e.g. as in common law marriages. The difference is there are no written contractual terms [unless a nuptial agreement and terms are drawn] by many of the terms are implied or can negotiated.

BTW, what I initially agreed with you on is proceeding on sound arguments. In my post I mentioned an alternative allegorical interpretation which I claim is more sound, logical and accurate than the literal reading you and most Christians embrace.

But you’re focusing on a single part of Scripture --the covenant contract–to the exclusion of the rest of the Bible. God acknowledges in a number of places in the Bible that those with whom He originally had a contract–the Hebrews–repeatedly broke it. He thus spelled out that in spite of their rejection of the covenant, He would, in faithfulness to His character and nature, both annul the apostate Hebrews’ new contract with death but impose His own will and force life on them:
[b]Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem, Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we have made a pact. The overwhelming scourge will not reach us when it passes by, For we have made falsehood our refuge and we have concealed ourselves with deception.”

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
"And I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the level; Then hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters shall overflow the secret place.
"And your covenant with death shall be canceled, And your pact with Sheol shall not stand; When the overwhelming scourge passes through, Then you become its trampling place.
“As often as it passes through, it will seize you. For morning after morning it will pass through, anytime during the day or night. And it will be sheer terror to understand what it means.” (Isa 28:14-19)[/b]
Because Christianity still holds mostly to the literal, most can’t see that the covenant was broken and a new covenant–God will take matters into His own hand and save every person from the death we so love, as laid out in the Isaiah passage above–is now in place. The terror to understanding what it means refers imo to the eventual realization that one is being destroyed and killed in essence (destruction of falsity in the soul) for those who reject faith by gradual cleansing sanctification in life, which according to Scripture bears some resemblance to being burned alive. But even those who cling stubbornly to their death [love of falsehood] in this life are restored to a true state even in the midst of death by combustion. As death suffers its death, the soul is simultaneously restored to life; death and resurrection, the twofold highest principles of the Bible, enacted in every soul. God doesn’t ask permission, He rolls up His sleeves and goes to war with the root cause of sin [falsity] in the soul (Isa 42:13), which is ultimately an act not of wrath, but of love (Isa 42:3)…we’re all 'dimly burning wick’s, destined to be restored to eternal life.

Fast forward to Christ. The literal, which naturally induces the “flesh”, or admits its adherents to God’s wrath, only hear the harshness of the contract: [u]accept or die![/u] This is to a large degree why Paul struggled to hold his flock within the realm of grace; the fragmentally falsified soul has a natural propensity to redirect the mind from grace back to the death that comes with the literal: "For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Gal 6:8) [Spirit and flesh, a phrase used by Paul, John, Jesus and Peter is a metaphor (except where in context it obviously speaks to physical flesh) for light/darkness, good/evil, and ultimately (as spelled out in the metaphysical hypothesis I use) reduces to truth and falsity.

Thus, your insistence that the contract is still in force is based on a false premise, with my emph.:

But I’ve shown that the contract was cancelled centuries ago, which Paul more than the other Apostles saw and taught. Paul teaches correctly, atheist and Christian alike should listen more closely to him.

I’ve posted on several theology boards a defense of the position that God established in the first book of the Bible in metaphor the utter impossibility that any human being can be rejected by Him forever much less condemned to eternal torture. The fact that this doctrine still abides today is evidence of descent to terrible doctrines the path of literalism leads when we lean too heavily on it.

I believe the missed point is,
I view there is a general covenant [sort of treaty-like] between humans and God in general but the specific person still have to enter into a personal covenant with God.

It is like the USA may sign a general trade treaty [NAFTA or the new one] between the governments with very general terms.
However to do real business, the individual[s] must still establish specific business contract to effect trade contractually.

My focus in this case is, regardless of the past, the individual Christian is one who has to enter into a personal relationship with God by establishing a covenant with God by accepting the offer of salvation by God re John 3:16. and thus to comply with the covenanted terms as in the Gospels.
This is accompanied by baptism, declaration of surrender to God, belief in Jesus Christ thus invoking a covenant, explicitly or implicitly.

