What is Christianity, and what makes a Christian a Christian?

[JacobEzra.]

Acts 15 gives proof that it says "Only these 4 Laws and no more". Either accept this fact or not, it implies Christians are only required to obey these 4 parts of the Law. Apparently the idea that you have to supplement the Gospel and Epistles means more than these 4 Laws.


Anything.

So in your version, they didn't actually mean "Anything".

I suppose you think Jesus was lying in Matthew 5:17-20, or do I have to go over again what "fulfilled" means? Do you really want to be among the "Least"?

Once again, I ask, would you eat blood sausage?

Once again, I ask you to go and read the NT then come back/

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

What? You didn't answer the question, and I didn't insult you. Look, you've pretty much aliented 90% of the people here on RF. I'm one of the few people who hasn't actually exchanged hateful words with you. Exactly what "truth" do you believe I can't handle?

Your answer did not address these questions:

1. Do you believe repentance is just a one-time thing?
2. If a person claims to be "saved" and doesn't treat his or her fellow human beings respectfully, that person is not really "saved"?

We are not saved by works. Just because someone does bad things does not mean that they are not saved.

 

[Shermana]

We are not saved by works. Just because someone does bad things does not mean that they are not saved.

So you believe someone can go murder 100 people as long as they believe Jesus is their lord and savior?

 

[Katzpur]

You are wrong. You asked how to be saved and I answered you.

No I didn't ask how to be saved. I asked...

1. Do you believe repentance is just a one-time thing?
2. If a person claims to be "saved" and doesn't treat his or her fellow human beings respectfully, that person is not really "saved"?

If you do not like it, that is too bad.

Evidently the questions are over your head. What is it you don't like about me, Ismaila? I've never treated you rudely. What's up with this, "You can't handle the truth," and "If you don't like it, that's too bad" business? You've got one major chip on your shoulder. You know that, don't you?

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

No I didn't ask how to be saved. I asked...

1. Do you believe repentance is just a one-time thing?
2. If a person claims to be "saved" and doesn't treat his or her fellow human beings respectfully, that person is not really "saved"?

Evidently the questions are over your head. What is it you don't like about me, Ismaila? I've never treated you rudely. What's up with this, "You can't handle the truth," and "If you don't like it, that's too bad" business? You've got one major chip on your shoulder. You know that, don't you?

You are wrong. I have done nothing wrong.

 

[Katzpur]

You are wrong. I have done nothing wrong.

Oh. Okay, it's just everybody else on the forum.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

No I didn't ask how to be saved. I asked...

1. Do you believe repentance is just a one-time thing?
2. If a person claims to be "saved" and doesn't treat his or her fellow human beings respectfully, that person is not really "saved"?

Evidently the questions are over your head. What is it you don't like about me, Ismaila? I've never treated you rudely. What's up with this, "You can't handle the truth," and "If you don't like it, that's too bad" business? You've got one major chip on your shoulder. You know that, don't you?

How dare you insult me. 1:Repentance in not just a one time thing. 2:Like I said, just because someone does bad things, does not mean that they are not saved.

 

[Katzpur]

So you believe someone can go murder 100 people as long as they believe Jesus is their lord and savior?

I think the answer to that question, Shermana, is "The only thing that someone can do to be saved is to repent of all of their sins and accept Jesus as their Friend, God, Lord, and Savior." All other details are superflous.

 

[Shermana]

And what is Sin?

Lawlessness.

1 John 3:4-10.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I think the answer to that question, Shermana, is "The only thing that someone can do to be saved is to repent of all of their sins and accept Jesus as their Friend, God, Lord, and Savior." All other details are superflous.

You do not have the right to make fun of me when I have clearly answered your damn questions.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

So you believe someone can go murder 100 people as long as they believe Jesus is their lord and savior?

You are wrong. That is not what I am saying.

 

[Shermana]

You are wrong. That is not what I am saying.

So what does it mean to repent of one's sin?

Why does Jesus say its better to cast a millstone around your neck and drown yourself than "offend" (catch/harm) a child? The Catholics should be enforcing such drownings on their scandal-laden priests.

 

[Katzpur]

How dare you insult me.

Good grief, girl, grow up.

1:Repentance in not just a one time thing.

So if you do something wrong after you've been saved, you do need to repent again then? If the answer is yes, I'm glad to see that you and I are on the same page on this point.

2:Like I said, just because someone does bad things, does not mean that they are not saved.

