Who is a Christian?

Nope, that is not the point.

It is very explicit in the Quran that Muslims must enter into a covenant with Allah to obey the words of Allah with a promise of eternal life in Paradise. So I don’t have a problem with stating a covenant is imperative for a person to be a Muslim.

19: 87. They [infidels] will have no power of intercession [l-shafāʿata], save [except] him [the Muslim] who hath made a covenant [3HD; ʿahdan;] with his Lord

9:111. Lo! Allah hath bought [ish’tarā; purchased] from the believers [Muslims] their lives [anfusahum; nafs] and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs they [Muslims] shall fight in the way [sabil] of Allah and shall slay and be slain.
It is a promise which is binding on Him [Muslim] in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant [3HD: biʿahdihi; promise] better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain [BY3: bibayʿikumu bāyaʿtum] that ye [Muslims] have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

In my discussion with Serendipper, I knew he is not familiar with the Quran so I used Christianity as a easy way to explain the concept of the covenant which is imperative within the Abrahamic religions. In addition, most posters are not familiar with the Quran, so I used the covenant within Christianity as a reference.

I was very surprised with his insistence that any person can be a Christian by merely declaring oneself to be a Christian and following what s/he deemed is appropriate. This is crazy. Note the Children of God claimed to be Christians and they offer sex in exchange for conversion. Are they genuine Christians?

One practical advantage of accepting the covenant [contract] to be a Christian is, it is a good counter for any Christian against the accusations that Christianity and Christians are evil and violent [crusades, inquisition, Salem, etc.].

The point is all Christians has entered into a covenant [contracted] with the Christian God to comply with the terms of the covenant as in the Gospels with relevant support from the Epistles, Acts and the OT. The covenant terms do not include any evil laden elements that condone violence but instead insisting on loving all even one’s enemies. Therefore Christianity is never an evil nor violent religion.

Because of its advantage as a defense against accusation by others, the concept of the covenant [inherent in Christianity] would definitely be agreeable by all genuine Christians.

The point is, Christianity is good in this sense, i.e. do not condone evil and violence. If Christians commit evil and violence it has nothing to do with Christianity itself as evident in their covenanted terms. Those Christians who commit evil and violence did it on their own free will and has nothing to do with Christianity per se.

Are you denying my point so that you have room to accuse Christianity per se as evil and violent?

There will be times where we have to counter certain people who claim they are Christians but they are on the fringes and are cults.
There are those who claimed to be Christians, e.g. Children of God who offer sex in exchange for conversion.
There are many Christian cults and sects who advocate and condone violence.

To counter the above we need to get to the core and essence of who is a Christian by reference to the covenant and the covenanted terms, i.e. the Gospels and other relevant supporting verses from the other books.
The point with the covenant is, a Christian cannot act willy-nilly except by compliance [to the best of their ability] in accordance to the covenanted terms.

In addition, the philosophical-epistemological [i.e. [b]Justified[/b] True Belief] is a good counter against accusations of Christianity as evil and violence with reference to the crusades, inquisition, Salem, etc.

Your point of view re Who is a Christian is too loose and has no significant benefits for the genuine Christians. Your view is so open that you are complicit to promote more cults.

Prismatic,

If someone is in a sex cult, it’s pretty obvious that they’re not a Christian, qua Jesus. We don’t need a set of criteria to fathom that. But, would you actually tell someone who believes they’re a Christian (in the Biblical sense) that they are not based upon your criteria, by what authority would you do so?

So your criteria allows you to separate the wheat from the chaff? You seem dogmatic towards your own inferences.

What specific terms are you referring to, Prismatic? If they aren’t in the NT, they are interpretive.

And theology isn’t?

As according to?

and further…benefitting Christians who are more likely to appeal to church, priest and biblical authority as opposed to people who are less likely to do this is not necessarily a good thing. Your view is less likely to produce cults, since people do not need to organize to be considered Christian. Reducing the authority of a very old set of texts - the Bible - and religious leaders, seems vastly more likely to contribute to less inter-religious conflict and less conflict with secular people.

It is also an odd criterion in a philosophical discussion - does your belief benefit more conservative Christians?

