Who is a Christian?

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

You got this wrong.
The Wiki reference is only related to point 1 re baptism.
The other two points are from my own inference re Principles of Contract and involving surrendering of one's will to god.

So I did. My apologies, I thought that, because of the way that you clustered the points together, they were from the same Wiki quote. I'm not sure if the principles of contract law apply in the same way they do with the New Covenant. So I'm not going to draw a definite conclusion, as you have done.

What I did was very conventional where I put the reference just after the point, otherwise I would have put the reference at the end to cover all the above points.

My point is out of 100% of people who are baptized, some % [1-5%] may not be sincere but got baptized for various reasons of convenience, e.g. marriage, family, social, political, finances, etc.

How do you know this, by inference?

This inference is based from what I have read of and personal experience with people who are Christians.
Do you have evidence to show doubts in my inference?

It the same point as above. Yes, some may choose to be baptized for pragmatic reasons other than being genuinely surrendering their will to God without effecting a covenant with God. But this percentage is very Low.

How do you know if the percentage is high or low?

Again is from personal experiences and what I have read of.
Those who are baptized without seriously volunteering are those who are Christians because the follow the religion [Christianity] of their spouse, i.e. in name sake only but not serious in the faith or for political convenience, e.g. I don't believe Trump is a serious Christian, nor did he surrender his will [egoistic, narcissistic] to a God. Note the pastors who are homosexual, pedophiles, etc.

You keep mentioning Jesus with Christianity, but whatever Jesus said as in the Gospels are spoken on behalf God who has the ultimate authority.

I do, and that is relevant in relation to this discussion, Jesus is the reason for the existence of Christianity. As according to the Bible Jesus is God, he is an authority in and of himself. Consider what he stated in Matthew 28:18. Jesus' words are construed as the explicit words of God.

I know the above is the obvious, but you seem to place too high a weightage on Jesus as the critical [sole] criteria in one being a Christian. I have stated Jesus is merely the intermediary or son of God, but the ultimate authority is with God.

Those who merely follow what Jesus is without understanding God is the ultimate authority, they are pseudo-Christians.

By definition, a genuine follower of Jesus acknowledges the authority God. I don't believe there is an adult Christian who doesn't understand nature of the relationship between God and Jesus. I think that all adult Christians are aware of what Jesus said in John 10:30-38.

I agree, but my focus is on the ultimate authority, i.e God. Those who merely accept Jesus but not God, there are such people, they are merely pseudo-Christians.

Where did I state New Covenant.
The principle is there must be a covenant [technically] between God and the believer.
This is based on the Principles of the Laws of Contract.

Christianity is the New Covenant, the New Testament conveys the promise of the New Covenant, they are inextricably linked. As such, the New Covenant is otherwise referred to as the New Testament.
I'm not going to commit to the idea that the New Covenant is based upon the principles of contract law. There may be similar or correlating elements, but I don't think they are exactly the same. I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just not sure.

Point is I did not state 'New Covenant.' Whichever, the point is there is in principle an existing valid covenant between a Christian [genuine] and God via Jesus.

You cannot recognized the existence of a contract because you are not that familiar with the principles and imperative elements of a valid contract.

My argument on who is a Christian is determined by the following;
1. Baptism - done by 90% of Christians, - weightage 10%
2. Surrender of one's will to God, w = 30%
3. Establishment of a covenant between God and the Christian – 60%

You are entitled to your views, but I think this is difficult to argue. Is this a claim, if so, is there any supporting evidence?

Whilst you earlier denied baptism is critical, but you somehow agree it is below.
I have already provided evidence baptism is done by >90% of Christians re a Wiki listing and analysis I posted somewhere above.
Note the Surrender of Will to God is supported by the Bible, you need to read the full Wiki article, not just the portion I posted.
Covenant is supported by the Principles of the Law of Contract.

The above support my view that there is a covenant between a Christian and God, with Jesus as the mediator.

I'm not debating that there is a Covenant.

I insist the Covenant [implied and explicit] is imperative in one being a Christian.
Only the insincere pseudo-Chrstians will not enforce a real covenant with God.

