Who is a Christian?

None mine but in according to principles.
I have already defined ‘Who is a Christian’ i.e.

  1. Being baptized [water or non-water] and 95% of Christians do that.
  2. Implied a covenant with God - as confirmed from what I have gathered from the majority.

Once you are an American citizen or citizen of any recognized Nation, it is implied the person is a citizen until s/he had broken the critical term of the contract as defined.
Nobody can be a perfect citizen thus there is always a tolerable limit until a serious non-compliance is committed for one to be denounced as a citizen or put in jail.

Again it is implied until one is evidently proven to break the allegiance.
Why don’t you try to go to somewhere in Iraq or Syria, pledge your allegiance to ISIS and kill some American soldiers. Then you will know what pledging allegiance to the USA means.

As suggest above, Why don’t you try to go to somewhere in Iraq or Syria, pledge your allegiance to ISIS and kill some American soldiers. Then you will know what supporting and defending the Constitution means.

The Constitution is not a fixed thing. The Constitution is maintained and supported by the People and thus can be changed by the people on a federal basis.
If the state can counter any elements of the constitution, then the constitution must have some provisions to enable it to do so.

Do you think any State can come up with laws to go to war with Washington??

The point is you loose your general freedom if you are in a jail.

Regardless of where I am, universal human principles apply every where, in this case the universal principles of contract laws, i.e. a social contract.

'Love your enemy" is an overriding pacifist maxim which is not to be enforced absolutely.
Christianity in general and in principle do not expect Christians to be stupid followers but in practice I know many do.

Proofs?
I have provided on example from google, you can google and you will note there are many others.

“Kill your enemies” is a very obvious negative but
there are many other reasons why humanity must wean off ALL religions in the future and there are many ways to approach that.

Note I stated, most practicing scientists don’t give a damn with Philosophy of Science.

However Quantum Physics is an exception where the scientists involved do engage with Philosophy.
Bohr, one of the pioneers of QM was leaning very heavily on Philosophy to derive his QM theory of complementarity which he had adapted from the concept of Yin and Yang.

To the extent, in appreciation, Bohr had embedded the Yin-Yang symbol in his Coats of Arms,

The other pioneers into QM were also heavy into relying on Philosophy, e.g. Bohm, Feyman, etc.

Read the full para at:
braungardt.trialectics.com/scien … s-feynman/

Your thinking is too shallow.
The rest of your points are loaded with ad hominens which is not philosophical and critical thinking.
You should provide more in depth arguments.

Well you are the one defining who is christian, so the interpretation is according to you. Otherwise there is no standard interpretation of the NT, hence all the denominations of the religion. As I said, the pastor down the road wouldn’t agree with you, so you’d have to go door to door informing his congregation that they are wrong and are not truly chrisitian unless they jump through your hoops. Since they are Baptists, I assume most have been baptized in the muddy creek, but none would say that’s conditional to being saved or being a christian.

I don’t know how you’d quantify that. I was baptized when I was young and before I had any choice in the matter and probably would not have been baptized if left up to me because baptism isn’t a requirement of anything, and some people do it multiple times because they like acting out the resurrection.

The covenant is unconditional; all you have to do is believe.

The only way to become nonamerican is to pay some money or else be convicted of treason (I think).

American citizens are not required to have the neural capacity to understand what allegiance means and therefore pledging allegiance is not a requirement.

Go to X and pledge allegiance to Y and then I will know what Z means? I already know what Z means and it has nothing to do with X and Y. American christians caused what’s going on in syria and iraq and created isis. Isn’t it funny that where there is oil there is calamity?

Then there is nothing to support like trying to hold water in your hand.

The US is “supposed” to be a confederation of states with limited federal government. Kinda like europe is a confederation of countries with limited EU.

Well yes that was the civil war. The southern states tired of Washington making decisions that hurt the South, so they booted the army out of Ft Sumter and started the war.

Yes but still an american.

You’re too hardheaded. Intelligence can only be a function of ability to be wrong because you can’t be right until you’re able to be wrong, so the one who is quickest to admit defeat is going to find wisdom faster than those eternally unable to clear the blockage.

You proved that there are people who “claim” they love their enemies, but if they did, they would kill themselves for being infidels. And if the standard of loving enemies is merely claiming so, then why can’t a christian be one who merely claims so?

First prove it’s possible to love anyone but oneself.

Then after you have finished that, prove there are chrisitians who love their enemies.

I stated I defined ‘who is a Christian’ based on principles leveraged on critical thinking.

In terms of principles, the majority [99%] of Pastors would agree with,

  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 the Gospels of the NT.

Note I. above is very evident and objective. 2. and 3. are implied or as explicitly declared by a Christian as in 1.