Would you agree the above processes constitute a specific covenant as reflected in the universal principles an agreement or contract?
If there is no covenant, the Christian [as defined] will have no grounds and basis of belief at all to hope to be saved by God.
So within the covenant, the Christian must comply with the covenanted terms to merit salvation with eternal life in paradise.

Whatever is ‘Christianity’ is very specific to Jesus Christ only and thus the Gospels related to Christ.
Thus, the covenanted terms has to be very specific which along with John 3:16 are only the Gospels.
Whatever is in the epistles and acts are merely appendixes to the covenant of Christianity and to the Christian.
The OT [old terms] are abrogated and since it related, what is relevant from the OT is conditioned upon its agreement with the terms in the Gospels.

Paul could have said and expected whatever, but that is merely a later exposition and guide as appendix to the effective covenanted terms. It is not Paulianity but it is Christianity.

But if by your claim that a person “[has] to enter into a personal covenant with God” you mean a person is obligated by this contract to willfully agree to it in order to receive eternal salvation, I say again: your insistence that the contract is still in force is based on a false premise. I explained why that initial contractual arrangement was done away with centuries ago and provided text that supports my claim. I don’t claim that a large portion of Christians through history including today would disagree with your premise, just that this majority is mistaken. They still “hear” the terror of the law (conform or die!)–including those (Calvinistic/sovereign grace) Christians who claim to understand and embrace grace. The salvation offered for accepting Christ has been relegated to a temporal arrangement; the eternal portion of the covenant has been revoked. Review the Isa 28:14-19 verses supplied previously.

Accepting and following Christ in time secures the easy way to salvation, but salvation and restoration to perfection is everyone’s destiny. We’re given a choice to be cleansed of our falsity the easy or hard way, but cleansing/restoration God has declared to the entire race. Think of it like this: Falsity is a cancer. The removal of this cancer requires a two part process: destruction of the false state (death) and restoration to a true state (resurrection). By accepting Christ or conforming to Truth in this life one is brought through the process of sanctification to a state of faith, which is like a ‘cross the border free’ card. Those who haven’t the card upon leaving this life will undergo the same death/resurrection but their falsity will be removed in a terrible “all at once”
“Therefore through this Jacob’s iniquity will be forgiven; And this will be the full price of the pardoning of his sin: When he makes all the altar stones like pulverized chalk stones; When Asherim and incense altars will not stand” (Isa 27:9) Jacob represents God’s chosen. I can make an argument and support it in Genesis that every human is necessarily chosen. Asherim=false gods, i.e., idolatry arguably produced by the fragmental falsification of human essence (the soul) which produces all manner of the pursuit and embrace of falsehood (sin). In other words, God targets not the individual but the ‘spiritual cancer’ within which causes sin and repairs it.

As explained in last post and above–assuming by this contract you believe that it pertains to the reception of eternal life–I agree that the initial contract “Conform or die!”, which probably a majority of Christians imo mistakenly still apply to the content you’ve laid out here, is a demonstrable doctrinal error. That command has long since been invalidated and replaced with a covenant of grace, by which choice plays no role in the eternal destiny of each person, but does offer temporal benefit to those who conform.

This is why atheists love tearing into Christianity and illustrates one connection between literalism and atheism. Such arguments are seen to have force–and can logically be used to pick doctrine apart–as long as one can hold Christians to the letter of the law. Fortunately, as alluded to above and previously, the “letter of the law” covenant produced by the harshness of literalism is gone and has been replaced with a much better covenant for every person

But I demonstrated that Paul strived to show that the very same holding to the letter of the law you’re trying to impose is a distortion of the Scriptural record, Prism. Your insistence that epistolary content must conform to the letter of the law covenant (and much of it does) or be excluded has no legitimate basis. Where is the authority for decrees like this? What in the texts supports this notion?

You appear to conveniently sidestep the proof I offer that you’re mistaken in order to stubbornly push an agenda. How are you any different from a ‘pick-n-choose’ Christian if you pick and choose only those parts of the Bible relevant to the case you wish to build? The explanation that counters your argument is drawn from the entire Bible. It’s disingenuous to dismiss without consideration those parts of the Bible that disturb your synthesis.

