The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

Joyousperson · May 24, 2019

Nicholas Deka said:
That's all well and good, but since I might be incapable of interpreting scripture, I am incapable of telling what is a good fruit and what is a thistle. I have my own subjective opinion on what is good and bad, but often that contradicts what I would interpret the Bible to say is good and bad. So who am I to say someone is not a Christian?

I believe an individual Christian [as defined] has the freewill to have their subjective opinions and justified them as much as possible with evidences from the covenanted terms. That is OK as long as there is no ill will that will lead to evil and violence on the others thus contravening the overriding pacifist maxim.

You will note without the doctrine of the covenant, a Christian will not be able to ground his argument like the above thus ending as very subjective.

Moral Orel · May 24, 2019

RDKirk said:
I've heard 'way too many atheists state perfectly well what "good fruit" is from their reading of scripture to accept an assertion that it's not possible.

Sometimes atheists happen to agree with you. So what? They have a 50/50 shot of guessing it right whether things are good/bad. If spiritual discernment is required to interpret scripture accurately, then they didn't get it right because they interpreted it right. They only got it right because their own subjective opinion coincidentally was the same as what the Bible teaches.

RDKirk said:
In fact, there are several scriptural statements in the New Testament indicating an expectation that unbelievers would and should identify "good fruit" in Christians.

If God's Word is foolishness to me, I am in no place to tell people what it says. Is it good that person did that thing? I don't know, if I need the Holy Spirit to tell me, He won't. I can judge for myself, and sometimes I'll happen to get it right, sometimes I won't.

When I have discussions about scripture around here, I find that I have to ask a whole lot of questions first to establish exactly what that Christian believes they're commanded to do. Otherwise I'm met with the, "You can't discern scripture without accepting Jesus Christ into your heart!" defense when I try to tell a Christian what the Bible says about something. I can't argue against that claim, there's no way to verify whether it's true or not. So I'm left with Christians telling me what Christianity means to them. I can do no better.

Joyousperson · May 24, 2019

Nicholas Deka said:
Some folks who call themselves Christians support violence to forward a greater good. If I am incapable of interpreting scripture because I lack guidance from the Holy Spirit, how can I say that they are wrong?

If you invoke the doctrine the covenant as imperative in establishing a relationship with God and that the Christian must comply with the covenanted terms with the overriding pacifist maxim of love all even enemies, then those who had killed are wrong and has sinned against God. This is very objective.

Ultimately it is up to God to judge and if those Christians who had killed had done it for the greater good or whatever reasons, God being all-knowing will likely forgive them.

This is why I am proposing the doctrine of the imperative covenant is a solid objective ground to define who is a Christian, thus avoiding subjective opinions.

RDKirk · May 24, 2019

Nicholas Deka said:
Sometimes atheists happen to agree with you. So what? They have a 50/50 shot of guessing it right whether things are good/bad. If spiritual discernment is required to interpret scripture accurately, then they didn't get it right because they interpreted it right. They only got it right because their own subjective opinion coincidentally was the same as what the Bible teaches.

Whoever told you that spiritual discernment is necessary to identify a Christian lied to you.

The only means given by scripture is observation of their good works, and that's given several times. the only additional distinction is that a Christian's good works should be illogical in their breadth--such as turning the other cheek to someone who has already struck you.

There is no "spiritual discernment" mentioned in scripture to identify a true Christian. Even Paul was fooled by several posers (although spiritual discernment is a gift given to discern evil spirits).

Moral Orel · May 25, 2019

RDKirk said:
Whoever told you that spiritual discernment is necessary to identify a Christian lied to you.

The only means given by scripture is observation of their good works, and that's given several times. the only additional distinction is that a Christian's good works should be illogical in their breadth--such as turning the other cheek to someone who has already struck you.

There is no "spiritual discernment" mentioned in scripture to identify a true Christian. Even Paul was fooled by several posers (although spiritual discernment is a gift given to discern evil spirits).

It doesn't say that spiritual discernment is necessary to identify a Christian, no. Not directly. But if the Bible is the guide for what fruits are good, and spiritual discernment is necessary to interpret the Bible, then spiritual discernment is necessary for identifying good fruits. Therefore if good fruits are necessary for identifying Christians, and spiritual discernment is necessary for identifying good fruits, then spiritual discernment is necessary for identifying Christians.