Karpel Tunnel,

Or like someone saying that they had a vision of Jesus, and he told them that he accepted them and they’re a Christian - which is the kind of thing that Christians claim. How could I claim that person is not a Christian based upon that, by what authority? I cannot affirm the Bible and subsequent religious texts as an authority in the negative and reject them as an authority in the positive. That wouldn’t make any sense.

I’m not sure, but wouldn’t it be like claiming:“I’m a non-theist, and even though you had this vision you’re not a Christian according to my criteria which is supported by the Bible, which I don’t believe is true, QED.”

Note my points is against those who claim a person is a Christian if that person self-declare as a Christian and do what is deemed necessary, e.g. Serendipper’s insistence.

In the case of the children of God on what basis can you tell them or any others they are not Christians if they claim to believe in Jesus Christ.

For me, I would explain to them or get consensus with others on the basis,
if the Children of god want to ensure salvation as promised by God they have to enter into a covenant [implied or otherwise] to comply with God covenanted terms.
The covenanted terms as conveyed via Jesus Christ is only in the Gospels [ no where else] as supported by the epistles, acts, and relevant verses from the OT.

The children of God can counter in whatever ways with me or others, but that is no way they can push their interpretations and argue with God - the omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent.

As such, in principle, the children of God cannot be Christians if they had not entered into a covenant with God, or the covenant is void if the terms of the covenant include the offer of sex to those who convert [no such thing in the Gospels of Christ].

It is not MY criteria and personal views.

I inferred that from God’s words and the universal principle of the Laws of Contract.
God expect a Christian to believe in Jesus Christ and therefrom enter into a covenant with God based on the covenanted terms in the Gospels.

As I had stated a Christian must believe in Jesus Christ as son of God and intermediary of God.

John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The belief in Christ implied entering into a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms in the Gospels.
In addition, believing in Christ is only the initiation process and one has to obey God’s command to one’s best ability to merit the salvation that is promised in the covenant [contract].

Theology is based on faith [no proof and no reason], thus how can theology be credible as a Justified True Belief.

On the basis of whether the above is Justified True Belief re the philosophical-epistemological perspective.
If you insist your views is true, prove it is justified and rational?

???

Any Tom, Dick and Harry church, priest, biblical authority, cult can claim to be genuine Christianity. But if these pseudo and fake Christians has not believed in Jesus to enter into a covenant with God in accordance to the covenanted terms, they cannot bullshit God who is omniscient, and in God’s eyes they are not true Christians to earn salvation as offered by God.

As per God’s offer,

John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The above is God’s offer and the person has to accept [sincerely, cannot bullshit God in this case] the offer to earn [with a life long compliance to the covenanted terms] a passage of heaven with eternal life.
Note the elements of ‘offer’ and ‘acceptance’ as the critical elements to qualify as a ‘contract’ in this case, a covenant.

As I had argued, to be a Christian one has to enter into a covenant with God to comply with God’s words as in the Gospels delivered via Jesus.

Once a a person has entered into a covenant with God to be a Christian, he has to comply with its most ideal overriding pacifist maxim of love everyone even one’s enemies, give the other cheek,love this & that which will not promote evil and violent acts.

Fanman’s view do not insist on the critical need for a covenant and the strictest compliance to the Gospels, thus there is room for a person who claimed to be a Christian to justify his own evil acts. Note cult leaders like Jim Jones, Koresh and others who went on a killing spree based their own justifications that what they did was condoned by ‘Christianity’ or the Christian God.

Thus the implied covenant approach for a person to be a Christian is thus a pro for humanity, i.e. it ensure no genuine Christians will go on a killing spree on anyone.

Christianity has its negatives, but these negatives are not critical to humanity [as a trade off] at present as compared to the terrible evil and violent acts condoned as a divine duty of all Muslims by Allah.

Prismatic,

I don’t tell people they are not Christians if they claim that they are, its not really my place to do so. With regards to the children of God, I think my view is explained in what I initially said.

So by the authority of the Bible you would tell them the errors of their ways? A non-theist, why would they listen to you? You’d expect members of a cult to listen to what you think is reason?

So why are you defending it? You formulated your argument re: Who is a Christian, into a set of specific criteria, supported them with Wiki, and have propounded that they constitute a QED argument. You therefore, in context, fully agree with the criteria and that they are sound. But, now you’re claiming that the criteria aren’t yours and don’t represent your personal views? You are not a theist, but they are your views on what constitutes a Christian. I don’t understand why you would say they aren’t?

