What is it to be a True Believer?

[Maria Billingsley]

What does the “ true” part mean?

The truth sets you free. This is what Jesus Christ of Nazareth said. If one believes the truth, in truth , it will set them free.
Holy Spirit = Freedom.

 

[Verv]

I hear this term- what does it mean?

I think it means to not just believe a thing internally, as in responding in the affirmative when asked, but to actually believe it so much that you act on it.

There are people who pay lip service to things but do not let it otherwise impact their actions. Perhaps this is what is meant by the "lukewarm" in Revelation 3:16.

The true believer is someone who is actually engaged in modeling their life around that belief, and those who truly believe in Christianity are thus invested in trying to work towards becoming Christian in their actions and thoughts.

 

[timothyu]

are thus invested in trying to work towards becoming Christian in their actions and thoughts.

Yes the grain among allll the weeds. Metamorphosis of this existence into something new will only occur for those who create the proper chrysalis while we are yet caterpillars. Butterflies only, no moths allowed.

 

[David Lamb]

being a friend to the earth we live on is bad?

dont conform to anything not specifically approved by God?

The bible uses "the world" in various ways. Barnes in his commentary wrote, "The term [world] seems to be used in the Scriptures in three senses;
(1,) As denoting the physical universe; the world as it appears to the eye; the world considered as the work of God, as a material creation.

(2.) The world as applied to the people that reside in it — " the world of mankind."

(3.) As the dwellers on the earth are by nature without religion, and act under a set of maxims, aims, and principles that have reference only to this life, the term comes to be used with reference to that community; that is, to the objects which [they] peculiarly seek, and the principles by which they are actuated, Considered with reference to the first sense of the word, it is not improper to love the world as the work of God, and as illustrating his perfections; for we may suppose that God loves his own works, and it is not wrong that we should find pleasure in their contemplation. Considered with reference to the second sense of the word, it is not wrong to love the people of the world with a love of benevolence, and to have attachment to our kindred and friends who constitute a part of it, though they are not Christians. It is only with reference to the word as used in the third sense that the command here can be understood to be applicable, or that the love of the world is forbidden; with reference to the objects sought, the maxims that prevail, the principles that reign in that community that lives for this world as contradistinguished from the world to come. The meaning is, that we are not to fix our affections on worldly objects — on what the world can furnish — as our portion, with the spirit with which they do who live only for this world, regardless of the life to come. We are not to make this world the object of our chief affection; we are not to be influenced by the maxims and feelings which prevail among those who do. "

I would agree with Barnes that it is the third meaning that is meant when John writes that Christians are not to love the world.

 

[Astrid]

The bible uses "the world" in various ways. Barnes in his commentary wrote, "The term [world] seems to be used in the Scriptures in three senses;
(1,) As denoting the physical universe; the world as it appears to the eye; the world considered as the work of God, as a material creation.

(2.) The world as applied to the people that reside in it — " the world of mankind."

(3.) As the dwellers on the earth are by nature without religion, and act under a set of maxims, aims, and principles that have reference only to this life, the term comes to be used with reference to that community; that is, to the objects which [they] peculiarly seek, and the principles by which they are actuated, Considered with reference to the first sense of the word, it is not improper to love the world as the work of God, and as illustrating his perfections; for we may suppose that God loves his own works, and it is not wrong that we should find pleasure in their contemplation. Considered with reference to the second sense of the word, it is not wrong to love the people of the world with a love of benevolence, and to have attachment to our kindred and friends who constitute a part of it, though they are not Christians. It is only with reference to the word as used in the third sense that the command here can be understood to be applicable, or that the love of the world is forbidden; with reference to the objects sought, the maxims that prevail, the principles that reign in that community that lives for this world as contradistinguished from the world to come. The meaning is, that we are not to fix our affections on worldly objects — on what the world can furnish — as our portion, with the spirit with which they do who live only for this world, regardless of the life to come. We are not to make this world the object of our chief affection; we are not to be influenced by the maxims and feelings which prevail among those who do. "

I would agree with Barnes that it is the third meaning that is meant when John writes that Christians are not to love the world.

“ Contradidtinguished”. First time I heard that word! Our words are all
monosyllabic.

Christianity continues to confuse me.
By one I am told all the world, nay, all the universe
is made corrupt by sin.
We are free to use up this earth as a better one is a coming.


I much prefer the idea of loving, cherishing, protecting.

As a sort of Jack-Buddhist, having grown up modtly
with buddhist thought, the detachment from
“worldly” things resonates well.

