Author
|
Topic: What is a 'true Christian'?
|
faceman
Member (Idle past 3415 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: 04-25-2014
|
The best way to define a Christian is: "someone who honestly thinks they're a Christian". If I honestly think I'm Napoleon Bonaparte, does that make it so? A true Christian, as Paul would have clearly been, is someone who acknowledges that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, was crucified for our sins and rose again, thereby defeating death. It's not so hard.
|
faceman
Member (Idle past 3415 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: 04-25-2014
(2)
|
|
|
|
|
Message 8 of 141 (726433)
05-09-2014 1:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by AZPaul3 05-09-2014 12:56 AM
|
|
Then why all this consternation over evolution? Why all the BS about talking snakes, fluds and queers? Simple - if Jesus is who He said He was, which is God, then He must be trusted. If He must be trusted, then the word must be trusted, because He also proclaimed Himself to be the Word. If you believe the Bible to be a myth, then you believe Jesus to be a myth. What is a "flud"?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 7 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2014 12:56 AM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2014 1:17 AM | | faceman has replied | | Message 94 by Phat, posted 12-08-2014 8:24 AM | | faceman has not replied |
|
faceman
Member (Idle past 3415 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: 04-25-2014
|
Its not up for you to say. A person could be considered, by God, to be a Christian without fullfilling one of the qualifications you insist upon. Correct, it's not up to me. If it were, I'd let everyone in. The very simple qualification I listed was outlined by Jesus in the Bible. I don't insist upon it, Jesus does.
Romans 10:9 writes: If you declare with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Just think of it as abiogenesis at work in the tomb, then you can accept it easier.
Most Christians ignore a lot of that OT stuff. You can ignore everything else if you want (though I don't recommend it), but you have to hold on to Romans 10:9, otherwise you're lost. That's not me commanding it, but rather reporting it.
|
faceman
Member (Idle past 3415 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: 04-25-2014
|
|
Message 37 of 141 (726566)
05-10-2014 12:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by AZPaul3 05-09-2014 1:17 AM
|
|
So to be a "true christian" one must not only believe in the boy and his gift of salvation, but in the literal words of the bible? He actually grew to be a man, but yes a true Christian must - at the very least - believe that Christ died for their sins and rose again. Otherwise why call themselves a Christian? That makes no sense.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 10 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2014 1:17 AM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
|
faceman
Member (Idle past 3415 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: 04-25-2014
|
That would be Denying the antecedent, a logical fallacy. If P then Q. Not P therefore not Q. That doesn't work. Which quote are you talking about? You have 3 of them up there.
Anyways, in the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, Jesus explains that there will be Christians who are not saved and there will be non-Christians who are saved Where do you see Christians not being saved and non-Christians being saved? In Matthew 25:31-46, all I see are saved sheep and unsaved goats.
Regardless, you could still be a Christian. Why would you want to though? Frankly, if you don't believe in any of that, then fine - but why continue identifying as a Christian? Did you buy a car with a fish symbol on the back and don't want to remove it because your paint has faded?
|
faceman
Member (Idle past 3415 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: 04-25-2014
|
|
Message 39 of 141 (726569)
05-10-2014 1:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 18 by ringo 05-09-2014 12:43 PM
|
|
That's a poor analogy. We're talking about people who think they're folowers of Jesus, not people who think they're Jesus. How's this analogy then: If I think I'm a Darwinian evolutionist (ToE), but believe in a young Earth and that Jesus died and rose again, does that still make it so? Can I bridge that dichotomy of worldviews, just by my saying so?
This message is a reply to: | | Message 18 by ringo, posted 05-09-2014 12:43 PM | | ringo has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2014 1:24 AM | | faceman has replied | | Message 51 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2014 8:33 AM | | faceman has not replied | | Message 57 by ringo, posted 05-10-2014 12:10 PM | | faceman has not replied |
|
faceman
Member (Idle past 3415 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: 04-25-2014
|
|
Message 42 of 141 (726575)
05-10-2014 1:39 AM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes 05-10-2014 1:24 AM
|
|
You'd likely have to drop the young earth nonsense Why, because the rules for the ToE and YEC don't mix? That's my point re: someone who calls themselves a Christian, but denies the most basic and core principle of Christianity - that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. That last part is key. To deny His resurrection is to deny His whole purpose for coming to Earth in the first place. If you were honest though, I think you'd agree that Jesus' resurrection will eventually be at odds with evolution. Eventually evolution's cousin, abiogenesis, will step in and demand to be recognized as well. Then the mere notion of God will be ridiculed and Jesus' resurrection will no longer be compatible.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2014 1:24 AM | | NoNukes has replied |
|
faceman
Member (Idle past 3415 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: 04-25-2014
|
|
Message 46 of 141 (726582)
05-10-2014 2:23 AM
|
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes 05-10-2014 1:43 AM
|
|
Sure did. You basically said a YE is antithetical to the ToE. I then said a Christian who denies Christ's resurrection is likewise antithetical to Christianity. Thus "To deny His resurrection is to deny His whole purpose for coming to Earth in the first place." That's directed at any Christian who thinks the resurrection is optional. Basically you had butted in on my post to ringo. I was giving a better analogy than my Napoleon one. The original post (message 6) was in response to Catholic Scientist, who claimed anyone can call themselves a Christian, if they honestly think they are one. I've discovered from CS that he doesn't believe the resurrection is vital to Christianity. Never mind.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 05-10-2014 1:43 AM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
faceman
Member (Idle past 3415 days) Posts: 149 From: MN, USA Joined: 04-25-2014
|
|
Message 47 of 141 (726583)
05-10-2014 2:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by Straggler 05-10-2014 1:52 AM
|
|
There's plenty of conflict with that argument, right in the first chapter of Genesis alone. If you can't trust the first chapter, then the rest becomes suspect, from that mindset anyways. But you could still make it work like you say, as long as you held onto the deity of Jesus Christ - that He died for our sins and was raised again, conquering death (call it holy abiogenesis if you like). It's risky though, because it's like building a house on very loose sand. Not recommended.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 44 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2014 1:52 AM | | Straggler has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 49 by Straggler, posted 05-10-2014 2:57 AM | | faceman has not replied |
|