In this case, objective is with reference to support from

1.the Bible;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion)#In_Christianity

2. The General Principles of the Law of Contract

Perhaps I've missed where you've referenced the Bible in support of your argument? Does the Bible explicitly state in the NT that a person must surrender their will to God? I'm aware that concept is propounded by Christian's, but I don't think it is explicitly stated in the New Testament? If not, how have you inferred that it is implied? It is difficult to claim that interpretations are objective in discussions like these. If, as you claim, your view is objective in respect to this discussion, does this mean that subjective view points are inherently wrong or that yours is prevailing? I don't think so. Even if the New Covenant correlates with contract law, can you explain why that makes your view objective?

If the New Covenant is subject to the principles of contract law, we would be able to find both the "express and implied terms" within the New Testament.[/quote]
You have to read the full chapter in this link to note the Biblical verses from NT supported by other verses;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion)#In_Christianity

Btw, I googled on the topic and have read at least 20 articles on the subject.

As far as I'm aware, there are very few aspects of the NT that we could define as “express terms” because Jesus explicitly stated they were necessary to enter heaven. Which I believe are:

1) Believing that Jesus is the son of God.
2) Baptism.

If we are to consider the above as being “express terms” then I think the "implied terms" would be:

1) Having faith.
2) Being born again.

Personally, I cannot see how a person surrendering their will to God is implied here. Since a person can both believe that Jesus is the son of God and be baptised, without doing so. If a person doesn't surrender their will to God, do you think that would mean the Covenant is void? I don't think that it would, because none of the “terms” have been breached.

Earlier you doubted baptism, now you are affirming its importance.
Regardless I am giving it only a 10% weightage.

I agree with "Having faith" and thus in surrendering one's will to God.
As for "being born again" that is a resultant of the above two elements.

Another principle central to the Christian concept of surrender is the concept of surrender to God's Will.
Surrendering to God's will entails both the "surrender of our will to His in macrocosm", in which His plan prevails over man's and the adversary, and secondarily to the surrender of one's will for individual life to "His will for our personal lives in microcosm." This is done through the emptying or dying of self, the "putting self aside" in favor of divine influence. This includes the idea of surrendering to a call. The corollary of this personal surrender is obedience, and obedience to God is denoted as bringing about His will, having lasting effects, and often associated with earthly and divine blessings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion)#In_Christianity

You are using a Wiki quote as a supporting reference for your conclusion:
"“Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].”, I wasn't completely wrong.
I'm not debating that surrender to God's will is an aspect of Christianity, I just fail to see where it is stated explicitly in the Bible (NT) and I don't infer how it is implied. From my perspective, it is an interpretation (which may well be correct), not a condition of the New Covenant.

As I had stated you have to read the who section in the link I provided as implied in those mentioned. I believe surrender is an essential element in the whole context of the gospels.

I have argued, believing in Jesus as son is essential, but the ultimate is believing in God.

Within Christianity, God and Jesus are recognised as the same being, he is everything that God is. That is why Jesus is worshipped as God.

The most Jesus get to is being the son-of-God even though Jesus claimed to be God which implied being a representative of God. Jesus is merely 'a molecule of H20' within the ocean of God.

Re surrendering one's will to God, note the supporting I have provided above.

Supporting your conclusion with Wiki, inferences and interpretations, does not in my view, make it conclusive. I don't believe that there is a conclusive argument for "who is a Christian". I am of the opinion that one need only sincerely believe in Jesus to be considered a Christian, I believe that the NT supports that view, but others would disagree.

As I had stated the above I have inferred from what I have read of Christianity from tons of resources and from personal observations.

It is necessary that one should read the OP before participating in any thread.

I did, your conclusion on "who is a Christian" is stated in the OP. My point is, if you've reached a conclusion in OP, the question is not open-ended, because you already think that you know the answer. It's like your asking to be proven wrong or convinced otherwise, rather than openly discussing the subject. If you believed you were right from the start, why bother asking at all? It seems pointless. From my reading of this thread, it seems as though you only accredit validity to arguments which agree with what you're arguing, as if to disagree with you is to err, which makes it seems as though you're as though you're being rhetorical. I do not mean this as a criticism, that is just how I perceive things.

You argument is pointless.
Obviously I have to defend my thesis [& premises] until it is proven wrong objectively. it is the same everywhere, i.e. as in Science, Courts, wherever of integrity.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

Do you think it would it be incorrect or illogical to claim that: Because all genuine Christians believe in Jesus, the most basic, and most objective definition of a Christian, is someone who genuinely believes in Jesus.
From which it follows that, if someone sincerely declares themselves to believe in Jesus then that person is a Christian. Since, the most fundamental condition required of a Christian is that they believe in Jesus, we may consider someone a Christian solely due to the content of their belief and what their belief leads them to do.