The Bible says what Christians should do. If I can't interpret the Bible, then I can't tell whether a Christian is doing what a Christian should do.

Try this. Tell me how to know what is a good fruit, without telling me to consult the Bible that I can't interpret.

Joyousperson · May 25, 2019

Nicholas Deka said:
It doesn't say that spiritual discernment is necessary to identify a Christian, no. Not directly. But if the Bible is the guide for what fruits are good, and spiritual discernment is necessary to interpret the Bible, then spiritual discernment is necessary for identifying good fruits. Therefore if good fruits are necessary for identifying Christians, and spiritual discernment is necessary for identifying good fruits, then spiritual discernment is necessary for identifying Christians.

The Bible says what Christians should do. If I can't interpret the Bible, then I can't tell whether a Christian is doing what a Christian should do.

Try this. Tell me how to know what is a good fruit, without telling me to consult the Bible that I can't interpret.

I think we need to deliberate the above in the various perspective, i.e.

Who is a Christian - In God's view
Who is a Christian - In Christian or non-Christians view.

Who is a good Christian - In God's view
Who is a good Christian - In Christian or non-Christians view
]

Who is a Christian in God's view is a person who had accepted God's offer re John 3:16 to enter into a covenant [implied or explicit] to comply with the covenanted terms.
This is not an issue in principle, because God being all-knowing would know the sincerely and truth of the Christian who accepted God's offer.

Who is a Christian - In Christian or non-Christians view.
In this case the person may personally declared his acceptance of God's offer an in John 3:16 and went through the baptism ritual and perform all the obligation that can be verified empirically.
But the fact is, despite all the above external empirical verifications and good fruits, no human [not all knowing and limited] can confirm whether the person who declared himself is truly a genuine Christian or not. Only the all-knowing God will know.

Who is a good Christian - In God's view.
God being omniscient or all-knowing will certainly know who is a good [in a range of degrees] Christian.

Who is a good Christian - In Christian or non-Christians' view
As with the above,
all the above external empirical verifications and good fruits, no human [not all knowing and limited] can confirm whether the person who declared himself is truly a genuine Christian or not. Only the all-knowing God will know.

Whilst Christians and non-Christian can discern and verify the acts of a Christians against what the NT describes as good works, what is necessary is, whatever the conclusion of a good Christian, it must not be declared with 100% certainty merely based on interpretations from verses in the NT.

The point is there are many mental conditions and states within the person's mind or "heart" [which only God knows] that humans [Christians and non-Christians] cannot discern, e.g. real agape, grace, faith, reverence for God.

There are many cases of Christians who had expressed and performed acts that is very Christian-liked. However at some point, they were proven with evidence to be pedophiles priests, homosexuals, serial killer [BTK], criminals and evil people. Example BTK - Dennis Rader the serial killers;

Dennis Lynn Rader (born March 9, 1945) is an American serial killer known as BTK or the BTK Strangler. He gave himself the name "BTK" (for "Bind, Torture, Kill"). Between 1974 and 1991, Rader killed ten people in the Wichita, Kansas metro area. -wiki
Rader was a member of Christ Lutheran Church and had been elected president of the church council.
-wiki]

I am sure many of the church members in his congregation would have the idea that Rader was a very good Christian and elected him to be their president based on the good works and fruits he had produced based on empirical evidence of work done by him for the church and members.

To a certain extent, Christians can discern who is a 'good' Christian to the best of their ability based on what is stated in the NT, but they should never be 100% or even 90% certain since they are fallible human beings. Only God being all knowing can be 100% certain.

Thus whatever the conclusion of who is a "good" Christian arrived by Christians or non-Christians who are fallible human beings can only be subjective.

One point is;
If a person who had entered into a covenant with God commit a killing or violence again non-Christians or other Christians, it is conclusively certain within the framework of Christianity and the covenant, that act has nothing to do with Christianity in relation to those violent acts of killing.
Since the person has entered into a genuine covenant with God, he is still a Christian by definition and it is up to God to judge to forgive him or not on Judgment Day.

