Who is a Christian?

[Joyousperson]

In my view, you have to take all those references to covenants out of your overview in order to begin to get a correct statement. It is also necessary not simply to say that Jesus was the Son of God but to genuinely know and believe who he was--his nature, identity, etc. The Trinity, IOW.

Note in order to follow up with John 3:16, a person has to accept the offer, which technically implied an agreement, thus the covenant to initiate the relationship.

Once the covenant is established the Christian will have to comply with whatever is expected of him/her based on what is stated in the Gospels, acts, epistles and supporting verses from the OT and no where else.
It is from and guided via the above that the Christian upon initiation will begin "to genuinely know and believe who he was--his nature, identity, etc. The Trinity, IOW."

As I had stated, humans and the Christians are give free will thus the effective way to rein in this free will is a covenant to keep the Christian within the confine of Christianity.

 

[Joyousperson]

The Old Law just showed us how weak we are, how bad sin really is and the hopelessness of living under the Law. But God could always forgive repentant seekers of God's love (forgiveness). We commit to a forgiving God's Love.

Not all Christians are like you, but they all come in different sizes, shapes and critically in different mental states and psychological conditions.

The point is the concept of the covenant [divine contract] is intrinsic within the Abrahamic religions. In the case of Christianity it is the New Covenant or essentially a covenant between Christians and God via Jesus Christ must be established [at least implied] in the beginning.

Note the argument re the 'worst sin' which cannot be taken too literally. The 'worst-sin' of Paul, Moses and others are one-off, i.e. not repeated after repentance. I don't believe the Christian God will apply this principle of forgiveness literally for the one who commit genocides and other terrible evil on a massive scale and repenting on each occasion till his last day.

 

[Joyousperson]

A christian is a follower of Christ.

You may be speaking for yourself, but we have to taken into account the whole of Christianity and all Christians.
The above definition is too general.
Note the follower of a mother hen need not be a chick, it could be a duck which was imprinted on birth.

It is critical to bring in other more fundamental and essential qualities of who is a Christian, namely the surrender to God, entering into a covenant with God/Jesus upon accepting the offer re John 3:16.

Anyone can claim to be a follower of Christ superficially or even genuinely but then due to various reasons subsequently commit the most heinous crime on humanity.

 

[Tone]

will have the potential to face the most terrible problem faced by a human being, the existential crisis.
So there is no contract with the Buddha. Those who believe the Buddha's life's problem solving will merely adopt the technique and practice themselves with guidance from the texts and experts on a voluntary basis

(Emphasis mine)

Here is where Christianity differs:

it's more like us being extricated from a binding contract imposed under duress and without full disclosure. He showed us the greater law at work behind it and provided a renewed (updated) contract, however, such is the case, that the old contract made us the slaves of the unfair master

So we believe that this "existential crisis" is actually an existing contract that is binding upon all human beings, upon birth.

 

[Joyousperson]

(Emphasis mine)

Here is where Christianity differs:



So we believe that this "existential crisis" is actually an existing contract that is binding upon all human beings, upon birth.

The inherent unavoidable "existential crisis" is not an 'existing contract' for Buddhists or believers who are not involved in an divine contract.
The existential crisis is a fact and different people and believers deal with it differently or are indifferent to it.

In the case of the Buddha Story [a myth] the crisis of sickness, old age and the mother of all existential crisis, i.e. mortality. The Buddha provided a life's problem solving technique in identifying the root causes and provide the solutions with an reiterative model to resolve it. There is no contract involved. Nb I am not a Buddhist but I have great respect for the philosophy.

 

[Tone]

The inherent unavoidable "existential crisis" is not an 'existing contract' for Buddhists or believers who are not involved in an divine contract.
The existential crisis is a fact and different people and believers deal with it differently or are indifferent to it.

In the case of the Buddha Story [a myth] the crisis of sickness, old age and the mother of all existential crisis, i.e. mortality. The Buddha provided a life's problem solving technique in identifying the root causes and provide the solutions with an reiterative model to resolve it. There is no contract involved. Nb I am not a Buddhist but I have great respect for the philosophy.

Who do you mean by "Believers"?

 

[Joyousperson]

Who do you mean by "Believers"?

Definition of BELIEVE

Believers in this case are those who believe in certain religion, ideology, doctrines or spiritual teachings, etc.

