Who is a Christian?

[Joyousperson]

That's probably somebody that has been deceived and (is not) a Christian.

M-Bob

The point is what objective basis can you judge the person has been deceived thus not a Christian.

This is why we need to refer to the covenant and the covenanted terms as the objective basis. The covenanted terms do not include killing and free sex, thus who killed [unforgivable] and offer free sex cannot be Christians.

 

[Joyousperson]

I don't know where you picked up that idea, but you seem wedded to it and so I will wish you the best in working it out in your own life.

I believe the concept of the covenant [explicit or implied] is very critical and positive for Christianity and Christians.

As I had stated, the covenant is fact and thus very effective for Christianity to defend itself against accusations that Christianity condone evil and violence when associated with the crusades, inquisition, Salem, and the likes.
Note when Islam is being accused by Christian and others that Islam is evil and violent, the Muslims will counter "What about the crusades, inquisition, Salem, and the likes"

The idea of 'faith' is not effective to counter the above accusations, but the concept of the covenant and the covenanted terms as in the Gospels is a solid defense that Christianity per se is never evil nor violent.

 

[Joyousperson]

I believe the concept of the covenant [explicit or implied] is very critical and positive for Christianity and Christians.

I don't know where you picked up that idea, but you seem wedded to it and so I will wish you the best in working it out in your own life.

I 'picked' the point from the NT and the OT which mentioned the covenant, surrender to God, believing in Jesus as son of God plus incorporating the universal Law of the the Principles of Agreement/Contract.

As I had stated, the covenant is fact and thus very effective for Christianity to defend itself against accusations that Christianity condone evil and violence when associated with the crusades, inquisition, Salem, and the likes.
Note when Islam is being accused by Christian and others that Islam is evil and violent, the Muslims will counter "What about the crusades, inquisition, Salem, and the likes"

The idea of 'faith' is not effective to counter the above accusations, but the concept of the covenant and the covenanted terms as in the Gospels is a solid defense that Christianity per se is never evil nor violent.

 

[Joyousperson]

What kind of “covenant” is there between a child (young or old) and his/her parents?

There was a “covenant” (contractual) arrangement in the Old Testament between God and the Jews, but it showed, among other things, that man could not abide by some agreement.

The New Testament “agreement” is totally one sided with God providing everything as pure undeserved unconditional charity and man only having to humbly accept and not later give it away (the only way to break the agreement).

I know the New Testament has lots of commands, directions, and degrees given to man by the inspirited Christian leaders, but this is like a parent telling his children what to do (all to help them become like the wonderful perfect parent). There is nothing suggesting: “If you do not do this stuff God will void His promises to you, like your earning or paying back to God.” A parent wants his children to do good because He Loves them and not to earn His Love.

Normally contracts are not legal with children up to a certain age due to their immaturity. So there is no direct contract between the child and his parent.

However there is a social contract between the parents and society. In many society parents are penalized if they do not take care of the child accordingly or if they abuse their children.

Being a Christian is a description of the way you are behaving and not a requirement of some agreement. People know: “doing stuff for personal gain is normal selfish” even if helps others, while unnecessarily sacrificially doing good stuff for others with nothing to gain personally is illogical unselfishness (that is Godly type Love).

A Christian cannot be one who can behave in any way he likes or he think what a Christian should behave.
A Christian has to abide by some conditions or terms set by God via Jesus.
These conditions and terms are covenanted terms stipulated in the Gospels and other texts and the covenant is implied or can be explicit [note the LDS promotes an explicit covenant].

I believe you are merely expressing from your own personal views as being a good Christian yourself. In addition, the 2+ billions of so claimed Christians come in all degrees of mental and psychological states and many may not be as a good Christian like yourself. Thus you have to take into the consideration the view from the perspective of all Christians and the whole of humanity.