I was not referring to the initial contractual arrangement in Isa 28:14-19.

I would want to avoid the term “has” or “have to” re “[has] to enter into a personal covenant with God

I am referring to a Christian’s present circumstances as a human being who was born sinful thus destined to Hell.
I believe ALL those who are Christian [as defined] are expecting or look forward to eternal life in heaven, i.e. avoiding the threat and possibility of going to Hell.
Do you agree or dispute this point?

Accordingly it is only the Christian God who can deliver the Christian to heaven with eternal life, thus avoiding the threat of Hell.

The point is how can a Christian expect to go to heaven with eternal life and avoiding Hell, if there is no offer or promise from God?
This offer is made explicitly in the Gospels, i.e. John 3:16,

John 3:16 [KJV: ]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.

Do you dispute the above as an offer from God?

To be granted the offer of a promise to have eternal life in heaven and avoiding Hell, the person must accept the offer to believes in Jesus Christ - the one and only son.

Now, when the believer accept the offer, a covenant is implied if not made explicitly.
So it is not a question the believer MUST enter into a covenant, rather the covenant is implied if the believer accept the offer of eternal life in heaven so there is a contractual obligation for God to deliver eternal life and the Christian has to agree to comply with the covenanted terms of the covenant.

A Christian cannot be simply defined by whatever, but specifically defined as

A Christian is person who has accepted the offer by God of eternal life in paradise with reference to John 3:16 [or similar verses], thus implying a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted termsstipulated by God in the Gospels.

In any contract or agreement, the contracted terms need to be established.
In the case of the Christian’s covenant with God it has to be confined to the Gospels in relation to Jesus Christ as the intermediary to God.
It cannot be specific to the OT since the whole of the OT is abrogated but relevant verses in alignment with the Gospels can be used as a guide.

Similarly, the epistles and acts are not directly related to Jesus Christ, but they are related thus are expositions and appendix to the covenant of the Christian of Christianity. Note how the usual contract are supported by explanatory notes, appendixes [not addendum] which are not contractually binding to the main contract.
study.com/academy/lesson/addend … rence.html

I believe what I had presented is very objective within the Framework of Christianity and its theology.

Salvation is not every humans’ destiny.
Not every human, because a non-christian do not have to agree with the offer by God re John 3:16.
Therefore any human who hope for salvation via the Christian God’s offer re John 3:16 has to accept the offer before it can be effective. The acceptance via belief in Jesus Christ spontaneously invoke a covenant between God and the Christian where both parties promise to deliver their obligations with the covenant.

As I had argued, the covenanted the Christian has ‘binded’ with God re John 3:16 is confined within his personal time.
Thus your references to Isa 27:9-14-22 are not valid terms to the new covenant with its specific covenanted terms stipulated in the Gospels.

The covenant I refer to has nothing to do with the initial contract in Isa 19-22.
Say, if Ahmed, a Muslim want to convert to be a Christian today - 1/6/2019 - Ahmed will have to accept the offer in John 3:16 and a new covenant is effected and effective from 1/6/2019 which has nothing to do with the past prior to 1/6/2019. Ahmed now being a Christian would have to comply with the covenanted terms stipulated by God in the Gospels, supported by other notes to the covenant.

The point is Ahmed has to be objective to the doctrine of Christianity, and he just cannot follow the opinions of human beings.

Point is a Christian must be objective within the Framework of Christianity which grounded firmly of Jesus Christ’s experiences and words as reported by the apostles in the Gospels.

I had argued whatever Paul strove or stated his views are merely his opinions and views. Paul being human unlike Jesus as Son of God, cannot give divine tenets and whatever Paul expounded, it must be within the ambit of the Gospels.
Again this is very objective.

I have demonstrated All those who are Christians would have invoked and activated a new individual covenant with God upon acceptance of the offer re John 3:16 and to comply with the covenanted terms with the hope of a promise of eternal life from God.
I have also argued objectively why the Gospels re Jesus Christ is the only source that contains the covenanted terms of the Christian. The epistles and acts are merely appendixes to the covenant together with relevant verses from the OT.

