What is a True Christian?

[OBW]

BTW. So you were between some Muslims and some other Christians?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

BTW. So you were between some Muslims and some other Christians?

Amish are -religious- Christians. Just because they are not -worldly- Christians does not mean they are truly saved by the WORD of God. In fact, most are raised to follow the instructions of the religious leader of their community. I do not know if this family were or have a personal and intimate relationship with their Savior and Creator. I hope so!! However, this reminds me Mike and all!!!

While we were sandwiched between these 2 extreme cultured families, a brother in Christ was selling trinkets or asking for donations for the outreach ministry he works with. Helping drug addicts to be set free through the gospel. Many cities have these "Victory outreach" ministries.

Anyway, he and I sprung up a lively, anointed conversation of the Lord. The Presence of God was with us and we both sensed it very strongly. Perhaps The LORD was using us to shine His Light on them, that they would see and hear the Living WORD alive in us and operating in us. I hope so!!!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Amish are -religious- Christians. Just because they are not -worldly- Christians does not mean they are truly saved by the WORD of God. In fact, most are raised to follow the instructions of the religious leader of their community. I do not know if this family were or have a personal and intimate relationship with their Savior and Creator.

I was really trying to be a little tongue-in-cheek.

But the response raises an interesting question: What is "being a Christian"? Is it believing in Christ as the Son of God and following His commands? Is it "having a personal an intimate relationship with [the] Savior and Creator"?

On the first possibility, I note that we are quite conditioned against "commands" or anything sounding like "the law." But the last part (of three parts) to the so-called Great Commission was to teach them (the followers) to obey everything that He (Jesus) commanded. And when we read "make disciples" we are so prone to read it as making "almost apostles" rather than followers. If you believe in Jesus, you follow Him. If you follow Him, you do what he says to do. If you don't do what he says to do, there is a question on belief.

On the second possibility, on what do we base this "personal relationship"? I'm not saying that there is no personal relationship. But is that what the Bible really teaches as the important thing? Or is it an external overlay of evangelicalism that redefines the faith into belief and relationship at the expense of obedience? Understand that I am fully within evangelicalism. I do not disdain belief and personal relationship. But are those the requirements for salvation?

Or maybe the better question is this: What is a "personal relationship"? And coupled with that, is it the centerpiece of the Christian existence? How do we arrive at the conclusion that there must be this "personal and intimate relationship" that is ongoing and is not influenced by anyone else (whether the local group leader or even someone like Lee)? Now I'm not forgiving Lee with that question. It is just that having some level of acceptance of the understanding of scripture from some teacher is not, in itself, the sign of a lack of spiritual health.

Neither is living according to some sense of "personal relationship." But, consistent with some of the discussion in another thread, a theology based almost exclusively on a "personal relationship" understanding of scripture is not much different from the "spirit-Spirit" "sense" that so much of Lee's theology is based upon at the expense of obedience to "all that I have commanded."

This is not a personal attack. I am just beginning to become more and more aware of the ways in which we too often have simply modified the "sensual" aspects of the LRC into something different so that we are no longer associated with their error, but then just fall into a parallel error.

But I will say that I find it offensive that anyone who professes to follow Christ and whose only lack is subscribing to a "personal relationship" theology is being questioned as to their true belief. They, like James, might counter that all the claims of personal relationship are meaningless if there is no evidence that there is obedience since without obedience, any claim of faith is little more than a mental assent.

What is the linchpin for me is that we simply presume that a lack of some observable practice that we would call "personal relationship" makes their faith suspect when there is little scripture that defines what that would be while they faithfully follow what they believe are God's commands (which are easily found in scripture) and don't complain about those that do not appear to do the same even though claiming a personal relationship.

If I had to chose who was truly a believer and the choice was between an ardent follower of the commands and another who talked a lot about stuff, I chose the follower. Talk is cheap. I might not chose the specific practices or lifestyle of the follower, but I trust their claim of being a Christ follower. I'm not so sure about the one who talks a good line but looks like everyone else.

