The Definition of a "Christian"

[The Baron]

I agree the Gospel is the heart, but you're interperating it one way, whereas others can interperate it another.

And they would be wrong. Even you’re logic here is incorrect. Y can only equal Y. Y cannot equal T. There is only one correct way to interpret the Gospel.

Adam brought us into sin, and it takes and equal to Adam to bring us out, Adam was not God, he was created by God, i.e. a Son of God, and made without Sin ....

Total and complete heresy. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a man can be sacrificed for the sin of all others. You’re contention is that Jesus was just a man. You’re just a man. By your logic a sacrifice from you could save all of humanity from its sin. That is both egomaniacal and unbiblical.

Another thing to talk about is the theology of "hell," given that you're a fundementalist I take it we dissagree on what that word means.

Lake of fire. Great wailing and gnashing of teeth. That sort of thing.

So ONLY those Christians who take your absolutist fundementalist reading are "christians?"

Is that what I said?

No.

It is not.

What I defined in the O.P. is what defines a Christian and you still haven’t shown me what is wrong with the O.P.

Well, I dissagree, I say only those who actually follow Christ are "christians."

And if Christ is just a man then “following” Him is meaningless.

If you want we can look to scripture to see who is right?

We already tried that and you ignored / dismissed all of the Scriptures I provided that clearly showed that Jesus was God.

And, if you’ll remember, you didn’t even want to get into the Scriptures that showed that the Holy Spirit is God.

But the fact is you're rediculously arrogant view that "only those who agree with me are Christians," can be claimed by EVERYONE with equal weight.

So my opinion is “rediculously [sic] arrogant” and yet you haven’t even attempted to prove my view incorrect.

That isn't what the scriptures say ...

Wow. You really don’t know the Bible very well, at all, do you?

And yeah, God determines, so maybe stop going around saying "only those who agree with my fundementalist late 1800s understanding of the bible are Christians."

I never said that.

Read the O.P.

Have you even read the O.P. yet?

If you want to know what I believe on specific subjects, then ask me, I'm not going to tie myself to a dogma however.

Which means you can’t defend your own beliefs which is apparent.

You obviously cannot debate with me on scripture, so now you're going the "argument from authority" route…

John 3:16.

…which also won't work since the fundementalist reading is being abandoned by scholars and theologians pretty quickly.

Do tell! Please provide evidence that “fundementalist” [sic] interpretations are being abandoned by scholars and theologians.

 

[The Baron]

And Accepts him as their savior.

And yeah, people define him differently, and obviously some peopel are wrong, but since you're not infallible, and your interpretation of scripture isn't infallable, when we define "christian" in a socioloical sense…

Defining Christianity in a “socioloical” [sic] sense is meaningless.

…i.e. in a practical sense…

“Practically” speaking, without accepting Christ as God “accepting” Him as Savior is meaningless and will get you a one way ticket to Hell.

If you don't personally think that anyone who dissagrees with your theology is a christian ... good for you, no one gives a ****, because there are people with just as much scriptural authority and argument that will say YOU are not a christian based on your theology.

“My” theology is simply the mainstream view of what the Bible teaches.

But we have to get on with life, so we stick with a definition that works sociologically.

This is a meaningless statement.

Obviously who gets saved is up to God and is besides the question of who we as a society will define as a christian or not, we don't judge who gets saved.

Only God can save and He has told us how we can be saved. Ultimately, our salvation is up to us.

Christ asked the question, “Who do you say that I am?”

How you answer that question determines your eternity.

 

[AGENT J]

It has been my observation here at DP concerning debates on Christianity that two positionson Christianity are always going to be expressed.

1. Non-Christiansare going to lecture Christians about what it means to be “Christian”. Typically they’re rants are both elitist and wrong (although not always the case).

2. Those who think they are Christian (and who are not) espouse what they self-identify as Christian beliefs. These would be beliefs that are un-Biblical.

By those who I say are “not” Christian but claim to be I mean Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, some Catholics (but not all and I would even be hesitant to say “most Catholics”), etc.

So it seems to me that what we need here at DP is a good definition of “Christian”.

