What is the 'mark' of a True Christian

[Free]

I would suggest that everyone read "The Mark of the Christian" by Francis Schaeffer. It's a very small, easy to understand book that would make a world of difference if everyone read it and applied it.

 

[biblecatholic]

I think many things show this mark(Baptism being one) one major thing, the beatitudes are the mark of a "true" Christian. I think Jesus recited them envisioning what the Apostles and future disciples would look like through the allowing of the grace of God to work in followers life. It's how much you Love and since we don't Love enough it's how much we desire to Love

 

[CatholicXian]

I would suggest that everyone read "The Mark of the Christian" by Francis Schaeffer. It's a very small, easy to understand book that would make a world of difference if everyone read it and applied it.

Will you spoil the premise of the book?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

I would suggest that everyone read "The Mark of the Christian" by Francis Schaeffer. It's a very small, easy to understand book that would make a world of difference if everyone read it and applied it.

Hey, check this out:

FRANCIS Schaeffer was a noted Reformed writer, not so much a theologian as a controversialist. His energy was inherited by his son, Franky, who became widely known, when rather young, as an up-and-coming Evangelical--until he ceased to be an Evangelical by becoming Eastern Orthodox. His change of religion coincided, more or less, with a slight change of name: Franky Schaeffer became Frank Schaeffer.

Some of his former co-religionists thought Schaeffer's rejection of Evangelicalism was even stronger, or at least more sharply toned, than his embrace of Eastern Orthodoxy. However that may be, no one today mistakes Schaeffer fils for an advocate of the distinctively Reformed positions advanced by Schaeffer pere. The younger man has left his father's theological house, having discovered the errors of his father's ways.

Today Frank Schaeffer edits The Christian Activist, a monthly tabloid that is thin on graphics but thick with opinions. The journal is oddly named; its title suggests a broad Christian appeal, but The Christian Activist really should be called The Orthodox Activist, yet even that name would be too broad, since its editorial position does not reflect the position of most orthodox Orthodox (as distinguished from heterodox Orthodox and ultra-orthodox Orthodox, perhaps). In particular, The Christian Activist is highly anti-Catholic and opposes the ecumenical work engaged in by Pope John Paul II on the Catholic side and Patriarch Bartholomew on the Orthodox side.

The October 1995 issue of The Christian Activist featured a long article by Fr. Alexey Young, a former Catholic who was born in 1943, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy 25 years ago, and now pastors a church in Denver. He seemed to convert with far more ease than many: "Thanks be to God, the moment I spoke those words of renunciation [at his conversion ceremony], all emotional ties with Rome were immediately severed." Not a good sign.

source:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9509drag.asp

 

[Free]

What's your point Catholic Crusader?

Will you spoil the premise of the book?

lol. Sure. Read John 13:33-35 and John 17:21. I'll quote two of his main points (he makes several):

"In John 13 the point was that, if an individual Christian does not show love toward other true Christians, the world has the right to judge that he is not a Christian. [In John17] Jesus is stating something else which is much more cutting, much more profound: We cannot expect the world to believe that the Father sent the Son, that Jesus' claims are true, and that Christianity is true, unless the world sees some reality of the oneness of true Christians."

This particular version is 59 pages and is about 7" x 3" (pretty small).

 

[CatholicXian]

What's your point Catholic Crusader?

Will you spoil the premise of the book?

lol. Sure. Read John 13:33-35 and John 17:21. I'll quote two of his main points (he makes several):

"In John 13 the point was that, if an individual Christian does not show love toward other true Christians, the world has the right to judge that he is not a Christian. [In John17] Jesus is stating something else which is much more cutting, much more profound: We cannot expect the world to believe that the Father sent the Son, that Jesus' claims are true, and that Christianity is true, unless the world sees some reality of the oneness of true Christians."

This particular version is 59 pages and is about 7" x 3" (pretty small).

Thanks. I'll have to look into it.

But I'm wondering, can we make a distinction between "mark" and "fruit"? If the question had been posed, "what is the fruit of a True Christian?" I would have immediately responded with Love(/charity). The nature of Baptism being what it is (and what it does to the soul), I would still argue makes it the "mark" of a Christian.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

What's your point Catholic Crusader?....

I don't know.

 

[Free]

The nature of Baptism being what it is (and what it does to the soul), I would still argue makes it the "mark" of a Christian.