How can we know that a person is saved then? Jesus Christ said that the way men would be able to recognize His disciples was by the love they had for one another. It seems to me that a person who was "saved" would be a disciple of Christ. If someone treats me rudely and tells lies about me, it doesn't seem to me as if that person is one of Christ's disciples. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so I guess that makes Lutheranism a non-Christian denomination then, in your opinion.

That is correct, they are "Christian in name only" but their doctrines are anything but Christlike. I do not believe that merely worshiping Jesus is enough to be warranted the title as "Christian", except with Hyphenation.

I mean I definitely don't agree with the doctrine of sola fide and I find the TULIP doctrine to be preposterous. Still, I believe that Lutherans do worship Jesus Christ. To me, that trumps everything else.

I disagree that its merely a matter of worshiping Jesus. If we agree that their doctrine is preposterous, then we agree it isn't "Christian", and thus they are "Christian in name only". I believe the doctrine is what trumps the actual worship. Doesn't it say something about "worshiping in truth and spirit"? What is the point of that if anyone can believe anything and have any opinion or attitude?

Would it be too much to ask that you post some kind of a summary of what you believe those "original Messianic Jewish beliefs" to be?

It would require an essay, but in one sentence, it was just a Jewish sect who accepted Yashua's teachings and denied the Pharisee rulings, not too much different than the Qumran community mindset as a "Torah Reactionary " movement against Pharacism.

 

[Katzpur]

I disagree that its merely a matter of worshiping Jesus. If we agree that their doctrine is preposterous, then we agree it isn't "Christian", and thus they are "Christian in name only".

No, I'm afraid we don't agree on that, Shermana. I can justifiably believe that any given doctrine (sola fide or TULIP) is preposterous without thinking that it isn't Christian. I don't believe that we are saved by faith alone and that is reason enough for some Christians to say that I'm not a Christian. How can I turn around and say that if someone does believe that we are saved by faith alone, he's not a Christian. To me, that would be going against one of the most important things Christ ever taught -- that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Now if I were to exclude someone from the Christian family just because he has excluded me from the Christian family, I wouldn't be a very good Christian, would I?

I believe the doctrine is what trumps the actual worship. Doesn't it say something about "worshiping in truth and spirit"? What is the point of that if anyone can believe anything and have any opinion or attitude?

I guess that's where we disagree. Until we can agree as to what constitutes "truth," I think we'd all do better to leave the judging up to God.

 

[Shermana]

So Christian doctrine can be preposterous?

 

[Katzpur]

So Christian doctrine can be preposterous?

I'm a Christian, and in some people's opinions, the doctrines I believe are off-the-chart preposterous. Note: I say "in some people's opinions." The doctrines I believe certainly aren't preposterous to me. To an atheist, the idea that a man was killed and rose again three days later is preposterous. Does that make the belief in the Resurrection be a non-Christian one?

 

[Gaura Priya]

I think that the Trinitarian hype has overshadowed this idea of who or who is not a Christian, when really it should be based on whoever believes in Jesus Christ, regardless of his identity, personage, and role in salvation. This would include Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, those from the Latter-day Saint movement, and Liberal Christians.

For me, the idea of one who is a Christian is summarised in John 17:3,

"And this is life eternal, that they should [1] know thee the only true God, and [2] him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ."

 

[sojourner]

I disagree that its merely a matter of worshiping Jesus. If we agree that their doctrine is preposterous, then we agree it isn't "Christian", and thus they are "Christian in name only". I believe the doctrine is what trumps the actual worship. Doesn't it say something about "worshiping in truth and spirit"? What is the point of that if anyone can believe anything and have any opinion or attitude?

"Opinion" has little to do with either "spirit" or "truth." "Attitude" has little to do with "opinion." One can hold any of several opinions and worship both in spirit and in truth. If one has the right attitude -- that is, a stance facing God -- then opinion really is of no consequence.

You do realize that Xy is more about attitude than doctrine, right? An attitude of judgment and exclusion has more bearing on one's ontological stance than one's specific doctrine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree that its merely a matter of worshiping Jesus. If we agree that their doctrine is preposterous, then we agree it isn't "Christian", and thus they are "Christian in name only". I believe the doctrine is what trumps the actual worship. Doesn't it say something about "worshiping in truth and spirit"? What is the point of that if anyone can believe anything and have any opinion or attitude?

I don't think you've established the bit I've highlighted.

What definition for "Christian" are you using that allows you to conclude that all preposterous things are necessarily non-Christian?

Edit: it seems like you're using an unstated definition of "Christian" that's something like "orthodox"; I'm not sure this is valid. IMO, it's still correct to call heterodox (or even heretic) followers of Christ "Christian".