Now. Way too heavy for a thread whose title was "God's sense of humor."

And I will probably hear about this from someone. But the question remains — even for me. Are we really free of the errors that we now find in the LRC or did we just exchange them for less extreme errors. I'm not suggesting that I am better at this. Sometimes the words heard/read just suddenly scream at me. And I process out loud.

This is not CMW's problem. It is a problem for all of us.

In a different way, I have CMW's question. The two bookends in that line were culturally extreme relative to most of us. But to presume that they were both not Christian is tragic. Surely the Muslims have chosen a path that is not Christian. But how can we make such a declaration about the Amish?

I was raised in old-school pentecostalism. I now have serious reservations about it, and many reservations about its more modern appearance in the charismatic movement. But I do not doubt their faith and position in Christ. I believe that it would be better if Anglicans, RCC, EOC, and others had a more clear line of teaching on salvation. But for those who hear the scripture each week, and follow and learn and believe in the one who gave both the words and the commandments that they follow, I'm not sure I can deny that they are "saved" as we understand it. I just cannot walk up to them and ask that famous "can you give the date and time you first believed" question. They can't do it. But many of them believe.

And, BTW, I can't give you the date and time either. When your beliefs are muddled with Arminian "lose your salvation" theology, it is a jumbled mess of "go back, Jack, and do it again." I'm free of that error now. But it does not make the past clearer.

[OBW]

I think I indicated that I might hear about that last post. And I did. Not in a negative way, but somewhat with the idea of creating a separate thread to pursue the idea.

Since I'm not certain that a thread to discuss the Amish is important for this forum, I am bringing a little of my offline response to part of the note I received.

. . . .

The Amish people were trying to come out of their stifled religious living. They were doing it in secret with the help of a couple of former Amish men and some Pentecostal brethren.

. . . .

I have no quarrel with the notion that there is something stifling in the Amish sect. As there is in the LRC. Both need a better way for people to escape the cultural aspects if they so desire.

But in both cases, I believe that we are dealing with Christians. The difference in the two is that we are familiar with the standard evangelical underpinnings of "salvation" (like we find in the LRC) but not as much with those that are less knowledge/assent-based but more (objectively) obedience-based. They may follow all kinds of weird traditions or edicts of their leaders (seems vaguely similar to the LRC and many other groups) and it makes their group into a different form of "cult" than the LRC. But I do not understand on what basis we start with the presumption that being Amish means "not Christian" (which is what the opening post implied, intentional or not).

That is all I am getting at.

I'm not sure that a thread on the Amish is necessary. But there are two questions that I see (at least).

First, are they Christian? Nothing that I have heard removes them from that camp, and they claim to be Christ followers. The fact that they have added a lot of other stuff into their existence does not make their claim wrong.

Second, is their culture somehow Bible-mandated or instead significantly cultish and potentially harmful to them? Answering this question either way does not have any bearing on the answer to the first question. I believe that we are too often caught-up in answering the "are they (whoever "they" are) Christian" question based on our analysis of culture or other factor(s) that are not determinative of the answer.

Does that mean that people "evangelizing" among them is a waste of time? Probably not. Seeing their way out of such an extreme culture will probably help their life in general and their Christian experience in specific. But it will not necessarily change their status as Christian. Maybe only their understanding of that status.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

I took my cousins to the San Antonio river walk last week. For those not familiar with San Antonio, the main tourist attraction is riding down the "river" which is more like a wide creek that is 4/5 ft deep. It is a natural river that runs smack down the middle of downtown.

A tour guide gives a historical account of the city and its buildings.

Now for the funny!
So while we are standing in line waiting to get on a barge, we notice we are sandwiched right smack in between a Muslim family and an Amish family.

Does God have a sense of humor or what???!!!

Thought a good chuckle is a nice & fun way to liven up the forum in this new year of THE LORD 2013. Yes?

Carol

Originally Posted by OBW

I think I indicated that I might hear about that last post. And I did. Not in a negative way, but somewhat with the idea of creating a separate thread to pursue the idea.

