Who is a Christian?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Who is a Christian?

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri May 31, 2019 10:04 am

Anomaly654 wrote:I find myself in t he odd position of defending (to some extent) Prism's premise:

As I had stated the common 'currency' here is logical, sound and objective arguments. I believe I have provided that. If there is to be an agreement it would be based on the objective points.

So both literal (groups of individuals saved by faith; suitably oriented agents) and symbolic (partial 'value configuration' within each person/child of God) are concurrently valid realities. This, btw, is consistent with Paul's astonishing elucidation in Rom 11 of a concurrent grafting in and/or out of the tree of life in Christ [vv. 17-24] by choice in contrast with--and apparent contradiction to--his announcement that all Israel will be saved [vv. 25-26]. The first speaks to the temporal reality, the second to the eternal. Include this as representation of my disagreement with Prism that only the gospels hold the salvation message.


My starting premise from the gospels is John 3:16, i.e.

    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The above is obviously an offer of salvation [i.e. eternal life] by God to any one.
If anyone accept [acceptance] the above offer, i.e. believe in Jesus Christ, then there is an implied covenant with God via Jesus Christ as the intermediary.

    A covenant is an agreement [or a divine contract] with God to establish a personal relation.
    The above elements of 'offer' accompanied by an 'acceptance' constitute the basic foundation of a contract, in this case a divine contract or covenant.

    Another critical element of any contract are the contractual terms, either explicitly or implicitly accepted and to be complied by both parties.
    In this case, the contractual or covenanted terms are from God and that can only be from the Gospels.
    The epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT are merely appendixes to the main contractual terms.
Thus to believe in Jesus Christ mean to agree with what the terms of the contract transmitted via Jesus Christs and recorded in the Gospels.

From the above, a Christian of Christianity per se is a person who has entered into a personal relationship with God via the establishment of a covenant [a divine contract] with God and the Christian to comply with the covenanted terms in the Gospels to the best of his/her abilities.

I don't think there is anything extra can be stated in relation to the above covenant or divine contract a Christian had established with God via Jesus Christ. All the relevant element of a covenant or contract is present in a Christian's relationship with the Christian God, i.e.

    1. Offer - John 3:16
    2. Acceptance - believe in Jesus Christ
    3. Terms of contract - as in the Gospels
    4. Considerations - surrender to God

Anything to do with Paul, epistles, acts, relevant verses from the OT, they must be aligned in principle with the main contractual terms within the Gospels.

    One good analogy is, a husband and wife relationship, there must a sense of offer, a proposal by the male, and acceptance by the female. This agreement can be made legal via a marriage contract recognize by law. Even if there is no legal contract, a contract can often be inferred from evidences e.g. as in common law marriages. The difference is there are no written contractual terms [unless a nuptial agreement and terms are drawn] by many of the terms are implied or can negotiated.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Who is a Christian?

Postby Anomaly654 » Fri May 31, 2019 6:51 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated the common 'currency' here is logical, sound and objective arguments. I believe I have provided that. If there is to be an agreement it would be based on the objective points.

My starting premise from the gospels is John 3:16, i.e.

    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The above is obviously an offer of salvation [i.e. eternal life] by God to any one.
If anyone accept [acceptance] the above offer, i.e. believe in Jesus Christ, then there is an implied covenant with God via Jesus Christ as the intermediary.

BTW, what I initially agreed with you on is proceeding on sound arguments. In my post I mentioned an alternative allegorical interpretation which I claim is more sound, logical and accurate than the literal reading you and most Christians embrace.

    A covenant is an agreement [or a divine contract] with God to establish a personal relation.
    The above elements of 'offer' accompanied by an 'acceptance' constitute the basic foundation of a contract, in this case a divine contract or covenant.

    Another critical element of any contract are the contractual terms, either explicitly or implicitly accepted and to be complied by both parties.
    In this case, the contractual or covenanted terms are from God and that can only be from the Gospels.
    The epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT are merely appendixes to the main contractual terms.
Thus to believe in Jesus Christ mean to agree with what the terms of the contract transmitted via Jesus Christs and recorded in the Gospels.