A “Christian” is someone who understands that they are a sinner and unfit for a just and holy God and deserve everlasting Hell.

A “Christian” also understands that what a holy God requires the love of God provided when no-less than God, Himself, came to this world in a physical body, born of a virgin and died an excruciating death on a cross. He died to pay the price for their sins and to rescue them from Hell by imparting in them the very righteousness of Christ, Himself.

A “Christian” understands that they are absolutely helpless to save themselves and that Christ’s free gift of grace is all that is required for their salvation--nothing more.

A “Christian” is someone who undergoes a change of heart (vs. a change in position as some would argue, i.e. the “rich man” who must give away all his possessions to obtain eternal life).

I’m sure I could elaborate but that’s really all there is to it.

So what’s wrong with my definition of a Christian?

Did i just read a man say that he gets to determine who Christians are and are not? LMAO :lamo

fail

 

[RGacky3]

And they would be wrong. Even you’re logic here is incorrect. Y can only equal Y. Y cannot equal T. There is only one correct way to interpret the Gospel.

I get that, only one is true, however the definition of a christian doesn't mean having everything true, it means accepting Jesus as your savior. There is ONLY one way to interperate the Gospel, which is the way God intended, and EVERY one claims that their interpretation is correct, and the way to get to the bottom is to have theological debates about it, but that isn't about who is and is not a christian, because having the correct interpretation isn't what defines a christian.

Total and complete heresy. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a man can be sacrificed for the sin of all others. You’re contention is that Jesus was just a man. You’re just a man. By your logic a sacrifice from you could save all of humanity from its sin. That is both egomaniacal and unbiblical.

I was born in sin, Jesus was not, and the bible did say that one man can be sacrificed, in Romans, if you want to get into attonement theology start a thread about it.

Lake of fire. Great wailing and gnashing of teeth. That sort of thing.

From the Greek word Hades or the Hebrew word Sheol? or from the biblican Gehenna? Do you believe Hell is a literal place? (we can start this in a new thread as well if you'd like).

Is that what I said?

No.

It is not.

What I defined in the O.P. is what defines a Christian and you still haven’t shown me what is wrong with the O.P.

Yes I read the O.P. you have a late 1800s fundementalist view of the bible.

What's wrong in the O.P is you assume-
1. Trinitarian theology.
2. Salvation solely dependant on belief theology.
3. Fallen man theology.

This would disclude unitarian christians, many orthodox christians, Arminian Christians, and so on.

When we use "Christian" today, it's a sociological distinction, a term for those people who accept Jesus as their personal savior.

Some Muslims believe other muslims are "not true muslims" because they think they have their theology wrong, but guess what, when it comes down to it we are gonna call both of them Muslims.

And if Christ is just a man then “following” Him is meaningless.

Says you ....

We already tried that and you ignored / dismissed all of the Scriptures I provided that clearly showed that Jesus was God.

And, if you’ll remember, you didn’t even want to get into the Scriptures that showed that the Holy Spirit is God.

1. I answered all those scriptures, and anyone can read through the thread.
2. I showed CLEARLY through scripture that he was not God, and you ignored it, for example the CLEAR scriptural teaching that Jesus recieves authority from God, is subject to Gods Authority, and so on.
3. The discussion wasn't about the Holy spirit, you can make another thread about that if you'd like.
4. This is a theological issue, not an issue on what defines "christian."

So my opinion is “rediculously [sic] arrogant” and yet you haven’t even attempted to prove my view incorrect.

I explained how it's incorrect over and over again.

Wow. You really don’t know the Bible very well, at all, do you?

... Yes I do.

Which means you can’t defend your own beliefs which is apparent.

bring up a specific doctrine and I'll debate it.

John 3:16.

... yeah ...

Do tell! Please provide evidence that “fundementalist” [sic] interpretations are being abandoned by scholars and theologians.

What kind of evidence would you want? a poll?

 

[RGacky3]

Defining Christianity in a “socioloical” [sic] sense is meaningless.

It isn't, but if you feel that way too bad, you don't get to define how language is used, get over it.

