Who is a true Christian?

[Nightfire]

So is this recipe explained in some sort of relationship with Christ? Any relationship has terms. I suppose those terms of the relationship are the recipe, in my words.

Or is it the behaviour or works that save? You seems to be saying stuff that I can't nail down into something concrete.

It's the integrity of the relationship that keeps us safe. And like in any relationship, understanding won't come all by itself. If you've ever been in a serious long-term relationship, you'll know that there's very little that could be expressed "concretely" without underestimating the dynamics involved. The stability and value of the relationship as a whole just doesn't depend on how it is expressed at any particular time or under any particular circumstance. Try enforcing love, for instance... you could try to codify it with rules like "you must not cheat on me", but it would be a mistake to think this sufficiently describes (or regulates) the atmosphere of the relationship - or that it would be enough to make it last.

Does a man love his wife if he just goes through all the "right" motions, and performs all his "required" duties? Love means more than that. But on the other hand, can he truly say he loves her if he does nothing about it? Likewise with God, the terms of the relationship is love, and love can't be nailed down to a set of rules - the rules just represent the boundaries outside which it isn't love anymore. You could break down the characteristics of a healthy relationship for analysis, or to make some important things concrete (like trust, honesty, fidelity, etc. - and even these could be broken down further into little legal systems of their own) but you can't make a recipe out of that analysis.

Jesus took a lot of trouble to explain - in word and action - the relationship between the Son and the Father and the working of the Spirit, and our relationship to the Trinity (see John 15). His disciples went to even more trouble to explain what this relationship should look like in practice. Just read 1 John 4, for instance, or any of Paul's epistles.

 

[AgnosticMike]

It's the integrity of the relationship that keeps us safe. And like in any relationship, understanding won't come all by itself. If you've ever been in a serious long-term relationship, you'll know that there's very little that could be expressed "concretely" without underestimating the dynamics involved. The stability and value of the relationship as a whole just doesn't depend on how it is expressed at any particular time or under any particular circumstance. Try enforcing love, for instance... you could try to codify it with rules like "you must not cheat on me", but it would be a mistake to think this sufficiently describes (or regulates) the atmosphere of the relationship - or that it would be enough to make it last.

Does a man love his wife if he just goes through all the "right" motions, and performs all his "required" duties? Love means more than that. But on the other hand, can he truly say he loves her if he does nothing about it? Likewise with God, the terms of the relationship is love, and love can't be nailed down to a set of rules - the rules just represent the boundaries outside which it isn't love anymore. You could break down the characteristics of a healthy relationship for analysis, or to make some important things concrete (like trust, honesty, fidelity, etc. - and even these could be broken down further into little legal systems of their own) but you can't make a recipe out of that analysis.

Jesus took a lot of trouble to explain - in word and action - the relationship between the Son and the Father and the working of the Spirit, and our relationship to the Trinity (see John 15). His disciples went to even more trouble to explain what this relationship should look like in practice. Just read 1 John 4, for instance, or any of Paul's epistles.

I think you have avoided my question somewhat but I will answer your response.

I have and am in a serious long term relationship that is expressed by very concrete terms. The stability of our relationship is hinged on a promise codified in a public commitment to my partner. Some call them vows. To many these vows determine the validity of the relationship. For Christians the vows determine the validity and the relationship to their master.

So yes the stability and value of our relationship is dependent on those vows and if I continue to respect and honour them throughout the relationship. They are dependent on the time and circumstances.

It is important to perform all the right duties to each other. The concrete things I do show, admittedly in part, the love I have for my partner.

If love can’t be nailed down to a set of rules why are the 10 commandments and the remaining 613 set down as the covenant agreement between Israel and Yahweh? If you have a covenant with God or Jesus you must have terms of that covenant.

I have read the passages you speak of and the more I read the more I am confused. It’s funny how each person who answers this question comes up with a different answer.

