I have to disagree.
You have a very diverse list of bullet-points there, and I have to wonder why some of them (eg. "degrees") are even there.
Because all of them are useless. These terms are heavy laden with pointless baggage that does more to confuse than clarify.
if someone comes up to me and tells me they're "Christian", I still know almost NOTHING about them.
So far so good...
Contrast that with telling someone you're a "Baptist", or a "Roman Catholic", or a "Mormon", or a "Calvinist". These are FAR more precise and informative labels, in fact they are "code words" that stand for 10-20 doctrines.
Ah, here's where the crux of the problem lies.
I know FAR more about what such a person believes, simply because of their label.
Yes, and you still know practically nothing about who they are in Christ, or if they're even in Christ.
With all due respect, maybe part of the problem is "what little [you] know of the Bible".
With all due respect maybe part of the problem is in not viewing the whole sentence together. Then again, I may have been lazy with my punctuation. I'll have to look at it again myself.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here..
It's a sentence that has to be viewed as a whole. I must confess that I sometimes compose my thoughts based upon what I've been reading, and sometimes I'm not reading English. I tried to force two ideas into one sentence. Here's what I posted: "
What little I know of the bible makes perfect sense to me, yet, despite their protestations to the contrary; I cannot call myself a Christian because I don't know a single professing Christian who follows Christ.
I don't know a single professing Christian who follows Christ, and I cannot call myself a Christian because I don't believe in most of their doctrines. Some protest that they're not followers of Christ, and some protest my claim that I'm not a Christian. Atheists will protest the claim that I'm not a Christian as well, but they retain the original intent which is as a term of derision. In the former case, I take it as a testament to my inability to communicate. In the latter case, I take it as a form of flattery in that they're just triggered because they can't refute me using their own arguments against them.
Perhaps you mean that they disagree with your understanding of Christ's teachings.
That too.
Well, there is an "orthodoxy" in Christian understanding, that Christians of various denominations agree upon.
Agreed, yet Christ didn't come to convey orthodox understanding. That's where I diverge from orthodox Christianity.
Or perhaps you mean that they fail in their attempts to obey Christ's teachings.
Not just that they fail, but they fail to see the blatant contradiction in their teachings. They see Christ say, "Go and sin no more", but they hear, "Go and sin some more" It isn't just that they fail in their attempts to obey, but they don't see that to make the attempt is to fail and that can only happen under the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:15 Christ covers only those sins committed under the Old Covenant. If we sin, we better hope we're still under the Old Covenant, and can still rely upon Christ to cover our sins.
If that's the case, then the meaning of the term "Christian" is useless, since nobody can successfully and perfectly obey Christ.
Here again, this is where the bible refutes that claim; e.g. "All things are possible with God except keeping his commandments" It doesn't have that, does it? There are plenty of places where the bible points out that those who abide in Christ simply cease to sin anymore. The whole purpose of the New Covenant is that "they keep MY (i.e. God's ) commandments" If a new covenant is based upon something better than what preceded it, then to return to the parameters of the Old Covenant doesn't make any sense at all. This is precisely what Christians do. The new covenant is explicitly to keep God's commandments. Why couldn't they be kept under the Old Covenant? Because it was by "will and effort" Roman 9:16. Whereas the New Covenant is according to God's promise according to his will by the power of Christ's spirit indwelling in that new heart God gave them for the explicit and expressed purpose of keeping His law. Does God break is promises? Is it possible for there to be any sin in Christ? I get tired of Christians claiming that they're in Christ, yet continue to sin because they're not perfect. The new creation IS perfect from the inside out. They simply can't sin because they were not created with that ability.
Paul points out a fundamental facet of the Mosaic law when he says that those who sin intentionally have no recourse to sacrifice. That was always the case, but under the New Covenant, it takes on a whole new meaning because there are only two options. 1. Either the new creation can't sin, or 2. they are eternally damned if they do.
All Christians are hypocrites, in that we proclaim Christ's standard, yet we fail it ourselves.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the term. One cannot be a hypocrite if they know they are a hypocrite. It's one of those paradoxes that can drive some people crazy. All Christians don't understand what their own bible explicitly states in Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26; and Hebrews 8:9,10 which is that God creates a new covenant with Israel and Judah whereby He will give them a new heart for the expressed purpose of keeping his commandments.
With this in mind, it makes no sense to claim that one is in the new covenant, and simultaneously claim that they continue to knowingly sin. The elect cannot be deceived by the arch fiend of hell, yet they can intentionally sin? it makes no sense.
There is a saying:
"The church is not a museum for saints.
It is a hospital for sinners."
We don't attend church because we've "graduated" Christianity, and are "the best of the best". We attend church because we NEED the church. And even so, many have pointed out that we even act like hypocrites in church, in that we put on our "Sunday best", not only referring to clothes, but referring to our personalities". We put on a persona, to make others think we are "better" than we actually are. It's like the fact that there are many people on Facebook who you don't know at all, if all you know is how they present themselves on Facebook.
There are also those who glory in their faults and foibles. not in the sin itself, but in confessing their sins to whoever is willing to listen, it's like a spiritual episode of Maury Povich, or or any of those other guys who bring freaks out for their 15 minutes of fame
That sentence reads as if you meant to say something different, so maybe I'll be responded to a comment you didn't intend. Surely if you consider yourself no different than them, then you should hold yourself to the same standard that you hold them to.
I'm holding myself to a higher standard that they are. I am no different than them as a person. I am completely different as far as doctrine goes. I simply can't be a Christian because I don't believe what they believe. There are no churches that would ever accept me because they all require me to acknowledge their false doctrines as if they're true. These doctrines are not just untrue, they are contradictory. They are refuted by reality.
But as I said, there is a core group of doctrines which define orthodoxy, which have been around for 2000 years. As long as we hold to those, and extending from those we sincerely try to understand and follow the teachings of Christ, and act charitably, I believe that warrants us taking the name "Christian" upon ourselves.
I couldn't agree more.
Whether all those who do so are truly saved is a different question, of course...
A point I would also agree with in regards to being able to glean any information from titles as well. I've met Jehovah's Witnesses that were just about the nicest people you could possibly meet, yet they adhere to doctrines that are completely incoherent. I've listened to Mormon elders who are clearly not just well educated, but extremely intelligent proclaim belief in blatant contradictory statements. I've debated professors of Patristic studies, as well as professors with PhD's in Latin and Greek who can't help but inject Christian doctrine into a discussion of elementary Greek grammar. In the final analysis, these terms not only confuse, they serve to place people into a box or collective, a club. They serve as a means of identification, but never an identity in Christ.
