To me, the problem of summarizing it as "practicing what Jesus teaches us to do" can be too easily misunderstand as earning our salvation by being good people. To me it misses all of what is embodied in the relationship itself, even before we talk about behavior, and about aligning with Jesus, identifying with Him, and becoming one with Him in relationship. Those, by my reading of Scripture, are foundational to what it means to be a Christian, and, while they necessarily translate into "practicing what Jesus teaches us to do," they precede the doing with repentance, being born of the Spirit, and being "in Christ." To me, that's more complete than "be a good person and a good Christian" by "practicing what Jesus teaches us to do." That's the distinction I see.

You nailed every single thing we must do (I can't recall any others) in order to align our hearts with God's and in doing so, "passing our citizenship test" into his kingdom. But those finer details can simply be summed up as practicing what Jesus teaches us to do. Which was the sentiment of my original post in defining a Christian for classification purposes in our world versus what standards we need to meet in order to get into heaven. 2 drastically different things.

Merely labeling myself a Christian isn't enough to be accepted into heaven, even Christians fall short. I have to live my life the way you described, the way Jesus taught us, and be born again in spirit so that the spirit can guide my soul.

1. If they don't believe in God, they can't possibly be Christians. Being part of a Christian culture doesn't make one a Christian any more than being in a garage makes one a car. And being like a Christian in all other aspects of life (presumably you mean being a good person) doesn't count for anything (Mt. 5.20; Lk. 18.9; Rom. 1.17, et al.)

2. Jesus dying on the cross WAS an act of salvation. Salvation is through the blood of Christ, appropriated by faith.

3. Christianity isn't about a moral code, it's about a love relationship with God grounded in His crucifixion and resurrection and our aligning ourselves with Him in all ways. Humanitarianism and morality are a manifestation of one's faith, not the grounds of it (Rom. 3.21-5.2).

4. One doesn't need to believe the Bible to use Jesus as a moral teacher, but recognizing Jesus as a moral teacher misses the point. Jesus always but always pushed the conversation further, declaring Himself to the Messiah, the Son of God, and equal to God. That's what we must recognize and live by. I'm in no position to judge whether Jefferson was a true Christian or not, but just abiding by the moral teachings is inadequate (Mt. 5.20; Gal. 2.21, et al.)

5. The Bible WAS written by dozens of authors. The OT was complete before Christ; the NT was written decades after Christ by about 8 authors. But you'll notice that nowhere on my lists was any indication of the canon, who wrote it, or how it came about.

6. I'm not sure to what you are referring by this comment. My conclusions have nothing to do with what is mainstream, but by deep study of the Bible. That's where our authority lies. Don't worry, you didn't pop my bubble; you possibly only revealed to me that your knowledge of such things is limited to Catholic school.

> You’re really gatekeeping who gets to say “I like Jesus as my spiritual teacher” tbh

Not at all. The Bible gets to tell us what the Bible teaches. Jesus Christ gets to define what a Christ-follower is. That's our authority. I'm not the gatekeeper; I've studied the Bible. If you think anything I've said is wrong, you must show me so from the Bible. The Bible is our authority in biblical matters and Christ is our authority on Christianity.

1. How about people raised Christian and are a part of the culture but don’t actually believe in god despite being like a Christian in all other aspects of life including following the teachings of Jesus?

2. So are black churches that believe that Jesus dying on the cross was the act of salvation in of itself not actually Christian? And does that mean anyone who doesn’t preach the gospel to others isn’t a true Christian either?

3. What about devout Christians who have studied philosophy and developed their own more nuanced moral codes? Is their enhanced sense of humanitarianism mean they’re no longer Christian?

4. Uhhhhh I don’t think someone would need to believe in the Bible to use Jesus as a moral teacher. Jefferson famously cut up a Bible and kept just the moral bits and removed all the magical parts. He was atheist but like the moral teachings, does that make him Christian under your definition?

5. What about Catholics who recognize that the Bible was written by dozens of authors decades after the events of the Bible? They’re human written accounts and most Christians accept the issues that come with that premise. Are 2.1 billion people no longer Christian to you?

6. I grew up going to mass and catholic school and I have no idea what the hell this is. I think a lot of people aren’t Christian according to this idea because it’s not nearly as mainstream as you think. Sorry to pop your bubble

You’re really gatekeeping who gets to say “I like Jesus as my spiritual teacher” tbh

> What counts as worshipping, loving, and obeying God?

Worship is recognizing and rehearsing all of who God is, and giving all of myself to Him. Love is a relationship of sacrifice and devotion. Obedience is compliance with the will of God.

> It is said that a man may find God without ever encountering the Bible, and that the Word has been with God since creation.

The Bible says that the attributes of God can be seen in creation (Rom. 1.20), Paul doesn't claim that general revelation (seeing God in nature) is sufficient to save anyone. He does imply, however, that general revelation is sufficient to condemn. The created universe bears witness to the power and divine nature of the Creator, and those who say otherwise are accountable for their rejection of the creation’s witness to the Creator.

> To love is to know God, to seek truth is to seek God, how is that limited to specifically following the Bible?

Because truth is necessarily narrow. Of all the numbers, 2 + 2 only equals 4. Of all the theories about what happened to Amelia Earhart or who shot JFK, we can have all the theories we want, but after the truth is discovered, only that will be true. It is impossible that all the religions of the world are true since they contradict each other. A cannot equal non-A. Now, logically speaking, possibly none of them are true, but it's impossible that more than one are true. If there really and truthfully is a God, then there is truth about Him that must be followed, and all our theories go in the trash except the one(s) that is true. At best, only one religion can be true.