Some people say you must trust and obey Jesus. Others add to that saying you must believe Jesus was sent from God. Others say you must believe God is Jesus. Still others say you must believe the Bible is God’s message. Others say you must believe that Jesus died, rose and was raised on the third day. The list goes on with everyone making each point a priority. I have a friend who was baptised and made a confession of faith. I posed her situation to the members of this forum and some denied she was a Christian because she didn’t speak in tongues. Others said she was a Christian and still more said she wasn’t for other reasons. Very confusing.

If my relationship was like that it would be terrible. Thankfully we know the terms of our love for each other.

Regards
Mike

 

[Nightfire]

I think you have avoided my question somewhat but I will answer your response.

I have and am in a serious long term relationship that is expressed by very concrete terms. The stability of our relationship is hinged on a promise codified in a public commitment to my partner. Some call them vows. To many these vows determine the validity of the relationship. For Christians the vows determine the validity and the relationship to their master.

So yes the stability and value of our relationship is dependent on those vows and if I continue to respect and honour them throughout the relationship. They are dependent on the time and circumstances.

It is important to perform all the right duties to each other. The concrete things I do show, admittedly in part, the love I have for my partner.

If love can’t be nailed down to a set of rules why are the 10 commandments and the remaining 613 set down as the covenant agreement between Israel and Yahweh? If you have a covenant with God or Jesus you must have terms of that covenant.

I have read the passages you speak of and the more I read the more I am confused. It’s funny how each person who answers this question comes up with a different answer.

Some people say you must trust and obey Jesus. Others add to that saying you must believe Jesus was sent from God. Others say you must believe God is Jesus. Still others say you must believe the Bible is God’s message. Others say you must believe that Jesus died, rose and was raised on the third day. The list goes on with everyone making each point a priority. I have a friend who was baptised and made a confession of faith. I posed her situation to the members of this forum and some denied she was a Christian because she didn’t speak in tongues. Others said she was a Christian and still more said she wasn’t for other reasons. Very confusing.

If my relationship was like that it would be terrible. Thankfully we know the terms of our love for each other.

Regards
Mike

Hi Mike,

I'm unclear as to what you say your terms with your wife was. If you are talking about marriage vows, how is this different than receiving baptism, for instance? Like I said, laws address the boundaries, they don't define the relationship itself. Thanks for bringing up the word "covenant". You might be aware of the covenants God made with his people - and the Ten Commandments was indeed such a covenant. Maybe this is a more useful way of approaching your question. The covenant Jesus heralded - the covenant of grace - underlies the law. The passages I gave you relate to the covenant Jesus established (you can read Hebrews if you want a good eplanation of it). While the law represented the terms of the relationship, grace represented the relatiosnhip itself. It's very much like the relationship between a father and a son.

Your friend's relationship with God is something only she can attest to. I know there are people who have experienced speaking in tongues who think it is a characteristic of a relationship with God - much the same way people think that the things that make their own relationship meaningful should apply to all meaningful relationships.

 

[AgnosticMike]

Hi Mike,

I'm unclear as to what you say your terms with your wife was. If you are talking about marriage vows, how is this different than receiving baptism, for instance? Like I said, laws address the boundaries, they don't define the relationship itself. Thanks for bringing up the word "covenant". You might be aware of the covenants God made with his people - and the Ten Commandments was indeed such a covenant. Maybe this is a more useful way of approaching your question. The covenant Jesus heralded - the covenant of grace - underlies the law. The passages I gave you relate to the covenant Jesus established (you can read Hebrews if you want a good eplanation of it). While the law represented the terms of the relationship, grace represented the relatiosnhip itself. It's very much like the relationship between a father and a son.

Your friend's relationship with God is something only she can attest to. I know there are people who have experienced speaking in tongues who think it is a characteristic of a relationship with God - much the same way people think that the things that make their own relationship meaningful should apply to all meaningful relationships.

We laid out a number of regulations (for one of a better word) in what we would spend without consulting the other. We also laid out our obligations to each other in terms of our own hobbies. We have also laid out guidelines for sex too.

I do a fair bit of counselling at times and have found that the uncertainty in marriage creates a lot of problems. You can’t legislate for everything but you can make some good guidelines for the terms of our contract with each other. I suppose terminology gets confused too. Different people use different words for the same things.

