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

[OBW]

Not the best title. I considered titling it "What is Salvation" but that is too broad. It refers to conversion and to at least part of sanctification. It is both the start and an ongoing process.

But whether you are starting out our are far along the journey, you are what is now labeled "Christian."

This thread is not talking about cultural Christians, or simply those who go to some church, whether regularly or just occasionally. While we like to think that people who are regular attenders at certain kinds of churches just have to be "saved" and therefore be Christians, but somehow we realize that it is still not 100 percent.

And for many of us who have evangelical, fundamentalist and/or charismatic backgrounds, we figure that the percentage "saved" goes down in the older, mainstream denominations, especially the more liturgical. And we tend to want to just about write-off the RCC's membership. And possibly the EOC and its offshoots (Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.).

So this thread is to explore the definition of "Christian" in the sense of a "Christ follower" who can be declared to have passed from death to life. That is the kind of Christian we are talking about.

The question is: "What is required to be a Christian?"

Once we are beginning to pin that down, some follow-on questions might reasonably be:

1. Must we have a knowable, line-in-the-sand date of salvation/conversion?
2. If the answer to the previous question is believed to be "yes," does that relegate nearly whole congregations who don't practice a kind of "Roman Road" transition to a "sinner's prayer" to the ranks of "not Christian"?

I'm sure that, if the topic gets any interest, there will be more questions and a variety of answers/opinions.

I will post my initial response soon.

[Cal]

Moved some posts to this thread. Carry on.

[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]

While it is possible to write pages on the subject, I am brought to consider the simple phrase "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

The problem comes in defining "believe." Does that mean to consider it to be true that Jesus is Christ? To assent to the concept that there is God and that He came to the earth as Jesus Christ?

I note that, while not using the term "believe," John 14:22-24 says that if you love Him, you will obey, and if you do not obey, you don't love.

While it is a difficult position to establish, I tend to be skeptical of true salvation where there is only a claim of having said words at a point in time but no evidence of obedience springing from that, even if only in small steps. But having said that, the required evidence is really quite small. It might even look like so-called "religious works."

I recall back in the 60s hearing a story told by a man who was part of a traveling choir. He had joined the group and traveled with them for some months when one day he was struck by the realization that he had never made a "profession of faith" in the way that the songs they were singing spoke of. So he went to one of the choir's leaders and they "lead him to Christ." While there is no way to make any kind of definitive statement on this, I now have questions to which I believe the correct answers are not what I once thought.

1. If you ask whether he was a Christian at the time that he began to sing with the group, the answer can only be "unknown."

2. If you further ask if he was a Christian by the time he went to speak to the leader, I would suggest that the answer was already "yes."

The analysis goes like this. At some point, this man did not believe in Christ. He probably knew of Christ. He had probably attended churches for some time. But he may not have "passed from death to life." Assuming that his condition at the beginning of his tenure with the choir was "unsaved," he is then faced with singing songs full of the truth about Christ and about the Christian life and experience. During this time, he begins to realize the truth that is in those words and begins to believe. At some point, he recognizes that some of the songs speak of a conversion experience in some manner and realizes that he has never prayed with someone anything that would resemble a "sinner's prayer." Then, that one day, he does it.

So. When did he begin to be a Christian in the sense we are speaking of? I believe that there is no way to tell (at this point in time). I think that it happened gradually. He was first drawn to consider. Then at some point, there began to be the seeds of belief. They began to take root and sprout up. Then, faced with the constant issue of an evangelical/fundamental line-in-the-sand teaching on salvation, he took that step and became "accepted" (in his own mind) as part of the group.

I believe that his salvation is earlier because he actually believed earlier. He simply had not yet taken an artificial step.

Does anyone believe there are other requirements? Am I over-simplifying it?

[countmeworthy]

Thanks for starting this thread Mike and a hat's off to you Igzy for moving the posts pertinent to the topic to this thread.

I do hope it generates a lively, healthy and enlightening discussion.

I will begin by acknowledging that only GOD truly knows who are HIS. I do not doubt my eternal salvation nor do I take it for granted it. I have a healthy fear and respect for the Lord.

While I pray for discernment and pray I am never deceived, and am careful not to receive and believe every wind of doctrine, I also try not to be judgmental. I have come a long way from being critical simply because someone does not pray as I pray, walk as I walk or talk as I talk.