RDKirk · May 25, 2019

Nicholas Deka said:
It doesn't say that spiritual discernment is necessary to identify a Christian, no. Not directly. But if the Bible is the guide for what fruits are good, and spiritual discernment is necessary to interpret the Bible, then spiritual discernment is necessary for identifying good fruits. Therefore if good fruits are necessary for identifying Christians, and spiritual discernment is necessary for identifying good fruits, then spiritual discernment is necessary for identifying Christians.

The Bible says what Christians should do. If I can't interpret the Bible, then I can't tell whether a Christian is doing what a Christian should do.

Try this. Tell me how to know what is a good fruit, without telling me to consult the Bible that I can't interpret.

Even so, let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and. glorify your Father who is in heaven. -- Matthew 5

An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, ...Furthermore, he must have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he does not fall into disgrace and the Devil’s trap. 1 Timothy 3

The presumption here and in other places is that even pagans know good works when they see them.

And in fact, that is born out extra-bibiblically, such as the statements of Athenegoras in 180BC to the two Caesars in which he points out that Romans are well aware of the practice of Christians of adopting the babies the pagans saw as unfit to allow to live.

Another Roman had stated that people who fall ill should go to the Christians because "they will nurse anybody."

ananda · May 25, 2019

Joyousperson said:
Thus the effective defense is the above syllogism, i.e.;
A Christian is one who had entered into a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted terms that has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love all, even one's enemies, neighbor, give the other cheeks etc. Thus even if a Christian has hatred for his enemies and others s/he by doctrinal principles and obligated by the covenanted terms, cannot kill, harm or commit evil acts against any one.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27
"I am come to send fire on the earth ... Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" Luke 12:49-51
"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." 1John 2:6

com7fy8 · May 25, 2019

Joyousperson said:
The covenanted terms are all in the Gospels [mainly for Christianity] supported by the epistles, acts and relevant verses in the OT.

I find various scriptures of covenant which are not spelled out clearly in the Gospels, but they are in the epistles.

"Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

Also, we have Hebrews 12:4-14 about correction and the results of how our Father corrects His children.

And there are other things of our covenant, which are not clearly stated in the Gospels or not the way we find in the epistles. But these all agree and fit with one another.

Joyousperson · May 25, 2019

ananda said:
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

"I am come to send fire on the earth ... Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" Luke 12:49-51

"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." 1John 2:6

The above Luke 19:27 and 12:49-51 is cherry picking and taken out of context in the chapter.

Note the detailed explanation re 19:27 in this video;

Luke 19:27 - Scripture Twisting 101

I am a researcher of religions and spirituality. I have a great respect for Buddhism. There are also standalone violent verses [very rare] in the some of the Sutras [Mahayana's], but they are a needle in a haystack within the mountains of Buddhist sutras and is overridden by the overall pacifist ethos of Buddhism.

Joyousperson · May 25, 2019

com7fy8 said:
I find various scriptures of covenant which are not spelled out clearly in the Gospels, but they are in the epistles.

"Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

Also, we have Hebrews 12:4-14 about correction and the results of how our Father corrects His children.

And there are other things of our covenant, which are not clearly stated in the Gospels or not the way we find in the epistles. But these all agree and fit with one another.

There is the general covenant with God, i.e. sort of treaty that binds all Christians collectively.
But what is critical is the specific covenant [implied or explicit] that a Christian established a personal relationship with God and to comply with the covenanted terms.
The covenanted terms has to be from God via Jesus which is centered on the Gospels - i.e. heard directly from Jesus. Many of these are standard policies which may not be explained in detailed.

The Epistles and Acts are what are expounded and exegesis of standard policies of the the Gospels. The relevant verses of the OT that align with the Gospels core teachings would be relevant.

The above verses can be reconciled to the overall pacifist maxim of "love all, even enemies" from the Gospels.

ananda · May 25, 2019

Joyousperson said:
The above Luke 19:27 and 12:49-51 is cherry picking and taken out of context in the chapter.

Note the detailed explanation re 19:27 in this video;

Luke 19:27 - Scripture Twisting 101

I quoted Luke 19:27 not to suggest that Jesus was explicitly commanding his disciples to commit violence in that specific verse. In fact, I agree with the speaker that the parable refers to Jesus himself engaging in the slaying.