It is also extremely helpful to know how your relationship is defined within the boundaries. As a result we have agreed to consult each other when these areas are grey. It looks like your relationship with your God is in no way similar to my 23 year marriage. Maybe this is why Christian marriages fail so often.

Anyway the point is we know where we stand in relation to each other. It seems as from what you’re saying, you’ll never really know where you stand in your relationship with God.

As for marriage vows and baptism. Well for one we didn’t get wet.

Well Christians don’t really believe in the 10 commandment do they. It is 9. The Sabbath one is denied in preference for the first day.

You might have to be clearer in your explanations of covenant etc. I know exactly what a covenant is, but what are the terms of that covenant. That is where there is a huge variance.

Some say the covenant is in accepting God’s side of things (which differs from Christian to Christian). Some say accepting Jesus is from God and that he lived dies and rose for the purpose of sanctifying the repentant. Some say accepting Jesus is God and that he lived died etc. Others say the above plus being baptised in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues as the sign of the ratification of that covenant.

I’m sure you just don’t believe that anything goes. That is what I mean by recipe.

 

[Nightfire]

We laid out a number of regulations (for one of a better word) in what we would spend without consulting the other. We also laid out our obligations to each other in terms of our own hobbies. We have also laid out guidelines for sex too.

I do a fair bit of counselling at times and have found that the uncertainty in marriage creates a lot of problems. You can’t legislate for everything but you can make some good guidelines for the terms of our contract with each other. I suppose terminology gets confused too. Different people use different words for the same things.

It is also extremely helpful to know how your relationship is defined within the boundaries. As a result we have agreed to consult each other when these areas are grey. It looks like your relationship with your God is in no way similar to my 23 year marriage. Maybe this is why Christian marriages fail so often.

I think you're making an unwarranted conclusion. I personally know of only one Christian marriage that has failed in my lifetime, for understandable reasons. My parents have been happily married for 30 years, most of their siblings for even longer. And their parents were together until death. I guess neither my experience nor yours allows for any generalizations, but I think that we'll find that relationships that work share a lot of common characteristics - whether they're Christian or not.

The principles you describe - the fixed guidelines, transparent goals, defined boundaries - are all in Paul's letters to the churches. They were all in the Hebrew Bible well (reflecting the contemporary challenges people faced), and applied to Israel's relationship with their God.

Anyway the point is we know where we stand in relation to each other. It seems as from what you’re saying, you’ll never really know where you stand in your relationship with God.

I don't know what you base this observation on. Uncertainy is just as destructive in a relationship with God, since it leads either to inconstancy and fanaticism (seeking spiritual security in other places) or to frustration, fear and hopelessness. But I know exactly where I stand, like Jesus said. "in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment" (John 16:8).

As for marriage vows and baptism. Well for one we didn’t get wet.

And the point is? For too many people, getting married is far worse than getting wet. And too many Christians think that one is easier than the other.

Well Christians don’t really believe in the 10 commandment do they. It is 9. The Sabbath one is denied in preference for the first day.

That's simply a misunderstanding. Sunday is not a new sabbath, it's simply the day on which we celebrate Christ's atonement. The Sabbath rest is given by Christ, the "Lord of the Sabbath" and the fulfilment of the law.

Hebrews 9:9-11 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.​

It's not an ignored commandment, it's the most important - and all-encompassing - of all. Today's pro-Sabbath and pro-Sunday parties aren't very different than the pro-circumcision and anti-circumcision groups in Pauls' day (Gal. 2:12), and ignore Paul's words, based on the new covenant Christ established: Rom. 14:5 "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

You might have to be clearer in your explanations of covenant etc. I know exactly what a covenant is, but what are the terms of that covenant. That is where there is a huge variance.

Some say the covenant is in accepting God’s side of things (which differs from Christian to Christian). Some say accepting Jesus is from God and that he lived dies and rose for the purpose of sanctifying the repentant. Some say accepting Jesus is God and that he lived died etc. Others say the above plus being baptised in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues as the sign of the ratification of that covenant.