I had already provided supporting arguments and evidence for the above.

The above are the critical principles. If there are differences in opinion in some verses in the NT, that do not effect the critical principles on ‘who is a Christian’.

You have not disputed my points above effectively.

The only remaining inquiry is… when and where was that decreed?

It would be interesting to know the timeline of events and happenings which led up to the sacraments being put in place, to signify one’s allegiance to the religion. :-k

I believe the starting point is when God spoke to Jesus Christ and he was technically the first Christian [who need not be baptized] followed by the original-disciples, then the followers of the respective original disciples.

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. 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.

A child born to a Christian family is implied to be a potential-Christian till s/he is baptized.

I think that Christianity is founded upon the tenets/life guidance of Jesus. Therefore, IMV anyone who complies to how Jesus says people should live, and loves (agape) while doing so is a Christian. Christianity heavily focuses upon the moral inclination of the “heart”, and Jesus eschewed the pharisees for their ritualistic behaviour, yet lack of genuine altruistic endeavour/intent. So with that in mind, why would a ritual such as baptism be absolutely necessary for someone to be a Christian?

I think that Jesus is quoted as saying somewhere in the NT that water baptism is essential to entering heaven, but to me that seems to contradict his general purported ethos, and also, when he said the guy who died next to him on the cross would join him in paradise, that guy wasn’t baptised, he was a criminal.

I don’t think we can reach an objective standard of what constitutes a Christian, as there are so many different opinions and sects. If there was such a consensus, wouldn’t it have been reached a long time ago?

I think bringing in the context adds to the absurdity. Prismatic is an atheist. This would mean that he is, essentially, an atheist who would tell people who belong to sects or churches who do not think baptism is necessary, that they are not christians. I don’t think he, as an atheist, can take the position as an ecumenical authority for Christianity as a whole.

Further even the Catholic Church, toward the more traditional of the various churches regarding rituals, allows for people who have not been baptized to be consider Christian - if they intended to get baptized - and then people who have not grown up within Christian cultures, the chance to come to heaven. While this latter group might not be Christians, it shows that there is quite a bit of flexibility even within a more conservative Christian sect. Others obviously allow for even more freedom from ritual.

An atheist cannot rule those groups out as non-christians.

And given the vast amount of interpretations of the NT, the Bible as a whole, what one must or should do as Christian, there is no way an outsider can determine who meets Prismatics criteria.

I am nto saying insiders are therefore right, but at least they can, without hypocrisy, appeal to an authority - the Bible, their preacher, the Catholic Church, a vision they had. An outsider cannot, without instant hypocrisy, choose and authority and a single clear interpreation of that authority, since they do not believe in these authorities. And arguing ad populum just looks silly.

I believe you missed my main points;

I mentioned the following;

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].

As such I am defining who is God from the Christian’s God knowledge and not from my personal interpretation.

I don’t think you can dispute the above point re Who is a Christian from the Christian’s God perspective.

Note my point to Fanman above.

I am not defining a Christian from my personal interpretation but rather from the Christian’s God perspective.

Prismatic,

I get the gist.

A person can surrender their will to the Christian God (Yaweh), but not believe in Jesus - someone who believes in the OT, but not the NT. There are other variables, and your trying to find a blanket definition of what constitutes a Christian, but I don’t think there is one. Except that all Christians believe in Jesus.

I thought you were trying to define who is a Christian?

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. And if you’re arguing that all true Christians are baptised then I believe that is firmly a ‘no true Scotsman’ argument. There are many branches to the Christian tree, and whilst baptism may rest on one of them, there are, of course, many other branches to consider when deciding if we think someone is a Christian.

Why, because wiki says so? :laughing: If someone wants to understand who is a Christian from God’s perspective, unequivocally, the Bible is the authority, not wiki - it is problematic to dispute that. As an atheist, the Bible is certainly not an authority for you, which may be affecting the nature of your views on this subject, but if your trying to define a Christian from a perspective of the Christian God, it would IMV be a misunderstanding to not consider the Bible as a key, if not the authority. IOW, IMV, God’s omniscient perspective is the objective definition.

Dear Lord please forgive Prismatic, for he knows not what he does. [-o<

Note the correction in blue above.

You missed my point again.

I did not state the point from Wiki is the final determinant on who is a Christian.
I stated being baptized is merely a ritual and form, and represent the minimal indication, the person is a Christian [regardless it is genuine or not].

Note I stated more indicative elements of who is a Christian are;

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

I mentioned the NT specifically in relation to Christianity.

The Christian God is omnipresent and omnipotent to know what is in the Christian’s mind on whether the person has surrender his/her will to God and the covenant is explicit or implied.