If you think the above is incorrect or illogical, can you please explain why?

Also, you stated that:

I have raised the OP to counter Serrendipper's crazy idea that one is a Christian as long as one declares oneself to be a Christian.

OP wrote:
I had a discussion with Serendipper who claimed that any one can be a Christian as long as s/he claimed to be a Christian and do what s/he thinks is necessary to fit that definition.

You've claimed that Serendipper is incorrect because he believes that “any one can be a Christian as long as s/he claimed to be a Christian and do what s/he thinks is necessary to fit that definition.” (I don't know if he stated that exactly, but I'll take your word for it), but how is that contrary to, or so distant from your conclusion of “Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].”? Your conclusion could be something that Serendipper describes as "is necessary to fit that definition", his conclusion does not preclude yours.

Now, I'm not arguing that your conclusion is wrong, I think it is reasonable to surmise, but very conservative. I don't believe that it is objective, or defines who is a Christian to such an exact degree that all other definitions should not be considered as valid, it is an interpretation of the NT and I think that what Serendipper claims is too.

Even if Jesus provided a specific definition of who is a Christian in the Bible, we would be free to discuss if we thought that definition was correct or incorrect, but what that would give us is an authority. We don't have such an authority to refer to in this discussion, so we can't measure how close or far we are to defining who is a Christian as according to an explicit Biblical definition. We have to rely upon how closely our interpretations, arguments and conclusions mirror that of the NT, and I don't believe Serendipper's claim is so far from the message of the NT as to be called “crazy”. This is not an ad populum point, but there are many people who would agree with what Serendipper claims, and I think that the same goes for what you conclude, does that mean that those who agree with him are crazy and people who agree with you are not? I don't think so, his view represents one of the myriad of views on what constitutes a Christian, as do yours and mine.

Note Serendipper's argument was anyone who declares to be a Christian is A Christian!
Whatever that Christian does that is deemed to fit his belief is up to that Christian alone, not a Church's, a congregation, the Bible, etc.
If this is the case, then these Christians are likely to belong to extreme cults rather than Christian-proper.

Would you accept the Christians of the Children of God [sex oriented] as genuine Christians?
https://twentytwowords.com/terrifying-f ... -god-cult/
They will insist they are the genuine Christians but in principle they are pseudo-Christians.

[Prismatic567]

I can't speak for Serendipper, but I think we must consider the topic as one between four people, you me, S and P, who are not Christians, deciding who they each think of as Christian. It is a situation. We are not discussing the composition of water. This is a kind of social, epistemological problem of a completely different kind.

None of us are in a position to separate the wheat from the chaff. For epistemological and social reasons.

I think it makes sense, in general, to accept that anyone who says they are a Christian, is one.
For practical reasons and out of epistemological humility on two grounds: we cannot, by definition, know which Christian authority to believe, including individuals and sects,and we cannot know other minds. Perhaps we might later find evidence that seems to contradict this, but otherwise we are dealing with the problem of other minds and also, not being Christians, we cannot bring choose amongst the various Christian authorities to rulle any out.

How the hell do I evaluate if some has surrendered to the will of God? Or even that they believe in Jesus, a very vague concept with no real measurable criteria. And people are notoriously not always correct about what they believe. They have official beliefs, but mixed feelings and counterbeliefs that are egodystonic.

My sense is we can come up with practical definitions for ourselves. What we would tend to accept when Christians assert their identity or people assert they are Christians. What we do with that.

But a bunch of nonChristians, even if one is an ex Christian, thinking they can even define what a Christian is that might rule out someone who thinks they are a Christian is just silly.

P needs to do it, because it is part of his polemic against Islam. Or thinks he needs to.

I see no reason to decide which people are Christians amongst those who claim to be.

Be like me feeling like I could tell people whether they really like their dreams, when they claim to, or that they are not, for example, Giants fans. No, you have to wave the banner more at games.

Your argument is terribly wrong.

Note Christianity is a mainstream religion recognized legally in many countries.
Surely the Laws of these countries has recognized Christianity and Who is a Christian objectively in order to practice the related laws objectively.
This is one obvious point why a Christian cannot be simply be one who simply declares oneself to be a Christian.