I’m sure you just don’t believe that anything goes. That is what I mean by recipe.

You're talking about two different subjects here: one is the covenants themselves and God's terms - the other is the Christian's participation in them and the consequent sense of his own salvation - the security of the relationship, which you said was so important. Like I said before, it's one thing for you and your wife to make those lofty vows on day one, and another (related, but separate) thing to live those vows on a daily basis, through the storms and insecurities that inevitably do arise. The marriage might not spontaneously dissolve at each obstacle, but trust and transparency will definitely be eroded if the vows aren't consciously translated into situation-relevant actions.

But what you're talking about is not how various Christians have translated their vows, and God's covenant, into practical terms, but what they believe about them (which is when semantics become so important). For some, their faith and security really does lie in having experienced something other-worldy at baptism. They won't understand how anybody else could have the same security without it - and so they try to enforce their belief about what it looks and feels like on others, using examples from the Bible that are not really conditions. The problem comes when they ignore Paul's advice and also judge those who disagree with them. Paul spoke specifically about dietary and purity laws, but it applies the same:

Rom. 14: 9- For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.
...
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. ... So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.​

But there is another side of the coin, and that is not taking Jesus' own words seriously (Jesus said "I am", echoing God in so many words) and not believing God's testimony about him ("This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"). For instance, when it is clearly said that someone is opposing Christ when he denies Jesus lived and died bodily, "in the flesh", there isn't much warrant to base one's faith and security on the idea that Jesus was just a moral fiction. Like any relationship, while there is some space for disagreement about holy days and food, there isn't any room to maneuver around lying, immorality and infidelity.

All the terms of each covenant were put into practice, codified, and written down as scripture, and anybody who wants to enter into the covenant will have to study scripture, because it contains the history of God's covenants. But no Christian can take the place of God, and pronounce who is or isn't "saved" through His relationship with them. Our relationship with people, Christian or not, can only reflect our own relationship with God. Maybe this includes an understanding of a law or a means of grace, which allows someone to improve on another's understanding, and therefore strengthen their faith. Often it means pointing out sin, and the risk of inciting someone's anger. But never does it allow one person to know another's final destiny, even though some paths can have certain consequences if followed to their natural end.

In your case, it would be necessary to point out that disbelieving the One who established a covenant, and doubting the very means by which such a covenant was established, is contrary to faith, and therefore prohibitive to actually entering into the covenant ("Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son." 1 John 5:10). The Apostles' Creed is a good summary of what constitutes Christian beliefs, and what may be considered the minimum necessary beliefs to align oneself with the Bible. There's no point in trying to be PC and pretend that a person can ignore God's will and still consider their faith sufficient. You can't have the security of the marriage without making - and believing in - the vows. And you won't take the vows seriously if you don't believe the person making them.

Some useful resources that might combine your understanding of covenants (The Bible covenants usually take the form of a Suzerain-Vassal treaty) with the Biblical application of them:
God's covenants at Monergism.com;
The Main Covenants of Yahweh at ldolphin.org;
and a quite comprehensive article: Salvation and God's covenants.

I hope you find these useful.

 

[AgnosticMike]

I think you're making an unwarranted conclusion. I personally know of only one Christian marriage that has failed in my lifetime, for understandable reasons. My parents have been happily married for 30 years, most of their siblings for even longer. And their parents were together until death. I guess neither my experience nor yours allows for any generalizations, but I think that we'll find that relationships that work share a lot of common characteristics - whether they're Christian or not.

If you only know of one Christian marriage that has failed you obviously lead a very sheltered and narrow life. Divorce rates in Australia and the Us are well above 50% and I would guess that there are similar figures for South Africans. I have South African friends who lived a very sheltered life in South Africa too and this never helps to get a real picture on life.

The principles you describe - the fixed guidelines, transparent goals, defined boundaries - are all in Paul's letters to the churches. They were all in the Hebrew Bible well (reflecting the contemporary challenges people faced), and applied to Israel's relationship with their God.