“Practically” speaking, without accepting Christ as God “accepting” Him as Savior is meaningless and will get you a one way ticket to Hell.

Well then all the apostles are going straight to hell, because NONE of them believed he was God.

“My” theology is simply the mainstream view of what the Bible teaches.

Provide evidence of that.

This is a meaningless statement.

Says you.

Only God can save and He has told us how we can be saved. Ultimately, our salvation is up to us.

Christ asked the question, “Who do you say that I am?”

How you answer that question determines your eternity.

John 17:3

"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. "

Seams to me THAT is what determines it, along with a bunch of other things Jesus said Determines it, such as love, caring for the least of these and so on.

Again, if you want to start a thread on salvation or atonement theology do it. But his is how we define a "christian," which is, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, a sociological distinction.

 

[maquiscat]

A “Christian” is someone who understands that they are a sinner and unfit for a just and holy God and deserve everlasting Hell.

I think I can more or less get behind this one, although I believe that you and I would have different ideas of what Hell really was.

A “Christian” also understands that what a holy God requires the love of God provided when no-less than God, Himself, came to this world in a physical body, born of a virgin and died an excruciating death on a cross. He died to pay the price for their sins and to rescue them from Hell by imparting in them the very righteousness of Christ, Himself.

I think you need to reword this, or at least the first sentence. The grammar and/or mechanics makes it not very understandable. The second sentence I can agree with.

A “Christian” understands that they are absolutely helpless to save themselves and that Christ’s free gift of grace is all that is required for their salvation--nothing more.

Disagree. I agree that the acceptance of Christ's gift is an action in and of itself that on only the individual can do. Obviously, that acceptance has to be wholehearted and honest. It's that premise that makes me dismiss the true intentions of periods in our [Christianity's] history such as the Inquisition where people who forced to claim to accept Christ under torture.

A “Christian” is someone who undergoes a change of heart (vs. a change in position as some would argue, i.e. the “rich man” who must give away all his possessions to obtain eternal life).

False. A person can grow up Christian and thus always believe and accept. Now there most likely will come a point in their life where the deeper meanings and mysteries suddenly click. However, that is a change in understanding and not a change of heart.

It’s another debate but Catholics don’t have the same Bible and they don’t interpret it the same way. They also pray to idols (statues)--something “Christians” are forbidden to do.

Since it was the Catholics who originated the Bible to begin with, then it is the others who do not have the same book. An important distinction IMHO. Not necessarily one that make them more right than the others, but still an important distinction.

I will say that Catholics do indeed have a different view/learning, at least the older ones do. My wife is a "recovering Catholic". (FTR, we both currently label ourselves as "Christian" with no attachments to any denomination). When she grew up in the Catholic church, you didn't learn the bible or read it. You just learned what the clergy taught you. Again I won't speak for the younger generations.

I'm also going to agree with Libertas-Mors in that there is a major difference between worshiping an idol and using a visual to aid in prayer and meditations.

 

[Tetelestai]

It has been my observation here at DP concerning debates on Christianity that two positionson Christianity are always going to be expressed.

1. Non-Christiansare going to lecture Christians about what it means to be “Christian”. Typically they’re rants are both elitist and wrong (although not always the case).

2. Those who think they are Christian (and who are not) espouse what they self-identify as Christian beliefs. These would be beliefs that are un-Biblical.

By those who I say are “not” Christian but claim to be I mean Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, some Catholics (but not all and I would even be hesitant to say “most Catholics”), etc.

So it seems to me that what we need here at DP is a good definition of “Christian”.

A “Christian” is someone who understands that they are a sinner and unfit for a just and holy God and deserve everlasting Hell.

A “Christian” also understands that what a holy God requires the love of God provided when no-less than God, Himself, came to this world in a physical body, born of a virgin and died an excruciating death on a cross. He died to pay the price for their sins and to rescue them from Hell by imparting in them the very righteousness of Christ, Himself.

A “Christian” understands that they are absolutely helpless to save themselves and that Christ’s free gift of grace is all that is required for their salvation--nothing more.