What I did was to be more rigorous and deliberate on a more deeper philosophical perspective based on acceptable principles, i.e.

A Christian is;

1. Where one who is baptized [10% weightage] if not, then imperatively must,
2. Had surrendered one will to God via "faith-Fanman's point"
3. Had voluntarily entered into a covenant [contract] with God.

I had provided evidences for all of the above points.

[Prismatic567]

Fanman,

You claimed to know the principles of the Law of Contract but I wonder.

Here are the essential elements that must be activated for any contract to be valid;

steps required to form a VALID contract

The law of contract states that

1. the first step required to form a valid contract is that an offer must be formally made by one of the parties to another. A common example to elucidate upon this principle is found in the sale of property; the purchaser, in this example, must make an offer to purchase the underlying property. This offer may include simplistic or complex terms, but it must be concrete and affirmed through written documentation.

2. Following the offer, the contract, as stated by the law of contract, must be accepted by the offered party.
Using the sale of property as an example, the seller must affirmatively accept the offer; the original offer may be accepted in a written or spoken form.
If the offered party proposes a counteroffer, an acceptance is not realized. When a court determines whether or not an offer and acceptance was realized, the judicial body using the law of contract will look for a formal meeting or a concurrence of wills to decide if the requirements latent in the offer and acceptance statutes of the law of contract had been satisfied.

3. Lastly, the basic principles of the law of contract will require consideration to be given for the contract to maintain a legal or valid status. Consideration simply means that something of value was exchanged between the agreeing parties. In most instances, the consideration takes the form of money or an asset that holds considerable value.
In some scenarios; however, consideration can take the form of refraining from performing a function or doing something that the party is otherwise entitled to initiate.
Regardless of the form, the consideration given must be sufficient, but does not need to be adequate to validate the stipulations latent in the contract.

https://contract-law.laws.com/law-of-contract

The offer is made by God via Jesus within the Gospels.

The believer will volunteer to accept the offer via baptism or other explicit declarations followed by the consideration.

In most contract the consideration is in terms of a financial consideration, i.e. at least 1$.
There are exception within implied contracts.
The consideration within a contract with God is need not be financial but in this case [note the exception above] it is the faith and surrender/submit of one's will to God where no believer who declare can bullshit an omnipresent and all-powerful God.

The main terms of the covenant/contract are within the Gospels supported by relevant appendixes from the OT and other chapters in the OT.

Point is regardless of your denial, there exists a covenant/contract that exists between God and a Christian.
This is not only by principle but the covenant [you even mention New Covenant] is implied in the Gospels and Bible.
Read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(biblical)

In the case of the Covenant between Allah and a Muslim and being a Muslims, it is very clearly stated in the Quran, i.e.

Just as being a Christian, in principles to qualify as a Muslim, one must commit the following;

1. Declare the Shahadah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahada
2. Submit one's will to Allah
3. Entered into a covenant with Allah to obey Allah's words as in the Quran.

The above are supported by verses from the words of Allah in the Quran.

[Fanman]

I'm going to leave this discussion Prismatic, thanks for your time.

I'd like to make a few points in signing off, as I think that you've misrepresented some of my statements.

I agree, but my focus is on the ultimate authority, i.e God. Those who merely accept Jesus but not God, there are such people, they are merely pseudo-Christians.

I don't think that there is such a thing as a Christian who accepts Jesus, but rejects God. It doesn't seem possible to me, because a Christian believes they are one and the same. Many Jews don't accept Jesus as the Messiah (Son of God), but I've never in my life heard of or encountered a Christian who rejects God. Such a position, from my perspective, borders on being an oxymoron.

Point is I did not state 'New Covenant.' Whichever, the point is there is in principle an existing valid covenant between a Christian [genuine] and God via Jesus.

??? The New Testament is the New Covenant. It doesn't matter if you state one or the other, people will know what you mean. Of course there is a covenant, that is a moot point.

You cannot recognized the existence of a contract because you are not that familiar with the principles and imperative elements of a valid contract.