If I were rich and set a million dollars and adoption papers before you because you were really hurting for money, in spite of the fact you had shown your hate for me by cruelly killing my pet dog and I said it was yours to be my son, what would you think of our agreement? You might ask: “what do you require of your son” and I said: “nothing is required”, what more might you think? You might want to know what you could do to be not just any child but a good child (which the New Testament provides)”?
The offer was “eternal life” and nothing is said about needing to become “Christ like”, since most people do not know what that really is like and could not agree to being something, they do not have the power to be. After you freely accept all God’s gifts (including the indwelling Holy Spirit), out of pure gratitude you will want to be pleasing to God and the New Testament tells us how you can be pleasing to God.

There is always an implied social contract in adoption cases.
Note in cases of common law marriages, no official marriage contract is signed, but the courts will recognized an implied contract as inferred from the circumstances.

The 'offer' of eternal life is corresponded by an acceptance in believing in Jesus Christ's teaching which imply compliance with Christ's teaching which is from God. Such a circumstance imply a covenant [contract] is effected even if not explicitly declared as in the LDS [Later Day Saints] requirements.

The most important “criteria” is just having enough “faith” to trust God’s Love to not destroy you for what you have done with hurting His other children and do the impossible of forgiving you. Take that trust to the point of humbly accepting God’s unconditional forgiveness as pure charity. If you truly do this you will automatically obtain the initial portion of Godly type Love. Equal to what you feel you have been forgiven of.

As I had argued 'faith' is not an objective basis to determine "who is a Christian" especially in defense and differentiating the evil and violent acts of SOME Christians from Christianity per se.

Faith = belief without no proof nor reason
In the context of the whole of humanity it is not a wise move to simply claim one is a Christian or one is 'X' without solid and sound groundings.

If you have on hand a very strong defense, why do you want to reject it.

People have always used religion to get others to do what they want done, but that shows: ignorance, selfishness, lust for power, vengeance, and evil at every level. All this is not pleasing to God and is un-Christ like.

It is unfortunate Christianity is even associated with the crusades or any act of violence.

That is the point.
As I had said, what objective basis do you have against the accusers that Christianity is an evil and violent religion because SOME Christians had committed evil and violent acts. Note this is a very common accusations and in most cases, genuine Christians are not able to produce an effective response and defense.

Most Christians will defend by saying the Muslims were aggressive as the initiators and thus the crusades response was just-war. What about the inquisitions and other evil and violent acts by SOME Christians.

Now that I have introduced a very strong and effective defense, why do you want to reject it?

Your counter-attack against Muslim accusers would be;
ALL Muslims are covenanted explicitly with Allah upon convenanted terms that condone [to even encouraging] them to kill non-Muslims under very vague threats [even drawing of cartoons!]. I regard myself as a reasonable expert on Islam so I know.

 

[Tone]

This is why we need to refer to the covenant and the covenanted terms as the objective basis. The covenanted terms do not include killing and free sex, thus who killed [unforgivable] and offer free sex cannot be Christians.

But where do you get this idea?

And what do you do with this:

1 John 3:15
"15Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that eternal life does not reside in a murderer."

Matthew 5
"21You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell."

Matthew 5:28
"28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Matthew 5
"31It has also been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 33Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you not to swear at all:either by heaven, for it is God’s throne..."

 

[Joyousperson]

But where do you get this idea?

And what do you do with this:

1 John 3:15
"15Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that eternal life does not reside in a murderer."

Matthew 5
"21You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell."

Matthew 5:28
"28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Matthew 5
"31It has also been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. 33Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ 34But I tell you not to swear at all:either by heaven, for it is God’s throne..."

As I had mentioned, as with 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' the above are ideal standards as covenanted terms which ALL Christians must strive for.

Re lust or sexual temptations and from a psychological perspective, the majority of males or even females are naturally triggered upon to be attracted sexually toward a the other gender especially just after puberty and during a male's sexual active period. The test for the Christian is to be in control of his natural sexual impulses. This is critical so as to motivate males/females to reproduce, else the species will be extinct.

God being omniscient and that God has created humans with free will, it is inevitable humans will commit sins and God knows it. Note John 8: 6-7 where it recognized humans are sinful and will commit sins, the question is to what degree and whether it is forgivable or not, note I mentioned repeated genocides after each repentance surely cannot be forgivable.

Point is, God is wise, fair and merciful, thus God will make provision for any non-compliance from the ideal standards within the covenanted terms.
God has to set ideal standards without compromise and this will absolve God from being accused of being evil if the standards are vague.