 

[Tone]

Definition of BELIEVE

Believers in this case are those who believe in certain religion, ideology, doctrines or spiritual teachings, etc.

The inherent unavoidable "existential crisis" is not an 'existing contract' for Buddhists or believers who are not involved in an divine contract.

Oh, so in the above you mean non-christian believers? Do you believe that all Christians are in a "divine contract"? On what basis do you believe that the "existential crisis" is not one and the same as the "existing contract"...how do you explain the the commonality of all human beings?

 

[Joyousperson]

Oh, so in the above you mean non-christian believers? Do you believe that all Christians are in a "divine contract"? On what basis do you believe that the "existential crisis" is not one and the same as the "existing contract"...how do you explain the the commonality of all human beings?

Yes, I meant non-Christian believers in that case.

Yes, all Christian [as defined] are in a covenant [divine contract] with the Christian God with Jesus as intermediary.

Meaning wise, a 'crisis' is not a 'contract'.
Definition of CRISIS

Definition of CONTRACT

DNA wise all humans faced the inherent unavoidable crisis or dilemma of the struggle/need to live but at the time knowing they inevitably face mortality. Generally in this situation there is no contract involved at all.

Christians, however, enter into a covenant [divine contract] with God who promised them eternal live thus resolving that existential crisis.
Buddhism and other non-theistic teachings do not require any covenant with a god or anyone else.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hello All,

I am not a Christian.
I am interested to know 'Who is a Christian' precisely.

My understanding of Who is a Christian is as follows;
A Christian is a person who;

1. Believes in Jesus as son of God and his teachings [John 3:16, etc.],
   
   
2. is Baptized accordingly,
   
   
3. Surrender to God via Jesus as Son of God,
   
   
4. Entered into a covenant with God to comply with God's words in the Gospels to the best of his/her ability.

In term of weightages, I understand 4 - entering into a covenant with God, is most critical which I would place at 75%. The covenant if not explicit is implied. Without a covenant [divine contract], then no true relationship is effected between God [& Jesus] and the believers.

The balance of 25% is divided among the others. Baptism is common but it is a ritual and form which can be abused.

Any one can declare a believe but it has to be reinforced with an actual covenant. It would be very fatal [no eternal life] for a Christian to insist there is no covenant [contract or agreement] between him and God or insist he will not enter into a covenant with his God.

• 
  If there is no agreement and relationship, there is no way - in principle - God can exercise any promise to him of salvation and eternal life. Any serious Christian will accept this principle if the point is explained clearly to him.
  
  Therefore the covenant is the primary and ultimate factor in deciding 'who is a Christian' regardless of whether they are conscious of it or not.

The above elements are based on genuine intentions from the believer and not on pretense which cannot escape God omniscience.

Do you agree a consummated covenant [divine contract, explicit or implied] is the most critical element in deciding 'who is a genuine Christian.'

The question can be difficult because it can be answered either very loosely or very narrowly.

In the loosest definition a Christian is someone that believes that Jesus is the Christ, i.e. the promised Messiah. That is the most bare minimum of a definition that is possible. Things start to tighten up when further questioning is asked: Such as what does Jesus being the Christ entail?

Well if He's actually the Messiah and not a false messiah, then that demands that He not have failed in His messianic mission. If Jesus was crucified and died and His body rotted in the ground, then He can't be the Messiah. Being Messiah means being king, in what way is Jesus king? That's where the Gospel narrative presents these points of information: Jesus came preaching the kingdom of God, God's kingdom is not some earthly dominion, it's not the temporal liberation of Israel from the yoke of Gentile nations as was expected; instead the kingdom came in the Person of Jesus and His ministry which culminates in His suffering, death, His resurrection from the dead, His ascension, and His current reign at the right hand of God.

This is where we see the things mentioned in the New Testament epistles as well. And what would eventually become codified as apostolic, catholic, orthodox teaching as conveyed in the early baptismal creeds and confessional statements of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as the Old Roman Symbol (which is the basis for the later Apostles' Creed):

"I believe in God the Father Almighty;
and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary;
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
the life everlasting."

The core formula of these early baptismal creeds, having their basis in the apostolic teaching and preaching we see recorded in the New Testament, eventually also gave rise to the Nicene/Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed; specifically to define orthodoxy against Arianism and Macedonianism.