How do you know that? The basis of your assertion here is based upon what I've written in this topic – that is a hasty conclusion, and as such it is incorrect. I am familiar with contract law, not in the sense of being an expert, but I recognise the principles. That is why I'm not willing to say that I know the New Covenant complies to the principles of contract law. If your going to insult my intelligence so flatly, without even really knowing me, why would I have a discussion with you? That is how you make enemies. At least when I take a pop at you, I do so with a jovial spirit.

Whilst you earlier denied baptism is critical, but you somehow agree it is below.
I have already provided evidence baptism is done by >90% of Christians re a Wiki listing and analysis I posted somewhere above.
Note the Surrender of Will to God is supported by the Bible, you need to read the full Wiki article, not just the portion I posted.
Covenant is supported by the Principles of the Law of Contract.

You've misinterpreted what I stated, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I don't think that the act of baptism necessarily makes someone a Christian. I thought that I made it clear when I said “As far as I'm aware, there are very few aspects of the NT that we could define as “express terms” because Jesus explicitly stated they were necessary to enter heaven.” I was referencing what Jesus said was necessary to enter heaven. Not my own opinion.

As I had stated you have to read the who section in the link I provided as implied in those mentioned. I believe surrender is an essential element in the whole context of the gospels.

As far as I'm aware, there is no explicit claim in the New Testament that someone *must* surrender their will to God in order to validate the New Covenant. The Wiki quote is an interpretation of Biblical verses. I don't even think the word "surrender", in the context you mean is explicitly stated in the anywhere in the Bible. I could be wrong, but google isn't bring up any direct quotes. If it isn't in the Bible then it is completely inferred. If it was explicitly stated I would find it difficult to argue, within the context of this discussion, but as I can't find it (after looking) I am fully entitled to agree or disagree. There's a lot of weight behind the concept of "a person surrendering their will to God", in terms of how heavily it is propounded, but I'm not certain about it, in the context of this discussion.

You argument is pointless.
Obviously I have to defend my thesis [& premises] until it is proven wrong objectively. it is the same everywhere, i.e. as in Science, Courts, wherever of integrity.

Where are the stages of your thesis?

Note Serendipper's argument was anyone who declares to be a Christian is A Christian!
Whatever that Christian does that is deemed to fit his belief is up to that Christian alone, not a Church's, a congregation, the Bible, etc.
If this is the case, then these Christians are likely to belong to extreme cults rather than Christian-proper.

If they sincerely believe in Jesus, I don't see an epistemological problem. Serendipper's claim seems liberal, but not inherently wrong.

You claimed to know the principles of the Law of Contract but I wonder.

Here are the essential elements that must be activated for any contract to be valid;

Read here

It's been a long time since I studied contract law, but isn't the source that you're quoting from referring to the sale of goods? From my perspective, the New Covenant more resembles the laws associated with employment contracts. If you research the Old Testament/Covenant law, I think you'll see the point that I'm making here.

Point is regardless of your denial, there exists a covenant/contract that exists between God and a Christian.
This is not only by principle but the covenant [you even mention New Covenant] is implied in the Gospels and Bible.

This is a straw man. What denial are you referring to? If you mean in relation to the New Covenant, where did I state that there was no Covenant between God and a Christian? You need to clarify what you mean here.

[Prismatic567]

I thought it is very obvious re who is a genuine Christian. I was taken by surprise when Serrendipper came out with his version of who is Christian.

You cannot recognized the existence of a contract because you are not that familiar with the principles and imperative elements of a valid contract.

How do you know that? The basis of your assertion here is based upon what I've written in this topic – that is a hasty conclusion, and as such it is incorrect. I am familiar with contract law, not in the sense of being an expert, but I recognise the principles. That is why I'm not willing to say that I know the New Covenant complies to the principles of contract law. If your going to insult my intelligence so flatly, without even really knowing me, why would I have a discussion with you? That is how you make enemies. At least when I take a pop at you, I do so with a jovial spirit.

I did not intend to insult, not you especially. Objectively, it was my inference based on what you have posted.

As I had stated you have to read the who section in the link I provided as implied in those mentioned. I believe surrender is an essential element in the whole context of the gospels.

As far as I'm aware, there is no explicit claim in the New Testament that someone *must* surrender their will to God in order to validate the New Covenant. The Wiki quote is an interpretation of Biblical verses. I don't even think the word "surrender", in the context you mean is explicitly stated in the anywhere in the Bible. I could be wrong, but google isn't bring up any direct quotes.
If it isn't in the Bible then it is completely inferred. If it was explicitly stated I would find it difficult to argue, within the context of this discussion, but as I can't find it (after looking) I am fully entitled to agree or disagree. There's a lot of weight behind the concept of "a person surrendering their will to God", in terms of how heavily it is propounded, but I'm not certain about it, in the context of this discussion.