It is not my definition but that definition is from the Christian’s God view and in reference to the NT in the Bible with the OT in the background.

I am confident my view is true and I believe 90% of Christians who had been baptized would agree with me. This is what I have gathered from reading most of the Christian’s view.

I believe your view on who is a Christian belong the minority.
If not show me sufficient evidences your point of view re ‘Who is a Christian’ is the dominant view?

Note point re ‘Surrender of one’s will to God [Christian]’

The ‘surrender of one will to God’ is embedded within a covenant [contract] with God to obey God’s words and commands via the NT [for Christians].

Note this is related to what are the objective principles.
Don’t give silly excuses because I am a non-theist I cannot understand nor speak of objective principles and philosophy of theism.

It is a very common thing for non-Christians who specialize in the study of the religion of Christianity to have a greater understanding of Christianity than most lay-Christians.

Prismatic,

Please explain how I’ve missed your point?

Hmm, It seemed that you did, because your application of the wiki quote led you to say this: “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].” This claim clearly shows you believed you’d reached the conclusion of what constitutes a Christian.

I don’t think that’s right. You cannot be a Christian if you don’t genuinely believe in Jesus and follow his principles, the ritual is meaningless if you don’t actually have faith, that is common knowledge. I can stick a Ferrari emblem on a Ford Focus, but that doesn’t make it a Ferrari.

I don’t think that a person has to enter into a covenant with God, in order to obey the words of God, someone can do so merely by choice, because it feels right. Much of what Jesus preached is a lifestyle, rather than a set of strict must obey commandments, that was the nature of the OT covenant. Indeed, Jesus fulfilled the law of the OT and founded a “New Covenant”, that covenant is based upon his sacrifice, therefrom anyone who believes in him is “saved” or “redeemed”, the explicit message of the NT is “believe and be saved”, not “obey and be saved”. Since that is the standard by which people are saved (able to enter heaven), by simply accepting Jesus, I think it is reasonable to call such people Christians.

What’s your point here?

What definition are you talking about? As far as I’m aware, God himself never actually defined who is and who is not a Christian. Jesus’ parables give us an indication of what someone who believes in him/God should be like, and therefrom I think we can have an idea about what constitutes a Christian. If Jesus gave us a direct answer, this discussion would be moot.

As ever… I think it is a moot point that Christians who are baptised will believe they are Christian in a formal sense, because that is the nature of the ritual. But I don’t think that what Christians think is the defining perspective here. If we want to know what constitutes a Christian, we should refer to what God/Jesus states in the Bible. In this context, people’s (Christian’s) opinions are largely irrelevant, because unless their opinion is supported by scripture it doesn’t have any authority. There is such an authority on baptism, which is Jesus’ words, but there are exceptions to the rule or seemingly contradictions, about who can enter heaven.

Always trying to intellectually win, Prismatic. It doesn’t matter whether the view is minority or majority if you’re looking for clear objectivity. And I think that looking for objectivity when there’s an authority such as the Bible is problematic. If you believe that your view represents the majority that’s fine by me, it doesn’t prove anything, it is possible that the majority can be wrong. Substance, and how closely the view reflects God’s is the key here, not what the majority or minority think.

You got this wrong.
The Wiki refer to the point re Baptism which I had stated is not the critical element.

I am giving more weightages [90%] to point 2 [surrender] and 3 [covenant] in arriving at my conclusion.

You got this point wrong as well.
If one is baptized, the minimum is one is at least a Christian in name, perhaps not necessary sincerely for some.

If not expressed explicitly, there is an implied covenant/contract between the Christian and God.
You have to update yourself on the general principles in the Law of Contract where a contract is implied from circumstances of an explicit or implied agreement between two parties.

Note accepting whatever of Jesus [the prophet] re the verses of the NT is ultimately the words and command of the Christian God.

The terms of the contract or covenant is the Christian having surrendered his will to God and will obey whatever of God’s words and command in the NT [Gospels] in EXCHANGE for the assurance of being saved with eternal life in heaven.

The point here is whenever there is some sort of agreement between two parties, in this case, between God and believer, there is always an implied contract or an explicit one.
One of the basic element of any contract is there must be the acts of Offer and Acceptance, which in this case is God as the offeror, the believer the one who accepted of offer.
upcounsel.com/offer-and-acceptance

There are other essential elements of a valid contract [explicit or implicit] which I will not go into at present.

A serious Christian will know of God’s power and will not dare to pretend to be baptized or lie explicitly s/he is a Christian.

I am referring to a matter of principle.
This principle is where whoever is a member of any group by choice is conditioned by the constitution of the group, in this case the Bible.