A “Christian” is someone who undergoes a change of heart (vs. a change in position as some would argue, i.e. the “rich man” who must give away all his possessions to obtain eternal life).

I’m sure I could elaborate but that’s really all there is to it.

So what’s wrong with my definition of a Christian?

It is my opinion that most self proclaimed Christians and the entire organized/ institutional church are completely fooled and on the wrong track. That is not to say that there aren't Christians within the ranks of the organized/ institutional church, but they are deceived into thinking they are exclusively right and everybody else is wrong (elitist). Christ did not come to start a religion... He came to destroy religion and the need for a "clergy" that stands between God and His Church. Because of what Jesus did, we have "direct and unfettered access" to our Father in Heaven. The "Church" is NOT a building, but the "living stones" called people. His Bride and Body is His Church, which is what "marriage" is a symbol of. There is one "head", who is Christ, not a "self identified pastor" who decided to make a career for himself and when to bible college. The pulpit to pew format of Sunday services is completely foreign to Christ. Christ is manifest in His people when they all participate and bring something to the "Church Meeting". He is made manifest among us, through us. He can not be made manifest when the vast majority of "Christians" are passively sitting in the pews of a Church's building. This is why there is very little real life change (sanctification) within the Church Herself. There is no division in the human body, there is also no division in the body of Christ! The elitist mentality of Christians is nothing less than a cancer to the Body of Christ. It is exactly why the people of the world revile Christianity and run away from it. We need to fundamentally change back to the "first century" format the Christ and His Apostles established and let Christ be the "direct Head" of His Body and lead His Church through His Spirit. Romans 8:14 "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God".

 

[The Baron]

I think you need to reword this, or at least the first sentence. The grammar and/or mechanics makes it not very understandable. The second sentence I can agree with.

How ‘bout, “A Christian understands:

1. A holy God requires a penalty for our sins.
2. The love of God provided that somebody else pay for our sins to spare us that penalty. And that person was…
3. …no less than God Himself.”

Disagree. I agree that the acceptance of Christ's gift is an action in and of itself that on only the individual can do. Obviously, that acceptance has to be wholehearted and honest. It's that premise that makes me dismiss the true intentions of periods in our [Christianity's] history such as the Inquisition where people who forced to claim to accept Christ under torture.

I’m not entirely clear what you’re saying here. If you’re saying that people have to willingly decide for themselves to accept Christ as Lord & Savior and that decision is up to them, then I agree.

As far as the Inquisition goes, I’m not comfortable calling it “Christian history” as a Christian should never do such a thing. I think of it more in terms of “Church history” or “Catholic history”.

People should understand that nowhere in the Bible does it ever argue for, condone or excuse the evil of the Inquisition.

False. A person can grow up Christian and thus always believe and accept. Now there most likely will come a point in their life where the deeper meanings and mysteries suddenly click. However, that is a change in understanding and not a change of heart.

Let me try and rephrase this to see if I can get you “on-board”.

When someone becomes a “Christian”, there should be an outward change in behavior. We should expect that a change in a belief system would bring about a change in behavior. I do accept that immediately after becoming a Christian someone’s understanding of Christianity may be very immature and would naturally grow over time.

My point is simply that of the Apostle James when he said that faith without works is dead (James 2:17).

Better?

Since it was the Catholics who originated the Bible to begin with…

Actually, I’m pretty sure it was the Jews. They’re the ones who wrote it.

…then it is the others who do not have the same book. An important distinction IMHO. Not necessarily one that make them more right than the others, but still an important distinction.

I think you lost me. Are you talking about the Catholic Bible?

When she grew up in the Catholic church, you didn't learn the bible or read it. You just learned what the clergy taught you. Again I won't speak for the younger generations.

That’s one of the problems I have with the Catholic faith.

I'm also going to agree with Libertas-Mors in that there is a major difference between worshiping an idol and using a visual to aid in prayer and meditations.

Duly noted.