But you're focusing on a single part of Scripture --the covenant contract--to the exclusion of the rest of the Bible. God acknowledges in a number of places in the Bible that those with whom He originally had a contract--the Hebrews--repeatedly broke it. He thus spelled out that in spite of their rejection of the covenant, He would, in faithfulness to His character and nature, both annul the apostate Hebrews' new contract with death but impose His own will and force life on them:
Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem, Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we have made a pact. The overwhelming scourge will not reach us when it passes by, For we have made falsehood our refuge and we have concealed ourselves with deception."

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
"And I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the level; Then hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters shall overflow the secret place.
"And your covenant with death shall be canceled, And your pact with Sheol shall not stand; When the overwhelming scourge passes through, Then you become its trampling place.
"As often as it passes through, it will seize you. For morning after morning it will pass through, anytime during the day or night. And it will be sheer terror to understand what it means." (Isa 28:14-19)

Because Christianity still holds mostly to the literal, most can't see that the covenant was broken and a new covenant--God will take matters into His own hand and save every person from the death we so love, as laid out in the Isaiah passage above--is now in place. The terror to understanding what it means refers imo to the eventual realization that one is being destroyed and killed in essence (destruction of falsity in the soul) for those who reject faith by gradual cleansing sanctification in life, which according to Scripture bears some resemblance to being burned alive. But even those who cling stubbornly to their death [love of falsehood] in this life are restored to a true state even in the midst of death by combustion. As death suffers its death, the soul is simultaneously restored to life; death and resurrection, the twofold highest principles of the Bible, enacted in every soul. God doesn't ask permission, He rolls up His sleeves and goes to war with the root cause of sin [falsity] in the soul (Isa 42:13), which is ultimately an act not of wrath, but of love (Isa 42:3)...we're all 'dimly burning wick's, destined to be restored to eternal life.

Fast forward to Christ. The literal, which naturally induces the "flesh", or admits its adherents to God's wrath, only hear the harshness of the contract: accept or die! This is to a large degree why Paul struggled to hold his flock within the realm of grace; the fragmentally falsified soul has a natural propensity to redirect the mind from grace back to the death that comes with the literal: "For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Gal 6:8) [Spirit and flesh, a phrase used by Paul, John, Jesus and Peter is a metaphor (except where in context it obviously speaks to physical flesh) for light/darkness, good/evil, and ultimately (as spelled out in the metaphysical hypothesis I use) reduces to truth and falsity.

Thus, your insistence that the contract is still in force is based on a false premise, with my emph.:
From the above, a Christian of Christianity per se is a person who has entered into a personal relationship with God via the establishment of a covenant [a divine contract] with God and the Christian to comply with the covenanted terms in the Gospels to the best of his/her abilities.

Anything to do with Paul, epistles, acts, relevant verses from the OT, they must be aligned in principle with the main contractual terms within the Gospels.

But I've shown that the contract was cancelled centuries ago, which Paul more than the other Apostles saw and taught. Paul teaches correctly, atheist and Christian alike should listen more closely to him.

I've posted on several theology boards a defense of the position that God established in the first book of the Bible in metaphor the utter impossibility that any human being can be rejected by Him forever much less condemned to eternal torture. The fact that this doctrine still abides today is evidence of descent to terrible doctrines the path of literalism leads when we lean too heavily on it.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Who is a Christian?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:21 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:As I had stated the common 'currency' here is logical, sound and objective arguments. I believe I have provided that. If there is to be an agreement it would be based on the objective points.

My starting premise from the gospels is John 3:16, i.e.

    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The above is obviously an offer of salvation [i.e. eternal life] by God to any one.
If anyone accept [acceptance] the above offer, i.e. believe in Jesus Christ, then there is an implied covenant with God via Jesus Christ as the intermediary.

BTW, what I initially agreed with you on is proceeding on sound arguments. In my post I mentioned an alternative allegorical interpretation which I claim is more sound, logical and accurate than the literal reading you and most Christians embrace.

    A covenant is an agreement [or a divine contract] with God to establish a personal relation.
    The above elements of 'offer' accompanied by an 'acceptance' constitute the basic foundation of a contract, in this case a divine contract or covenant.

    Another critical element of any contract are the contractual terms, either explicitly or implicitly accepted and to be complied by both parties.
    In this case, the contractual or covenanted terms are from God and that can only be from the Gospels.
    The epistles, acts and relevant verses from the OT are merely appendixes to the main contractual terms.
Thus to believe in Jesus Christ mean to agree with what the terms of the contract transmitted via Jesus Christs and recorded in the Gospels.