As such the Nicene Creed has been the long accepted symbol of faith. It's the Creed which unites every Christian who shares in the ancient, historic, apostolic, biblical confession of faith, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

Can one be a Christian and deny the Nicene Creed? That's a difficult question to answer, fundamentally that question is "Are heretics still Christian?" And I suspect that can be answered as both yes and no. No, because as we've seen the deep core of Christianity is the confession that Jesus is the Christ, and that confession can't mean anything except from within the historic context that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament present. So to stand outside of that historic confessional core is to stand at odds with the very fundamental premise of what Christianity even is. On the other hand, I'm not going to deny that there are those who disagree with parts of that core, as its been defined and expressed historically, who might still be called Christians--but that their form of Christianity stands in contrast to orthodoxy, and so their theology cannot be regarded as valid.

So, for example, was Arius a Christian? I'd say yes, but that his peculiar doctrines make him wildly in error; and thus while Arius might have been a Christian, he was a Christian on the outside of the household of faith, i.e. the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Note in order to follow up with John 3:16, a person has to accept the offer, which technically implied an agreement, thus the covenant to initiate the relationship.

Once the covenant is established the Christian will have to comply with whatever is expected of him/her based on what is stated in the Gospels, acts, epistles and supporting verses from the OT and no where else.
It is from and guided via the above that the Christian upon initiation will begin "to genuinely know and believe who he was--his nature, identity, etc. The Trinity, IOW."

As I had stated, humans and the Christians are give free will thus the effective way to rein in this free will is a covenant to keep the Christian within the confine of Christianity.

You appear to be describing what is called "works righteousness," which is one reason for keeping the term "covenant" out of the individual's relationship with God, even though the word does have its own place in Scripture.

 

[ananda]

Not in the case of Christian.
Re John 3:16, Jesus and God made to offer of salvation to any one to accept enter into a covenant with God via Jesus. The person who accept God's offer is a Christian on condition of a genuine acceptance which an omniscient God would definitely know.

Possibly, but there's also "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'" Mt 7:21-23 RSV

 

[Albion]

Yes, but as also is the case with the popular verse from the Epistle of James about faith without works, it is not saying "So IF you actually do the following, you are in!"

In both cases, the meaning is that those who are God's elect, those who are saved by faith, WILL do X, meaning that anyone who isn't among them cannot compensate by building up a resume of good deeds.

 

[Tone]

Yeah, it's more like us being extricated from a binding contract imposed under duress and without full disclosure. He showed us the greater law at work behind it and provided a renewed (updated) contract, however, such is the case, that the old contract made us the slaves of the unfair master and we cannot even agree to the new contract, nor conduct ourselves accordingly, without continual help from our new Master,which He has provided in Writing. So, there is a time element to this contract that is still unfolding.

Christians, however, enter into a covenant [divine contract] with God who promised them eternal live thus resolving that existential crisis.
Buddhism and other non-theistic teachings do not require any covenant with a god or anyone else.

Okay, the reason why I referred to the existing contract as being the existential crisis is because it was imposed under duress, so it is, in fact, slavery, which I believe qualifies as a crisis.

I'm speaking of more than one contract here. One, puts humankind in slavery to a harsh and evil master, in the kingdom of darkness. The second, or "Christian contract", nullifies the first and makes us the subjects of a loving King, within the Kingdom of Light.

Colossians 1
"12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him."

 

[bling]

1 Corinthians 6:20
"19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body."

Remember I told you: “Atonement is a huge topic”. This verse has to do with atonement which I will try to explain without explaining all of atonement.

Who needs this payment of Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder to release God’s child to enter the Kingdom and if we know who is being paid we can figure it out why it was made.

Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe the Atonement Sacrifice as a literal ransom payment and not something like a ransom payment or equal to a king’s ransom. The atonement process is an excellent fit for a ransom scenario until you try to figure out “who is the kidnapper?”

Some say satan is the kidnapper, but it would be wrong for God to pay His enemy since God could just as easily and safely take anything from satan God wants.

Some say it is an intangible like death, sin, evil being paid, but intangibles do not react or change with a payment and do not need to be paid.