Thus with the your points above, God will judge on the degree of non-compliance of the covenanted terms, the Christian's sincere repenting and asking for forgiveness.

The covenant is a very critical element in defining 'who is a Christian.'

 

[Mountainmanbob]

The covenanted terms do not include killing and free sex, thus who killed


[unforgivable] and offer free sex cannot be Christians.

Well I may be wrong here but those are mentioned in the Ten Commandments and every bible-believing Christian should support and believe in obeying the Ten Commandments?
M-Bob

 

[Albion]

Now that I have introduced a very strong and effective defense, why do you want to reject it?

Since you ask, this is the Exploring Christianity forum, therefore I anticipate reading from people who are not Christians but are possibly interested in becoming Christian or at least in learning about Christianity. Given that expectation, a thread posted by a non-Christian which intends to educate Christians on what Christianity actually believes came unexpectedly, that's all.

 

[bling]

Normally contracts are not legal with children up to a certain age due to their immaturity. So there is no direct contract between the child and his parent.

However there is a social contract between the parents and society. In many society parents are penalized if they do not take care of the child accordingly or if they abuse their children.

Your answer is fine, but children are born with a birthright (again very one sided). Some Christians, along with me, talk about being “born again” and with this rebirth comes: being a child of God, many gifts and a birthright. The child’s birthright is totally legally binding and cannot be lost along the way, stolen by anyone and, under God’s rules, even He will not take it back, but the mature adult child can give it away.

God as the perfect parent has tons of responsibility, so God is totally unselfishly doing or allowing everything possible to help those willing individuals (potential children) to fulfill their earth. That everything includes satan roaming the earth, Christ going to the cross, tragedies of all kinds, hell to exist, death and even sin. God allows us to fail even though He does not want us to fail, so we can learn and grow from the experience. Again read the prodigal son story (Luke 15:11-32) to see how God the father acts. The Father in the story did all He could and was smart enough to know what the son would do up to the point of making the very free will choice to return or stay in the pigsty and take the punishment he fully deserves. Do you see the prodigal son making some “agreement” with the father?

A Christian cannot be one who can behave in any way he likes or he think what a Christian should behave.
A Christian has to abide by some conditions or terms set by God via Jesus.
These conditions and terms are covenanted terms stipulated in the Gospels and other texts and the covenant is implied or can be explicit [note the LDS promotes an explicit covenant].

I believe you are merely expressing from your own personal views as being a good Christian yourself. In addition, the 2+ billions of so claimed Christians come in all degrees of mental and psychological states and many may not be as a good Christian like yourself. Thus you have to take into the consideration the view from the perspective of all Christians and the whole of humanity.

I do not have to “take into the consideration the view from the perspective of all Christians and the whole of humanity”, since God makes the rules. Christ tells us obeying the rules of man and offering that obedience up as worship is van worship.

“If you Love me you will obey me…” so we must first Love God and others and if you are not obeying you are not Loving. The New Testament helps us with ways to obey, but we first have to know and realize what all has been done for us, so we will Love Him.

Again, Christians are free to do what they “want”, but that is with the understanding they have Godly type Love.

There is always an implied social contract in adoption cases.
Note in cases of common law marriages, no official marriage contract is signed, but the courts will recognized an implied contract as inferred from the circumstances.
The 'offer' of eternal life is corresponded by an acceptance in believing in Jesus Christ's teaching which imply compliance with Christ's teaching which is from God. Such a circumstance imply a covenant [contract] is effected even if not explicitly declared as in the LDS [Later Day Saints] requirements.

Sorry, but even an “implied” contract is not in the New Testament for Christians, LDS is not a standard by which “most” if any Christians use. LDS has their own added religious book (the Book of Mormon) and use only the old “King James Version” in English and believe their leaders today are equal to the first century apostles.

The offer of eternal life is either accepted as undeserved charity or rejected and at any time after being accepted can be given up.

As I had argued 'faith' is not an objective basis to determine "who is a Christian" especially in defense and differentiating the evil and violent acts of SOME Christians from Christianity per se.