But you're focusing on a single part of Scripture --the covenant contract--to the exclusion of the rest of the Bible. God acknowledges in a number of places in the Bible that those with whom He originally had a contract--the Hebrews--repeatedly broke it. He thus spelled out that in spite of their rejection of the covenant, He would, in faithfulness to His character and nature, both annul the apostate Hebrews' new contract with death but impose His own will and force life on them:
Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers, Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem, Because you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, And with Sheol we have made a pact. The overwhelming scourge will not reach us when it passes by, For we have made falsehood our refuge and we have concealed ourselves with deception."

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
"And I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the level; Then hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters shall overflow the secret place.
"And your covenant with death shall be canceled, And your pact with Sheol shall not stand; When the overwhelming scourge passes through, Then you become its trampling place.
"As often as it passes through, it will seize you. For morning after morning it will pass through, anytime during the day or night. And it will be sheer terror to understand what it means." (Isa 28:14-19)

Because Christianity still holds mostly to the literal, most can't see that the covenant was broken and a new covenant--God will take matters into His own hand and save every person from the death we so love, as laid out in the Isaiah passage above--is now in place. The terror to understanding what it means refers imo to the eventual realization that one is being destroyed and killed in essence (destruction of falsity in the soul) for those who reject faith by gradual cleansing sanctification in life, which according to Scripture bears some resemblance to being burned alive. But even those who cling stubbornly to their death [love of falsehood] in this life are restored to a true state even in the midst of death by combustion. As death suffers its death, the soul is simultaneously restored to life; death and resurrection, the twofold highest principles of the Bible, enacted in every soul. God doesn't ask permission, He rolls up His sleeves and goes to war with the root cause of sin [falsity] in the soul (Isa 42:13), which is ultimately an act not of wrath, but of love (Isa 42:3)...we're all 'dimly burning wick's, destined to be restored to eternal life.

Fast forward to Christ. The literal, which naturally induces the "flesh", or admits its adherents to God's wrath, only hear the harshness of the contract: accept or die! This is to a large degree why Paul struggled to hold his flock within the realm of grace; the fragmentally falsified soul has a natural propensity to redirect the mind from grace back to the death that comes with the literal: "For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Gal 6:8) [Spirit and flesh, a phrase used by Paul, John, Jesus and Peter is a metaphor (except where in context it obviously speaks to physical flesh) for light/darkness, good/evil, and ultimately (as spelled out in the metaphysical hypothesis I use) reduces to truth and falsity.

Thus, your insistence that the contract is still in force is based on a false premise, with my emph.:
From the above, a Christian of Christianity per se is a person who has entered into a personal relationship with God via the establishment of a covenant [a divine contract] with God and the Christian to comply with the covenanted terms in the Gospels to the best of his/her abilities.

Anything to do with Paul, epistles, acts, relevant verses from the OT, they must be aligned in principle with the main contractual terms within the Gospels.

But I've shown that the contract was cancelled centuries ago, which Paul more than the other Apostles saw and taught. Paul teaches correctly, atheist and Christian alike should listen more closely to him.

I've posted on several theology boards a defense of the position that God established in the first book of the Bible in metaphor the utter impossibility that any human being can be rejected by Him forever much less condemned to eternal torture. The fact that this doctrine still abides today is evidence of descent to terrible doctrines the path of literalism leads when we lean too heavily on it.

I believe the missed point is,
I view there is a general covenant [sort of treaty-like] between humans and God in general but the specific person still have to enter into a personal covenant with God.

    It is like the USA may sign a general trade treaty [NAFTA or the new one] between the governments with very general terms.
    However to do real business, the individual[s] must still establish specific business contract to effect trade contractually.

My focus in this case is, regardless of the past, the individual Christian is one who has to enter into a personal relationship with God by establishing a covenant with God by accepting the offer of salvation by God re John 3:16. and thus to comply with the covenanted terms as in the Gospels.
This is accompanied by baptism, declaration of surrender to God, belief in Jesus Christ thus invoking a covenant, explicitly or implicitly.