Some say God, but God is not a kidnapper, holding his own children out of the Kingdom and God out of empathy for Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through His veins.

We do not ask the nonbelieving sinner to accept some doctrine, some theology or some book, but we do ask them to please accept “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”, will is that not the ransom payment? If the nonbeliever accepts Christ and Him crucified will a child be released to enter the Kingdom to be with God? If the nonbelieving sinner refuses to accept Christ and Him Crucified (the ransom payment) will a child be kept from entering the Kingdom?

We are adopted children, but it was not a free adoption process, which we can be reminded of.

God did not pay Himself to justify or be satisfied into forgiving us. The payment was made to us, for us, because of us, while we were yet sinners.

 

[Tone]

Remember I told you: “Atonement is a huge topic”. This verse has to do with atonement which I will try to explain without explaining all of atonement.

Who needs this payment of Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder to release God’s child to enter the Kingdom and if we know who is being paid we can figure it out why it was made.

Christ, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer all describe the Atonement Sacrifice as a literal ransom payment and not something like a ransom payment or equal to a king’s ransom. The atonement process is an excellent fit for a ransom scenario until you try to figure out “who is the kidnapper?”

Some say satan is the kidnapper, but it would be wrong for God to pay His enemy since God could just as easily and safely take anything from satan God wants.

Some say it is an intangible like death, sin, evil being paid, but intangibles do not react or change with a payment and do not need to be paid.

Some say God, but God is not a kidnapper, holding his own children out of the Kingdom and God out of empathy for Christ would have personally preferred Christ’s blood to remain flowing through His veins.

We do not ask the nonbelieving sinner to accept some doctrine, some theology or some book, but we do ask them to please accept “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”, will is that not the ransom payment? If the nonbeliever accepts Christ and Him crucified will a child be released to enter the Kingdom to be with God? If the nonbelieving sinner refuses to accept Christ and Him Crucified (the ransom payment) will a child be kept from entering the Kingdom?

We are adopted children, but it was not a free adoption process, which we can be reminded of.

God did not pay Himself to justify or be satisfied into forgiving us. The payment was made to us, for us, because of us, while we were yet sinners.

12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light

Right, it is the Father that qualifies us.

 

[bling]

The problem is humans are given free will by God.

What I see with John 3:16 is merely an initial offer, i.e. a promise by God.
Note the qualification re Camel, eye of needle and rich man, limit of good works, re Titus, and others.
When a person accept the offer initially, s/he still have the freewill to commit the most terrible sins thereafter [note forgiving of worst sin not like to cover repeatable genocides]. Thus to counter the free will, there is a need for the covenanted terms that need to be complied with.

Note my point re God set ideal terms but there are provisions for non-compliance on Judgment Day by a merciful God.

The point here is, in principle there is an implied covenant of an offeror and acceptance by an offeree where both parties has to comply with the terms of the covenant.

There are lots of misconceptions here:

1. Free will allows us to become like God himself (we can obtain Godly type Love) and allows us to rise above just being glorified robots. Love that is the result of a free will choice with other likely alternatives is much more valuable to God than puppy love.
   
   
2. Yes Paul, John, James, Peter and others tell us sometimes what we must, need to, and have to, do, but it has to be kept in context. These spiritual leaders are like parents to their audience and the leaders are acting like their parents “commanding” them. Paul writes in a much more persuasive way to the Roman Christians because he had not been to Rome prior to the letters. You can be very frank to your children who know you have their best interest at heart. What the Spiritual leader is trying to do is keep the value of God’s Love up and growing so they will not down the road give up their inheritance for the perceived pleasures of sin.
   
   
3. Christians would not be described as Christians if they are murdering people. There were mostly ungodly and unbiblical reasons people went on the crusades. Even the “Spiritual” leaders were not allowing themselves to be led by the Spirit. They were extremely ignorant or satan’s disciples.
   
   
4. Christians are to want to do good stuff and to allow the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide them. Would you prefer to have good stuff done out of some obligation or as the result of pure gratitude?
   

 

[bling]

Right, it is the Father that qualifies us.

We were invited along with everyone else to go to the King's banquet. We accepted and given wedding garments to wear, so in that respect we are qualified, but it is all God's doing.

 

[Joyousperson]

The question can be difficult because it can be answered either very loosely or very narrowly.