Faith = belief without no proof nor reason
In the context of the whole of humanity it is not a wise move to simply claim one is a Christian or one is 'X' without solid and sound groundings.

If you have on hand a very strong defense, why do you want to reject it.

A very small faith (trust) which all mature adults have just has to be “directed” toward the Creator of the universe to become a Christian. God has made it as easy as possible, since all mature adults’ sin (do stuff which hurts others) and is initially burdened by the guilt and is seeking relieve. All possible relieves do not work in the long run with the exception of trusting God to forgive you.

After becoming a Christian, the person gets to do lots of good stuff which helps them to not devalue what has been done for them and thus reach the point of giving it away.

God also gives the Christian the indwelling Holy Spirit to know God will fulfill all His promises.

That is the point.
As I had said, what objective basis do you have against the accusers that Christianity is an evil and violent religion because SOME Christians had committed evil and violent acts. Note this is a very common accusations and in most cases, genuine Christians are not able to produce an effective response and defense.

Most Christians will defend by saying the Muslims were aggressive as the initiators and thus the crusades response was just-war. What about the inquisitions and other evil and violent acts by SOME Christians.

Now that I have introduced a very strong and effective defense, why do you want to reject it?
Your counter-attack against Muslim accusers would be;
ALL Muslims are covenanted explicitly with Allah upon convenanted terms that condone [to even encouraging] them to kill non-Muslims under very vague threats [even drawing of cartoons!]. I regard myself as a reasonable expert on Islam so I know.

Those people (including crusaders) were not “Christ like” and thus not Christian. They later might have become Christian or were Christian before doing any evil. The “spiritual leadership” at the time should take most of the blame.

I certainly cannot defend their behavior.

 

[tonyt147]

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”. John 3:3-6

"You, however, are controlled not by the flesh, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" Romans 8:9

Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3

I don't see these scripture pointing to anything but a direct questioning of the individual to tests whether they are truly being led by the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth.

No amount of physical observations can help you define who is true and who is a liar. Because these things are spiritual matters so it is not a moral issue.

Jesus of Nazareth said, "You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.". And he also said, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."

So he is urging people to tests the spirit of a person by what they say, and not by their behaviors alone.

 

[Joyousperson]

Since you ask, this is the Exploring Christianity forum, therefore I anticipate reading from people who are not Christians but are possibly interested in becoming Christian or at least in learning about Christianity. Given that expectation, a thread posted by a non-Christian which intends to educate Christians on what Christianity actually believes came unexpectedly, that's all.

Note I cannot post in 'Christian only' sections.

Btw, I am presenting a very rational, objective and philosophical view inferred from evidences from the Bible, acts of 'Christians' and the universal principles of contract [agreement, covenant, relationship].

In this case, it is not based highly on faith but objectively and rationally, thus providing basis for anyone to counter my views if I am wrong.

Do you agree, the covenant is the most critical element in defining who is a Christian? If not, why?
Appreciate if you could reply to assist in my research.

 

[Joyousperson]

Well I may be wrong here but those are mentioned in the Ten Commandments and every bible-believing Christian should support and believe in obeying the Ten Commandments?
M-Bob

True the Ten Commandments are ideal standards that each Christian must strive for.

But human beings are very fallible and thus no way can comply with the Ten Commandments at 100% whether by each individual or groups.

Being humans, there will be SOME Christians who will kill or has to kill due to certain circumstances, there will also be others who fell into temptation and commit adultery and commit other sins re the 10 Commandments.

But the Christian God being merciful and forgiving will forgive those who sincerely repent and do not repeat their sins.

 

[Joyousperson]

Your answer is fine, but children are born with a birthright (again very one sided). Some Christians, along with me, talk about being “born again” and with this rebirth comes: being a child of God, many gifts and a birthright. The child’s birthright is totally legally binding and cannot be lost along the way, stolen by anyone and, under God’s rules, even He will not take it back, but the mature adult child can give it away.