 

[The Baron]

It is my opinion that most self proclaimed Christians and the entire organized/ institutional church are completely fooled and on the wrong track. That is not to say that there aren't Christians within the ranks of the organized/ institutional church, but they are deceived into thinking they are exclusively right and everybody else is wrong (elitist). Christ did not come to start a religion... He came to destroy religion and the need for a "clergy" that stands between God and His Church. Because of what Jesus did, we have "direct and unfettered access" to our Father in Heaven. The "Church" is NOT a building, but the "living stones" called people. His Bride and Body is His Church, which is what "marriage" is a symbol of. There is one "head", who is Christ, not a "self identified pastor" who decided to make a career for himself and when to bible college. The pulpit to pew format of Sunday services is completely foreign to Christ. Christ is manifest in His people when they all participate and bring something to the "Church Meeting". He is made manifest among us, through us. He can not be made manifest when the vast majority of "Christians" are passively sitting in the pews of a Church's building. This is why there is very little real life change (sanctification) within the Church Herself. There is no division in the human body, there is also no division in the body of Christ! The elitist mentality of Christians is nothing less than a cancer to the Body of Christ. It is exactly why the people of the world revile Christianity and run away from it. We need to fundamentally change back to the "first century" format the Christ and His Apostles established and let Christ be the "direct Head" of His Body and lead His Church through His Spirit. Romans 8:14 "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God".

Agreed.

 

[maquiscat]

How ‘bout, “A Christian understands:

1. A holy God requires a penalty for our sins.
2. The love of God provided that somebody else pay for our sins to spare us that penalty. And that person was…
3. …no less than God Himself.”

Reasonable enough.

I’m not entirely clear what you’re saying here. If you’re saying that people have to willingly decide for themselves to accept Christ as Lord & Savior and that decision is up to them, then I agree.

Let me try a parallel. If you are hanging from the side of the cliff and are in danger of falling off, and cannot pull yourself up, you still have to make the effort to grab the hand of your savior in order to be saved. To maintain the parallel to Christ, he only offers you his hand. He will not grab your wrist if you slip or let go. It is up to you to take that hand. It's a two way road of action, albeit with Christ shouldering most of the work. Accepting the rescue and not taking the hand is not enough.

As far as the Inquisition goes, I’m not comfortable calling it “Christian history” as a Christian should never do such a thing. I think of it more in terms of “Church history” or “Catholic history”.

People should understand that nowhere in the Bible does it ever argue for, condone or excuse the evil of the Inquisition.

As much as it pains me we have to accept this as part of Christian history as well. We don't have to accept it as part of the example of Christ. Without acknowledging and accepting these breakdowns in our history we are doomed to stray again and again as a congregation.

Let me try and rephrase this to see if I can get you “on-board”.

When someone becomes a “Christian”, there should be an outward change in behavior. We should expect that a change in a belief system would bring about a change in behavior. I do accept that immediately after becoming a Christian someone’s understanding of Christianity may be very immature and would naturally grow over time.

My point is simply that of the Apostle James when he said that faith without works is dead (James 2:17).

Better?

Your argument works will with the "born again" where they come to Christ in their later life. And I will acknowledge that one can attend Sunday School and Church since they day they were born and never really accept Christ till in their adult years. However, that does not mean that there are not those who have truly accepted him throughout their lives even while not comprehending on an intellectual level what and why they are doing it. Think of driving a car. You can do it perfectly well while not really understanding why your actions result in certain reactions, positive or negative (speaking on the mechanical/electrical internal level). You could then discover why certain mechanical principles work, but it doesn't necessarily affect how you drive. Likewise, a child can be managed to be brought up accepting Christ their whole life. They have no moment in their life to bring about a change in behavior. It remains spiritually consistent. Are you saying because they are already where they should be without a changing moment they aren't Christians?

Actually, I’m pretty sure it was the Jews. They’re the ones who wrote it.