Living in this crossroad of history and culture, and having lived
abroad, with relatives who died in or were cadres in
cultural revolution I’ve my opinions on the maxims principles and objects
as your author put it.

Chinese culture, British,American Cultures; Communism, Christianity,
Buddhism, capitalism -
I see grave faults in all, I subscribe to none, though there’s good in all.

Much, maybe all that is positive in Christianity is also embedded
in our culture. It’s more in our faults that we differ.

Hong Kong as you may know is a place that glorifies materialism.

One way or another it can swallow you in.

You might look up “Repulse Bay” on google. Wiki, photo, if you wish..

it’s where I live. Inherited the flat, only child of only child heir to
considerable property

I choose to live rather austerely. To own a closet full of
Chanel etc would give me hives.

That is my nature, though if others need to be so commanded,
then it’s well they need!

I see women draped with a hundred thousand USD in
finery. I don’t compete.

Soo…I get most of what you posted.

Where we’d differ most is, imo, this life here now is all
there is.

Wich lends a different power and urgency to our
choices.

 

[public hermit]

For me there's a far more important question... how am I to recognize this 'true' Christian?

I think the standard is whether Christians love as Christ loves.

Jesus: I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

It's odd that one's beliefs should be argued for as the primary standard that marks a "true Christian" since beliefs are not observable by others and love is given by Jesus as the mark of the Christ-follower. But it's much easier to say "I believe" than to love both our fellow Christ-followers and our enemies (and Jesus teaches us to love both).

 

[Astrid]

I think the standard is whether Christians love as Christ loves.

Jesus: I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

It's odd that one's beliefs should be argued for as the primary standard that marks a "true Christian" since beliefs are not observable by others and love is given by Jesus as the mark of the Christ-follower. But it's much easier to say "I believe" than to love both our fellow Christ-followers and our enemies (and Jesus teaches us to love both).

Here, we don’t say “ I love you”.
The way westerners use the word rings hollow, insincere, meaningless.

like your song “ hello,i love you, won’t you tell me your name”

To us love is in what you do, steady, loyal, devoted, a product of time and
understanding.

to me,Jesus was speaking to his disciples, not to all of humankind to
love each other.

when a Christian says he loves everyone…well, he doesn’t. It’s impossible.No offense to anyone intended, that’s just my culture, my perspective.

 

[public hermit]

Here, we don’t say “ I love you”.
The way westerners use the word rings hollow, insincere, meaningless.

like your song “ hello,i love you, won’t you tell me your name”

To us love is in what you do, steady, loyal, devoted, a product of time and
understanding.

to me,Jesus was speaking to his disciples, not to all of humankind to
love each other.

when a Christian says he loves everyone…well, he doesn’t. It’s impossible.No offense to anyone intended, that’s just my culture, my perspective.

Are you a fan of the Doors?! If not, I am. If you are, then I am, too!

I agree that "love" gets thrown around easily in these parts so that it becomes vacuous, but I think us westerners, at our best, would agree that love is what one does. It's steady, loyal, and often a product of time and understanding. I don't think we're so different on that account; although, y'all might do it better than some of us.

Although that particular commandment was for his followers to love each other, that was not meant to limit the love of Christ-followers so much as to ensure love was their mark of discipleship. As I mentioned, he also taught his followers to love their enemies. That was also not meant to be a limit. It's not like he wanted his followers to love only those who were fellow followers and those who were enemies as if he did not intend his followers to love those who did not fall into either of those groups.

Another of the commandments we've been given is to love our neighbors as ourselves. I agree that it's impossible to love everyone since what we do (love is a matter of action and not mere feeling) and who it effects is limited in scope. But we should be able to potentially love anyone. Jesus never limited our love to certain groups or individuals.

When Jesus iterated the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, a Judean lawyer asked, "Who is my neighbor?" Basically, he wanted to carve humanity into two groups: those he had to love and those he didn't have to love. Jesus replied with a story where a Samaritan helped a Judean in desperate need of help (these two groups hated each other). Clearly, the Samaritan loved the Judean by his actions. The point: we cannot carve humanity into groups we must love and groups we need not love. In Christ there is no difference between Judean, Samaritan, Chinese, or American. We are all worthy of being loved by each other. And if I desire and do good things for myself, then I know how to love my neighbor, i.e., potentially anyone, even if I just met them.

Sorry if that feels like a lecture. I enjoy this kind of discussion but also do not enjoy being annoying.

 

[Astrid]

Are you a fan of the Doors?! If not, I am. If you are, then I am, too!