Jesus may be described who is Christian is like, but we have to fall back on the essence of who is a Christian, i.e. the principles as I had mentioned above.
If Jesus described in terms of behavior and attitude, anyone could pretend as such but that will not make one a Christian until one had surrendered one’s will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT.

Whatever, the foundational rule is a Christian is one who had surrendered one’s will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels of the NT.

I being objective.

Do you think a Christian do not have to surrender his will and entered into a covenant with God with reference to the gospels [re Jesus] of the NT.

To be a Christian, fundamentally one has to commit to the above. If they misinterpret certain verses in NT, that is a different issues and subject to God’s judgment.

Prismatic:

Me:

Prismatic:

Prismatic:

What? Your statements clearly show that you’ve reached a conclusion upon what you think constitutes a Christian, and that conclusion is supported by the quote from wiki, minus the point relating to baptism.

You’re missing the point. Sincerity is the hallmark of Christianity, nothing else. If a Christian does nothing which associates them with the religion, except being baptised, is that person a Christian? If you’re trying to define who is a Christian, being a Christian by name and not deed is clearly meaningless, Jesus propounded this kind of thing.

Ridiculous. You assume that I don’t know the workings of a contract based upon what I’ve stated here? Shouldn’t you ask before you assume? Regardless, I’ll stick with what I said, following the words of God, does not mean that you’ve entered into a covenant with him. It may just be a pragmatic choice.

I don’t understand what this means.

The New Covenant? I don’t think you understand. Where did you get this idea from?

In order to show you the unreliability of wiki as an authority, here’s an excerpt from wiki on the New Covenant, headed “The Christian View”

This excerpt favours my view, whilst the excerpt you quoted favours yours. How can we reach an objective consensus on which is correct? I doubt we’ll even find agreement. I think that wiki should be read with the view that it is a guide, not an authority, unless it directly quotes one(s). I’m not claiming that this excerpt means that I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m just making a point.

So you think, but the reality is that people will do all sorts of things you wouldn’t expect them to.

In terms of what constitutes a Christian, Jesus’ word is the authority, to dispute that is folly. No matter what principles you apply or what you perceive is the essence of Christianity, there is no greater authority than the head of Christianity, furthermore, when that head is an omniscient deity.

You are of course entitled to your own views and interpretations, but they do not supersede what Jesus says when discussing Christianity.

Foundational rule? According to who or what authority? Please don’t say God, and if you do, please quote the specific chapter and verse.

I think that someone can only be objective when dealing with empirical things. The question “who is a Christian” does not IMV allow for objectivity.

I believe that someone only needs to believe in Jesus to be saved, being saved means you can enter heaven, and entering heaven means that you’re a Christian. It is that simple. I may be wrong, but I don’t recall God/Jesus stating that someone has to surrender their will to him in order to be a Christian. To me, that seems like an interpretation. You’re trying to get the precious QED, but I don’t think it exists in this case. Regardless, why ask the question if you think you already know the answer? Is this whole thing rhetorical?

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.

You are contradicting your own point where you stated;

Fanman: So you think, but the reality is that people will do all sorts of things you wouldn’t expect them to.

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.

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.

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

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

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%

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

Yes, but only a small % will do otherwise for various reasons.

As I had argued, whatever is Jesus’ words, the final authority is God’s. Jesus’ role is that of a son of God, prophet/messenger sent by God.

The covenant is based on the general principles of the Law of Contract.

Re Surrendering of one’s will, note this [I quoted earlier];

In this case, objective is with reference to support from

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

  1. The General Principles of the Law of Contract

Note humans are supposed to have free will, they will have to make a choice to accept God’s offer and thus have to enter into a covenant [contract] with God.

I have argued, believing in Jesus as son is essential, but the ultimate is believing in God.
Re surrendering one’s will to God, note the supporting I have provided above.

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.

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

My main purpose in highlighting the covenant and surrendering of will to God, is directed especially to Muslims and Allah.
Since Muslims [from their perspective] must enter into a contract with God, Allah, they have to surrender their will to Allah and obey every word of Allah as in the Quran. The Quran contains verses that condone Muslims to kill [commit other evil & violence on] non-Muslims if there is a threat [vague*] to Islam. * even cartoons and the likes.

The critical point to note here is Muslims must be educated that God is an impossibility and is an illusion, thus they had only entered into a contract with an illusion.
Therefore, there is no valid contract for them to kill non-Muslims.
If this is understood, there will be ZERO Islamic driven evils and violence.

Prismatic,

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.

I don’t think that I am, please show me where the contradiction is?

How do you know this, by inference?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

I’m not debating that there is a Covenant.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.
Do you have evidence to show doubts in my inference?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion#In_Christianity

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

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.

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.

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.

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.