Well I guessed it could be argued a couple different ways. After all Jesus himself was a Jew. All of his followers, including Mathew, Mark Luke and John, not to mention Paul were all Jews as well. So at what point do the followers of Christ (historically speaking, not individually) go from Jews to Christians? The Jews indeed wrote the books that make up the Jewish Torah and the Christian Old Testament. But I would say that it was Christians (followers of Christ) that wrote the books of the New Testament. And it was the Catholic Church that brought many of these books together into what they called the Bible. The original Bible consisted of many books not found in protestant (vice Protestant) Bibles and also were gathered together in the Apocrypha. The bible is literally an anthology and not a "book" in and of itself. So it was Paul's church, the one that survived and dominated over the churches of the other apostles, that first gathered up all the books and printed them into a single bound volume. Paul's church is the one that is currently known as the Catholic church. Therefore the Catholics are the ones who originated the Bible.

I think you lost me. Are you talking about the Catholic Bible?

Summing up the above again, the Catholic bible is the original. They were the first to gather up the various books into a single volume, therefore if there are any changes, additions or omissions those come from the protestant denominations that sprang up later.

That’s one of the problems I have with the Catholic faith.

Catholics are not the only ones with this fault. Many denominations also follow the "follow our interpretation" model and discourage their congregations from really reading the bible.

 

[obvious Child]

You're both wrong. Anyone can believe in Jesus Christ just so long as "everyone" gets to define on thier own terms who / what Jesus was. And that is the problem.

Why is that a problem? How does that make either of us wrong?

A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ and accepts him as his Savior. That is the sole defining term if someone is a Christian or not. Merely because people have different beliefs about what Jesus said doesn't make them no longer Christians. You're moving into the True Scotsman Fallacy here.

 

[The Baron]

Why is that a problem? How does that make either of us wrong?

A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ and accepts him as his Savior. That is the sole defining term if someone is a Christian or not. Merely because people have different beliefs about what Jesus said doesn't make them no longer Christians. You're moving into the True Scotsman Fallacy here.

I don't think so. The problem is that if you believe that Christ is simply a man and not God then "believing in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as Savior" is meaningless and will land you in Hell just as quicly as not believing in Him.

 

[Tucker Case]

What of John 3:16?

Sounds like the basis for calling someone a christian to me. What's there to debate? Christians are people who believe in Jesus.

 

[obvious Child]

I don't think so. The problem is that if you believe that Christ is simply a man and not God then "believing in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as Savior" is meaningless and will land you in Hell just as quicly as not believing in Him.

Uh, how can a man be your Lord and Savior to the Afterlife if he's simply just a man?

Seems you're discussing a topic no one made but yourself.

 

[RGacky3]

How ‘bout, “A Christian understands:

1. A holy God requires a penalty for our sins.
2. The love of God provided that somebody else pay for our sins to spare us that penalty. And that person was…
3. …no less than God Himself.”

This is a SPECIFIC theological and christeological position, that some christians accept and others do not, the origional christians did NOT believe this theology (doesn't make it wrong) as any new testament historian will tell you, but they were still Christians.

I don't think so. The problem is that if you believe that Christ is simply a man and not God then "believing in Jesus Christ and accepting Him as Savior" is meaningless and will land you in Hell just as quicly as not believing in Him.

According to YOUR theology, no one that things Christ is a man and is a christian things of him as a mere man, most accept the verginal birth, and thus accept that he is without sin (unlike all of us), and this can be our savior.

You're pre-supposing an atonement and christeological theology that both isn't self evident, and isn't even in the new testament, The epistle to the Romans equates Jesus with Adam in connection with the salvation, Adam WAS NOT God.

Also you're assuming that only God can die for human sins? Which is rediculous since Gods goodness is infinately better than any amount of sin even possible.

This argument you're making is assuming YOUR theology.

 

[CLAX1911]

I don't care for the people that try and decide who Christians are. The only two people that know if a person is Christian is the father and the person in question. No stupid invented ritualistic nonsense will have any Bering on it. Some people think they have the right to decide who is or isn't Christian, these people are charlatans, false prophets. If someone tells you a sentence that starts with any of the following presses, "God thinks, God says, God hates, God thinks..." Beware they are about to tell you lies. Man doesn't know what God hates, thinks, says. They only know what God loves, and that is the world, he loved it so much he game his only begotten son.