I will admit, this process did not come easy to me. I believe that Lee's ministry and to a lesser extent (I think) Nee, were very instrumental in molding me to be critical and judgmental in years past. But GOD does know how to humble us and bring us down a notch or two. And that is what has happened to me.

However while I try very hard not to be judgmental or try not to come across with an attitude "I am better than thou", I do not let my spiritual guard down. ( I have Christian friends who complain constantly, cuss on occasion and live quite differently from me. Yet at times, they are filled with the Love of God, read the Word of God and truly seem to make a conscientious effort to walk upright.)

And with this small peak into my personal life, I will stop for now and add more thoughts, observations and perceptions to this thread later on.

Blessings,
Carol G

[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.

[aron]

To me, the simplest way to answer the question, What is a True Christian is to say that it is one to whom the Lord says, "Well done, honest and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Master." Since we haven't yet arrived at that point and the Master hasn't yet rendered verdict, it would seem somewhat presumptuous if we begin to make distinctions among ourselves.

It is a little easier, thankfully, to figure out What is Not a True Christian. So we can at least identify those pitfalls, and avoid them. There are spirits which are occasionally manifest within the assembly, which among other things are: a)elevating and puffing themselves up; b)eager for base gain; c)hypocritical (do as I say and not as I do); d)quarrelsome and contentious; e)indifferent to the poor, needy and suffering; f)judgmental of 'others'; g)lording it over the saints; h)making merchandise of the gospel. Etc. Those types, regardless of what lip service they may pay to Jesus, and how much piety they profess, I won't follow them.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

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!' "

To me, it seems that this is a warning to us beware of ourselves, not of others. While not here for the same purpose, when we think of this passage in terms of "who is a Christian" might this be more like the parable of the enemy that sowed weeds among the crops. The command was to leave it until the harvest.

In other words, it is not our job to ferret out the true from the false among those who simply stand with us growing (to play off of that parable).

This is probably the reason that many churches somewhat recite Paul's warning about taking the Lord's table unworthily. Or require that you actually be a member who has jumped through some hoops for the elders or membership committee. They have some intent to keep certain participation "pure." But in the end, it may be a matter that is beyond the control of even the wisest among us.

It may be better to continually encourage those you contact in some level of spiritual disciplines and trust that the Spirit will always work through the Word and prayer (of both the participant and yourselves). But we must take care not to have a Pharisaical attitude that certain ones must not be a true Christian because they do (or don't) a bunch of things on a list.

Call "Oh Lord Jesus" constantly.
Follow a lot of "religious traditions" in their worship.
Don't trust their own scriptural interpretations (this might be a good thing for many of us, including me).
Don't read their Bible as much as "me."
Worship with a group that has "special music."
Perform many "works" almost ritualistically.
Don't hear what evangelicals would call a "clear gospel message" every Sunday, or even an "altar call" every time they meet (regardless of the knowledge of the salvation of the entire assembly at the time).
Or baptize infants.
Or sprinkle v dunk.
Or have candles burning around the room.
Or have failed to see that they need no mediator. (We can come freely to the throne of grace. But it does not say that we are deficient in salvation if we believe in Christ but are timid to go directly.)
Speak in tongues — or alternately believe that those things have already passed away.
Are a member of a denomination or meet in a free group or home meeting.

Add to the list as you see fit.

I have mentioned before that my wife and I spent most of the week of Good Friday in San Antonio last year. On Saturday, after touring around the city some, we were walking toward dinner and passed a historic cathedral. So we stuck our heads inside and found that the Saturday mass was just 15 minutes underway. (Interesting service. It was a mariachi mass.) But you get a paper on the way in and among other things, it points you to the songs and readings that will be followed. Much about Christ. The sermon of the priest was very good. And before they got to their communion, the priest made a clear declaration that the only thing that saves is the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, not any work that we do.

So, without ever having someone do an altar call, or preach an evangelical gospel sermon, to what extent do you think that those who regularly come, week after week, and hear/read the words, even speaking much of them themselves, understand that salvation is in Jesus, and believe that He is the one who saves them? Maybe all they are missing is something that makes them more sure as to where they stand in that at any moment.

They don't practice like we do. But is their practice deficient? They don't have popcorn testimonies, but they are not just pew-sitters. They actively participate in body, mind and spirit. They open their mouths and speak together many times. (Funny, we mock the LRC for doing things like say "Let's call on the Lord three times." The only thing that is worthy of mocking in that is their falling into forms and traditions when they claim to have none. It is the participant who is responsible to either call from within or merely mouth the words.)