God as the perfect parent has tons of responsibility, so God is totally unselfishly doing or allowing everything possible to help those willing individuals (potential children) to fulfill their earth. That everything includes satan roaming the earth, Christ going to the cross, tragedies of all kinds, hell to exist, death and even sin. God allows us to fail even though He does not want us to fail, so we can learn and grow from the experience. Again read the prodigal son story (Luke 15:11-32) to see how God the father acts. The Father in the story did all He could and was smart enough to know what the son would do up to the point of making the very free will choice to return or stay in the pigsty and take the punishment he fully deserves. Do you see the prodigal son making some “agreement” with the father?




I do not have to “take into the consideration the view from the perspective of all Christians and the whole of humanity”, since God makes the rules. Christ tells us obeying the rules of man and offering that obedience up as worship is van worship.

“If you Love me you will obey me…” so we must first Love God and others and if you are not obeying you are not Loving. The New Testament helps us with ways to obey, but we first have to know and realize what all has been done for us, so we will Love Him.

Again, Christians are free to do what they “want”, but that is with the understanding they have Godly type Love.



Sorry, but even an “implied” contract is not in the New Testament for Christians, LDS is not a standard by which “most” if any Christians use. LDS has their own added religious book (the Book of Mormon) and use only the old “King James Version” in English and believe their leaders today are equal to the first century apostles.

The offer of eternal life is either accepted as undeserved charity or rejected and at any time after being accepted can be given up.



A very small faith (trust) which all mature adults have just has to be “directed” toward the Creator of the universe to become a Christian. God has made it as easy as possible, since all mature adults’ sin (do stuff which hurts others) and is initially burdened by the guilt and is seeking relieve. All possible relieves do not work in the long run with the exception of trusting God to forgive you.

After becoming a Christian, the person gets to do lots of good stuff which helps them to not devalue what has been done for them and thus reach the point of giving it away.

God also gives the Christian the indwelling Holy Spirit to know God will fulfill all His promises.


Those people (including crusaders) were not “Christ like” and thus not Christian. They later might have become Christian or were Christian before doing any evil. The “spiritual leadership” at the time should take most of the blame.

I certainly cannot defend their behavior.

Noted your points.

Btw, we cannot compare God as father to a parent-child relationship. God being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience and omni-whatever-good is too distant from a biological human father or mother.

I still believe you are speaking only from your personal perspective which is very subjective. You have to be considerate to all Christians and others to fall back on some rational groundings.

Believing in God is mainly based on faith, but believing 'who is a Christian' [etymologically and epistemologically] can be dependent on objective empirical facts.

I am discussing from the point of Christianity as a religion and the genuine Christians as followers of Christianity from an objective, rational, epistemological and philosophical perspective.

In the real life, there are many perspectives where a definition of who is a Christian is required, e.g. political, legal, social, cultural, religion, theology, spirituality, philosophically, and other rational requirements. I believe my definition will stand the test and rigor within all these perspectives.

Where a definition of who is a Christian is needed within the above perspectives, I believe the concept of the covenant is the most solid grounding to define who is a Christian and this is objective and verifiable by all.

Note the various pros of resorting to the basis of the concept of the covenant. Why do you want to ignore these pros?

If someone accuse Christianity of being also a violent and evil religion in association with the crusades, inquisition, pedophile priests and other evil acts, you will not have a watertight defense against them. Thus you can argue till the cows come home.

 

[Joyousperson]

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”. John 3:3-6

"You, however, are controlled not by the flesh, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" Romans 8:9

Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:3

I don't see these scripture pointing to anything but a direct questioning of the individual to tests whether they are truly being led by the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth.

No amount of physical observations can help you define who is true and who is a liar. Because these things are spiritual matters so it is not a moral issue.

Jesus of Nazareth said, "You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.". And he also said, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own."

So he is urging people to tests the spirit of a person by what they say, and not by their behaviors alone.

You don't seem to be addressing the OP?

I believe 'born again' meaning accepting Jesus/God's offer in John 3:16 which imply a relationship is established via a covenant and the relevant covenanted terms as in the Gospels with support from other texts.

If Jesus is urging people to tests the spirit of a person, it has to be against some pre-existing agreed terms, i.e. the covenanted terms within the initiated covenant.
It would be ridiculous for Christian to guess what is the right actions to be Christians.