My experience is not a generalisation. In fact it is congruent with the divorce statistics in Australia.

I don't know what you base this observation on. Uncertainy is just as destructive in a relationship with God, since it leads either to inconstancy and fanaticism (seeking spiritual security in other places) or to frustration, fear and hopelessness. But I know exactly where I stand, like Jesus said. "in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment" (John 16:8).

I base my observations on my observations and responses from Christians both in the real world and the cyber world.

And the point is? For too many people, getting married is far worse than getting wet. And too many Christians think that one is easier than the other.

Marriage is far better than baptism, I know I have done both.

That's simply a misunderstanding. Sunday is not a new sabbath, it's simply the day on which we celebrate Christ's atonement. The Sabbath rest is given by Christ, the "Lord of the Sabbath" and the fulfilment of the law.

I know Christians like to twist this one as you have. The reality is they do not observe the Sabbath. Hebrews has nothing to do with this commandment. It is merely elaborating a principle. Even your passage in Romans runs contrary to the commandment. The Sabbath according to the first lot of 10 commandments is clear about it being holy. Christians conveniently reinterpret this to suit them selves.

You're talking about two different subjects here: one is the covenants themselves and God's terms ...

I know about the various covenants. We studied them at Bible College. But you seem to be avoiding the original point that there are many recipes for salvation. You need look no further than the threads on this site to see the various views Christians have. In an earlier post I provided the scenario of a woman I baptised who accepted that Jesus was from God, that he was her saviour but not that he was God. Some people said she could not be saved if this is what she believed, others said she could be saved. Some said she could only be saved when she was baptised in the Spirit and spoke in tongues. There you have, in essence, 3 recipes. That is what I mean when I speak of recipes. The marriage thing does not help you to understand my point as your experience of the real world is obviously limited. So this is what I am addressing, recipes.

Hope that explains it better.

Regards

Mike

 

[Nightfire]

If you only know of one Christian marriage that has failed you obviously lead a very sheltered and narrow life. Divorce rates in Australia and the Us are well above 50% and I would guess that there are similar figures for South Africans. I have South African friends who lived a very sheltered life in South Africa too and this never helps to get a real picture on life.

Maybe I'm just not as willing to speak for the Christianity of those marriages that I know have failed. They seem to fail on lack of communication, self-control, tolerance, and strong doses of selfishness, none of which are representative of Christianity in any way. The divorce rate here is as high as anywhere else, and I know of many divorces, but the line you have drawn between national statistics and Christian failed marriages is arbitrary, as far as I'm concerned. You just seemed to be trying to get a jab at Christianity in sideways.

My experience is not a generalisation. In fact it is congruent with the divorce statistics in Australia.

The fact is that it runs across religious boundaries. It's just as easy to say that people outside religious tradition - i.e. those who never get married and merely move in together - are in happy monogamous relationships for the rest of their lives, and that would also be an unwarranted generalization.

I base my observations on my observations and responses from Christians both in the real world and the cyber world.

And did they blame their failed marriages on God being too strict, not leaving enough room for "negotiation"?

Marriage is far better than baptism, I know I have done both.

Baptism has to do with your relationship with God, and should have been just as meaningful as your vows to your wife. One wouldn't be able to blame a divorce on the vows (the promise to stay faithful to your spouse), neither is it rational to blame a failed relationship with God on a baptism that proved to be meaningless.

I know Christians like to twist this one as you have. The reality is they do not observe the Sabbath. Hebrews has nothing to do with this commandment. It is merely elaborating a principle. Even your passage in Romans runs contrary to the commandment. The Sabbath according to the first lot of 10 commandments is clear about it being holy. Christians conveniently reinterpret this to suit them selves.

You said earlier: "It is also extremely helpful to know how your relationship is defined within the boundaries. As a result we have agreed to consult each other when these areas are grey. It looks like your relationship with your God is in no way similar to my 23 year marriage."