Besides, it is not true that to love is to know God. Humans can exercise and experience love outside of a knowledge of God.

And while it is true that to seek truth is ultimately and fundamentally to seek God, only with special revelation can such seeking be directed to spiritual truth.

> Why does the Bible itself say that those who have not heard have a general revelation of God

It's because God uses many means to reveal Himself to people. But general revelation only tells us of the logic of a God, it doesn't reveal all of Himself to us that is necessary for salvation.

> Point is, it is easy to show how someone professing another creed could still in fact be following God.

There are core truths in the Bible that cannot be ignored. We are not free to create our own version of Christianity; the Bible tells us what Christianity means, and that becomes our authority.

> No, I said that was the essentials, and it is.

This is not what the Bible teaches. The essentials in the Bible are:

[list][*] If you want to be part of the kingdom of God, you must repent and believe. Sin is presented as the antithesis of Jesus and it must be repented from. (Not just be a good person)
[*] That Jesus Himself is the access point, and Jesus is calling sinners to himself (not just be a good person)
[*] That one must be born of the Spirit, not just be a good person
[*] He is looking for faith, not just goodness.
[*] Obey the Law and keep the commandments (here's where being a good person is partially applicable).
[*] Do God's will (includes more that being a good person).
[*] Put the words of Jesus into practice (includes more that being a good person).
[*] Align yourself with Jesus, identify with him, and follow Him (includes more that being a good person).
[*] Love God
[*] Love Jesus
[*] Lose your life (deny self) for Jesus's sake
[*] good works (love of neighbor)
[*] Humility
[*] Live by the truth; come into the light, both of which are Jesus Himself
[*] Drink the "living water" that Jesus gives[/list]

It's far more than being a good person. We must teach ALL of what the Bible teaches, not just love (as important as that is). As a matter of fact, Jesus rebuked the "goodness" of the Pharisees as being inadequate.

> So someone who follow's God's word, i.e., worships and loves God and obeys Him, but doesn't even believe in God is still a Christian? That doesn't even make sense.

What counts as worshipping, loving, and obeying God? It is said that a man may find God without ever encountering the Bible, and that the Word has been with God since creation. To love is to know God, to seek truth is to seek God, how is that limited to specifically following the Bible? Why does the Bible itself say that those who have not heard have a general revelation of God? Should I assume this revelation would be exactly the same as the experience of someone who has been exposed to the word in a much more direct way? Point is, it is easy to show how someone professing another creed could still in fact be following God.
​
> So in your mind Christianity is nothing more than being a good person? That's not what the Bible teaches.

No, I said that was the essentials, and it is. I don't think this is even a question, Love is specifically pointed out over and over again: God is love, love thy neighbor, love God, etc. Similarly, Jesus is the embodiment of truth, and that too is described multiple times in the text and symbolically. Same for faith and hope. There is more to the teaching of the Bible, but I was giving a concise, general answer.

It was in my list of 13 things, item #4: "Jesus was crucified, dead, and buried and rose again, according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15.3-4)."

Is it important to recognize the crucifixion and resurrection? In your summary of 20 things, you didn't list it. And you would agree that Jesus's followers were christians before the crucifixion, no?

> So someone who interprets those verses differently from you is not a Christian.

Those are just some verses. They are repeated through all of Scripture and form the core of what the Bible is teaching. They can't be ignored without changing the meaning of the Bible, Jesus's teachings, and Christianity. And while some of them are subject to interpretation (such as final judgment), the Bible is unequivocal about some kind of final judgment.

> Christianity or your sect of Christianity?

Christianity itself. These are core biblical teachings, apart from which one has deserted Christianity itself.

> Also, you brought up being saved, and I don't agree that desiring being saved is necessary to be a Christian.

Then you need to show that from Scripture. Jesus specifically said He came to save the lost (Luke 15; Luke 19.10), to save sinners (Mt. 1.21; 9.2, 13; 26.28; Luke 5.32, et al).

It is a theme that is picked up by Peter (Acts 2.21; 4.12) Paul and repeated many times (Acts 16.31; Rom. 5.9-10, et al.)

If you want to contend that it's just part of a sect and not a central theme to Christianity, then you need to give evidence of that. If you "don't agree that desiring being saved is necessary to be a Christian," show me the truth of that in the Bible. That's what it all comes down to. You are not free to ignore the clear teaching of the Bible, make up your own "teaching of the Bible," and claim you're conforming to the teachings of the Bible and can rightly consider yourself a Christian.

> Yes, it seems like an obvious end-goal, given the dogma, but does one have to accept the dogma?

If that's the clear and inviolable teaching of the Bible, of Jesus, and of Paul, yes, one has to accept the dogma. That's what Christianity is, and necessarily so.

> Are Christian Universalists Christians?

It depends how they define their universalism. If in their system there is no justice and no judgment, then that's not Scriptural and separates them from subscribing to the teachings of the Bible.

So someone who interprets those verses differently from you is not a Christian. That seems problematic for the reasons that I cited in the original post.

> That isn't it.

That isn't ... what? Christianity or your sect of Christianity? Also, you brought up being saved, and I don't agree that desiring being saved is necessary to be a Christian. Yes, it seems like an obvious end-goal, given the dogma, but does one have to accept the dogma?

Are Christian Universalists Christians?