Don't start in on the statues (ostensibly idols) all around. There is much to complain about. But does it negate what is spoken of the Word. What is believed and repeated over and over, drilling it into the minds and souls of these people? How do we claim that only a few among them are true Christians?

I do not know how to analyze the Amish. Do they need evangelizing? Or is that some arrogant presumption from our evangelical/fundamental perspective? Simply a matter of taste? Maybe we have abandoned the specific "ground" only to fall back to a less specific "ground" that is evangelicalism/fundamentalism. "I read my bible and pray for one hour every morning. I have a bible study at lunch with coworkers most days. I give to the poor. Not like this pathetic Catholic who confesses to a priest and lights candles and participates in a (ugh) mass."

I will state that I believe that true discipleship requires more than what you get in a mass. But I also note that the term "disciple" is often used in a manner that seems to indicate the ones who left all to follow, not simply all who believed. In other places, it was all. To the extent that it is that "leave all and follow," that is a different calling than simply believing. It surely requires more. Those were giving themselves to be trained by the Master for The Work. But that was not everyone's calling.

[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.

[Cal]

Of course, I'm assuming we are assuming when someone says "I'm a Christian," that is equivalent to saying "I have faith in Christ." If it means something else to them, then all bets are off. The Bible never tells us to be Christians. It tells us to be those who believe in Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

...some people can have such a distorted view of the Gospel that you can tell just from what they say.

Since the discussion started from generic "groups" (i.e. Muslims, Amish) I'd like to leave it there. I may have steered it wrong by talking about "works" which is more of an individual issue.

What I have noticed about "distorted gospels", to paraphrase Igzy above, is that it is hard to tell where the distortion becomes so irretrievably bad that it is not Christian at all, but rather what I call "pseudo-Christian". My exemplar pseudo-Christian group is the Mormons. I don't consider them Christian. Their gospel message is so far off that they have surely crossed some hypothetical line somewhere.

But there still seems to be a vast, impenetrable gray area. What about the Jehovah's Witnesses? What about the Christian Scientists? What about the Seventh Day Adventists? What about the Swedenborgians? Etc, etc? I suppose this is where the CRI folks make their living, but even so there are 'marginal' cases that CRI could probably argue either way. So Igzy's point, that "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." is appropriate. Let the Judge sort out the wheat and the chaff. Just minister to one and all.

...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.

Additionally, there is the challenge of those professing Christians whose testimony is clearly "orthodox"; to what extent does their living, their accumulated "works", match their testimony?

And finally, even if I did have 24-hour surveillance videos of some professing Christian: how do I know his/her "talent set"; how do I know what they have had to overcome to get where they are today? I have no way of knowing what was handed to them on a silver platter and what they had to fight and scratch and claw for.

My "measuring process" is so inadequate, and so distorted by my own fallen soul, that it's impossible to judge adequately. So I just shrug and assume, as Jesus taught, that everyone else is ahead of me in the race (see Luke 14:9,10; see also Paul in Ephesians 3:8). Just keep going. Believe in Jesus, try not to sin, love your neighbor. Keep going.

[countmeworthy]

Great points Aron.

Then there are those who say they are Christians but never address the Lord Jesus in their prayers. They only pray to GOD. But guess what? Muslims, Buddhists, JWs, Mormons, Hindus also pray to God.

They are different from the Charismatics and Pentecostals who end their prayers "in the Name of Jesus". That is the only time I have heard them use the Name of Jesus. They do not even address Him as Lord.
While I honestly do not judge them, I do find myself scratching my head.

The scriptures tell us no man (person) can come to the Father but through Jesus.

The Lord told His disciples in Matthew 7 (I think) that there will be some who cast out demons IN HIS NAME, And some Who prophesied IN HIS NAME, He never knew and slams the door on their faces.

That is scary to me !!! and tells me they did not know the Lord much less love Him but enjoyed the attention they received when demons were cast out.

Wasn't Nicodemus religious? And what did Jesus say to him?

Did not the Pharisees and Sadducees quote the Torah to Jesus? What does that say about them?