This is common knowledge. Does this mean the rest of your inferred criteria aren’t necessary? The quote from the Bible seems to dictate that only belief in Jesus is necessary.

You need to prove that explicitly, which I don’t believe you can. Why should we believe/accept what you say, when the authority doesn’t say that?

In this context, I think that theology is adequate to defend Christianity, apologetics makes the case for Christ/Christians. Applying strict philosophical-epistemological arguments is difficult when debating something that is related to faith. You don’t believe that Christianity is a justified-true-belief, so how can you argue those grounds on the issues surrounding it? As I stated, I think it would be difficult.

What? You made the claim about the openness of my view… Regardless, what are you saying I have to prove is “justified and rational”? My view that belief in Jesus constitutes a Christian?

[quote=“Fanman”
I’m not sure, but wouldn’t it be like claiming:
“I’m a non-theist, and even though you had this vision you’re not a Christian according to my criteria which is supported by the Bible, which I don’t believe is true, QED.”

[/quote]
Yes, we are on the same page.

There are two perspectives to the above.

Generally most theists will never accept the views there is no God and they will not change their mind, at least in the present.

On the other hand there is the philosophical-epistemological perspective which I am adhering to. In this case, the view I presented is objective to the epistemological perspective which most who are inclined to epistemology will likely to agree to the Justified True Belief which I had presented.

Note you have not argued successfully against my views on an objective basis. You merely disagree with it by your personal subjective feelings.

As stated above, many who disagree with my views will not likely to agree with me, because they had relied on faith [i.e. no proof, logic, reason or justified arguments].

I am confident with my epistemological Justified argument, most reasonable Christians will agree with me. I don’t see how my thesis of who is a Christian, i.e. believing in Christ, surrender to God via a covenant would be rejected by a genuine Christian.

Note so far MagJ, presumably a Christian has agreed with me [even though me a non-theist] I believed my arguments are well justified and grounded to the essence of what is genuine Christianity.

If I state the fruit [below] on the table is an apple, that would not be a view that is novel from me. In that sense, it is not MY [earlier I put that is CAP] view but rather a common and conventional knowledge.

My point re the above is an apple is not MY view is the same with me saying the objective definition of who is a Christian is not MY view. Rather it is a common philosophical-epistemological view.

In contrast I would claim the argument ‘God is an Impossibility to be Real’ in that thread I raised is MY own personal deduced argument.

I have been arguing the concept of believing in Jesus Christ implied a covenant with the Christian God as reflected in the Principles of the Law of Contract. This is why I doubted you re Principles of Contract. If you are well verse or is a lawyer you will definitely agree with me on that without doubt.

If I am not mistaken you confirm you agree with the covenant but not seriously though.
I have read many articles by Christian on this point and they agree with the concept of the covenant.
Show me one main authority of Christianity who disagree with the covenant?

Why?? Because the Principles of the Law of Contract [covenant] state so!

Yes, I do not agree God exists is Justified True Belief [JTB].
I do not believe Santa exists to a young child is JTB, but that fathers/actors disguising and pretending to Santa during Christmas time is JTB.

Btw, have you met a genuine Christian who would disagree with my views re Christian as believe in Christ, surrender to God, enter into a covenant with God. At least I have a Christian [MagJ agreeing with me] and I believe all sincerely Christians will agree with me.
You have any Christian supporter on your view, i.e. covenant is not critical, not implied and not important.

You are not thinking deep enough into the essence of who is a Christian.
Belief in Jesus [John 3:16, etc.] as I had argued implied a surrender and entering into a covenant with God.
If you want to do a house renovation, it is useless in believing the contractor can do a good job. What is effective is the initiation of the relevant contract and the agreed terms between both parties with you as the ‘offeree’ and the contractor the ‘offeror’.

It is also
It is also at least metaphorically similar to me telling you you actually like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate, or that the ghost you see which I do not believe exists is wearing a hat you cannot see.

Prismatic,

Strange, I thought that we resolved this point?

For the record, I stated this:

Any claim you make or reflection of my position in reference to the New Covenant that is outside of this is your interpretation.

