Fanman wrote: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.
This inference is based from what I have read of and personal experience with people who are Christians.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?
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.
As I had stated the above I have inferred from what I have read of Christianity from tons of resources and from personal observations.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.
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.