In one of the churches in Revelation, Pergamus (?) God warns them if they do not repent, He is going to blot out their names from the book of Life. What does that mean? Some say Christians can lose their salvation. I have no opinion as I personally am more concerned with being Right with God. And of course I am always praying for people to be drawn to our Savior and for the church, the Body of Christ to grow stronger in power and grow stronger in Christ's Love.

I know Christians who are fornicators and adulterers. Sometimes they love hearing the Word of God and even repent out loud for their sins. Then they go back to sleeping around. These are people I know very well!!! They are not acquaintances!!! I DON'T GET IT!!!! I will tell you they really do believe in God and do pray. I think they want God's blessings, protection and provision their way. Not God's Way.

So I continue to pray for them. I do not shut them out.

I am good friends with my neighbors. Two are Catholics and one is a Freemason.

The Catholics go to mass every Sunday. One uses the Lord's name in vain all the time. I do not like it but it does not matter to him. Still he is a very good neighbor. I also affectionately call him " Gladys Cravitz" as he knows everyone in the neighborhood and their business. I pray for him and his family.

The other Catholic neighbor is a deacon and he enjoys fellowshipping with me. He and his wife have a huge statue of the virgin Mary of Guadalupe in their house. He is also friends with my cussing next neighbor.

Back in the early 80s I worked with Muslims. They truly loved God and their Ayatollah Khomeini. They had a huge, huge picture of him in their apartment. They would invite me to have dinner with them every week. Delicious food btw. They were Persians from Iran. I knew lots of Iranians back then. They were genuinely very nice and sweet. I pray for Muslums as much as I pray for Jews.

As for the Amish, I have always respected their type of living. I have visited their communities in Pennsylvania. But to most, it is a way of life. They pray ritualistic prayers. There is no fellowship among them. They have a leader who reads scriptures to the congregation. To my knowledge that is the extent of it.

Believe me. If I judged all these people, I would be in insane asylum!!!

So I love them, splash them with some refreshing Living Water from time to time, pray for them continuously and concern myself with my walk, my relationship with Christ and not worry about anyone else.

Blessings all,

Carol G

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Of course, I'm assuming we are assuming when someone says "I'm a Christian," that is equivalent to saying "I have faith in Christ." If it means something else to them, then all bets are off. The Bible never tells us to be Christians. It tells us to be those who believe in Christ.

Right. But I do not know what to make of people who say they believe Jesus died on the cross for their sins yet only pray to God...the God in heaven.

[OBW]

Igzy,

I addressed the issue in the manner I did because there were statements at least suggesting a doubt concerning salvation.

If you can't tell from my posts, my general position is that I am more prone to believe what the individual says rather than what my radar discerns. That is why I am content to accept the claims of a large spectrum, including those in the RCC and the Amish since I have no sound basis for denying their faith.

There may be warts, but we all have different kinds of warts.

And you are correct that the term "Christian" as used today is often as much a cultural statement as it is a religious one. Or at least it used to be. I think that there are beginning to be less who feel compelled to attribute "Christian" to themselves when they don't actually believe.

[OBW]

But, having said what I did in the prior post, I guess you could say that I am asking what you (any one of us) think is the core . . . the thing that makes someone "saved" in the sense of conversion.

That is what a "Christian" should be, at the minimum. Yet I wonder if we all think the same thing about it. I'm not trying to use it to set up a yardstick for anyone. I'm just curious as to the "theological" stance of the group.

Evidently there are some Pentecostals that think the Amish need evangelizing. I tend to think of that term as meaning bringing the gospel to the unsaved, not proselytizing from one group to another. If they just meant proselytizing, or even "rescuing from a cult," then I would have suggested a different word. If they meant bringing the gospel, then I wonder on what basis they thought the Amish were generically unsaved.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

But, having said what I did in the prior post, I guess you could say that I am asking what you (any one of us) think is the core . . . the thing that makes someone "saved" in the sense of conversion.

That is what a "Christian" should be, at the minimum. Yet I wonder if we all think the same thing about it. I'm not trying to use it to set up a yardstick for anyone. I'm just curious as to the "theological" stance of the group.

Evidently there are some Pentecostals that think the Amish need evangelizing. I tend to think of that term as meaning bringing the gospel to the unsaved, not proselytizing from one group to another. If they just meant proselytizing, or even "rescuing from a cult," then I would have suggested a different word. If they meant bringing the gospel, then I wonder on what basis they thought the Amish were generically unsaved.