I thought that you might take that track, but I was hoping you wouldn’t. When I stated:

It was in response to: [the highlighted sentence]

Not the New Covenant. Given that we had already discussed the Covenant, I didn’t think that it was necessary to make myself that clear. My question related to the highlighted sentence still stands.

I also stated:

So I don’t understand why you’ve stated the above?

I would disagree. I have done more than stated my feelings, if you genuinely believe that then you have a problem with logic.

And of course request, bolded above, continues the problem. The terms ‘authority’ and ‘major’ contain value judgments that a non-theist cannot determine. How can a non-theist know which persons are authorities and how can one rank them in terms of major and minor. And very, very few modern people considered to be religious authorities would have had acceptable beliefs to people from, for example, the Middle ages. They are, in the main, way too liberal about a wide range of issues. IOW there is no consistent ground.

Prismatic,

Faith in what exactly? In my view, people have presented reasonable arguments against your views of who is a Christian. You reject them as being unsound, but that doesn’t mean that they are. It is clear that you are denying some salient points, which question the correctness of what you claim, but the fact that you believe it is QED, makes it problematic in accepting counter-arguments/discussions.

Maybe some Christians would agree with you, maybe some won’t “Who is a Christian?” is very open to interpretation.

Is his agreement subjective or objective?

Hmm, you’ve really convoluted this. I see no reason to alter what I initially stated based upon this. IMV, recognising an apple, and deciding what constitutes a Christian, are two completely epistemological processes. Do we require a philosophical thesis and all of the trappings to discuss what constitutes an apple?

I’m not sure that someone well versed in law or a lawyer would, I think that claim is open to interpretation. There may well be correlating points, but I would not conflate the two. If a judge was deciding if someone was a Christian, I think that they would consider how close that person was to how Jesus behaved, and if they followed his principles, basically if they were or not a reflection of Jesus. Whereas if they were deciding if someone was concordant with the Old Covenant, they could simply check if a person had complied by the rules it stipulated. As far as I’m aware, the New Covenant does not contain a strict list of rules like the Old Covenant. What we know is that it is a belief based covenant between God and man which allows people to enter heaven because of what Jesus did, almost everything we surmise about it is interpreted.

I haven’t asked that of any Christians, I did ask a theist who believes in the Christian God (but doesn’t claim to be a Christian), and they disagreed regarding surrendering your will to God, not that I believe that makes me right. Hmm, where did I claim that the covenant is “not critical, not implied and not important”? Why do you keep claiming this, when I made my position clear?

I don’t think John 3:16 implies that. I think the explicit meaning of the statement is so clear, that there’s no need interpret an implied meaning. I don’t know what other scriptures you’re referring to. Interesting, can you break down and clarify your analogy and how it relates to the covenant between God and man?

OK, noted you agree it is critical but not QED.
I should not have used ‘critical’ rather it should be ‘QED’.

Other than terms used, what I meant was to me the covenant is an implication of imperative, i.e. 99% necessary, but to you is may be 60-75%.

This point is a leverage and critical for me to discuss and critique the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity’s and Islam’s impact on humanity in terms of evil and violent acts.

I have put in the reasonable effort to justify why the covenant and surrender support my QED.
If there are reasonable counter then I will change my position but so far there are none.

I believe the majority of Christians will agree with me, especially when surrender and covenant are critical terms within the Christian doctrine.

It is subjective but I believe it is based on the objective [to the doctrine] arguments I presented.

You seem out of touch with philosophy on this point.
The approach to ‘what is an apple’ and ‘Who is a Christian’ use the same epistemological process, i.e. justifying what is true belief. [I mean the person’s belief not theism itself].

In court the Judge will most likely depend on a Council of Christian leaders to decide who is a Christian.
The point is all the necessary elements to form a contract/covenant is present within the Christians’ and Muslims’ relationship with their God.

I will make the attempt to ask more Christians and I am confident they will agree with my thesis on who is a Christian.
Re covenant critical issue of your, note corrected above.

In philosophy as what we are doing here, we need to dig deep epistemologically.

Note the term ‘believe’ is very loose.
Thus it can only favor the believer if the term believe is expounded in a more refined and precise manner.