I agree that "love" gets thrown around easily in these parts so that it becomes vacuous, but I think us westerners, at our best, would agree that love is what one does. It's steady, loyal, and often a product of time and understanding. I don't think we're so different on that account; although, y'all might do it better than some of us.

Although that particular commandment was for his followers to love each other, that was not meant to limit the love of Christ-followers so much as to ensure love was their mark of discipleship. As I mentioned, he also taught his followers to love their enemies. That was also not meant to be a limit. It's not like he wanted his followers to love only those who were fellow followers and those who were enemies as if he did not intend his followers to love those who did not fall into either of those groups.

Another of the commandments we've been given is to love our neighbors as ourselves. I agree that it's impossible to love everyone since what we do (love is a matter of action and not mere feeling) and who it effects is limited in scope. But we should be able to potentially love anyone. Jesus never limited our love to certain groups or individuals.

When Jesus iterated the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, a Judean lawyer asked, "Who is my neighbor?" Basically, he wanted to carve humanity into two groups: those he had to love and those he didn't have to love. Jesus replied with a story where a Samaritan helped a Judean in desperate need of help (these two groups hated each other). Clearly, the Samaritan loved the Judean by his actions. The point: we cannot carve humanity into groups we must love and groups we need not love. In Christ there is no difference between Judean, Samaritan, Chinese, or American. We are all worthy of being loved by each other. And if I desire and do good things for myself, then I know how to love my neighbor, i.e., potentially anyone, even if I just met them.

Sorry if that feels like a lecture. I enjoy this kind of discussion but also do not enjoy being annoying.

Very good response. Deserves better than I can give it.
Definitely not tonite. I do keep crazy hours but it is close to midnite.

 

[timothyu]

We are free to use up this earth as a better one is a coming.

And that is where they fail in their thinking. Our behaviour is monitored. Do we respect this world and each other or do we take all we can get for self satisfaction. No better one for the latter.

when a Christian says he loves everyone…well, he doesn’t.

A Christian should understand that everyone is capable of acting in the ways we see others do, good or bad. If someone is off track and using selfishness to the max, we too could have also done the same, but if in not being so, we can offer a way back from the edge. Better still, we can refuse to punish for past offenses those who have made their way back, be it with help or on their own which takes even more effort on their part and should indeed be respected.

 

[Astrid]

And that is where they fail in their thinking. Our behaviour is monitored. Do we respect this world and each other or do we take all we can get for self satisfaction. No better one for the latter.


A Christian should understand that everyone is capable of acting in the ways we see others do, good or bad. If someone is off track and using selfishness to the max, we too could have also done the same, but if in not being so, we can offer a way back from the edge. Better still, we can refuse to punish for past offenses those who have made their way back, be it with help or on their own which takes even more effort on their part and should indeed be respected.

I don’t know if it’s “ failing” biblically.
Bit its sure disaster if pursued.

My view is love and loyalty are kind of different.
im always going to side with family against outsiders, with
Hong Kong against, with China against…like concentric circles.

it’s a form of love but only very very few get Love.

Make sense?

 

[Astrid]

Are you a fan of the Doors?! If not, I am. If you are, then I am, too!

I agree that "love" gets thrown around easily in these parts so that it becomes vacuous, but I think us westerners, at our best, would agree that love is what one does. It's steady, loyal, and often a product of time and understanding. I don't think we're so different on that account; although, y'all might do it better than some of us.

Although that particular commandment was for his followers to love each other, that was not meant to limit the love of Christ-followers so much as to ensure love was their mark of discipleship. As I mentioned, he also taught his followers to love their enemies. That was also not meant to be a limit. It's not like he wanted his followers to love only those who were fellow followers and those who were enemies as if he did not intend his followers to love those who did not fall into either of those groups.

Another of the commandments we've been given is to love our neighbors as ourselves. I agree that it's impossible to love everyone since what we do (love is a matter of action and not mere feeling) and who it effects is limited in scope. But we should be able to potentially love anyone. Jesus never limited our love to certain groups or individuals.

When Jesus iterated the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, a Judean lawyer asked, "Who is my neighbor?" Basically, he wanted to carve humanity into two groups: those he had to love and those he didn't have to love. Jesus replied with a story where a Samaritan helped a Judean in desperate need of help (these two groups hated each other). Clearly, the Samaritan loved the Judean by his actions. The point: we cannot carve humanity into groups we must love and groups we need not love. In Christ there is no difference between Judean, Samaritan, Chinese, or American. We are all worthy of being loved by each other. And if I desire and do good things for myself, then I know how to love my neighbor, i.e., potentially anyone, even if I just met them.