Now that I tell you that a relationship with God can be similar, you complain about convenient unilateral reinterpretations. Do you know that it was unilateral? Jesus himself reinterpreted the traditional Sabbath laws - though not the day. And neither do Christians, though many are admittely unaware of it (to them, Sunday simply is the "seventh day" - note that the Commandment says the seventh day is a Sabbath). The traditional sabbath is still saturday, and still represents the order of creation. But that's not where it stops.

Let's look at this from a slightly different angle. The commandment says "six days you should work...". That means a person would be just as guilty of breaking the fourth commandment for taking Sunday off, even if he had kept Saturday as a sabbath (starting at sundown Friday and ending at sundown Saturday evening).

If you're going to start dissecting the commandments for the sake of laws, you'll end up where the Jews were in Jesus time. You might be keeping the letter of the law, but not the spirit. And what happens to the difference Jesus actually made?

Romans 7:6
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.​

When Jesus said "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27), what do you think it meant? And what is the significance of Jesus proclaiming immediately after that, "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath"?

Who are we to be in a relationship with? God, or the law? ... Jesus, or the sabbath?

I know about the various covenants. We studied them at Bible College. But you seem to be avoiding the original point that there are many recipes for salvation. You need look no further than the threads on this site to see the various views Christians have.

What makes a view the same as a recipe?

Different cooks may have different views of the same recipe - that's what distinguishes a good cook from a bad one. And if his view doesn't end up achieving the product of the particular recipe, he might be said to be a bad cook... or better than the ones who wrote it. That's where authority comes in, and why Christians have no problem following the interpretations Jesus introduced into the traditional Jewish recipes. And why they wanted to crucify Jesus. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Luke 5:21), right?

In an earlier post I provided the scenario of a woman I baptised who accepted that Jesus was from God, that he was her saviour but not that he was God. Some people said she could not be saved if this is what she believed, others said she could be saved. Some said she could only be saved when she was baptised in the Spirit and spoke in tongues. There you have, in essence, 3 recipes. That is what I mean when I speak of recipes. The marriage thing does not help you to understand my point as your experience of the real world is obviously limited. So this is what I am addressing, recipes.

Let me pose you a counter-question, then: How extensive is your experience of marriages? How many times have you been married, to know what recipe works? Why do you even believe they should work? Tradition? I'm sure you know there are many views - recipes - of what makes a relationship work, and even about what constitutes a "working" relationship.

The answer lies in the fact that it takes two to have a relationship. Christian may have their countless opinions, but in the end, who's relationship between? There may be logical reasons why someone might object to a person being baptised in the (singular) name of "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19; Jesus' own words), yet not recognize the authority of the Son to forgive as God would.

But not one of them can influence how God views her, having accepted Him as her saviour - if not semantically, at least in practice. And whatever some think should have been manifested there, we have the scripture that clearly says what should be manifested in the rest of her life: living out the faith that led to her baptism, with love. Without that, speaking in tongues would be as good as a clanging cymbal, signifying nothing.

Why are you so concerned about different opinions on her baptism? Is she worried about it? Do their opinions threaten her faith? Surely she is able to test them herself. Many observant Jews thought Jesus would go to hell for blasphemy, and shunned him for associating with unclean sinners, and what was their opinion worth? I'll say it again: A recipe is a poor substitute for a relationship, and doesn't hold water against it.

 

[Calminian]

That's simply a misunderstanding. Sunday is not a new sabbath, it's simply the day on which we celebrate Christ's atonement. The Sabbath rest is given by Christ, the "Lord of the Sabbath" and the fulfilment of the law.

I know Christians like to twist this one as you have. The reality is they do not observe the Sabbath. Hebrews has nothing to do with this commandment. It is merely elaborating a principle. Even your passage in Romans runs contrary to the commandment. The Sabbath according to the first lot of 10 commandments is clear about it being holy. Christians conveniently reinterpret this to suit them selves.

The N.T. teaches that Christ fulfilled the sabbath and in a sense is the sabbath. Christians still observe the principal of working six days and resting one day, but they do not set apart the 7th day in particular. This is explicit teaching in the N.T. and has been practiced since the early church. Nightfire hasn't twisted anything.