To which I will ask: What is a mark and what is it's purpose?

 

[CatholicXian]

The nature of Baptism being what it is (and what it does to the soul), I would still argue makes it the "mark" of a Christian.

To which I will ask: What is a mark and what is it's purpose?

A seal. Baptism seals us with the with the Holy Spirit, a mark of belonging to Christ and incorporates us into the Church... it's a configuration to Christ and the Church brought about the Holy Spirit. (Whether we live up to that configuration is something to be seen)

 

[Free]

Marks and seals are two different things.

 

[Imagican]

MEC,

No one is arguing that water alone is the cause of rebirth. The Holy Spirit is the cause of rebirth, water is simply the physical instrument because we are physical AND spiritual creatures. God created us that way.

And I still maintain that water IS a mere 'physical' or 'material substance' that is able to do NOTHING of it's own, (other than quench a thirst or drown one). And IF The Spirit IS able to bring about Spiritual Baptism, then it is ABLE to do so with or WITHOUT water.

And since, as you have openly admitted, the water is able to 'do nothing of it's own', then it is obviously a benign substance used figuratively in The Word. Figuratively in the respect of it's ability to 'cleanse'. For it is The Spirit that is TRULY able to cleanse.

No amount of 'wishful' thinking is able to offer ANY evidence of 'being exposed to water' is able to do ANYTHING but 'make one WET'. Yet through Spiritual 're-birth' one IS able to be transformed from one that is a 'part of this world' to one that is 'a part of the Body of Christ.

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....water IS a mere 'physical' or 'material substance' that is able to do NOTHING of it's own...

Mud is mere material too, But when Jesus used it, it made a blind man see.

Water is mere material too. But when God uses it in Baptism, the water washes away sin.

God always uses "things": Its throughout the entire Bible.

 

[CatholicXian]

Marks and seals are two different things.

Not entirely. The only analogy I can think of would be a wax letter seal. The seal itself is a mark, but it also leaves a stain (an indelible mark) on the paper it seals. Even if you peel off the wax itself (reject the life of grace), the stain still remains and can never be "washed out".

I will grant that they are not exactly the same, but they are so intertwined it's hard to separate them.

 

[Veritas]

Some stuff on marks and seals

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possessionâ€â€to the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:13-14

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Mec,

I think there’s a communication break down here. Let’s see if we can get this straightened out ok?

I know, I know, once again I am forced to battle the rudiments of denominationalism. But the TRUTH is that water means NOTHING outside of Spirit.

I don’t hear anyone arguing with this, unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying. Just to make sure, let me repeat what I hear you saying in my own words.

What I hear you saying is this. You don’t like denominations. Ok, but more to the point, your stating that water alone, without the spirit is meaningless. Is this correct?

But then you add this,

And I still maintain that water IS a mere 'physical' or 'material substance' that is able to do NOTHING of it's own, (other than quench a thirst or drown one). And IF The Spirit IS able to bring about Spiritual Baptism, then it is ABLE to do so with or WITHOUT water.

If I wanted to argue, I’d take you up on the “other than†statement, but more to the point, do you deny that God is able to use the material for His spirit to flow through?

Now, do you deny that God can grant His spirit to those that obey the scripture by submitting to baptism? If you deny that God uses baptism to pour out His Grace, and offer up the Spirit, then we might have some issues. But what you seem to be arguing, is that God does not have to use water as a means to pour out his Spirit. While this may be true, I would submit that we, as Christians, are commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and of the Holy Spirit and after, we are to teach those that were baptized.

To deny this simple fact, regardless of how you ‘view’ baptism, does not negate that we are commanded to baptize, and then teach. Thus, baptism is a mark that each Christian should proudly carry. Scripture is clear time and time again, the message does not waver. “Repent, and be baptizedâ€Â. It is the first step of obedience in the Christian faith which we are marked by. If one cannot submit to this simple command, how can one follow the commands of Christ which are much heavier which brings about true freedom in the fullness of Christ's Church?

No amount of 'wishful' thinking is able to offer ANY evidence of 'being exposed to water' is able to do ANYTHING but 'make one WET'. Yet through Spiritual 're-birth' one IS able to be transformed from one that is a 'part of this world' to one that is 'a part of the Body of Christ.