Note I come across surrender and submit to God very often in relation to Christianity.

What does the Bible say about surrender?
A very common theme throughout scripture is the encouragement to surrender before God.
Converse to surrendering to your instinctual interests, which can be selfish and destructive by nature, relinquishing yourself to God is to pursue truth and righteousness above all else. In this pursuit, we may also cast our distress upon God as we trust in Him in complete surrender. Discover how and why we should surrender to God from this collection of inspiring Bible verses!
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical ... le-verses/

There are many verses but note specifically James 4:7

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

You claimed to know the principles of the Law of Contract but I wonder.

Here are the essential elements that must be activated for any contract to be valid;

Read here

It's been a long time since I studied contract law, but isn't the source that you're quoting from referring to the sale of goods? From my perspective, the New Covenant more resembles the laws associated with employment contracts. If you research the Old Testament/Covenant law, I think you'll see the point that I'm making here.

The Principles of the Law of Contract is universal and the contract exists and is valid as long as all the essential elements are present, even if the parties did not consciously establish a contract.
I provided the above example to highlight the essential elements in a contract.
One of the consideration of a contract is it can be explicit or implied.
Note common law marriages without any legal papers are often implied from the acts of the couple.
When one study the Law of Contract, one will encounter many examples on how a court decide [in the absence of explicit evidences] on the existence of an implied valid contract [present of the essential elements] from the circumstances.

Point is regardless of your denial, there exists a covenant/contract that exists between God and a Christian.
This is not only by principle but the covenant [you even mention New Covenant] is implied in the Gospels and Bible.

This is a straw man. What denial are you referring to? If you mean in relation to the New Covenant, where did I state that there was no Covenant between God and a Christian? You need to clarify what you mean here.

From earlier posts you seem to disagree on the criticalness of the existence of a covenant between God and believer in deciding who is a genuine Christian.

For me, who is a Christian is based on the following critical criteria;

1. Baptism - 10%
2. Faith and surrender to God
3. Covenanted or contracted

The above is significant for the following points;

1. A Christian is contracted with God on the overriding term to love all and [even] his/her enemies.

2. A Muslim is contracted with Allah with the permission to kill non-Muslims [under the slightest threat to the religion].

As you can see, when a Christian killed, he is not contracted to kill by his religion, i.e. Christianity. In this case, he killed because he could not resist his own inherent murdering nature.

Whereas if a Muslim killed, he is contracted to kill by his religion primarily in exchange for a passage to paradise and not necessary because he is a murderer by nature.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

From earlier posts you seem to disagree on the criticalness of the existence of a covenant between God and believer in deciding who is a genuine Christian.

Can you quote me on that?

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

From earlier posts you seem to disagree on the criticalness of the existence of a covenant between God and believer in deciding who is a genuine Christian.

Can you quote me on that?

Note I proposed this;

Subsequently whoever is a Christian would have complied with the following;

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://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 the Gospels of the NT.

Re the above, baptism is merely the ritual and external form which is at least the minimal indication a person is a Christian.

But what is most critical is point 2 and 3.
God is supposed to be omnipresent and also a omnipotent to know what is in the hearts of a Christian.
Thus a Christian is ultimately one who has surrendered his will to God [who knows it] and explicit or implicit entered into a covenant with God [who knows it].
viewtopic.php?p=2725207#p2725207

Your response [in the same post] to the above was;

What is it with you and logical finality? I don't believe that your quote from wiki is the QED on what constitutes a Christian.
viewtopic.php?p=2725207#p2725207

I have stated point 2 [surrender] and 3 [covenant] are the critical elements to determine who is a Christian with baptism as a supporting point at 10% weightage.

In later posts you still dispute my point 2 and 3 as the critical determinant of who is a Christian.

Thus my point;

From earlier posts you seem to disagree on the criticalness of the existence of a covenant between God and believer in deciding who is a genuine Christian.

Most Christians or Muslims are not consciously aware they have entered into a binding contract with their respective God. But the fact is based on the circumstances there exist a covenant/contract between them and God.