Paul also touches on this:

Rom. 14:5 One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

Christ changed everything. God's tool of revelation changed from a nation to the church (no the church is not Israel and Israel has not been forgotten for those wondering). The church and Israel are very different entities. Necessary changes came about.

I’ve noticed something interesting about you Mike. You have to tell people what they believe in order to argue with them. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[JezCat]

Are liberal Christians who don't read the Bible literally true Christians or are the fundamentalists true Christians?

Can one accept ordination of women and still be true to the Christian doctrine?

Can one be for embryonic stem cell research or IVF and still be a Christian?

Does people who don't believe in historicity of genesis, Noah's flood, and exodus are true Christians?

Who decides these things? It seems to me that since the Bible is open to so many interpretations, there are no final authority to settle these things.


MB.

It doesn't matter what you or I think of another's Christianity. All that matters is what God sees. IMO it's pointless to concern ourselves with other people and their relationship with Christ. What we all should be doing is focusing on our daily walk and the Christian example we are setting to others.

 

[linssue55]

Are liberal Christians who don't read the Bible literally true Christians or are the fundamentalists true Christians?

Can one accept ordination of women and still be true to the Christian doctrine?

Can one be for embryonic stem cell research or IVF and still be a Christian?

Does people who don't believe in historicity of genesis, Noah's flood, and exodus are true Christians?

Who decides these things? It seems to me that since the Bible is open to so many interpretations, there are no final authority to settle these things.


MB.

ONLY God know's this question, and there IS a complete truth, but many christians are too lazy to pursue it.

 

[OleAg]

"If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15.

So, might it logically follow that true Christians are those who keep his commandments?

Ah, but there's the rub, what ARE his commandments? Do they include "doctrine"? Do they include baptism?

Ask and ye shall receive.

OleAg

 

[AgnosticMike]

"If you love me, keep my commandments" John 14:15.

So, might it logically follow that true Christians are those who keep his commandments?

Ah, but there's the rub, what ARE his commandments? Do they include "doctrine"? Do they include baptism?

Ask and ye shall receive.

OleAg

OK I'm asking. So what have you got for me.

 

[Nightfire]

OK I'm asking. So what have you got for me.

Luke 10:26-27
What is written in the Law? he replied. How do you read it?He answered: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'​

If you start there, and follow Christ's example, everything else falls naturally in place. Don't worry so much about the details. Doctrine doesn't save anyone, God does.

 

[AgnosticMike]

Luke 10:26-27
What is written in the Law? he replied. How do you read it?He answered: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbour as yourself.'
​

If you start there, and follow Christ's example, everything else falls naturally in place. Don't worry so much about the details. Doctrine doesn't save anyone, God does.

So I suppose the first command is a bit pregnant with meaning. It begs the question: what in your opinion does one have to do to love god. Love is a doing word, don't you agree?

 

[Nightfire]

So I suppose the first command is a bit pregnant with meaning. It begs the question: what in your opinion does one have to do to love god. Love is a doing word, don't you agree?

Oh, I agree completely. Let's examine a few instances where religion (from Latin "reverence (for God)" or "conscientiousness") is mentioned...

1. 1 Timothy 5:4
   But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.
   
   
2. James 1:26
   If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless.
   
   
3. James 1:27
   Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Clearly all are applications of God's command - practical examples of a loving and a love-enabling life. 1 John 4 & 5 is almost exclusively about showing proper love for God, and contains this nice summary:

1 John 4:20-21
If anyone says, I love God, yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother. (1 John 5:3 -) This is love for God: to obey his commands.​

So our love for God must be seen in practice by how we treat each other. The implications of this is far-reaching, and in fact that is what much of the New Testament is about. Paul and the other apostles' letters to the various churches and people are examples of how their understanding of love (shown and received) should reflect in their lives in practical ways. The most obvious example is the well-known 1 Cor. 13.