Now you seem to deny that this ‘wishful thinking’ may also be called faith? Do you now deny faith in the equation of ones salvation? It appears that on one hand, you agree that God can grant his Spirit through water baptism, and then you completely contradict yourself and state that God does not act through water baptism, or rather, that he can’t? Help me to better understand your point of view.

Peace and grace.

 

[Free]

Marks and seals are two different things.

Not entirely. The only analogy I can think of would be a wax letter seal. The seal itself is a mark, but it also leaves a stain (an indelible mark) on the paper it seals. Even if you peel off the wax itself (reject the life of grace), the stain still remains and can never be "washed out".

I will grant that they are not exactly the same, but they are so intertwined it's hard to separate them.

Well then we're talking two different things and whoever started this thread needs to be specific as to what they meant by 'mark'.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Yes, what IS this mark bit?

 

[Imagican]

Hey Mec,

I think there’s a communication break down here. Let’s see if we can get this straightened out ok?

There is NO 'breakdown' in communication so far as I'm concerned. What I have stated I have stated PLAINLY without any compunction towards re-stating ANYTHING that I have offered except perhaps to "Clarify''.

I know, I know, once again I am forced to battle the rudiments of denominationalism. But the TRUTH is that water means NOTHING outside of Spirit. Some teach and insist upon an UDUE respect of Baptism. Teaching that ALL one NEED do is be DUNKED or Sprinkled in order to ACCEPT what God has offered. This is simply NOT TRUTH. Placing an undo emphasis on the PHYSICAL act of Baptism rather than a 'righteous' focusing on the Spiritual aspect.

I don’t hear anyone arguing with this, unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying. Just to make sure, let me repeat what I hear you saying in my own words.

I have heard MUCH that disputes my offerings. That 'some' BELIEVE that 'physical Baptism' IS a Mark of the TRUE Christian couldn't be FURTHER from the TRUTH. For ANYONE is able to be dunked or sprinkled with water in the name of 'true' or 'false' gods and it makes NO difference whatsoever. And HOW is this a 'mark' to those that did NOT actually WITNESS the 'event'?

What I hear you saying is this. You don’t like denominations. Ok, but more to the point, your stating that water alone, without the spirit is meaningless. Is this correct?

I neither like nor dislike denominations. I simply pointed out that MUCH of what "I'm" hearing is NOTHING other than 'denominational teaching'. Ignoring what has TRULY been offered in favor of what many have been TAUGHT by the meager attempts at men to label or define specific doctrine that was NEVER offered in the context in which 'denominations' attempt to TEACH.

And YES, there ARE many that have been exposed to water to NO avail. That their FAITH was placed in a benign SYMBOL without the UNDERSTANDING being able to bring them ANY closer to God through His Son OR through their emersion in water, is apparent in their walk and treatment of others.

But then you add this,

And I still maintain that water IS a mere 'physical' or 'material substance' that is able to do NOTHING of it's own, (other than quench a thirst or drown one). And IF The Spirit IS able to bring about Spiritual Baptism, then it is ABLE to do so with or WITHOUT water.

If I wanted to argue, I’d take you up on the “other than†statement, but more to the point, do you deny that God is able to use the material for His spirit to flow through?

Your statement is correct in it's basic premiss: God IS able to USE whatever 'physical or material' substance that exists to HIS own GLORY. But what YOU seem to have missed in my above statement is that EXACTLY what you attempted to clarify: That water WITHOUT that actual PRESENCE of The Spirit is NOTHING other than WATER.

Firstly. The REASON that you interpret a 'lack of communication' is that you perceive some of the comments concerning this issue as FULL when they are rather EMPTY indeed.

What I have tried to DO is dispell this FALSE belief that ALL that one is REQUIRED to DO in order to accept Christ INTO their hearts and BE ABLE to follow Him is BE Baptised in water. The question is NOT what we are commanded to DO or what we have been INSTRUCTED to participate IN; But WHAT is THE 'mark' of a TRUE Christian, (I hessitated to even get involved with this discussion for the name Christian itself ''I'' believe to be quite deceptive at times). Now, IS Baptism THE 'mark' of a TRUE Christian? When ANYONE can DO IT. Regardless of affiliation or intent, ANYONE can BE Baptised. Christian, NON-Christian, child, mentally inept, ANYONE can ASK to BE Baptised and receive this 'act performed by men'. ANYONE.