Man is not God therefore doesn't speak for God, the only way you can hear God's voice you have to open your heart. Tune out the messages of hated that is the voice of the prince of lies. Just because that dress in shesp's clothing doesn't make them sheep. Beware there are wolves.

My suggestion is read the Bible, start with the Gospels. They are the good news, don't listen to the people that concoct messages of hatred and alienation, remember sheeps clothing. Know your God, know him by his works, and know the tree by its fruit. A righteous tree bears righteous fruit, a wicked tree cannot bear righteous fruit. alienation and hatred or not righteous fruit.

 

[The Baron]

Uh, how can a man be your Lord and Savior to the Afterlife if he's simply just a man?

That’s my point. I, personally, don’t believe "he" (a simple man and nothing more) can. But I do believe that Jesus was God incarnate. And being God, His sacrafice was a propitiation (Romans 3:25) for our sins and saves us from our deserving fate in Hell to spend eternity in His presence.

 

[The Baron]

This is a SPECIFIC theological and christeological position, that some christians accept and others do not…

This is a biblical precept that all mainstream Christian believe. Cultist such as yourself (whatever cult it is that you’re involved with) believe all kinds of things.

…the origional christians did NOT believe this theology (doesn't make it wrong) as any new testament historian will tell you, but they were still Christians.

A complete and total lie not worthy of response as I’ve already shown you how this belief of yours in biblically incorrect.

According to YOUR theology, no one that things Christ is a man and is a christian things of him as a mere man, most accept the verginal birth, and thus accept that he is without sin (unlike all of us), and this can be our savior.

When you say “things” do you mean “thinks”?

Seriously. This statement makes no sense.

You're pre-supposing an atonement and christeological theology that both isn't self evident, and isn't even in the new testament, The epistle to the Romans equates Jesus with Adam in connection with the salvation, Adam WAS NOT God.

No one is arguing that Adam is God. Straw-man fallacy.

Also you're assuming that only God can die for human sins? Which is rediculous since Gods goodness is infinately better than any amount of sin even possible.

A lie. There is no biblical basis for this lie.

This argument you're making is assuming YOUR theology.

No. It’s based on what the Bible says.

Period.

 

[The Baron]

So not much discussion lately so I guess we’re all good with a Christian being defined as:

1. Someone who understands that they are a sinner and unfit for a just and holy God and deserve everlasting Hell.

2. Someone who believes that no-less than God, Himself, came to this world in a physical body, born of a virgin and died an excruciating death on a cross. He died to pay the price for our sins and to rescue them from Hell by imparting in them the very righteousness of Christ, Himself.

3. Someone who understands that they are absolutely helpless to save themselves and that Christ’s free gift of grace is all that is required for their salvation--nothing more.

4. Someone who undergoes a change of heart (vs. a change in position as some would argue, i.e. the “rich man” who must give away all his possessions to obtain eternal life).

So in all our further discussions about religion, when we talk about “Christians” we’re only including people that fit the description above, right?

 

[RGacky3]

This is a biblical precept that all mainstream Christian believe. Cultist such as yourself (whatever cult it is that you’re involved with) believe all kinds of things.

Again ... you're just defining terms here, you're saying "mainstream" = trinitarian and unitarian= cultist.

Not an argument.

A complete and total lie not worthy of response as I’ve already shown you how this belief of yours in biblically incorrect.

Where have you shown this? Also Trinitarian doctrine came about historically in the second century CE, and didn't become the maint theology until MUCH later ... this is attested by most scholars, Bart Ehrman has written tons about it.

When you say “things” do you mean “thinks”?

Seriously. This statement makes no sense.

yes, I meant "thinks"

No one is arguing that Adam is God. Straw-man fallacy.

It isn't a strawman, if you claim that Jesus is God what follows LOGICALLY is that Adam is, if only God could atone.

1 perfect man brought sin into the world, what is equal to one perfect man? One perfect man, not God.

According to Romans Jesus was the equivolent of Adam, if Jesus is God it follows LOGICALLY that so is Adam.

A lie. There is no biblical basis for this lie.

No. It’s based on what the Bible says.