Since I'm not certain that a thread to discuss the -Amish- is important for this forum.

Hi OBW,
You are correct that discussing the Amish beliefs and practices are not important to the forum.

The question "What is being a Christian" might be a good topic of discussion and thus the start of a new thread.

I have no quarrel with the notion that there is something stifling in the Amish sect. As there is in the LRC. Both need a better way for people to escape the cultural aspects if they so desire.
But in both cases, I believe that we are dealing with Christians. The difference in the two is that we are familiar with the standard evangelical underpinnings of "salvation" (like we find in the LRC) but not as much with those that are less knowledge/assent-based but more (objectively) obedience-based. They may follow all kinds of weird traditions or edicts of their leaders (seems vaguely similar to the LRC and many other groups) and it makes their group into a different form of "cult" than the LRC. But I do not understand on what basis we start with the presumption that being Amish means "not Christian" (which is what the opening post implied, intentional or not).

Let me make myself very clear. Just because I do not know if the Amish or Muslim families were or are saved, I was not assuming they weren't!!! I did not talk to either family as I was engaged in conversing with my cousin and then the brother in Christ. Had I not been occupied, I would have started up a conversation with both families some how if it would have been possible.

Since there is a large Muslim community here in SA, I would have tried starting up a conversation with the Amish family asking them if they were visiting SA. ( To my knowledge we do not have an Amish community here in SA.). I would not have brought up the Lord. I simply would have been very friendly towards them. Believe it or not, I AM genuinely friendly without alterior motives to "evangelize".

If they would not have been very receptive, I would have respected them and if time permitted, I would have asked the Muslim family if they were visiting SA or were locals.

Either way, the conversations would have been brief as we were waiting to get on a barge.

I would have prayed for them privately as is my habit after talking to people. In fact, while I cannot tell you with certainty, I probably said a short brief prayer for both families. It probably went something like this:
Lord Jesus. Touch their hearts. Bless them with Your Love and reveal Yourself to them.

I pray those words a lot, A LOT (mostly at grocery stores or around the beggars) which is why I am pretty sure I prayed for them. BTW, I usually give a dollar to the beggars blessing them.

Carol

[Cal]

Since the basis of being a Christian is personal faith, rather than, like, getting a tatoo or something, it's difficult to determine if someone has genuine personal faith, or even what genuine personal faith is. James tells us that true faith will be manifested in "works." Yet Paul tells us we cannot be justified by works.

So someone could say they have faith, and that's not necessarily proof; and you could view someone's works, and they are not necessarily proof either.

So how do we know someone is a true Christian? When push comes to shove it usually comes down to how we feel about them after observing them or talking with them, doesn't it? Certain clues let us know. In short, it's personal.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Since the basis of being a Christian is personal faith, rather than, like, getting a tatoo or something, it's difficult to determine if someone has genuine personal faith, or even what genuine personal faith is. James tells us that true faith will be manifested in "works." Yet Paul tells us we cannot be justified by works.

So someone could say they have faith, and that's not necessarily proof; and you could view someone's works, and they are not necessarily proof either.

So how do we know someone is a true Christian? When push comes to shove it usually comes down to how we feel about them after observing them or talking with them, doesn't it? Certain clues let us know. In short, it's personal.

That is one way to look at it.

In the context in which this discussion began, I note that there was a reference to religious Christians followed by a comment indicating a skepticism as to whether thay are "truly saved by the WORD of God."

The problem that I have with that kind of statement is that this is true of virtually everyone. It is true of people who are participants in liturgical assemblies, and also active participants in fundamentalist and charismatic assemblies.

I agree that observing their works is not a guarantee of being a true Christian. But for those who regularly profess their belief in "God the Father, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only begotten son . . ." and you see their works as being consistent with those of a true Christ follower, how do we deny that they are true Christians?

And what if they also add in some practices that are not commanded in scripture but are not contrary to it? And what if they get some doctrine wrong (in our opinion) but not one(s) core to the faith?

With this, we have broad-brushed over the Baptists, Charismatics, Bible churches, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, and even the RCC. And probably the Amish.