This covenant is pivotal in determining why Christians are contracted to be pacifists while Muslims are contracted and bounded [by the immutable terms of the contract] to be violent.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

I have not disputed that there is a covenant between God and a Christian, the New Covenant. I'd just like to make that clear. If I did, you would have quoted it. Either you're misinterpreting what I stated, or I or have not been clear enough.

From earlier posts you seem to disagree on the criticalness of the existence of a covenant between God and believer in deciding who is a genuine Christian.

Again, this seems to be a straw man argument. What exactly did I state that has lead you to that conclusion? I don't recall discussing how critical the covenant is in deciding who is a genuine Christian, maybe I did, I'll have to check, but if I didn't, it seems as though you're trying to paint a picture of the nature of our discussion which implies that I am resistant to obvious points/truths, but the picture you're painting simply does not exist.

-- I have checked my posts in this topic, and I found no discussion between us regarding how critical the existence of a covenant between God and believer is in deciding who is a genuine Christian. What do you infer from that?

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

I have not disputed that there is a covenant between God and a Christian, the New Covenant. I'd just like to make that clear. If I did, you would have quoted it. Either you're misinterpreting what I stated, or I or have not been clear enough.

From earlier posts you seem to disagree on the criticalness of the existence of a covenant between God and believer in deciding who is a genuine Christian.

Again, this seems to be a straw man argument. What exactly did I state that has lead you to that conclusion? I don't recall discussing how critical the covenant is in deciding who is a genuine Christian, maybe I did, I'll have to check, but if I didn't, it seems as though you're trying to paint a picture of the nature of our discussion which implies that I am resistant to obvious points/truths, but the picture you're painting simply does not exist.

-- I have checked my posts in this topic, and I found no discussion between us regarding how critical the existence of a covenant between God and believer is in deciding who is a genuine Christian. What do you infer from that?

In my last post earlier, note I posted your reason for not agreeing the covenant is a critical constituent to who a Christian.

I posted in my earlier post, you stated;

What is it with you and logical finality?
I don't believe that your quote from wiki is the QED on what constitutes a Christian.
viewtopic.php?p=2725207#p2725207

In this case your reference to "your quote from wiki" included [albeit mistakenly] all the three elements, i.e including the need for a covenant as listed in the same post;

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://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 the Gospels of the NT.

To me 'covenant' is a critical element that constitutes who is a Christian, you disagree as above.

Therefore from the above,
at that time, you stated and did not believe the covenant is what constitutes a Christian QED.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

To me 'covenant' is a critical element that constitutes who is a Christian, you disagree as above.

Therefore from the above,
at that time, you stated and did not believe the covenant is what constitutes a Christian QED.

If someone doesn't believe that something represents a QED conclusion, that does not mean they reject, don't recognize or dispute it's importance or how critical it is, and I think you know that. "Critical" is a term that you introduced, not me. I did not debate with you how critical the covenant Is in defining who is a Christian, but for some reason, you've inferred that I did. From my perspective, the most critical element in determining who is a Christian, is belief in Jesus. Which does not mean I believe that conclusion is QED.

How have you construed that "critical" and "QED" mean the same thing?

[Fanman]

Content deleted.

[Fanman]

Content deleted.

[Fanman]

Sorry, for some reason I triple posted by mistake.

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

To me 'covenant' is a critical element that constitutes who is a Christian, you disagree as above.

Therefore from the above,
at that time, you stated and did not believe the covenant is what constitutes a Christian QED.

If someone doesn't believe that something represents a QED conclusion, that does not mean they reject, don't recognize or dispute it's importance or how critical it is, and I think you know that. "Critical" is a term that you introduced, not me. I did not debate with you how critical the covenant Is in defining who is a Christian, but for some reason, you've inferred that I did.
From my perspective, the most critical element in determining who is a Christian, is belief in Jesus. Which does not mean I believe that conclusion is QED.

How have you construed that "critical" and "QED" mean the same thing?

I presented three elements earlier which are essentially necessary for who is a Christian, i.e.

1. Baptism
2. Surrender to God
3. Covenant with God

They are critical to a QED [proof, conclusion] on who is a Christian.
When you do not agree to my QED as condition upon the 3 elements above, the implication is you do not agree the covenant [3] is critically essential for one to be a Christian.
I mentioned baptism is not critical, but 2 and ultimately the necessary covenant [2] is the most critical.