Period.

Ok ... No argument here.

The point is there are different theologies. A Christian is someone that follows Christ ... THAT'S IT!!! Anythin you add on to that is just you're own theology, "christian" is a sociological distinciton, as far as who God views as a Christian and who will be saved, that's up to God ... Not Baron.

 

[RGacky3]

So not much discussion lately so I guess we’re all good with a Christian being defined as:

1. Someone who understands that they are a sinner and unfit for a just and holy God and deserve everlasting Hell.

2. Someone who believes that no-less than God, Himself, came to this world in a physical body, born of a virgin and died an excruciating death on a cross. He died to pay the price for our sins and to rescue them from Hell by imparting in them the very righteousness of Christ, Himself.

3. Someone who understands that they are absolutely helpless to save themselves and that Christ’s free gift of grace is all that is required for their salvation--nothing more.

4. Someone who undergoes a change of heart (vs. a change in position as some would argue, i.e. the “rich man” who must give away all his possessions to obtain eternal life).

So in all our further discussions about religion, when we talk about “Christians” we’re only including people that fit the description above, right?

Lets add some **** why dont' we? Since we are just making our own opinions and theologies define a christian.

5. Only Those that support communal economic foundations are Christians.

6. Only Those that Accept that there is only one true God who is the father are christians.

7. Only those who are pacifists are Christians.

8. Only those who believe in universal salvation are Christians.

Look, you can have your own personal opinion about who is and who is not a christian based on your own personal theology, but no one cares, because the way the word "christian" is used is one who follows christ, plain and simple, you can whine and bitch all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you are not the arbiter of who is and who is not a christian.

People will continue to use the term christian, for those that call themselves christian and those that are known in society as "christian" i.e. those that follow christ as savior.

 

[The Baron]

Lets add some **** why dont' we? Since we are just making our own opinions and theologies define a christian.

5. Only Those that support communal economic foundations are Christians.

6. Only Those that Accept that there is only one true God who is the father are christians.

7. Only those who are pacifists are Christians.

8. Only those who believe in universal salvation are Christians.

Look, you can have your own personal opinion about who is and who is not a christian based on your own personal theology, but no one cares, because the way the word "christian" is used is one who follows christ, plain and simple, you can whine and bitch all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you are not the arbiter of who is and who is not a christian.

People will continue to use the term christian, for those that call themselves christian and those that are known in society as "christian" i.e. those that follow christ as savior.

It would never work...it's unbiblical.

 

[CLAX1911]

Lets add some **** why dont' we? Since we are just making our own opinions and theologies define a christian.

5. Only Those that support communal economic foundations are Christians.

6. Only Those that Accept that there is only one true God who is the father are christians.

7. Only those who are pacifists are Christians.

8. Only those who believe in universal salvation are Christians.

Look, you can have your own personal opinion about who is and who is not a christian based on your own personal theology, but no one cares, because the way the word "christian" is used is one who follows christ, plain and simple, you can whine and bitch all you want but it doesn't change the fact that you are not the arbiter of who is and who is not a christian.

People will continue to use the term christian, for those that call themselves christian and those that are known in society as "christian" i.e. those that follow christ as savior.

What defines a Christian is someone who follows the teachings of christianity. Not "the right kind"of christianity, but christianity. Now the question becomes what is christianity?

Lets break it down, the root word is Christ, Christ is the Greek word for Messiah, which is the Hebrew word for savior or liberator. So christianity is the following of a savoir, Jesus is the only thing that has ever been that could be called a Messiah in the abrahamic religions so in this case it refers to followers of Jesus.

So forget all the nonsense that has been posted here, a Christian is a follower of Christ. If you follow Christ your Christian, in every meaning of the word.

 

[RGacky3]

It would never work...it's unbiblical.

IT is JUST as biblical as your criterium ... as far is saying "it would never work," that's just your lack of faith in God.

 

[The Baron]

IT is JUST as biblical as your criterium ... as far is saying "it would never work," that's just your lack of faith in God.

Show me book, chapter and verse where what you are saying is required for being saved.