Re: the Amish....perhaps you can find the shows called AMISH:OUT OF ORDER. You can come to your own conclusion. In these shows, the Amish really want to know the Lord. They were/are miserable as Amish. Somehow, they meet up with some Pentecostal. They reminded me of the LCrs/LSMrs who are mierable and are trying to leave the LSM.

There was another show in which some young Amish kids leave their community and go to NYC. They embrace everything the world offers them. It was called: "Breaking Amish". They are disowned by their families and most accepted it. They prefered their new found - freedom- to the Amish lifestyle. These kids did not appear they had any hunger for God. It is easy to assume they were/are " not saved". But who am I to judge? The prodigal son's Father never gave up or disowned His wayward son. Surely God's Mercy endures forever.

Carol

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Re: the Amish....perhaps you can find the shows called AMISH:OUT OF ORDER. You can come to your own conclusion. In these shows, the Amish really want to know the Lord.

As with every other religious group who claim to be Christian, I believe that there are some who genuinely are, and some who really (perhaps unknowingly) are not. It is not about what they say, it's about the life they live... and we are commanded to exhort eachother to see the truth of this matter, and to try to turn the sinner back to His Lord (see James 5:19-20)

Christ said "If you love me, obey my commandments." John 14:15; and speaking through the Holy Spirit, John said "Those who have been born into God's family do not make a practice of sinning, because God's life is in them. So they can't keep on sinning, because they are children of God." 1st John 3:9.

I haven't fellowshipped with the Amish; although my time in fellowship with Hutterites (a sect very closely related to the Amish) has shown me that there are many on these colonies who do walk with the Lord, and love His Word. There are also many I've met there who are cold and indifferent; it is the same everywhere, even in the LC. As Igzy said, all we can do is preach the gospel and pray that the Lord has mercy.

For those doubting that Christ can reach the Amish, I ask you to remember another school shooting not long ago, in your country. It took place at Nickel Mines school in Pennsylvania, on October 2nd 2006. The gunman took hostages, and shot 10 girls, ages 6-13. He killed five, before he turned the gun on himself. How the Amish parents of those little girls reacted showed Christ to your nation... and that reality is more powerful than any testimony any man can voice. Here's a clip of the story that made the news....

"Amish Forgiveness is Christ-Like"

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

As with every other religious group who claim to be Christian, I believe that there are some who genuinely are, and some who really (perhaps unknowingly) are not. It is not about what they say, it's about the life they live... and we are commanded to exhort eachother to see the truth of this matter, and to try to turn the sinner back to His Lord (see James 5:19-20)

Christ said "If you love me, obey my commandments." John 14:15; and speaking through the Holy Spirit, John said "Those who have been born into God's family do not make a practice of sinning, because God's life is in them. So they can't keep on sinning, because they are children of God." 1st John 3:9.

I haven't fellowshipped with the Amish; although my time in fellowship with Hutterites (a sect very closely related to the Amish) has shown me that there are many on these colonies who do walk with the Lord, and love His Word. There are also many I've met there who are cold and indifferent; it is the same everywhere, even in the LC. As Igzy said, all we can do is preach the gospel and pray that the Lord has mercy.

For those doubting that Christ can reach the Amish, I ask you to remember another school shooting not long ago, in your country. It took place at Nickel Mines school in Pennsylvania, on October 2nd 2006. The gunman took hostages, and shot 10 girls, ages 6-13. He killed five, before he turned the gun on himself. How the Amish parents of those little girls reacted showed Christ to your nation... and that reality is more powerful than any testimony any man can voice. Here's a clip of the story that made the news....

"Amish Forgiveness is Christ-Like"

AMEN!!! Excellent addition. Just for the record, I am always looking for an opportunity to share the gospel, give a backslider Hope and/or encourage, uplift a friend in Christ. This is why I spend time in the Presence of the Lord everyday by prayer and fellowship with Him. I feel so much better being used by the LORD when I have had communion with Him than when He has used me while being bone dried in my spirit. There have been times when I have been "blahzai" for days. So what does the Lord do to perk me up? Uh-huh. He sends someone to me to minister TO. Afterwards, I apologize to Him for having neglected Him a few days but thankful for lifting me up. I am also very grateful when God leads someone to minister to me.

Carol

[countmeworthy]

For anyone interested, on National Geographic (direct tv) the series "Amish: out of order is being repeated today Saturday 1/19/2013.

Blessings from God to all,

Carol G