DEFINING Christianity: The Bottom Line.

[coolbluehair]

How does the Christian respond when asked the following:

What is the BOTTOM LINE of Christianity, i.e. the non-negotiable, undebatable, absolute must "believe/do" that DEFINES Christianity as distinct among belief systems? What is it that an individual must BELIEVE or DO that establishes him/her as a Christian -- or identifies him/her as non-Christian if he/she has NOT believed or done this thing? What is it?

I'm trying to find someone on this site who will address this question.

[Chancellor]

The Apostle Paul made it clear that the "natural man"...cannot understand the things of God because those things are spiritually discerned. No one who is not "born again" is able to spiritually discern because they're spiritually dead. One cannot understand the things of God unless God reveals them to him.

...the mere act of reading the Bible is not going to be enough...You must seek after God. You must call upon God to reveal Himself to you. "If you seek me you will find me, when you search for me with all your heart." It is only after you have obeyed the gospel call...that God will come to dwell in you and will reveal Himself to you. He will help you to understand the scriptures. But you're not going to be able to understand scripture without having that growing personal relationship with the God of scripture.

You say, "You must call upon God to reveal Himself to you. 'If you seek me you will find me, when you search for me with all your heart.'" Fine. I already did that. I prayed and said, "God, I am seeking you. Reveal yourself and your truth to me when I read the Bible." My prayer was sincere, and I expected God to answer my prayer because he said, through Jesus, that he would (e.g. Luke 11:9-14).

And so I go to the Bible and read. And many things jump off the page as I read the words and life of Jesus, and the NT writings of his closest disciples (this would be the best place to start, yes?). I am excited about what I am learning. Surely God has answered my prayer and is revealing understanding of the scriptures, as he said he would.

I end up with more questions, of course, and I continue to ask God to reveal the truth as I read the scripture. I also ask questions of others who call themselves "Christian," questions that came to me while reading the Bible itself. But when I seek clarification by asking Christians the sort of questions I am asking, I do not get straight answers. Or should I say that I get answers that repeatedly call me to "just believe" something - even when I don't see precedent for such belief in the life and teachings of Jesus.

I agree with you that one must "seek God" in order to grasp what is being said by those whose writings were influenced by the spirit that is God. I can accept that; however, I DO NOT read in the Bible where Jesus said anything about this being dependent on a belief in the necessity of blood sacrifices, or believing in Jesus as an atoning sacrifice to appease God, etc. I don't see or hear him saying that this is necessary in order that God would reveal truth to me. I do hear him say, "Follow me...Follow my teachings...Love one another," and "Ask and it shall be given to you," etc.

What I hear YOU (and other Christians) saying is something different, that I must believe a certain doctrine FIRST, i.e. the doctrine that Jesus was a blood sacrifice to appease God, otherwise he will NOT communicate with me, nor reveal his truth to me. I hear you saying that once I accept this belief, I must "accept" this sacrifice as my own, and only THEN will God reveal his truth to me, only THEN will I "receive the Spirit," and only THEN will I be able to properly interpret the Bible.

I do not see this as a chief teaching of Jesus or his own disciples.
What am I missing?
CBH

What you're missing is where Jesus said in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." You're missing the place in the gospels where Jesus is explaining to the two men on the road to Emmaus why it was necessary for Him to die on the cross. You're missing Paul's explanation of the need for atonement in Romans. You're missing a large portion of the book of Hebrews.

I recommend you read the following in order:

1) The gospel of John
2) Acts 1-2
3) Romans 1-8
4) Hebrews

[benjamin]

I recently came across a guy from the Church of Christ and he said that baptism is necessary for salvation.
They use this verse to prove that baptism is essential to salvation:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16 verse 16

According to Jesus' teachings Adultery is just as bad as looking at someone lustfully and murder is just the same as being angry for no justified reason. Therefore wouldn't it be correct to say that a believer is someone who believes, no matter to what extent he believes ? Therefore my question is this: "Is a believer(here I mean someone who has made Jesus Christ their Master/Lord by following his teachings and believing that He died and was resurrected to justify him before God) saved, or does he need baptism to finish the process?"

