Farrell, there is not sufficient information in the statement below
for me to know why Katz compared to the Pharisees nor have I followed
your dialog sufficiently to know if the reason was because you were a
member of the church of Christ.
I suspect his reason for claiming you were not a christian however
has nothing to do with what church you went to. I imagine that he
believes in the doctrine of "once saved, always saved" the
impossibility of falling. If that is the case then he must say you
never were a Christian to begin with, because he certainly wouldn't
believe that you were saved in your current state. This is the usual
response when proponents of the above mentioned doctrine. They argue
the point from 1 John 2:19 I believe.
As to a "personal relationship with Jesus" being required to be a
Christian, I probably would want defined as to precisely what is
meant before I make comment.
As to your suspicions and assumptions regarding the gospel being
able to be viewed rationally and the spelling out in the scriptures
the requirements involved in becoming a Christian they are correct.
I would add faithfulness (Rev. 2:10, Heb. 11:6) to the list regarding
what is needed for salvation.
>
> This raises a question that Katz may want to answer. Is Michael Hughes a
> real Christian?
Go you one better..Michael became a Christian, left the church and
Christianity, even embraced skepticism to a degree, then returned.
Is he a real Christian, if so when did he become one. If not, then
what would it take?
Farrell, you really ought to start another list. This is the second
time that you have attempted to create conflict between me and
another religionist. Since you enjoy this you should start another
list in which your sole intent would be to agitate between those that
have differing "Christian" doctrines. That way you wouldn't need to
clutter up your "inerrancy list" with disputes of doctrinal matters.
Michael P. Hughes
http://www.odd.net/ozarks/churches/cchrist/camdenton/index.htm