Would you agree the above processes constitute a specific covenant as reflected in the universal principles an agreement or contract?
If there is no covenant, the Christian [as defined] will have no grounds and basis of belief at all to hope to be saved by God.
So within the covenant, the Christian must comply with the covenanted terms to merit salvation with eternal life in paradise.

Whatever is 'Christianity' is very specific to Jesus Christ only and thus the Gospels related to Christ.
Thus, the covenanted terms has to be very specific which along with John 3:16 are only the Gospels.
Whatever is in the epistles and acts are merely appendixes to the covenant of Christianity and to the Christian.
The OT [old terms] are abrogated and since it related, what is relevant from the OT is conditioned upon its agreement with the terms in the Gospels.

Paul could have said and expected whatever, but that is merely a later exposition and guide as appendix to the effective covenanted terms. It is not Paulianity but it is Christianity.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Who is a Christian?

Postby Anomaly654 » Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:04 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe the missed point is,
I view there is a general covenant [sort of treaty-like] between humans and God in general but the specific person still have to enter into a personal covenant with God.

But if by your claim that a person "[has] to enter into a personal covenant with God" you mean a person is obligated by this contract to willfully agree to it in order to receive eternal salvation, I say again: your insistence that the contract is still in force is based on a false premise. I explained why that initial contractual arrangement was done away with centuries ago and provided text that supports my claim. I don't claim that a large portion of Christians through history including today would disagree with your premise, just that this majority is mistaken. They still "hear" the terror of the law (conform or die!)--including those (Calvinistic/sovereign grace) Christians who claim to understand and embrace grace. The salvation offered for accepting Christ has been relegated to a temporal arrangement; the eternal portion of the covenant has been revoked. Review the Isa 28:14-19 verses supplied previously.

Accepting and following Christ in time secures the easy way to salvation, but salvation and restoration to perfection is everyone's destiny. We're given a choice to be cleansed of our falsity the easy or hard way, but cleansing/restoration God has declared to the entire race. Think of it like this: Falsity is a cancer. The removal of this cancer requires a two part process: destruction of the false state (death) and restoration to a true state (resurrection). By accepting Christ or conforming to Truth in this life one is brought through the process of sanctification to a state of faith, which is like a 'cross the border free' card. Those who haven't the card upon leaving this life will undergo the same death/resurrection but their falsity will be removed in a terrible "all at once"
"Therefore through this Jacob’s iniquity will be forgiven; And this will be the full price of the pardoning of his sin: When he makes all the altar stones like pulverized chalk stones; When Asherim and incense altars will not stand" (Isa 27:9) Jacob represents God's chosen. I can make an argument and support it in Genesis that every human is necessarily chosen. Asherim=false gods, i.e., idolatry arguably produced by the fragmental falsification of human essence (the soul) which produces all manner of the pursuit and embrace of falsehood (sin). In other words, God targets not the individual but the 'spiritual cancer' within which causes sin and repairs it.

My focus in this case is, regardless of the past, the individual Christian is one who has to enter into a personal relationship with God by establishing a covenant with God by accepting the offer of salvation by God re John 3:16. and thus to comply with the covenanted terms as in the Gospels.
This is accompanied by baptism, declaration of surrender to God, belief in Jesus Christ thus invoking a covenant, explicitly or implicitly.

Would you agree the above processes constitute a specific covenant as reflected in the universal principles an agreement or contract?

As explained in last post and above--assuming by this contract you believe that it pertains to the reception of eternal life--I agree that the initial contract "Conform or die!", which probably a majority of Christians imo mistakenly still apply to the content you've laid out here, is a demonstrable doctrinal error. That command has long since been invalidated and replaced with a covenant of grace, by which choice plays no role in the eternal destiny of each person, but does offer temporal benefit to those who conform.

If there is no covenant, the Christian [as defined] will have no grounds and basis of belief at all to hope to be saved by God.
So within the covenant, the Christian must comply with the covenanted terms to merit salvation with eternal life in paradise.

Whatever is 'Christianity' is very specific to Jesus Christ only and thus the Gospels related to Christ.
Thus, the covenanted terms has to be very specific which along with John 3:16 are only the Gospels.