Note a belief in Jesus Christ [the intermediary or agent] implied and leads to a necessary covenant with God.
Jesus is represented as God at times, but Jesus is essentially the son of God.
Jesus is not wholly God. Believers do not enter into a covenant with Jesus Christ specifically but with God.

Note your employment-contract analogy.
If an employee believes in the CEO which is at times the Company [e.g. Steve Job], what is happening in reality is the employee is entering into a contract with Company not the CEO.
It is the same with believing in Jesus Christ which ultimately results in a covenant with God, thus my main point 3 above.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

When you do not agree to my QED as condition upon the 3 elements above, the implication is you do not agree the covenant [3] is critically essential for one to be a Christian.

No it doesn't, you have implied that. It is clearly your implication, not the implication. Let me be clear here, I did not and have not stated or implied that the covenant is not a critical element in defining a Christian, so I would appreciate it if you stopped saying that I did. I do not believe you've shown that "3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT." is QED, for me that position is open to question and interpretation, which does not mean that I think it isn't critical.

You've stated that:

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://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 the Gospels of the NT.

Do you believe this is QED?

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

When you do not agree to my QED as condition upon the 3 elements above, the implication is you do not agree the covenant [3] is critically essential for one to be a Christian.

No it doesn't, you have implied that. It is clearly your implication, not the implication. Let me be clear here, I did not and have not stated or implied that the covenant is not a critical element is defining a Christian, so I would appreciate it if you stopped saying that I did. I do not believe you've shown that "3. A Christian is a person who had entered into a covenant with God to obey the words of God via the Gospels of the NT." is QED, for me that position is open to question and interpretation, which does not mean that it isn't critical.

You've stated that:

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://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 the Gospels of the NT.

Do you believe this is QED?

Obviously I believe the above is QED, meaning to me it is conclusive proof and conclusion on who is a Christian.
The element of 'covenant' [contract] is the imperative premise in determining who is a Christian.
If there is no contract [explicit or implied] with the Christian God, there is no Christian - QED.

Note sure your understanding of QED is the same as mine, i.e.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

Q.E.D. (also written QED, sometimes italicized) is an initialism of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" meaning "what was to be shown"[1] or "thus it has been demonstrated." Traditionally, the abbreviation is placed at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument to indicate that the proof or argument is complete.

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

Obviously I believe the above is QED, meaning to me it is conclusive proof and conclusion on who is a Christian.
The element of 'covenant' [contract] is the imperative premise in determining who is a Christian.

... I don't agree that it is, which, of course, does not mean that I don't believe that the covenant is critical in defining a Christian. I take "QED" to mean "thus it has been demonstrated" which I don't think you have done. Now, I'm not arguing that you're totally wrong, because IMV the nature of this discussion is interpretation. Regardless, if you believe that what you've stated is QED, is there any further point in this discussion? Is your interlocutors task now to prove you wrong or agree? I think that inevitably, that is what it is going to become. If any interlocutors turn up!

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

Obviously I believe the above is QED, meaning to me it is conclusive proof and conclusion on who is a Christian.
The element of 'covenant' [contract] is the imperative premise in determining who is a Christian.

... I don't agree that it is, which, of course, does not mean that I don't believe that the covenant is critical in defining a Christian. I take "QED" to mean "thus it has been demonstrated" which I don't think you have done. Now, I'm not arguing that you're totally wrong, because IMV the nature of this discussion is interpretation. Regardless, if you believe that what you've stated is QED, is there any further point in this discussion? Is your interlocutors task now to prove you wrong or agree? I think that inevitably, that is what it is going to become. If any interlocutors turn up!

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

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

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

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have given examples,

Whoever is an American legally is one who has a contract with the constitution of the USA.

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

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

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

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

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://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 the Gospels of the NT.

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

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

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

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

1. A Christian is a person who has been baptized within the specific Church the Christian belonged to. https://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 the Gospels of the NT.

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

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

30 Top Bible Verses About Baptism
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical ... t-baptism/

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

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

A biblical covenant is a religious covenant that is described in the Bible. All Abrahamic religions consider biblical covenants important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(biblical)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fanman]

Prismatic,

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

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

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

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

[Prismatic567]

Prismatic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note

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

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

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

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

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