If favors a Christian to assert [to counter accusations of the crusades, inquisition, Salem, etc.],
ALL Christians are covenanted [contracted] to comply with God’s command of an overriding pacifist maxim of love everything even enemies. Therefore there is no way Christianity condones Christians to commit evil and violent acts.

As you can see, a simple shift in thought from common to epistemological generate very significant positive for Christianity in this respect.

even tho I’m an irreligious agnostic, if someone doesn’t know about or believe in some of the core tenets of Christianity the apostles extolled and all the major sects of Christianity agree on, than they do not qualify as Christian to me.
Guys like Hitchens set the bar really, really low for who’s Christian, all you have to do is claim to be, I think they do this in part, consciously or subconsciously, so they can blame Christianity for atrocities various insincere Christians, who were actually atheists, irreligious theists, pagans, Satanists, sociopaths and so on committed in its name.

Now I’m not saying sincere Christians can’t commit atrocities, either, don’t get me wrong.

There are many Christian who commit atrocities, acts of evil and violence, but in principle such people cannot be doing in the name of Christianity, Jesus nor the Christian God.

ALL genuine Christian are covenanted [contracted] with God to comply to the overriding pacifist maxim to love everything, even enemies, give the other cheek, and the likes. Personally I think this is a bit stupid but at least it prevent Christianity itself from being blamed for any evil or violent acts.
This is why we never hear of Christians quoting the Gospels of Jesus to justify any evil or violent acts.

In contrast Muslims are covenanted with Allah to obey Allah’s words in the immutable Quran, which include permission and encouragements to kill non-believe given the circumstances [very vague].
Once a Muslim is covenanted with Allah to be granted eternal life in Paradise, SOME zealots will do the utmost to gain the greatest possible merits that are granted in the killing of non-believers.
Note the Muslim should not be the primary blame, rather it must be the ideology and the religion that must be blamed.

Therefore the covenant is a very critical element is deciding who is a Christian or a Muslim plus providing the grounds to deliberate and prevent terrible theistic related evil and violent acts.

Prismatic,

I refer you to what I’ve already stated on this issue. What do you mean when you say “I should not have used ‘critical’ rather it should be ‘QED’”, how does that apply to or alter your argument?

In this instance I don’t reason in terms of percentages. My views are explained in what I previously stated on this issue.

I don’t understand what this means.

I would disagree that there are no reasonable counter-arguments.

I don’t believe that a Christian would disagree that there is a New Covenant, that is a moot point, but as far as I’m aware “surrendering your will to God in order to be a defined as a Christian” is not stated anywhere in the NT. That is where you may encounter disagreement, due to differences in interpretation.

Noted, the criteria you believe constitutes a Christian does not seem objective to me. From my perspective, it is the culmination of an interpretation of the Bible and the quotes from Wiki, your criteria is not an exact quote of what the Bible explicitly states (save Baptism), you’ve inferred those criteria from your own analysis, therefore it is not doctrine, it is your interpretation of doctrine and therefore subjective. Conversely, others have appealed to and directly quoted the Bible to make their points, yet you claim they are being subjective?

Hmm, you did not initially state ‘what is an apple’. Regardless, I’ll stick with what I initially said, based upon what you initially said.

I don’t think so. Why would a judge need a council of Christian leaders to decide if the person is a Christian, what if they don’t agree? Would you put judicial authority/accountability in the hands of Christian leaders? Do you think this because you believe the Bible is ambiguous? So you argue, but I will not stick my flag to that mast. I may be wrong, but from my perspective you are conflating contract law and the New Covenant. As I stated, I think there are correlating elements, but I wouldn’t argue that the principles of contract law apply to the New Covenant.

For me this is not a competition. I am not so concerned with being right, and as I’ve stated I don’t think that you’re entirely wrong. It doesn’t matter how many Christians you ask, you are not going to encompass the whole demographic.

For me John 3:16 (NIV) “16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” contains no more meaning to interpret than what it explicitly states, it is an explanation (a statement or account that makes something clear).

I don’t want to waste time on the above. I believe I have stated enough to justify who is a Christian, i.e.

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 a believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospels of the NT.

Re “Surrender” I have already provided the justification.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_(religion#In_Christianity

I have read loads of article on this topic which is very common in relation to Christians; e.g.
allaboutfollowingjesus.org/ … to-god.htm

utmost.org/total-surrender/

and many others.