This is why atheists love tearing into Christianity and illustrates one connection between literalism and atheism. Such arguments are seen to have force--and can logically be used to pick doctrine apart--as long as one can hold Christians to the letter of the law. Fortunately, as alluded to above and previously, the "letter of the law" covenant produced by the harshness of literalism is gone and has been replaced with a much better covenant for every person

Whatever is in the epistles and acts are merely appendixes to the covenant of Christianity and to the Christian.

But I demonstrated that Paul strived to show that the very same holding to the letter of the law you're trying to impose is a distortion of the Scriptural record, Prism. Your insistence that epistolary content must conform to the letter of the law covenant (and much of it does) or be excluded has no legitimate basis. Where is the authority for decrees like this? What in the texts supports this notion?

The OT [old terms] are abrogated and since it related, what is relevant from the OT is conditioned upon its agreement with the terms in the Gospels.

Paul could have said and expected whatever, but that is merely a later exposition and guide as appendix to the effective covenanted terms. It is not Paulianity but it is Christianity.

You appear to conveniently sidestep the proof I offer that you're mistaken in order to stubbornly push an agenda. How are you any different from a 'pick-n-choose' Christian if you pick and choose only those parts of the Bible relevant to the case you wish to build? The explanation that counters your argument is drawn from the entire Bible. It's disingenuous to dismiss without consideration those parts of the Bible that disturb your synthesis.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Who is a Christian?

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:58 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I believe the missed point is,
I view there is a general covenant [sort of treaty-like] between humans and God in general but the specific person still have to enter into a personal covenant with God.

But if by your claim that a person "[has] to enter into a personal covenant with God" you mean a person is obligated by this contract to willfully agree to it in order to receive eternal salvation, I say again: your insistence that the contract is still in force is based on a false premise. I explained why that initial contractual arrangement was done away with centuries ago and provided text that supports my claim. I don't claim that a large portion of Christians through history including today would disagree with your premise, just that this majority is mistaken. They still "hear" the terror of the law (conform or die!)--including those (Calvinistic/sovereign grace) Christians who claim to understand and embrace grace. The salvation offered for accepting Christ has been relegated to a temporal arrangement; the eternal portion of the covenant has been revoked. Review the Isa 28:14-19 verses supplied previously.

I was not referring to the initial contractual arrangement in Isa 28:14-19.

I would want to avoid the term "has" or "have to" re "[has] to enter into a personal covenant with God"

I am referring to a Christian's present circumstances as a human being who was born sinful thus destined to Hell.
I believe ALL those who are Christian [as defined] are expecting or look forward to eternal life in heaven, i.e. avoiding the threat and possibility of going to Hell.
Do you agree or dispute this point?

Accordingly it is only the Christian God who can deliver the Christian to heaven with eternal life, thus avoiding the threat of Hell.

The point is how can a Christian expect to go to heaven with eternal life and avoiding Hell, if there is no offer or promise from God?
This offer is made explicitly in the Gospels, i.e. John 3:16,

    John 3:16 [KJV: ]For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Do you dispute the above as an offer from God?

To be granted the offer of a promise to have eternal life in heaven and avoiding Hell, the person must accept the offer to believes in Jesus Christ - the one and only son.

Now, when the believer accept the offer, a covenant is implied if not made explicitly.
So it is not a question the believer MUST enter into a covenant, rather the covenant is implied if the believer accept the offer of eternal life in heaven so there is a contractual obligation for God to deliver eternal life and the Christian has to agree to comply with the covenanted terms of the covenant.

A Christian cannot be simply defined by whatever, but specifically defined as

    A Christian is person who has accepted the offer by God of eternal life in paradise with reference to John 3:16 [or similar verses], thus implying a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted termsstipulated by God in the Gospels.

In any contract or agreement, the contracted terms need to be established.
In the case of the Christian's covenant with God it has to be confined to the Gospels in relation to Jesus Christ as the intermediary to God.
It cannot be specific to the OT since the whole of the OT is abrogated but relevant verses in alignment with the Gospels can be used as a guide.

Similarly, the epistles and acts are not directly related to Jesus Christ, but they are related thus are expositions and appendix to the covenant of the Christian of Christianity. Note how the usual contract are supported by explanatory notes, appendixes [not addendum] which are not contractually binding to the main contract.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/addend ... rence.html

I believe what I had presented is very objective within the Framework of Christianity and its theology.

