The Clergy Project

I'd almost ask what evidence/challenge you're talking about except that I'm afraid I only get the 'sheep and goats' story chucked onto the table again...yaaaawwwnnn.

A Christian is born not bred There is no absolute guarantee that they won't be hateful. If the above is correct then someone professing it may not be one at all.

Funny. The bible talks of believers as "citizens of heaven". Think you may have touched on the best definition of all Schraf. Someone is made a citizen. They may be black white good or bad - but it doesn't affect the legal position they hold.In other words, all this professing and believing and denomination stuff is a side issue. A Christian (biblically) is one who has been made or declared so...by God?

But if a person is made a Christian by an act of God (which I suggest is the case), then what a person professes makes little difference to anything. "I'm tall, dark and handsome". Does that mean I am tall dark and handsome?(ps: remind me to send the Acme Get Rich Quik salesrep around to your house will ya? You sound like a good prospect

A bit late I would have thought...

quote:

---

One can ascribe a high status to Jesus and/or his teachings without considering him to be the Saviour/Christ and still be considered a Christian

---

Gandhi was a Hindu-Christian thusOne can even believe there was no such person a Jesus and still be considered a Christian (so long as there is one other person to consider them such). Actually .. in that basis one can think whatever one likes about anything a be considered a Christian.Is there anyone there who thinks they aren't a Christian? Well I've got news for you..

I don't see how that follows. I don't know so I'll presume. That is a recipe for all kinds of nonsense. You get people saying things like "the survey says Christian are aborting their babies at higher rates than the non-Christian". This may say something about people who call themselves Christians or consider themselves to be Christians...but says nothing about actual Christian.But that is forgotten in the headlines. Sorry, the thus referred to the statment prior not to the statement post. My fault. As I understand it Gandhi believed Jesus existed - as a man - not God

Why does there have to be an alternative? So people can carry out polls...?I would suggest that the best way to know if another is a Christian is to become one yourself. It doesn't provide absolute proof of anyones position but you can make an reasonably good educated guess. I know Faith is a Christian for example.

Are you asking how do I or how would anyone know. I said I don't know how anyone would know already. But I could suggest how I know if you like.Is that what you mean?

A murderer becomes a murderer as soon as he murders. He remains a murderer forever. Unless there is someway to know for sure that he did it then you can look at him forever and not know he is a murderer - even though he is one. There is no particular reason to think one would ever know he is.If being a Christian is the result of an act of God which changes a persons position - with respect to how God views them - and it has nothing to do with his behaviour before or after this occurance -then there is no reason to think a person would be able to observe the fact that person is a Christian. It would seem that if one was a Christian then it would be at least possible that they could recognise another Christian - given that they understand what it is that makes a Christian. That the world at large doesn't understand what makes a Christian and therefore has no inside knowledge which would spot the subtle differences that exist between genuine Christian and false ones, then that is a problem for the world. Not the Christian.

I didn't say the Christian was a murderer - I was making a parallel in order to illustrate once a murderer/Christian always a murderer/Christian. It has nothing to do with actions prior to the murder/act of God or actions post the murder/act of God. The occasion of the murder/act of God is the point at which one becomes one or the other. The parallel fails in the sense that the murder is the act of the individual - he makes himself a murderer and the act of God, God makes the ChristianBut taking what you said as an extreme example. A murderer who is a Christian is not unmade a Christian if he murders again. It should be noted however that this is only a theoretical possibility. When a person becomes a Christian they recieve the Holy Spirit and undergo a see-change. Their whole outlook changes. The tendency is that the former life is turned away from and that behaviour 'improves' But in the same way I will still smoke the occasional joint whereas before I smoked joints all the time, a murderer could in theory, slip back into murder. In order to get an inkling into the change at this level, one could examine Saul/Paul and see the extent to which his behaviour changed a persecutor of the faith, implicated in a murder - if not directly becoming a giant of the faith Whilst I may be pretty sure a person is a Christian I cannot be sure that a person is not. They are two different things. A person is a Christian because of a positional change that has been made. Their citizenship has changed from one dominion to the other. A illiterate immigrant to Ireland who has come from a repressive African regieme may not realise the inalienable rights and impossibility of irrevocation of his newly aquired Irish citizenship. He may not realise at all what that in fact means - his former experience has never even countered such things. Whether he realizes it or not he is as fully a citizen as me, one who realizes all these things.So a person may be a Christian without fully realizing it. That they carry some strange notions about what it is to be a citizen of their new country and carry on with habits they had when they were citizens of another country changes the situation not a jot.Some are fully aware of the impossibility of losing their salvation. Others are not and hold onto the notion that they must work for it. No matter In a multitude of ways. Salvation is by faith alone. Works have nothing to do with it. This is a nigh on impossible doctrine to grasp given the propensity of people to think they must do it. But even if someone could get it that doesn't mean they are a Christian. However, the automatic tendency of a person who wasn't a Christian and who grasped this doctrine would be "I can live my life as I want" (die to their sinful nature being still alive and well). Not with Faith however. Faith doesn't need Romans 6 explained to her. She knows that works and deeds are very important - but just not in the context of salvation.I also look at her deeds. Or rather the motivation behind them. It is a source of amazement that folk spend so much time here arguing so vociferously their viewpoint. Why do they do it. I imagine there are various reasons and when it comes to issues of faith I gather there are defenders of various faiths here. Heresy Hunters abound. But the motivation of Faith differs from so any others. Hers is not so much to defend here faith but to point people in the direction of that which can save them. The heart behind her actions is anguish. Sure she argues because she is argumentitive but I see the frustration in her words "Why won't they believe and he will save them". I don't get that motivation from others. They argue purely to defend their viewpoint. There is no expressed desire that the opponant come to their viewpoint in order that they be saved