[BeHereNow]

benjamin: They use this verse to prove that baptism is essential to salvation:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This may be true, but cannot be shown logically.

believeth and is baptized shall be saved
This takes the form:
If A, and B, then S (or A+B=S)

he that believeth not shall be damned
This is
If not A, then not S.

Your friend then concludes
If not B, then not S

You can not logically derive the conclusion from the premises.

Similar to this:

P1: A woman who is married, and has children is a homemaker.
P2: A woman who is not married is not a homemaker.
The conclusion "A woman who does not have children is not a homemaker" is a false conclusion.
It would require more information (such as, all homemakers have children) to make the conclusion true.

does he need baptism to finish the process

Some things are not required of Christians, but are expedient.
Good works are not required of Christians, but if they are capable and refuse. . .
Generosity of wealth is not required of Christians, but if they are capable and refuse. . .
Communion is not required of Christians, but if they are capable and refuse. . .
Baptism is not required of Christians, but if they are capable and refuse. . .


What we don't do can be as important as what we do.

[BeHereNow]

coolbluehair wrote:
I agree, it is quite impossible to define Christianity without the Bible, because Christianity is founded on Biblical texts.

otseng: I agree with this also.

This has me confused.
Christianity is founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. The Bible did not exist until some 300 years after his death. There was no Christianity until the Bible was compiled?


Within the life of an individual, his Christianity is founded on Biblical texts, but this is not to say that Christianity itself is dependent on the Bible.
Would the teachings of Jesus have disappeared if there were no written word?
I do not think so.

[McCulloch]

coolbluehair wrote:
I agree, it is quite impossible to define Christianity without the Bible, because Christianity is founded on Biblical texts.
otseng: I agree with this also.

This has me confused.
Christianity is founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. The Bible did not exist until some 300 years after his death. There was no Christianity until the Bible was compiled?
Within the life of an individual, his Christianity is founded on Biblical texts, but this is not to say that Christianity itself is dependent on the Bible.
Would the teachings of Jesus have disappeared if there were no written word?
I do not think so.

How much would you know about Jesus and his teachings without the bible? Pretty well nothing. Christianity is dependent on the bible unless you go in for some kind of continuing revelation. Does god whisper in your ear?

[MagusYanam]

coolbluehair wrote:
I agree, it is quite impossible to define Christianity without the Bible, because Christianity is founded on Biblical texts.
otseng: I agree with this also.

This has me confused.
Christianity is founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. The Bible did not exist until some 300 years after his death. There was no Christianity until the Bible was compiled?
Within the life of an individual, his Christianity is founded on Biblical texts, but this is not to say that Christianity itself is dependent on the Bible.
Would the teachings of Jesus have disappeared if there were no written word?
I do not think so.

How much would you know about Jesus and his teachings without the bible? Pretty well nothing. Christianity is dependent on the bible unless you go in for some kind of continuing revelation. Does god whisper in your ear?

I agree with coolbluehair and otseng, but with a caveat. Christianity is dependent on the authority of the scriptures - without the Pentateuch, Isaiah and other books referenced by Jesus in his teachings, Christianity would have no contextual basis. Likewise, we require the Gospel for an account of Jesus' teachings.

However, scripture can not be the sole factor in defining Christianity, because without the backbone of Church tradition, and the ongoing process of reasoning the texts, scripture becomes meaningless to the contemporary reader and absolutely worthless to his or her understanding of God and the way of Christ. Scripture, tradition and reason are the legs on which Christianity is able to stand.

After all, the scriptures of Christianity (as we know them today in their current order, in the Bible) are a product of Church tradition. The canon was proposed and organised by council in the late 4th century.

[BeHereNow]

coolbluehair wrote: I agree, it is quite impossible to define Christianity without the Bible

McCulloch: Christianity is dependent on the bible unless you go in for some kind of continuing revelation.

Being dependent and needed to define are two different things.
For three centuries Christians practiced their religion with no Bible. Some communities had some of Pauls letters, some had copies of those letters. Some had nothing but hearsay testimony.
I consider these first centuries to be the golden Age of Christianity. Christians walked the walk. There were oral teachings from the Apostles and others who had family members who at had been to the sermon on the mount. After the first three centuries there began a strong influence of man. The only times which can compare to those early days was the Protestant Reformation. That would be a close second.
So in this most exciting age of Christianity, there was no Bible. Do you agree?
We should be able to define Christianity (especially in those early days) without referencing the Bible. We should be able to define it, and defend our definition with the Bible. The Bible explains to us what was occurring during those days when there was no Bible.