Accepting and following Christ in time secures the easy way to salvation, but salvation and restoration to perfection is everyone's destiny. We're given a choice to be cleansed of our falsity the easy or hard way, but cleansing/restoration God has declared to the entire race. Think of it like this: Falsity is a cancer. The removal of this cancer requires a two part process: destruction of the false state (death) and restoration to a true state (resurrection). By accepting Christ or conforming to Truth in this life one is brought through the process of sanctification to a state of faith, which is like a 'cross the border free' card. Those who haven't the card upon leaving this life will undergo the same death/resurrection but their falsity will be removed in a terrible "all at once"
"Therefore through this Jacob’s iniquity will be forgiven; And this will be the full price of the pardoning of his sin: When he makes all the altar stones like pulverized chalk stones; When Asherim and incense altars will not stand" (Isa 27:9) Jacob represents God's chosen. I can make an argument and support it in Genesis that every human is necessarily chosen. Asherim=false gods, i.e., idolatry arguably produced by the fragmental falsification of human essence (the soul) which produces all manner of the pursuit and embrace of falsehood (sin). In other words, God targets not the individual but the 'spiritual cancer' within which causes sin and repairs it.

Salvation is not every humans' destiny.
Not every human, because a non-christian do not have to agree with the offer by God re John 3:16.
Therefore any human who hope for salvation via the Christian God's offer re John 3:16 has to accept the offer before it can be effective. The acceptance via belief in Jesus Christ spontaneously invoke a covenant between God and the Christian where both parties promise to deliver their obligations with the covenant.

As I had argued, the covenanted the Christian has 'binded' with God re John 3:16 is confined within his personal time.
Thus your references to Isa 27:9-14-22 are not valid terms to the new covenant with its specific covenanted terms stipulated in the Gospels.

My focus in this case is, regardless of the past, the individual Christian is one who has to enter into a personal relationship with God by establishing a covenant with God by accepting the offer of salvation by God re John 3:16. and thus to comply with the covenanted terms as in the Gospels.
This is accompanied by baptism, declaration of surrender to God, belief in Jesus Christ thus invoking a covenant, explicitly or implicitly.

Would you agree the above processes constitute a specific covenant as reflected in the universal principles an agreement or contract?

As explained in last post and above--assuming by this contract you believe that it pertains to the reception of eternal life--I agree that the initial contract "Conform or die!", which probably a majority of Christians imo mistakenly still apply to the content you've laid out here, is a demonstrable doctrinal error. That command has long since been invalidated and replaced with a covenant of grace, by which choice plays no role in the eternal destiny of each person, but does offer temporal benefit to those who conform.

The covenant I refer to has nothing to do with the initial contract in Isa 19-22.
Say, if Ahmed, a Muslim want to convert to be a Christian today - 1/6/2019 - Ahmed will have to accept the offer in John 3:16 and a new covenant is effected and effective from 1/6/2019 which has nothing to do with the past prior to 1/6/2019. Ahmed now being a Christian would have to comply with the covenanted terms stipulated by God in the Gospels, supported by other notes to the covenant.

The point is Ahmed has to be objective to the doctrine of Christianity, and he just cannot follow the opinions of human beings.

If there is no covenant, the Christian [as defined] will have no grounds and basis of belief at all to hope to be saved by God.
So within the covenant, the Christian must comply with the covenanted terms to merit salvation with eternal life in paradise.

Whatever is 'Christianity' is very specific to Jesus Christ only and thus the Gospels related to Christ.
Thus, the covenanted terms has to be very specific which along with John 3:16 are only the Gospels.

This is why atheists love tearing into Christianity and illustrates one connection between literalism and atheism. Such arguments are seen to have force--and can logically be used to pick doctrine apart--as long as one can hold Christians to the letter of the law. Fortunately, as alluded to above and previously, the "letter of the law" covenant produced by the harshness of literalism is gone and has been replaced with a much better covenant for every person

Point is a Christian must be objective within the Framework of Christianity which grounded firmly of Jesus Christ's experiences and words as reported by the apostles in the Gospels.

Whatever is in the epistles and acts are merely appendixes to the covenant of Christianity and to the Christian.

But I demonstrated that Paul strived to show that the very same holding to the letter of the law you're trying to impose is a distortion of the Scriptural record, Prism. Your insistence that epistolary content must conform to the letter of the law covenant (and much of it does) or be excluded has no legitimate basis. Where is the authority for decrees like this? What in the texts supports this notion?

