Who is a Christian?

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.

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?
twentytwowords.com/terrifying-f … -god-cult/
They will insist they are the genuine Christians but in principle they are pseudo-Christians.

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.

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;

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;
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, 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.

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 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.

??? 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.

#-o 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.

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 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.

Where are the stages of your thesis?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

There are many verses but note specifically James 4:7
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

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.

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.

Prismatic,

Can you quote me on that?

Note I proposed this;

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

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;

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.

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.

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?