You'll find Christians that accept or reject any combination of those. But they could still be considered Christians.
i am well aware. however, very many of them seem to think they own the rule book.
Still though, there's some minimum requirements for who we should consider Christians.
Certainly, being a follower of Christ is one of them. Maybe the only one?
i think we're walking in circles.
I'm not talking about the saving. I'm just talking about the label.
isn't the saving the purpose of the label? you know, so we know who's going to hell or not? (not that *i* care, but it seems to be a popular point of discussion.
Again, I'm not judging their status with God. I'm trying to find the criteria for who we, as Christians, should consider others as Christians or not.
again, i think the status with god determines who is a christian. and determining who they are doesn't affect or shouldn't affect your relations with them in any way. since it shouldn't affect your relations with them, it shouldn't matter.
I don't think the criteria can be just being like Christ, because that would include non-Christians like Gandhi who is a Hindu and not a Christian but happens to be like Christ.
i think it would be easily enough decided to exclude anyone who claims a different title.
because a non-Christian (like a double-agent or something) could easily become a member while not be a Christian.
i think this idea is unnecessarily paranoid. what purpose would one have in pretending to be a christian? unless you treat your christians and your non-christians differently.
What do you think the criteria should be?
i think the best knowledge we have is claim. even if someone is not like christ but claims to be a christian, they can be. people are flawed, that's what jesus was for. maybe his path is harder than yours. but. i really think it's unnecessary and all too divisive to waste time sitting around pontificating on who's a christian and who isn't.