Sorry if that feels like a lecture. I enjoy this kind of discussion but also do not enjoy being annoying.

And again weve greeted the sunrise over the S China Sea, Saturday morning Where it’s always already tomorrow.
As for the doors, no. Mom introduced me to dylan and the dead when I was maybe 8:yrs old. As for your post I still don’t know what to say except maybe, “ yes”.

 

[public hermit]

@Astrid

I would love to visit China. I am sure there is so much beauty there, and I imagine the people are quality.

I am a fan of both Dylan and the Dead. I saw the Dead in Buffalo, NY June of '92. My friend and I saved money all year to drive from Texas just to see them. It was an experience, to say the least.

 

[timothyu]

Make sense?

Yes because we live double lives. One involving flesh, another involving spirit. It's a schizophrenic life.

 

[public hermit]

Yes because we live double lives. One involving flesh, another involving spirit. It's a schizophrenic life.

The flesh is a huge obstacle to Love. Ascetics are more socially just than those who freely indulge their passions. Moderate asceticism is probably ideal for true love. You still have to have some fun.

 

[partinobodycular]

Ascetics are more socially just than those who freely indulge their passions.

I'm an ascetic by nature. I don't find anything particularly noteworthy about it. It's just me being me. But if somebody finds enjoyment in worldly things, I say great. You do you, and I'll do me. At the end of the day if you're happy... wonderful. If you're not, well you probably don't have anybody to blame but yourself. That's the real benefit of asceticism... no matter how much, or how little you have... you're happy.

Hmmm... that might be a good attitude for a Christian.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The bible uses "the world" in various ways. Barnes in his commentary wrote, "The term [world] seems to be used in the Scriptures in three senses;
(1,) As denoting the physical universe; the world as it appears to the eye; the world considered as the work of God, as a material creation.

(2.) The world as applied to the people that reside in it — " the world of mankind."

(3.) As the dwellers on the earth are by nature without religion, and act under a set of maxims, aims, and principles that have reference only to this life, the term comes to be used with reference to that community; that is, to the objects which [they] peculiarly seek, and the principles by which they are actuated, Considered with reference to the first sense of the word, it is not improper to love the world as the work of God, and as illustrating his perfections; for we may suppose that God loves his own works, and it is not wrong that we should find pleasure in their contemplation. Considered with reference to the second sense of the word, it is not wrong to love the people of the world with a love of benevolence, and to have attachment to our kindred and friends who constitute a part of it, though they are not Christians. It is only with reference to the word as used in the third sense that the command here can be understood to be applicable, or that the love of the world is forbidden; with reference to the objects sought, the maxims that prevail, the principles that reign in that community that lives for this world as contradistinguished from the world to come. The meaning is, that we are not to fix our affections on worldly objects — on what the world can furnish — as our portion, with the spirit with which they do who live only for this world, regardless of the life to come. We are not to make this world the object of our chief affection; we are not to be influenced by the maxims and feelings which prevail among those who do. "

I would agree with Barnes that it is the third meaning that is meant when John writes that Christians are not to love the world.

To add to this. A lot of this has to do with the nuances and various uses of the Greek word kosmos.

In its most basic sense the word kosmos simply means "order" or "an arrangement". A common mythological motif in the ancient world, and this is true of the Greeks and their neighbors, is the concept of order arising from an un-ordered emptiness. The Greek term for this un-ordered emptiness is chaos. The exact way(s) in which order arises from chaos depends on the culture(s) telling their creation stories. Even the Bible has its own version of this in Genesis chapter 1, we read that the earth was a formless waste with the primordial waters (a common way of talking about chaos in the ancient world); God takes the world and over the course of six days, or refains of "evening and morning" order and form is given to the unordered and formless world.

So it isn't hard for the word kosmos to get used to describe what we might call "the natural order", aka the universe or world in the sense of all the stuff we see--the land, the plants, the animals, mountains, rivers, oceans, the sun, moon, and stars.

Many of the pre-Socratic philosophers were interested in digging deeper into this idea of kosmos, and so we see all sorts of questions arise about what is kosmos, and how it works. Heraclitus and Parmenides for example. But then we also get Pythagoras and his more mystical approach with numbers, and the Stoics and their ideas. Eventually we get Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle and "classic" Greek philosophy.

So kosmos can mean the natural order or "the world" in the sense of nature, the natural things we see. But it also can get deeper into questions like the forces and powers that operate, the ordering principle. And not just the ordering principle of nature, but the ordering principles of human beings and their societies, governments, and inter-personal relationships.

