Mayhaps.that's a dangerous thought: define a true christian.
Well, why don't I have sex with little girls and call myself Christian? Oh, that's right--David Koresh beat me to it.that would mean that people that don't fit this definition are not christians. Wars were fought for this principle.
5. Someone who agrees with the heresy purges.Originally posted by firefighter
There are a number of ways of defining a christian, including but not limited to: ...
Originally posted by Grey Seal
The text book definition only has three requirements. Off the top of my head they were believing in the Incarnation, the Triune, and church. Each Christian religion has different ways of viewing and explaining each of the three things, but as long as they believe in them they are 'officially' considered Christian.
There are hundreds of Christian religions though including Mormonism, Catholicism, Quaker-ism, Amish, Brethren, Protestant (i think, not familiar w/their beliefs), Adventists, Baptists, etc etc etc. I'll recheck the book definition when I get a chance, but I remember it only had three specifications, and I'm pretty sure those were it.
Oh, and one more thing. Up until 5 or 10 years ago Christianity was the dominating religion in the world. Sometime within the past decade Islam has taken over.
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
that's a dangerous thought: define a true christian.
that would mean that people that don't fit this definition are not christians. Wars were fought for this principle.
New Life - what do you make of Romans 1:18-20 that clearly states that creation reveals God so clearly that 'men are without excuse'? Does that mean that I can use nature the way that you would use scripture - as Jesus did in Matthew 13? If I gain a portion of what I know about God has been revealed from Creation, am I less Christian than someone who relies solely on the Bible? Jesus used scripture, but only by a fraction. Paul used scripture, but only by a fraction. Is the trinity the Father, the Son and the Holy Bible? I don't think you can define a persons Christianity by their use of the Bible. Anyone can quote Scripture.Originally posted by New Life
*i say this because the protestants are still using the bible while mormons have created their own book altogether!
Originally posted by Turduckin
New Life - what do you make of Romans 1:18-20 that clearly states that creation reveals God so clearly that 'men are without excuse'? Does that mean that I can use nature the way that you would use scripture - as Jesus did in Matthew 13? If I gain a portion of what I know about God has been revealed from Creation, am I less Christian than someone who relies solely on the Bible? Jesus used scripture, but only by a fraction. Paul used scripture, but only by a fraction. Is the trinity the Father, the Son and the Holy Bible? I don't think you can define a persons Christianity by their use of the Bible. Anyone can quote Scripture.
Originally posted by Grey Seal
The text book definition only has three requirements. Off the top of my head they were believing in the Incarnation, the Triune, and church. Each Christian religion has different ways of viewing and explaining each of the three things, but as long as they believe in them they are 'officially' considered Christian.
There are hundreds of Christian religions though including Mormonism, Catholicism, Quaker-ism, Amish, Brethren, Protestant (i think, not familiar w/their beliefs), Adventists, Baptists, etc etc etc. I'll recheck the book definition when I get a chance, but I remember it only had three specifications, and I'm pretty sure those were it.
Oh, and one more thing. Up until 5 or 10 years ago Christianity was the dominating religion in the world. Sometime within the past decade Islam has taken over.
Originally posted by Grey Seal
The text book definition only has three requirements. Off the top of my head they were believing in the Incarnation, the Triune, and church. Each Christian religion has different ways of viewing and explaining each of the three things, but as long as they believe in them they are 'officially' considered Christian.
There are hundreds of Christian religions though including Mormonism, Catholicism, Quaker-ism, Amish, Brethren, Protestant (i think, not familiar w/their beliefs), Adventists, Baptists, etc etc etc. I'll recheck the book definition when I get a chance, but I remember it only had three specifications, and I'm pretty sure those were it.
Oh, and one more thing. Up until 5 or 10 years ago Christianity was the dominating religion in the world. Sometime within the past decade Islam has taken over.
This is where translation and interpretation causes problems. It clearly says 'What may be known of God'. Not 'just' or 'only' that God exists, but what may be known. Then there is the problem with translation. 1:20 " God's invisible qualities" Some translations say 'even his eternal power and divine nature' others say 'namely his eternal power and divine nature.' But both say his invisible qualities. Is not wisdom an invisible quality of God? Is not knowledge also an invisible quality of God?Originally posted by biblthmp
In the verses you quote from Roman, Paul is saying that there is sufficient witness in nature to show that there is a God, so that an atheist will have absolutely no available excuses, when his/her turn comes up for judgement.
A knowledge of nature is not sufficient, to keep you from error, God dictated the scriptures, for that purpose. A knowledge of nature is the doorway to that purpose. Don't stand in the doorway.
I'm not arguing this point, but I would like to know the scriptural basis for this. I also notice that in your entire list you say nothing about sanctification. Is that not important?4) One who finds a church which believes and preaches the scriptures, and fellowships with them on a frequent (as near to weekly as possible) and consistent basis.
Again, I would like to know the scriptural basis for this - especially the part about liberals. I'm a Christian and a Democrat Liberal from the North East. Does that mean you have to defend against me? Or do you have to defend against Pentacostals because of their interpretation of Acts? Or are you talking about liberals who graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary, as my pastor did?. Or are you talking about people who use the NIV instead of the King James? Or Only Unitarians, which I was as a child? Please pardon me if I seem overly sensitive to this. It's because I have been judged by "Non-liberal" Christians my entire life and I had to convert to Christianity in spite of them, not because of them - once I felt the loving conviction of the Holy Spirit and not the hot judgement of Christian Fundamentalists I could begin to feel the power of a God who loves us beyond all reason.6) One who stands up in support of the scriptural teaching in the marketplace, defending the truth of the scriptures from the attacks of the liberals.