McCulloch: Does god whisper in your ear?

Is it that you think God is not capable of whispering in my ear, or that I am not worthy?
We may say none is worthy, but God chooses some of us anyway.
Am I any less worthy than the ones who have gone before me?
Why is it that God would choose to ignore one of his less fortunate children who never saw or heard the Bible or the name of Jesus? You think he would not go to one of them and whisper in their ear "I am the Lord your God and I am with you."?

As a Deist of course, I would never say God whispered in my ear.
I would say that is not necessary. I am capable of understanding many things without anyone whispering in my ear. Those which God would have me know are among these.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

MagusYanam: Christianity is dependent on the authority of the scriptures - without the Pentateuch, Isaiah and other books referenced by Jesus in his teachings, Christianity would have no contextual basis. Likewise, we require the Gospel for an account of Jesus' teachings.

What happened to divine revelation?
Doesnt anyone believe in the revealed Word of God without historical background?
The OTs message is that God will only side with one people/nationality. He is not accessible to the outsiders.
The NT message is that the Revelation of God is available to all persons. No exceptions. It does not matter when you were born, where you were born, the revelation of God is available to you. That is the Good News. Within that context, the life of Jesus is a great example of the Revealed Word of God.

[McCulloch]

McCulloch: Does god whisper in your ear?

Is it that you think God is not capable of whispering in my ear, or that I am not worthy?
We may say none is worthy, but God chooses some of us anyway.
Am I any less worthy than the ones who have gone before me?
Why is it that God would choose to ignore one of his less fortunate children who never saw or heard the Bible or the name of Jesus? You think he would not go to one of them and whisper in their ear "I am the Lord your God and I am with you."?
What happened to divine revelation?
Doesnt anyone believe in the revealed Word of God without historical background?
The OTs message is that God will only side with one people/nationality. He is not accessible to the outsiders.
The NT message is that the Revelation of God is available to all persons. No exceptions. It does not matter when you were born, where you were born, the revelation of God is available to you. That is the Good News. Within that context, the life of Jesus is a great example of the Revealed Word of God.

I guess my problem is that so many different messages are put forward with the tag that they are from god. How does one differentiate between the true and the false messages that are allegedly from god? The scientific method is not very good, since it would rule out just about every message emanating from god. So how do you know that the bible if from god? How do you know that the Qu'ran is or is not from god? How to you know that the guy on the street corner prophesying is or is not from god?

[BeHereNow]

McCulloch: I guess my problem is that so many different messages are put forward with the tag that they are from god. How does one differentiate between the true and the false messages that are allegedly from god? The scientific method is not very good, since it would rule out just about every message emanating from god. So how do you know that the bible if from god? How do you know that the Qu'ran is or is not from god? How to you know that the guy on the street corner prophesying is or is not from god?

Yes, quite a problem.
In the end, only you can decide. The answer is not the same for every person.
When you are hungry, eat. When you are thirsty, drink.
Seek not just knowledge, but understanding.
Above all, listen.
Patience.

[McCulloch]

McCulloch: I guess my problem is that so many different messages are put forward with the tag that they are from god. How does one differentiate between the true and the false messages that are allegedly from god? The scientific method is not very good, since it would rule out just about every message emanating from god. So how do you know that the bible if from god? How do you know that the Qu'ran is or is not from god? How to you know that the guy on the street corner prophesying is or is not from god?

Yes, quite a problem.
In the end, only you can decide. The answer is not the same for every person.
When you are hungry, eat. When you are thirsty, drink.
Seek not just knowledge, but understanding.
Above all, listen.
Patience.

If I only can decide, then you have defined a relativistic religion with a subjective truth. So you disagree with the christians (or at least most of the ones I have met) that teach that there is one truth for all people. I have less quarrel with the Buddhist or even the progressive christian who is willing to say that the truth is yet to be found than the evangelical, conservative christian who says here is the truth.