In the loosest definition a Christian is someone that believes that Jesus is the Christ, i.e. the promised Messiah. That is the most bare minimum of a definition that is possible. Things start to tighten up when further questioning is asked: Such as what does Jesus being the Christ entail?

Well if He's actually the Messiah and not a false messiah, then that demands that He not have failed in His messianic mission. If Jesus was crucified and died and His body rotted in the ground, then He can't be the Messiah. Being Messiah means being king, in what way is Jesus king? That's where the Gospel narrative presents these points of information: Jesus came preaching the kingdom of God, God's kingdom is not some earthly dominion, it's not the temporal liberation of Israel from the yoke of Gentile nations as was expected; instead the kingdom came in the Person of Jesus and His ministry which culminates in His suffering, death, His resurrection from the dead, His ascension, and His current reign at the right hand of God.

This is where we see the things mentioned in the New Testament epistles as well. And what would eventually become codified as apostolic, catholic, orthodox teaching as conveyed in the early baptismal creeds and confessional statements of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, such as the Old Roman Symbol (which is the basis for the later Apostles' Creed):

"I believe in God the Father Almighty;
and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord,
Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary;
Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose again from the dead,
ascended to heaven,
sits at the right hand of the Father,
whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;
and in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Church,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh
the life everlasting."

The core formula of these early baptismal creeds, having their basis in the apostolic teaching and preaching we see recorded in the New Testament, eventually also gave rise to the Nicene/Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed; specifically to define orthodoxy against Arianism and Macedonianism.

As such the Nicene Creed has been the long accepted symbol of faith. It's the Creed which unites every Christian who shares in the ancient, historic, apostolic, biblical confession of faith, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant.

Can one be a Christian and deny the Nicene Creed? That's a difficult question to answer, fundamentally that question is "Are heretics still Christian?" And I suspect that can be answered as both yes and no. No, because as we've seen the deep core of Christianity is the confession that Jesus is the Christ, and that confession can't mean anything except from within the historic context that the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament present. So to stand outside of that historic confessional core is to stand at odds with the very fundamental premise of what Christianity even is. On the other hand, I'm not going to deny that there are those who disagree with parts of that core, as its been defined and expressed historically, who might still be called Christians--but that their form of Christianity stands in contrast to orthodoxy, and so their theology cannot be regarded as valid.

So, for example, was Arius a Christian? I'd say yes, but that his peculiar doctrines make him wildly in error; and thus while Arius might have been a Christian, he was a Christian on the outside of the household of faith, i.e. the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree to your points above which in a way is superficial.

My point is the most critical and fundamental principles of 'who is a Christian' is the imperative establishment of an agreement or covenant between God and the Christian.

God made the offer to any one to be a Christian as in John 3:16 [as elsewhere?] and the person need to agree to the offer to be a Christian. [God being omnipresent and omniscient] will know whether the person is sincerely or not, humans can only guess.
One a person believes in Jesus Christ in relation to John 3:16, meaning acceptance of the offer, a covenant is implied as established and the Christian is obliged to abide by God's words in the Gospels, epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT.

Do you agree the covenant is an imperative and significant element in deciding who is a Christian?

A Christian defined in the loosest sense is not effective because a Christian who initially believes in Jesus Christ, for some reasons, his mental state could be worsen and turned to be a evil person, be a permanent genocidal or murderous psychopath, and the likes. In this case the covenant is broken [God will know] since the person is incapable of loving anyone which is a required term to be a genuine Christian.

 

[Joyousperson]

You appear to be describing what is called "works righteousness," which is one reason for keeping the term "covenant" out of the individual's relationship with God, even though the word does have its own place in Scripture.

Yes, there are various perspectives to the term 'covenant' within the Scriptures.

However for any person to consummate what is offered within John 3:16 a covenant [a divine contract] is implied between God and the Christian to initiate a relationship.

Note the Principles of the Law of Contract or Agreements.
When two parties decide to agree with each other for mutual interests upon agreed terms [God's terms in the Gospel and the supporting texts], then a contract is implied.

Do you agree this principle of contract is effected when a Christian [the offeree] accept the offered terms of God [the offeror]?
The main point of this OP is the imperativeness of the implied [if not explicit] covenant between God and the Christian to initiate the personal relationship.