The point is one cannot began to say or act the right things without reference to some pre-existing standards or pre-agreement, thus the implication of a covenant. The fact is the covenanted terms are in the Gospels, supported by the epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT.

Do you agree, the covenant [explicit or implied] is the most critical element in defining who is a Christian?

 

[Tone]

universal principles of contract [agreement, covenant, relationship]

Can you do some quoting and citing from this? Thank you.

 

[Tone]

universal principles of contract [agreement, covenant, relationship]

And do you believe that the Bible is subject to this, or that, possibly, these universal principles are based on the Bible?

 

[Tone]

assist in my research.

I noticed that you mentioned Islam before, connecting it with the idea of "covenant", as well. Are you researching whether or not some Muslims...who are pacifists, by your definition of "Christianity",i.e., those contracted for peace--are, in fact "Christian", and furthermore, that those "Christians" who are violent are actually "Muslims"? I think this could be a logical conclusion, if one were to adopt your view.

 

[Tone]

I believe 'born again' meaning accepting Jesus/God's offer in John 3:16 which imply a relationship is established via a covenant and the relevant covenanted terms as in the Gospels with support from other texts.

I believe what @tonyt147 was trying to convey, was that you, as a non-born again individual, would not know what we know within and amongst ourselves. Yes, the Bible confirms our inner experience, but it is more than an intellectual assent. It is an actual spiritual transformation of the inner person.

Also, by the way you want to define being "born again" as some kind of rational acceptance of an "implied/explicit" contract, wouldn't it follow that, if you yourself were a pacifist; having not killed anybody, or had "free sex"...you yourself would be a born again christian?

 

[Albion]

Note I cannot post in 'Christian only' sections.

There are forums here that are neither "Christians only" NOR Exploring Christianity, you know.

More importantly, we readers naturally think that someone who posts a question in this forum is actually exploring Christianity, since that is the purpose for this forum to exist.

 

[bling]

Btw, we cannot compare God as father to a parent-child relationship. God being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience and omni-whatever-good is too distant from a biological human father or mother.

I did not come up with the idea of calling God “Father”, but Jesus taught us how to pray thinking and calling God “Father”. You probably realize with all the names the Muslims have for God, Father and Shepherd are not included. Muslims seem to have a hard time make God very appreciable for man.

God is more our Father than our biological father and our Love for God compared to our Love for our biological father is like hating our biological father (Luke 14:26).

I still believe you are speaking only from your personal perspective which is very subjective. You have to be considerate to all Christians and others to fall back on some rational groundings.

I can back up my understanding with scripture. Eternal life in heaven is described as our inheritance Eph. 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Believing in God is mainly based on faith, but believing 'who is a Christian' [etymologically and epistemologically] can be dependent on objective empirical facts.

Knowing who is and who is not a Christian is something God knows, but the rest of us have a hard time being sure of, yet over time we can know.

I am discussing from the point of Christianity as a religion and the genuine Christians as followers of Christianity from an objective, rational, epistemological and philosophical perspective.

Christians are not “following” some list of rules for a Christian, but are to be following Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

In the real life, there are many perspectives where a definition of who is a Christian is required, e.g. political, legal, social, cultural, religion, theology, spirituality, philosophically, and other rational requirements. I believe my definition will stand the test and rigor within all these perspectives.

Where a definition of who is a Christian is needed within the above perspectives, I believe the concept of the covenant is the most solid grounding to define who is a Christian and this is objective and verifiable by all.

Note the various pros of resorting to the basis of the concept of the covenant. Why do you want to ignore these pros?

If someone accuse Christianity of being also a violent and evil religion in association with the crusades, inquisition, pedophile priests and other evil acts, you will not have a watertight defense against them. Thus you can argue till the cows come home.

When asked to list their religion on a piece of paper, many people will check “Christian” and could even meet all your requirement, but that does not mean they are a “Christian”.

There are just not that many “Christ like People” in the world.

What the world calls “Christianity” does not qualify those people as Christians.


Taking your definition of Christian would force me to have to defend to others lots of people I personally do not consider Christian.