And EVEN IF we were to discern that Baptism IS a 'mark' of a TRUE Christian, then we run into the actual ATTRIBUTES of Baptism ITSELF. Does Baptism simply imply the 'sprinkling of water' or is it NECESSARY to be 'utterly emersed in water' for TRUE physical Baptism to 'take place'? Can if BE performed by ANYONE or does one NEED to be 'ordained' in some particular WAY? Does the water NEED to be HOT or COLD? Does the water ITSELF 'need' to be 'pure' or 'blessed' for it to have the desired effect? We could go on and on here. But I'm sure that these quesitons have certainly been able to offer a clear PICTURE that physical Baptism IS a 'denominational issue' and due to it's different applications and formulae CANNOT BE a determining factor as to the TRUE mark of a TRUE Christian. For there is NO WAY that something SO vague could distinguish ANYTHING other than the 'expressed intent' by the one Baptising or the one BEING Baptised. And neither YOU nor I am able to judge the hearts of the Baptiser or the Baptised.

Stove, God IS able to DO anything that He so chooses so long as it does NOT contradict WHO He IS. He could use FIRE to 'cleanse' but fire itself is UNABLE to do ANYTHING but heat or BURN things. The point is that using water is a 'symbolic' cleansing that does NOT necessarily MEAN 'anything'. For MANY receive the water that they BELIEVE is SO important, only to continue in their sins and living FOR this world. ONLY through Spiritual Baptism is one ABLE to BE 'transformed' INTO a 'new creature'. Can this HAPPEN durring the event of Physical Baptism? I have NO DOUBTS. But DOES it ONLY happen through Physical Baptism? HARDLY and RARELY from what I have observed. And the Word even PLAINLY states that MOST that we have evidence of Baptism did NOT RECEIVE the Holy Spirit UNTIL AFTER physical Baptism, NOT DURRING. That if ANYTHING, it was MORE the 'laying on of hands' that BROUGHT The Spirit RATHER than the ACT of Baptism in water.

Now, do you deny that God can grant His spirit to those that obey the scripture by submitting to baptism? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! Do you contend that God DOES grant His Spirit to those who simply SUBMIT to physical Baptism?/b] If you deny that God uses baptism to pour out His Grace, and offer up the Spirit, then we might have some issues. But what you seem to be arguing, is that God does not have to use water as a means to pour out his Spirit. While this may be true, I would submit that we, as Christians, are commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and of the Holy Spirit and after, we are to teach those that were baptized.

Boy, this opens up a whole new 'can of worms'. But that for later......

I have denied NOTHING of the Sort. Just tried to offer that Baptism means NOTHING if not done in TRUTH and UNDERSTANDING. And it is BAPTISM of the Spirit that 'saves'. NOT an emersion in water. Can Baptism of The Spirit take place in combination WITH physical water Baptism. I have NO DOUBTS. But I have YET to witness such except in the case of Christ Himself.

To deny this simple fact, regardless of how you ‘view’ baptism, does not negate that we are commanded to baptize, and then teach. Thus, baptism is a mark that each Christian should proudly carry. Scripture is clear time and time again, the message does not waver. “Repent, and be baptizedâ€Â. It is the first step of obedience in the Christian faith which we are marked by. If one cannot submit to this simple command, how can one follow the commands of Christ which are much heavier which brings about true freedom in the fullness of Christ's Church?

But then the question STILL remains: IS water Baptism TRUE Baptism or is it mearly an outward statement to OTHERS that one BELIEVES in Christ? For I have witnessed MANY churches that TEACH that one IS cleansed and BECOMES a 'new creature' the moment that they take their FIRST breath after being emersed. Is this TRUTH? Or is there 'something' DEEPER that MUST 'take place' for one to TRULY BE 'born again'?

I have stated NOTHING condemning the use of Baptism. I have simply offered that Physical Baptism is NOT able to 'MARK' The TRUE Christian. Stove, if one wears a 'cross' around their necks does this SYMBOL truly signify one's BELIEF in or adherance to CHRIST and HIs teachings?

No amount of 'wishful' thinking is able to offer ANY evidence of 'being exposed to water' is able to do ANYTHING but 'make one WET'. Yet through Spiritual 're-birth' one IS able to be transformed from one that is a 'part of this world' to one that is 'a part of the Body of Christ.