I had argued whatever Paul strove or stated his views are merely his opinions and views. Paul being human unlike Jesus as Son of God, cannot give divine tenets and whatever Paul expounded, it must be within the ambit of the Gospels.
Again this is very objective.

The OT [old terms] are abrogated and since it related, what is relevant from the OT is conditioned upon its agreement with the terms in the Gospels.

Paul could have said and expected whatever, but that is merely a later exposition and guide as appendix to the effective covenanted terms. It is not Paulianity but it is Christianity.

You appear to conveniently sidestep the proof I offer that you're mistaken in order to stubbornly push an agenda. How are you any different from a 'pick-n-choose' Christian if you pick and choose only those parts of the Bible relevant to the case you wish to build? The explanation that counters your argument is drawn from the entire Bible. It's disingenuous to dismiss without consideration those parts of the Bible that disturb your synthesis.

I have demonstrated All those who are Christians would have invoked and activated a new individual covenant with God upon acceptance of the offer re John 3:16 and to comply with the covenanted terms with the hope of a promise of eternal life from God.
I have also argued objectively why the Gospels re Jesus Christ is the only source that contains the covenanted terms of the Christian. The epistles and acts are merely appendixes to the covenant together with relevant verses from the OT.

The OT has to be abrogated, otherwise the loads of evil and violent verses in the OT will identify God as a very cruel and despicable God. Thus what is still relevant in the OT has to align with the overriding main covenanted terms from the Gospels of love all -even enemies.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Who is a Christian?

Postby Fanman » Sun Jun 02, 2019 8:22 pm

Prismatic,

The point is how can a Christian expect to go to heaven with eternal life and avoiding Hell, if there is no offer or promise from God?
This offer is made explicitly in the Gospels, i.e. John 3:16,

    John 3:16 [KJV: ]For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Do you dispute the above as an offer from God?

To be granted the offer of a promise to have eternal life in heaven and avoiding Hell, the person must accept the offer to believes in Jesus Christ - the one and only son.

Now, when the believer accept the offer, a covenant is implied if not made explicitly.
So it is not a question the believer MUST enter into a covenant, rather the covenant is implied if the believer accept the offer of eternal life in heaven so there is a contractual obligation for God to deliver eternal life and the Christian has to agree to comply with the covenanted terms of the covenant.

A Christian cannot be simply defined by whatever, but specifically defined as

    A Christian is person who has accepted the offer by God of eternal life in paradise with reference to John 3:16 [or similar verses], thus implying a covenant with God to comply with the covenanted termsstipulated by God in the Gospels.


I don't believe that your interpretation is entirely incorrect, but except for John 3:16, where is any of this stated in the Bible? Where is it stated that God has a contractual obligation to the Christian? Or that a Christian is as you've defined? My understanding is that God has made a promise, he is therefore bound by his honour not a contract. That there is a covenant suggests that he will fulfil his promise, but to say that he has a contractual obligation is in my view a secularisation of scripture. We cannot conflate divine and secular ideals or understand what is divine from a secular perspective, because logic doesn't strictly apply with so called divine entities. With secular notions we can refer to empirical things, but with divine notions we have to refer to the scriptures/holy texts relating to the specific religion as an authority. Since none of what you claim is actually stated in the Bible, I don't see the logic in you propounding it so adamantly. John 3:16 makes it clear that only belief in Jesus is necessary to enter heaven/have eternal life, and Jesus himself does not appear to contradict this idea. So if only belief Jesus is necessary where does complying with the terms of the covenant enter the equation? What are these terms you speak of and why do you call them "terms"?
Fanman
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 11:47 am

Re: Who is a Christian?

Postby Anomaly654 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:45 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:I was not referring to the initial contractual arrangement in Isa 28:14-19.

Okay, we’re not on the same page. The Isa 28 passage is God’s cancellation of the original contract. The Hebrews (who were merely a prototype of everyman) repeatedly violated the contract with God and opted for death. The Isa passage lays out the framework for the NEW covenant of grace, where God is essentially declaring their contract with death itself (by virtue of their recurring violation of His original covenant with them) annulled. He was condemning the spiritual death they chose (and every human chooses) to death. This, for me, is one of the most direct pointers to the salvation of every person to be found in the Old Testament.