By the time of the New Testament is written, kosmos is a complex word that encompasses a lot of ideas depending on context. Which is why we can see the use of the word kosmos used in different ways throughout the writings of the New Testament. In the New Testament we see how the Greek idea of the Logos as the ordering principle of the kosmos is used, and appropriated as talking about Christ, such as in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, but it's found throughout the New Testament in its Christological statements, such as in St. Paul's epistle to the Colossians, or in the anonymous epistle to the Hebrews.

God as the creator of the universe is the Lord and Maker of the kosmos, and God rules the kosmos through His Logos (which is Christ). Since God made all things, and human beings are beloved of God, He loves human beings, therefore "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son", this is God's love of His creation, yes; but more than that, it is the specific love God demonstrates toward what we might term "the human world"; out of which God joins and participates in through the Incarnation, God become human and part of the human story and the history of humanity.

But there is also something else going on, there is something wrong in the good creation--there's death, there's injustice, people who are supposed to reflect the Divine image and likeness instead do all kinds of messed up things--they aren't doing as they should. They are "missing the mark" and erring--which is what "sin" means. The story of this goes all the way back to the biblical story of Adam and Even in the Garden, and is viewed as the constant problem of how the world now operates. The systems of order in the world are, in a sense, broken, there's something wrong with them. The New Testament uses terms like "powers and principalities" to talk about how the structures of how the world operates has something wrong with it. This problem exists not only in the broad structures of how things work--there is suffering and death, but also the ways humans organize themselves often involves violence and suffering, from oppression (such as Rome's oppressive ruling over the Jews, itself would be seen as a pattern of foreign powers conquering and oppressing, Assyria, Babylon, Macedonia, the Seluecids, and now Rome), to corrupt magistrates, the abuses of power. But also including all inter-personal relational dynamics--unfaithfulness of spouses, murder, envy, being deceitful, using people for selfish gain, the list goes on. So that the problem is not just what we'd call systemic, it's personal--the problem runs through the middle of each of us; and it is found at every level of how our lives are ordered and structured. In ourselves, in our relationships with other people, and in our larger human relationship with the broader world.

It's this sense of kosmos that is condemned as bad; the sinful, violent, broken, system of how things are where death, sin, and injustice seems to rule the day.

The New Testament contrasts this with what Jesus offers, which is a different sort of kingdom, a different sort of ordering, and ultimately a different sort of world--one rooted not in death, but resurrection. Something literal that will happen in the future, a world in which men beat their swords into plowshares, and even the lion eats straw like an ox and a small child can play near a viper's den without fear of harm, a world where justice flows like an uninterupted stream, a world where God is exerienced in such a way that His presence covers the whole earth the same way water covers the oceans. And according to the New Testament, this world can be experienced, in part, right now--proleptically in the life of faith.

Presumably, a person who really does believe in something like this would, even though quite imperfectly, have an affect on how they view things and their views shaped by this kind of belief. They would, for example, even if they struggle with it, recognize their own failure to cultivate a behavior of love, and a love of peace, and a love of justice as something that should change, and involve the continued changing of their thoughts and attitudes, what we would call "repentance" which isn't just "oh oops, I goofed" but actually refers to this Greek word metanoia, literally "changing of one's mind". Thus a distinction could be made between the person who takes these things seriously, and the person who--say--just likes marking "Christian" on a checklist without any real care or concern about what that is supposed to mean in any real way.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tom8907]

Someone who trusts in Christ's work alone on the cross for their eternal salvation.

Someone who bears fruit.

 

[Michael 777]

A true believer is somebody who believes 'in' Jesus Christ and not just believes 'that' he is Jesus Christ. To give an example I know a man named Bob and he asks me to give me all my possessions. I would probably not do so but if I believed in Bob, if I knew and trusted in Bob, then I would be more eager to help him. There is a difference between knowing a fact about a person and actually knowing that person and trusting in them and listening to what they say.

Most Historians believe Jesus Christ was an actual person because of historical fact, not all Historians who believe this are Christian because they see him as a historical figure and have not placed their belief in him as God and Saviour. We see this in Christianity as well where people are taught about Jesus but never actually believe in him. It is a personal choice and one that requires faith.

I know people who just attend church because it is a nice place to make friends and get help when life throws them lemons. They have not yet actually placed their faith and trust in Jesus. A true believer places their trust in Jesus and lives out their life in faith to obey and honour him. Jesus called this being born again, becoming a new person. Scripture refers to this as fruit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

 

[timothyu]

.... acting contrary to the ways of the world man has made in our own image.