The OT has to be abrogated, otherwise the loads of evil and violent verses in the OT will identify God as a very cruel and despicable God. Thus what is still relevant in the OT has to align with the overriding main covenanted terms from the Gospels of love all -even enemies.

Prismatic,

I don’t believe that your interpretation is entirely incorrect, but except for John 3:16, where is any of this stated in the Bible? Where is it stated that God has a contractual obligation to the Christian? Or that a Christian is as you’ve defined? My understanding is that God has made a promise, he is therefore bound by his honour not a contract. That there is a covenant suggests that he will fulfil his promise, but to say that he has a contractual obligation is in my view a secularisation of scripture. We cannot conflate divine and secular ideals or understand what is divine from a secular perspective, because logic doesn’t strictly apply with so called divine entities. With secular notions we can refer to empirical things, but with divine notions we have to refer to the scriptures/holy texts relating to the specific religion as an authority. Since none of what you claim is actually stated in the Bible, I don’t see the logic in you propounding it so adamantly. John 3:16 makes it clear that only belief in Jesus is necessary to enter heaven/have eternal life, and Jesus himself does not appear to contradict this idea. So if only belief Jesus is necessary where does complying with the terms of the covenant enter the equation? What are these terms you speak of and why do you call them “terms”?

Okay, we’re not on the same page. The Isa 28 passage is God’s cancellation of the original contract. The Hebrews (who were merely a prototype of everyman) repeatedly violated the contract with God and opted for death. The Isa passage lays out the framework for the NEW covenant of grace, where God is essentially declaring their contract with death itself (by virtue of their recurring violation of His original covenant with them) annulled. He was condemning the spiritual death they chose (and every human chooses) to death. This, for me, is one of the most direct pointers to the salvation of every person to be found in the Old Testament.

But this is false. Some of the OT—what pertains to God’s original covenant—is abolished, true. But a huge part of the OT establishes and is a presager of the new covenant of grace. To exclude the entire OT on the basis it doesn’t apply to salvation in Christ is like basing the history of WW2 on Hitler’s diary alone to the exclusion of any documents from the allies containing their side of the story.

I disagree. I consider those Christians who would agree with this proposition to be in error and following manmade doctrines (admittedly long-standing) that are in contradiction to the actual message of the Bible. I suspect strict fundamentalists would agree and jump in to argue with you. Evengelicals would likely agree on the the salvific framework you present, but would have better arguments than their fundamentalist brethren. Many—maybe most—in the mainline churches also still believe in an eternal hell, but these folks are (in my experience) more laid back in their personal theology and not likely to argue the deeper theological points. Progressives would be anywhere from full agreement with you to mild disagreement. I’m usually held to be a unsalvageable liberal from my brethren on the right and just shy of a fundamentalist by those on the left.

I doubt we can walk any further down this path, Prismatic. Your insistence that [u]“I have demonstrated All those who are Christians would have invoked and activated a new individual covenant with God upon acceptance of the offer re John 3:16 and to comply with the covenanted terms with the hope of a promise of eternal life from God.
I have also argued objectively why the Gospels re Jesus Christ is the only source that contains the covenanted terms of the Christian
[/u] …fails to be either accurate or objective as I see it. Peace out. Finis.

Note the offer of eternal life is very specific in John 3:16 [ perhaps reflected the same in other verses - need to confirm on this].

Note I have argued elsewhere re connection between the existential crisis/dilemma and the striving for eternal life to avoid mortality of the soul as the central purpose of all theistic religions, thus Christianity in this case. This striving for eternalism for one’s soul is very common in all religions, Islam’s paradise [with 72 virgins] and reincarnation in Hinduism, even non-theistic ones, e.g. rebirth in Buddhism.
As for Hell, that is debatable and can be set aside.

Note if you have established a personal relationship with God, then there is already an implied basic covenant/agreement with God. God would not agree with this personal relationship if you have not agreed to God’s offer re John 3:16 which is grounded on the beliefs of the Gospels.

Are you claiming, as a Christian you are not striving for eternal life in heaven? Are you saying, as Christian, once the person die, then there is nothing else to it - no eternal life? Are you insisting you are not establishing any personal relationship with God. If you are all these, then the most you can be is a pseudo-Christian.