Just to recap. I can see no way that a non-Christian can tell if a person is a Christian. They may see something about the person that is Christian behaviour but that in itself is not necessarily a sign that they are one. The things that define a Christian are not outward actions but things such as: being in Christ, having the Holy Spirit, being a person who is saved. As you correctly state, none of these things are directly obeservable thus no non Christian can be sure.A Christian has these things and it is possible that they may be certain within themselves that another person has these things too.(on the "it takes one to know one" basis) I explained some aspects of Faith that lead me to be sure she is a Christian. I'll repeat that this only works for confirming for me that she is, if she lacked these things this does not mean that she is not a Christian. There is little point in expanding on them because all I could use is words to try and explain them. And all I have to go on is her words too. That I can read her words and know she is a Christian is something that is spiritually discerned. This is only possible if one is a Christian

quote:

---

14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 16"For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?"[d] But we have the mind of Christ.

---

quote:

---

If the world is unable to recognise a Christian, is that a problem for the world at large or is that a problem for the Christian?
  —phat

---

It can lie in on either side. A Christian may be a weak one or a young one in which case his light is not going to illuminate very far. The weak Christian is not living up to that which he is and I'm sure there are consequences in that for himOn the other hand, the word 'may' may involve 'may not' Christ was the brightest light of the all and very many didn't see him and praise his father in heaven.Ultimately the problem is for the world. Various people stand up and hold the light up - each with whatever degree of illumination they happen to possess. Some hold candles others searchlights. If the world doesn't see it it is the world who will face the most significant consequences.

What you would probably accept is that these people have a theory about what motivates people and it is that to which you ultimately refer. We know it is a theory because whatever model is used is in a perpetual state of flux. In 100 years time folk will use a different model and the current will look amusingly crass in comparison. We think the theory is good and whilst it appears we can use it to 'help' people then it will become pseudo-factual. Which is a little different than factualIf, as I contest, that which makes a Christian is an act of God and the essential effectual elements of it are operative in the spiritual aspect of a person then the only things that can be measured are consequential outward expressions of what has gone on inside then that is all that can be measured. And these things can be falsified either deliberately or indeliberately.A person who has, for instance, been indoctrinated into 'walking a Christian walk' may do many of the things that a real Christian will do. So how could a physiatrist tell the difference. The only way one could refine ones instruments in order to measure accurateley is if one could calibrate them against the real thing. An insensitive instrument won't pick up the finer points of differenceAnd only a Christian would be in a position to calibrate the instruement. Thus "It takes one to know one" I guess Being a Christian is a spiritual thing. Thats where the transformation takes place. In the spiritual realm. There is nothing to guarentee that a Christian will start acting in a way in line with how the bible says he ought. The word is ought afterall - the Christian is not obliged to conform. So actions are not the measureA non-Christian is spiritually dead (according to the bible - but it is what a Chrisitan observes). It is not that they refuse to understand these things it is that they cannot understand these things (according to the bible - but it is what a Christian observes). A non-Christian can no more discern a Christian than can a person who has no ear for music tune up a guitar. It's not the non-Christians fault as it were."I was blind - now I see" If it is true that the non-Christian is blind then that is all there is to be said about it.

Being a Christian has nothing to do with religious denomination. One can be of no denomintation. A Christian may live in a country where there are no Christian denominations of any kind. Denomination is irrelevant.Christianity is a citizenship thing. Someone may be an infant Christianity-wise and hold on to all kinds of non-biblical view (or rather incorrect interpretations of what the bible says) but if they have been made a citizen it matters not. Citizenship is what counts. That act on Gods part which makes a person a citizen.Take the old testament believers. They had no gospel doctrine to either agree or disagree with, Christ had not yet come. It doesn't matter. They are saved "in Christ" as much as the person today can be saved in Christ even though he lived 2000 years ago. Who knows. Whilst a person who is made a Christian by God will likely undergo a transformation of view and action, it is not a dead cert that they will do no more wrong. Evil acts can be committed by a Christian. Actions may provide indicators but they are not the measure by which one can be sure. A person professing a belief is not necessarily the same as a person who actually believess.I do look at some of what the televangelists say and wonder.