A Christian

Originally posted by kirksey957
Could we consider Bbarr a true philosopher even though he has tremendous command over the writings of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, but may have problems with say Heidigger?

The analogy does not strictly work because philosophers do not believe in propositions, but rather in methods. So the correct question would be - would we consider Bbarr a true philosopher if he did not believe in, say, human reason?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Can you call yourself a Christian if you do not even believe that the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God?

I believe my Bible from cover to cover. I even belive my cover: It has my name written on it.

Liberal Christians don't take the whole Bible literally.
Liberal Christians are not "fake" except in your closed mind perhaps.

Originally posted by Maustrauser
And which Bible do you believe? There are many different translations, but all with similar errors, inaccuracies and contradictions. How does your mind deal with this?

Well. I believe the Bible was written by man inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

A few errors, inaccuracies and a couple contradictions here and there would be the result of fallible man.

But nowhere does it change the overall meaning and message of the Bible.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I try not to be an ordinary Christian.

I don't think any Christian tries to be. 🙂

It is an interesting question - at which point (of disbelief) does a Christian stop being a Christian? Is an Arian still a Christian? A Manichean?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Liberal Christians don't take the whole Bible literally.
Liberal Christians are not "fake" except in your closed mind perhaps.

What do you mean by "literally"?

Originally posted by dj2becker
What do you mean by "literally"?

Only some Christians make up definitions. Crack the dictionary and you will find the definition for 'literally'.

ES

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Only some Christians make up definitions. Crack the dictionary and you will find the definition for 'literally'.

ES

"Literally" literally has more than one definition. I wanted to know which one he was refering to.

Originally posted by dj2becker
"Literally" literally has more than one definition. I wanted to know which one he was refering to.

Def. one is the only one that could make any sense, literally.

ES

Originally posted by dj2becker
But guess what? My mom wrote it on the cover when I was a kid. That way I would find it again after I'd lost it.

Further evidence that you believe everything your mommy tells you.

BTW: Did you lose it among a barrel-full of otherwise identical Bibles?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Can you call yourself a Christian if you do not even believe that the Bible is the inspired and infallible word of God?

I believe my Bible from cover to cover. I even belive my cover: It has my name written on it.

I think there are people who deny the Bible is inspired and infallible - but no-the-less are Christians (in the sense that they are among the chosen or saved). I think that is because people hold irrational views, views that if examined lead to contradictions. Those that deny the Bible is inspired and infallible may but Gods grace still hold the correct beliefs about Christ and faith. In other words, it it possible - and it happens to regular people who have not examined their beliefs.

However, a person of authority, (someone who teaches in the Church such as an elder or pastor) who rejects the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible - I think it is doubtful that person is a true Christian. This is assuming that person has examined his belief system, and either seen the contradictions and thinks he can believe all of them, or is confused and does not see them. That person's mind is darkened, he remains in confusion, and that is evidence that the Spirit is not acting on him mind. And if he does not have evidence of the Spirit, then I doubt that person really believes in the saving work of Christ.

Now if one accepts the C.S. Lewis definition of Christian, then practically anyone can call himself a Christian. For C.S.L. one merely needs to say he follows the teachings of Christ to be a "Christian." In that sense, a heretic or any other reprobate can claim to be a Christian. I think this definition is too lose and unhelpful since it tells us so little about the person's beliefs. Even Muslims are Christians according to C.S.L.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Def. one is the only one that could make any sense, literally.

ES

Literally they could all make sense since they all mean "literally".

Originally posted by telerion
Further evidence that you believe everything your mommy tells you.

BTW: Did you lose it among a barrel-full of otherwise identical Bibles?

Why would I believe everything my mommy tells me? I usually don't when she tells me she's gonna smack me when I forgot to make up my bed😉

I believe my mommy when she tells me what my name is. This is however after I have seen it for myself on my bith certificate.

Originally posted by Coletti
I think there are people who deny the Bible is inspired and infallible - but no-the-less are Christians (in the sense that they are among the chosen or saved). I think that is because people hold irrational views, views that if examined lead to contradictions. Those that deny the Bible is inspired and infallible may but Gods grace still hold the correct be ...[text shortened]... tells us so little about the person's beliefs. Even Muslims are Christians according to C.S.L.

The verse in John comes to mind.

John 7:38 - He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

For any Christian that wishes to have the living water, I believe it is a neccesity.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't think any Christian tries to be. 🙂

It is an interesting question - at which point (of disbelief) does a Christian stop being a Christian? Is an Arian still a Christian? A Manichean?

The foundational statement developed by the early church is the Nicene Creed (325 C.E.?). Nowhere does it (or the Apostle’s Creed) mention “belief” in the Bible in any way. [It does, however, mention “belief” in “one holy, catholic and apostolic church (ekklesian)”—since this was before the “great schism” of 1054, “catholic” does not refer only to Rome.]

In the original Greek, the Creed begins “Pisteuo…,” generally translated as “We believe…” However, pisteuo (from pisteo, to trust, to have confidence in, “to faith” ) did not mean “what you think;” neither did the English word “believe” when it was first used to translate pisteo—it meant “to hold dear,” to trust. The creeds are not about “think right and be saved.”

A decision to entrust oneself to the God described in the Nicene Creed, to the best of one’s hope and understanding, has identified one as an orthodox Christian for some 1,680 years (orthodox vis-à-vis such things as arianism, manicheism, monophysitism, etc.).

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Liberal Christians don't take the whole Bible literally.
Liberal Christians are not "fake" except in your closed mind perhaps.

Still - liberals confuse literal and literally. Most Evangelicals and Reformed Christians believe the Bible literally God's Word. Which means we believe the Bible (in it's original autographs) is God's infallible truth revealed to man.

But while liberals deny the Bible is literally true - they tend to confuse this with saying Evangelicals and Reformers read the Bible as "literal." But that is not the case, and never has been the case. There is disagreement among Evangelicals and Reformers about which verses are parables, and which are metaphor, and which are literal - but none that I know of claim that all the Bible is the be read as literal.