However the problem in my eyes is that the commandment of 1John 2:6 suggests that Christians actually have an obligation to follow Jesus' example.

I am a researcher of religions and spirituality. I have a great respect for Buddhism. There are also standalone violent verses [very rare] in the some of the Sutras [Mahayana's], but they are a needle in a haystack within the mountains of Buddhist sutras and is overridden by the overall pacifist ethos of Buddhism

I don't practice or otherwise follow Mahayana (as I wrote in my signature).

Joyousperson · May 25, 2019

ananda said:
I quoted Luke 19:27 not to suggest that Jesus was explicitly commanding his disciples to commit violence in that specific verse. In fact, I agree with the speaker that the parable refers to Jesus himself engaging in the slaying.

However the problem in my eyes is that the commandment of 1John 2:6 suggests that Christians actually have an obligation to follow Jesus' example.

I don't practice or otherwise follow Mahayana (as I wrote in my signature).

Point is the overriding pacifist maxim of love all, even enemies and the general ethos of love, super cedes all the above.

Noted your Theravada inclination but I was discussing re Buddhism in general.

I have read to the rare existence of violent elements in the Mahayana Sutras.

However a just recent google produced the following;

However, at least one post-canonical work—the Mahavamsa of Mahanama, a Pali chronicle of the fifth century CE— contains a controversial reference to physical violence at times of civil war7 and conflict in Sri Lanka which will be discussed in detail later.
http://worlduniversityfriends.org/Achive/Fall_2014/4_SAJ_1(1)Deegalle.pdf

But the above is a rare exception but the overall ethos of Buddhism is pacifist and never condoning evil and violent.

Therefore if Buddhists were to commit killings, rapes and any other crimes, it cannot be attributed the religion of Buddhism-proper. Rather the fault is that of the person who merely happened to be a Buddhist.

ananda · May 25, 2019

Joyousperson said:
Point is the overriding pacifist maxim of love all, even enemies and the general ethos of love, super cedes all the above.

Noted your Theravada inclination but I was discussing re Buddhism in general.

I have read to the rare existence of violent elements in the Mahayana Sutras.

However a just recent google produced the following;

However, at least one post-canonical work—the Mahavamsa of Mahanama, a Pali chronicle of the fifth century CE— contains a controversial reference to physical violence at times of civil war7 and conflict in Sri Lanka which will be discussed in detail later.
http://worlduniversityfriends.org/Achive/Fall_2014/4_SAJ_1(1)Deegalle.pdf

But the above is a rare exception but the overall ethos of Buddhism is pacifist and never condoning evil and violent.

Therefore if Buddhists were to commit killings, rapes and any other crimes, it cannot be attributed the religion of Buddhism-proper. Rather the fault is that of the person who merely happened to be a Buddhist.

Do you believe the Christian deity does not engage in what you would personally consider violent behavior (e.g. in reference to hell, the lake of fire, judgment day, the slayings of Luke 19:27, etc.)?

Joyousperson · May 26, 2019

ananda said:
Do you believe the Christian deity does not engage in what you would personally consider violent behavior (e.g. in reference to hell, the lake of fire, judgment day, the slayings of Luke 19:27, etc.)?

Yes, there are mention of violent and evil elements in the gospels, e.g. threat of hell, lake of fire, swords, violence in revelations, etc.

However and whatever a Christian is influenced by the above, the Christian is restraint 100% from killing another human by the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all -even enemies'. If he loose control of this condition and went on to kill another person, then he is more likely to go to Hell.

Therefore if a Christian has to kill for the greater good or various justifiable reasons, s/he will have to think 100 times before committing the act and the sin then risk punishment and hope for forgiveness.

Note the 5 precepts of Buddhism as overriding conditions which a Buddhist has to comply with.

In the case of Islam, there is no glaring prohibition to prevent Muslims from killing or committing evil on another human being. Muslims are exhorted to defend Islam against threats and are permitted to kill based on very vague definition of threats to the religion. Worst still, those who kill upon those vague reasons are highly rewarded in paradise.