In the case of the Christian's covenant with God it has to be confined to the Gospels in relation to Jesus Christ as the intermediary to God.
It cannot be specific to the OT since the whole of the OT is abrogated…

But this is false. Some of the OT—what pertains to God’s original covenant—is abolished, true. But a huge part of the OT establishes and is a presager of the new covenant of grace. To exclude the entire OT on the basis it doesn’t apply to salvation in Christ is like basing the history of WW2 on Hitler’s diary alone to the exclusion of any documents from the allies containing their side of the story.

I believe ALL those who are Christian [as defined] are expecting or look forward to eternal life in heaven, i.e. avoiding the threat and possibility of going to Hell.
Do you agree or dispute this point?

I disagree. I consider those Christians who would agree with this proposition to be in error and following manmade doctrines (admittedly long-standing) that are in contradiction to the actual message of the Bible. I suspect strict fundamentalists would agree and jump in to argue with you. Evengelicals would likely agree on the the salvific framework you present, but would have better arguments than their fundamentalist brethren. Many—maybe most—in the mainline churches also still believe in an eternal hell, but these folks are (in my experience) more laid back in their personal theology and not likely to argue the deeper theological points. Progressives would be anywhere from full agreement with you to mild disagreement. I’m usually held to be a unsalvageable liberal from my brethren on the right and just shy of a fundamentalist by those on the left.

I doubt we can walk any further down this path, Prismatic. Your insistence that “I have demonstrated All those who are Christians would have invoked and activated a new individual covenant with God upon acceptance of the offer re John 3:16 and to comply with the covenanted terms with the hope of a promise of eternal life from God.
I have also argued objectively why the Gospels re Jesus Christ is the only source that contains the covenanted terms of the Christian
…fails to be either accurate or objective as I see it. Peace out. Finis.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Who is a Christian?

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Jun 03, 2019 6:09 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
I believe ALL those who are Christian [as defined] are expecting or look forward to eternal life in heaven, i.e. avoiding the threat and possibility of going to Hell.
Do you agree or dispute this point?

I disagree. I consider those Christians who would agree with this proposition to be in error and following manmade doctrines (admittedly long-standing) that are in contradiction to the actual message of the Bible.
I suspect strict fundamentalists would agree and jump in to argue with you.
Evengelicals would likely agree on the the salvific framework you present, but would have better arguments than their fundamentalist brethren.
Many—maybe most—in the mainline churches also still believe in an eternal hell, but these folks are (in my experience) more laid back in their personal theology and not likely to argue the deeper theological points.
Progressives would be anywhere from full agreement with you to mild disagreement.

I’m usually held to be a unsalvageable liberal from my brethren on the right and just shy of a fundamentalist by those on the left.

I doubt we can walk any further down this path, Prismatic. Your insistence that “I have demonstrated All those who are Christians would have invoked and activated a new individual covenant with God upon acceptance of the offer re John 3:16 and to comply with the covenanted terms with the hope of a promise of eternal life from God.
I have also argued objectively why the Gospels re Jesus Christ is the only source that contains the covenanted terms of the Christian
…fails to be either accurate or objective as I see it. Peace out. Finis.


Note the offer of eternal life is very specific in John 3:16 [ perhaps reflected the same in other verses - need to confirm on this].

Note I have argued elsewhere re connection between the existential crisis/dilemma and the striving for eternal life to avoid mortality of the soul as the central purpose of all theistic religions, thus Christianity in this case. This striving for eternalism for one's soul is very common in all religions, Islam's paradise [with 72 virgins] and reincarnation in Hinduism, even non-theistic ones, e.g. rebirth in Buddhism.
As for Hell, that is debatable and can be set aside.

Note if you have established a personal relationship with God, then there is already an implied basic covenant/agreement with God. God would not agree with this personal relationship if you have not agreed to God's offer re John 3:16 which is grounded on the beliefs of the Gospels.

Are you claiming, as a Christian you are not striving for eternal life in heaven? Are you saying, as Christian, once the person die, then there is nothing else to it - no eternal life? Are you insisting you are not establishing any personal relationship with God. If you are all these, then the most you can be is a pseudo-Christian.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]