What is a 'true Christian'?

It is definitely a formula of Reformation origin, no doubt about that, but it's a pithy way of expressing the scriptural formula for salvation, which had to be followed by the early believers even if not as clearly stated, or they wouldn't have been saved. Paul laid it out over and over again, that we are saved only by God's grace, through faith which is a gift of God, and this is what the Reformers codified in that formula. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Bible today is the "books" but Paul's teachings were inspired before they were bound into a book, and all the New Testament writings were considered to be inspired before they were bound into a book. They were recognized as inspired by the early church and passed around as individual writings for many years before the canon was fully recognized and long long before it was bound into a book. And the Old Testament was the inspired source for the New Testament writers themselves.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Christians who were before the books believed what we now believe THROUGH the books. The point is what we believe not what form it came to us in.

No, let's take this very slowly. The books we have now contain the same truths the early Christians believed who did not have the books we have. They had the original teachers, and soon they also had many of the separate writings of those teachers. It's all the same teachings, whether in our Bible or word of mouth as they originally got it. Now we have it in book form and we don't have the teachers around to teach us as they did, so it's a good thing we have the books that preserve their teachings for us. And because the books contain those inspired teachings the Bible is the final authority and we must believe it.

Isn't that odd then that I do consider them Christians. You must have got something wrong about my "definition."

You totally missed HIS point, which is par for you these days. At least you're consistent,, you haven't gotten anything right about genetic diversity or sea transgressions either.

I think faceman already answered the question about whether you have to believe fully in the inerrant Bible to be a Christian -- which I read to mean "maybe not but it's risky." Which is what I'd also say. I don't think we can know how much of the word of God can be rejected and the person still be saved.It's usually said that the questions concerning evolution are not "salvation issues," so that you can be a Christian while not taking the first chapters of Genesis literally. This may be the case, it's logical enough, but as a Christian I don't want to speculate how far a person can go with that. It may be that if you are able to believe that Jesus is God in the flesh whose death paid for your sins, then you are saved no matter what you believe about Genesis. I certainly regarded Buzsaw as a Christian though he had the belief in a few extra millions of years tucked away between the first verses in Genesis, which is not exactly a literal reading.But you know, if the Bible IS the word of God you are taking chances whenever you reject or reinterpret any of it.Look at it this way: all through scripture the heroes of the faith are those who believe God but reject worldly wisdom when there is a conflict, and it often gets you in trouble with the world, like thrown in the lions' den or the furnace and that sort of thing, so it's a real test of faith in God. If you do the opposite you are caving in to the world. And that's the test we face concerning evolution and the Old Earth if we believe that the way scripture reads is clearly against those views. It's true there have been those who allegorized the early parts of Genesis, such as Augustine of Hippo, and nobody's going to deny he was a Christian, so there's room for different readings up to a point, but I'd say it's a matter of being a Christian in spite of a wrong reading.Certainly God isn't going to hold anyone guilty of a wrong reading who is sincerely trying to understand and follow Him, and it's possible to be saved just on the basis of believing a few crucial parts of scripture if more isn't available to a person (the thief on the cross who recognized his own sinfulness and that Jesus was the Messiah was certainly saved), but I don't want to be the one to judge that in any particular case.One strong argument for the literal reading of Genesis is that it promises us a Savior to right the effects of the Fall and that's what Jesus came to do, so if you compromise a great deal of that part of scripture you also blur the meaning of the coming of the Messiah. Again, this may not be a salvation issue but God reads the heart and knows if a person is honest or not.So my answer is you may be saved even if you reject some parts of scripture or allegorize them, but how much you can get away with isn't something I'd want to speculate about. God is merciful, but it's risky.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But you are making "the Bible" into a literal physical object which is not the point,. The point is that the Bible is the record of historical events directed by God and intended to reveal God's nature and will, but it didn't exist in literal physical form as we have it now until the Gutenberg press came along. The Old Testament was available in NT times and was preached by the early Christians as evidence for Jesus as the Messiah. The NT interpretations were passed by word of mouth but then circulated among the churches as independent letters written by the apostles. When we talk about the Bible or scripture we're talking about what it SAYS not the form in which it has come down to us. Nonsense. You are putting in the term "Bible thumping" but such a phrase is misleading. Protestants mean by "the Bible" the teachings that are now contained in that form that were available to the early church just as they are to us though not in the same form. Since they had the teachers themselves there they would also have had the opportunity to hear them expounding the meanings of the scriptures as any preacher today would, the OT scriptures in that case. More nonsense. Paul taught salvation by faith alone quite clearly over and over again. It would be very odd if what he wrote in Ephesians 2:8 had not been preached to the early churches time and time again: The full Reformation formula taken from the scriptures is that we're saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and that the basis for this is scripture alone or "Sola Scriptura." which means the word of God in whatever form it was available to the people in any time you wish to choose. Including situations where only parts of it were available. Stuff and nonsense.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's really hard to thank someone who calls me a crazy person but I really do appreciate your appreciation. Very much. Thanks.

deleted. No point in overdoing it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I just answered this on the other thread so I'll repeat it here: Jesus kept company with sinners, but sinners all have to give up their sin to be saved, meaning to be a Christian, all sinners, all sin, and He gives the power to do that. I'd call that nice myself. That's what I was talking about in context if anybody cares about context.Christianity is about turning sinners into saints, that means losing your sins. That's what Jesus came to do, that's what He died for.ABE: I'll elaborate:That means prostitutes -- Mary Magdalene gave that up; tax collectors who defrauded the people -- Matthew and Zacchaeus in that case, and Paul gives a long list of sinners in 1 Corinthians 6 that will not inherit the kingdom of God but goes on to say how many of the Christians he was preaching to had once also lived like that, but that when they became followers of Christ they no longer practiced those sins: /ABEEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can sympathize. It's really annoying when people psychoanalyze your reasons for your beliefs. Such as the way atheists always imagine that a Christian must need the emotional crutch of belief. Or they assume you were always soft in the head and a sucker for simpleminded ideas. No amount of explanation will change their assumptions.

I watched the review. When I first heard about this movie I thought I might eventually see it because I'd heard it was pretty good as Christian movies go. The review convinced me it's in fact very very bad. Maybe I should see it and do my own review though. Some time. Maybe. One thing that bothered me probably didn't bother anybody else, and this is only one of many things of course, was the "Muslim" girl's disrespect for her father, her attitude in ripping off her headgear for instance, with an air of contempt. It was both disrespectful and unrealistic the way she did it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't have a Facebook account, Phat, so I can't see that review. Could you copy and paste a paragraph or two?