I am not whitewashing the problems in any of these groups. But are we talking about generically non-Christians, or more likely Christians that simply do not look like us? What about the Quakers and Mennonites? Do we start with a skeptical view of them simply because we do not practice in the manner they do. And moreover, they do not teach propositional salvation with a definable "conversion experience" or focus on the proof/certainty in salvation? Does it disqualify them?

Would we have reacted differently if the opening comment had been "I found myself in line between a Muslim family and some 'saints' from the Church in Denver"? Other than the outwardly evangelical/fundamental theology of the LRC (ignoring Lee's errors), are they any different than Baptists, Lutherans, Quakers, or even Amish?

Or are we observing "religiosity" and dismissing it like we were taught to by the LRC? Are we presuming that if you are not "like us" then you are a questionable Christian"?

If they "do the works" and are, through their participation in "church" professing to believe, why do we give them a skeptical eye?

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Are we presuming that if you are not "like us" then you are a questionable Christian?

Certainly that is easy to do, and is done often. "Lord, we saw someone who was not following us, who was casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade them". Remember that one? Very easy to presume that we are in the center of God's will, and anyone different from us are at the fringes, or off the map entirely. However, I feel that it's arguably safer to assume the opposite: that I am the marginal, dubious Christian, and others are greater than I.

As to the question, Who is a True Christian: it is probably not so easy. Anyone can pay lip service. Many do. But Jesus clearly indicates the insufficiency of appearances in Matthew 7: "Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "

So you can fool some of the saints, but you can't fool the Lord. You can quack like a duck, and walk like a duck, but not be a duck. It will be revealed in that day. Where I will be I don't know, but I do know that presuming some pride of place here on earth is clearly a recipe for disaster. Witness Lee would probably make a good case study, for starters.

Secondly, even if I had some "iron-clad works" which I could hold up next to my "iron-clad truths" about Jesus, how can I tell how my works compare to others? Jesus said, "To whom much is given, much will be expected". So if I boast in my "truths" it would be pretty stupid of me to look askance on those whose truths seem deficient. Maybe they will be judged by a different yardstick. Just saying.

In sum, "Don't judge lest ye be judged" seems like a fair piece of advice. I think that while it may be fairly easy to gain consensus on what a Christian believes (i.e. Jesus as God's Christ and Savior of the world), it is a little harder to determine what it means to be a Christian. After all these years, I still don't know whether I am merely a "hearer" of the word, versus a "doer". And to what extent I am a "hearer" and not a "doer" it is probably because the message, and the example, has been too profoundly simple for me to grasp.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

In the context in which this discussion began, I note that there was a reference to religious Christians followed by a comment indicating a skepticism as to whether thay are "truly saved by the WORD of God."

The problem that I have with that kind of statement is that this is true of virtually everyone. It is true of people who are participants in liturgical assemblies, and also active participants in fundamentalist and charismatic assemblies.

I agree that observing their works is not a guarantee of being a true Christian. But for those who regularly profess their belief in "God the Father, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only begotten son . . ." and you see their works as being consistent with those of a true Christ follower, how do we deny that they are true Christians?

As far as I'm concerned I don't think we are supposed to go around discerning who are the true Christians and who are not. (See the parable of the wheat and the weeds (tares)). To me it's the wrong perspective. If people profess faith in Christ, I take them at their word. It's not up to me nor is it necessary for me to determine for sure. My job is to minister to anyone who is in any way receptive to the Gospel. It's God's job to touch hearts and know who has saving faith. I'm sure there are plenty of times I've been wrong both ways about people. Thank the Lord their salvation does not hang on my discernment.

Now, some people can have such a distorted view of the Gospel that you can tell just from what they say. But most professing Christians aren't like that. It's hard to tell. And since it's hard to tell, I take that to mean it doesn't matter much if we can tell or not. How would my treatment of them change if I could tell, anyway? Would I say "I can't have fellowship with you until you become a true believer"? No, I'd just keep showing them love, like, hopefully, before.