Now you seem to deny that this ‘wishful thinking’ may also be called faith? Do you now deny faith in the equation of ones salvation? It appears that on one hand, you agree that God can grant his Spirit through water baptism, and then you completely contradict yourself and state that God does not act through water baptism, or rather, that he can’t? Help me to better understand your point of view.

Instead of 'wishful thinking' let me rephrase that: No amount of FALSE HOPE is able to offer ANY evidence of TRUE Baptism through the use of water. For we have the plain and pure words of Christ's apostles that PHYSICAL circumcision is able to offer NOTHING in and of itself. So too is 'water Baptism' able to do NOTHING in and of itself. What 'change' that takes place in 'true' Baptism is EMERSION of and re-birth of The Spirit. For without the Spirit being altered, the man remains the SAME.

To illustate EXACTLY what I offer here:

A man COMES to God through His Son. There is NO ONE availible for the ACT of Baptism to take place, (let's say the man is isolated in a colapsed mine shaft at the MOMENT that he FINDS God and accepts His Son into his heart). It is as PLAIN as can BE that this man NEEDED NO physical Baptism to RECEIVE the Holy Spirit.

And in the opposite context: A man is in church for the FIRST time. He hears 'something' that offers a 'desire' to obtain that which is BEING spoken of. He stands and walks forward. Allows the pastor to 'dunk him in the water'. He leaves the church, walks STAIGHT into the nearest bar, proceeds to drink himself into a stupor, awakes the next day and doesn't even REMEMBER the day before. To what BENEFIT has this emersion in water accomplished other than to 'get the man wet' for a moment?

We have been told to Baptise in "His name", we have the historic evidence that those that were taught of Christ WERE Baptised in water. But the 'water' in 'ITSELF' means NOTHING. To BE 'born again' is to BECOME a NEW 'creature'. Can this process START with physical Baptism? I'm SURE. But does physical Baptism MEAN that one is 'born-again'? NO WAY. For I have met MORE THAN ONE that have been Baptised OVER AND OVER again and STILL have NOT been 'born again'. They are STiLL the filthy 'creatures' that they were from BIRTH. Still struggling with the TRUTH and still LIVING FOR this World. PURE evidence that 'WATER ALONE' will NOT bring about the transformation of the Spirit that is NECESSARY for 're-birth'. That TRUE Spiritual cleansing is 'something' DIFFERENT than 'physical Baptism'.

And we ARE discussing the issue of Baptism in reference to a PARTICULAR subject. The question is: What is the MARK of a TRUE Christian. Now, I have attempted to answer the questions that you posed. I have ONE for YOU: IS Baptism even A 'mark' of a TRUE Christian?

Now that you have answered this question in your mind I have another. Is EVERYONE that is physically Baptised literally 'born again'? And is ANYONE that is NOT born again even able to FOOL themselves into a 'false belief' that they are 'follwing Christ'? Hence TRUE Christians? Answer THESE questions and you will PLAINLY see what I have attempted to offer here.

Peace and grace.

I think you misunderstand what I have said or your 'denominationalism' KEEPS you from being ABLE to understand. I place NO faith in the 'works' of men. I place NO FAITH in this world. So MANY of the rudiments of this world, (especially denominationalism), have NO bearing on my FAITH or the TRUTH except in the hearts and minds of those that CHOOSE to 'accept them'.

I trust in God and I trust in His Son and His apostles. I trust in the HOLY Spirit. Other than that, I place my trust in NOTHING of this world. The teachings of men that would have me follow THEM means NOTHING to me. And I am well aware of how difficult this is to swallow by those that HAVE placed their faith in what they have been taught of men rather a simple reliance upon the Spirit.

And Stove, do you believe that one is UNABLE to BE led by God Personally, other than by a 'church' designed by MEN? That God HIMSELF, once we have been COVERED by the blood of Christ IS able and willing to communicate with US PERSONALLY through The Spirit? For IF one is UNABLE to COME to THIS conviction, what hope is there BUT in a 'man-made' organization to LEAD them or offer them ANYTHING of spiritual significance.

Blessings my brother,

MEC

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Men did this.

 

[Vic C.]

:o

No personal attacks on members. Address the issue, not the person.