Although the significance of God's love for us is explained comprehensively in those representative writings, people often stare themselves blind at them - just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time often stared themselves blind against the letters of their Bible. So instead of lifting the principles Paul and the apostles are employing out of the text and applying it to new situations, they try to apply the situations themselves in their lives, leading to some anachronistic beliefs (such as that woman had to wear hats, while the "head coverings" Paul mentions were like the ones worn in Arabic countries, that signify modesty... hardly what hats mean today). The apostles explain that their emphasis on love is not simply an arbitrary invention, a novelty of our religion, but 1) a serious duty often requiring real sacrifice, and 2) a direct consequence of God's love shown to us - as taught, explained and put into effect by Jesus Christ: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10).

Anyway, the doctrine that the Bible speaks of consists of staying true to the gospel Jesus' brought and applying it consistently. For a nice short example of what "sound doctrine" looks like, have a look at Titus 2.

 

[LilLamb219]

Doctrine doesn't save anyone, God does.

nightfire, doctrine means teaching and God teaches us salvation...so in a way it does save.

 

[aldenmarshall]

Are liberal Christians who don't read the Bible literally true Christians or are the fundamentalists true Christians?

Can one accept ordination of women and still be true to the Christian doctrine?

Can one be for embryonic stem cell research or IVF and still be a Christian?

Does people who don't believe in historicity of genesis, Noah's flood, and exodus are true Christians?

Who decides these things? It seems to me that since the Bible is open to so many interpretations, there are no final authority to settle these things.


MB.

Dear MB,
A true Christian is one who has been drawn by the Holy Spirit to give his or her life to Jesus Christ, to follow him as Savior from sin and as Lord/boss. I pray this happen to you-that is the highest prayer I can pray for anyone. Since Junia in Romans 16 was a woman and declared one of the foremost of the apostles/important leaders of the church, and I have heard at least one woman preach in the power of the Holy Spirit, I am certain that women can be ordained. By the way, ordination is not taught in the Bible for either men or women. Whatever is not condemned in Scripture as sin can be done by true believers-I cannot think of any exceptions now. When we are more irritated with our own sins than with the sins of others, that is a good sign that God has begun to work within us! Sincerely, Alden Marshall

 

[AgnosticMike]

Dear MB,
A true Christian is one who has been drawn by the Holy Spirit to give his or her life to Jesus Christ, to follow him as Savior from sin and as Lord/boss. I pray this happen to you-that is the highest prayer I can pray for anyone. Since Junia in Romans 16 was a woman and declared one of the foremost of the apostles/important leaders of the church, and I have heard at least one woman preach in the power of the Holy Spirit, I am certain that women can be ordained. By the way, ordination is not taught in the Bible for either men or women. Whatever is not condemned in Scripture as sin can be done by true believers-I cannot think of any exceptions now. When we are more irritated with our own sins than with the sins of others, that is a good sign that God has begun to work within us! Sincerely, Alden Marshall

Ordination is not taught in the Bible the same as the Trinity is not taught there along with a host of other Christian doctrines. However there is more to the picture than that probably.

 

[Nightfire]

Ordination is not taught in the Bible the same as the Trinity is not taught there along with a host of other Christian doctrines. However there is more to the picture than that probably.

Maybe not ordination as we have come to know it today, but people were definitely "ordained" into various posts in the church.

1 Tim. 3:1-5 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)​

Paul goes on to discuss the requirements for deacons and "elders who direct the affairs of the church". So we can see the existence of certain traditions (and beliefs) in the Bible, even though they are not specifically commanded or explained. The same could probably be said for most of the doctrines you were thinking of. The Trinity is also a doctrine that is expressed in the Bible, but not defined. It's a mistake to think that something only comes into existence when it has been "officially" defined. The very reason the scriptures exist is because they were considered official and representative of the beliefs of the church - even before the "church" could be recognized as an organization by any secular authority - and so we must learn what we can from them; and we must learn not only what it says but from what it says.

 

[chevelledc788]

Personally, I like to stay from "labeling" christians and different christian groups as being the real christians or not. Personally, I think there are real Christians and fake Christians in every single Christian denomination on earth. To me, a real christian is one who truly loves God and follows and obeys him and his Word to the utmost of their ability.