In addition, no humans on earth can judge those Muslims' interpretation is wrong since only Allah can be the only judge on Judgment Day.

ananda · May 26, 2019

Joyousperson said:
Yes, there are mention of violent and evil elements in the gospels, e.g. threat of hell, lake of fire, swords, violence in revelations, etc.

However and whatever a Christian is influenced by the above, the Christian is restraint 100% from killing another human by the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all -even enemies'. If he loose control of this condition and went on to kill another person, then he is more likely to go to Hell.

Therefore if a Christian has to kill for the greater good or various justifiable reasons, s/he will have to think 100 times before committing the act and the sin then risk punishment and hope for forgiveness.

Is the Christian deity a pacifist?

Joyousperson · May 26, 2019

ananda said:
Is the Christian deity a pacifist?

According the overriding pacifist maxim of love all, even one's enemies and the likes, ideology of Christianity is pacifist, thus all Christians are covenanted with God to be in principle pacifist.

Pacifist
a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

God is not a person, thus in principle the term 'pacifist' do not apply.

But we can conclude that the Christian God has imposed an overriding pacifist condition for all Christians in their covenant with God.

The same Christian God also implemented the Ten Commandments which is also an overriding pacifist for the Jews. But it is noted there are loads of violent element in the Torah.

However the actions of God itself, floods and various catastrophes, etc. are violent according to human definition. But within the framework of theology, God is all-powerful and all-wise, thus whatever his actions maybe, relatively they are deemed to be optimal towards wisdom.

Since humans are limited and fallible, they cannot be like God and thus expected to do what God did, including those actions that are interpreted by humans as violent.

What counts and is critical is that the Christian God do not permit Christians within the covenanted pacifist maxim of love all - even enemies, and the likes.

The above is very relevant to contrast the overriding pacifist maxim of Christianity [also Buddhism, Jainism, and others] against the uninhibited condoning of violence by the ideology of Islam, e.g.

20:75. But whoso cometh unto Him a believer, having done good works [l-ṣāliḥāti], for such are the high stations [DRJ; l-darajātu; rank]

2:216. Warfare [l-qitālu] is ordained [kutiba: prescribed] for you [Muslims], though it is hateful unto you [Muslims]; but it may happen that ye [Muslims] hate a thing which is good [Khayr] for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad [ShaRR] for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.

9:29. Fight against

such of those [infidels] who have been given the Scripture [Jews & Christians]
[such] as [those infidels who] believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and
[such] as [those infidels who] forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and
[such] as [those infidels who] follow not the religion [deena] of truth,

until
they [infidels] pay the tribute [Jizya, aljizyata] readily, being brought low [SGhR; ṣāghirīna: subdued].

9:29 is not a historical thing but a universal doctrinal principle of Islam, i.e. a covenanted term all Muslims must abide with.
l-qitālu translated as warfare is a bit milder from the actual Arabic meaning. l-qitālu denote killing in an aggressive manner with an essence of evil.

ananda · May 26, 2019

Joyousperson said:
God is not a person, thus in principle the term 'pacifist' do not apply...However the actions of God itself, floods and various catastrophes, etc. are violent according to human definition...

Do you believe Jesus is/was a person?

Joyousperson · May 26, 2019

ananda said:
Do you believe Jesus is/was a person?

A person [Joseph's son] is one with a human body and mind, but he was/is a special person in association with God.
The human that is supposedly 'Jesus Christ' 2000+ years ago was both human and was/is imbued with the holy spirit.
The body and mind of that person [Joseph's son] is like a prism that has God's light shinning through it at 100% purity.

I would expressed 'Jesus' in the above sense depending on the contexts and perspectives used, i.e. scientific, biology or theological.

ananda · May 27, 2019

Joyousperson said:
A person [Joseph's son] is one with a human body and mind, but he was/is a special person in association with God.
The human that is supposedly 'Jesus Christ' 2000+ years ago was both human and was/is imbued with the holy spirit.
The body and mind of that person [Joseph's son] is like a prism that has God's light shinning through it at 100% purity.

I would expressed 'Jesus' in the above sense depending on the contexts and perspectives used, i.e. scientific, biology or theological.

As a person, are the acts of Jesus violent (e.g Luke 19:27, Revelation, etc.), according to human definition?

The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Well-Known Member

Early Buddhist

Similar threads