Question: "What is cultural Christianity?"
Answer: Cultural Christianity is religion that superficially identifies itself as “Christianity” but does not truly adhere to the faith. A “cultural Christian” is a nominal believer—he wears the label “Christian,” but the label has more to do with his family background and upbringing than any personal conviction that Jesus is Lord. Cultural Christianity is more social than spiritual. A cultural Christian identifies with certain aspects of Christianity, such as the good works of Jesus, but rejects the spiritual aspects required to be a biblically defined Christian. Some people consider themselves “Christians” because of family background, personal experience, country of residence, or social environment. Others identify as “Christian” as a way of declaring a religious affiliation, as opposed to being “Muslim” or “Buddhist.” Famed scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins refers to himself as a “cultural Christian” because he admires some of the ceremonial and philanthropic aspects of Christianity. Dawkins is not born again; he simply sees “Christianity” as a label to use.
In free nations, the gospel is often presented as a costless addition to one’s life: just add churchgoing to your hobbies, add charitable giving to your list of good deeds, or add the cross to the trophies on your mantle. In this way, many people go through the motions of “accepting Jesus” with no accompanying surrender to His lordship. These people, who do not “abide in Christ,” are cultural Christians. They are branches that hang around the True Vine but have no true attachment (see John 15:1–8).
There was no such thing as cultural Christianity in the days of the early church. In fact, to be a Christian was to more than likely be marked as a target of persecution. The very term Christian was coined in the city of Antioch as a way to identify the first followers of Christ (Acts 11:26). The first disciples were so much like Jesus that they were called “little Christs” by their detractors. Unfortunately, the term has lost meaning over the years and come to represent an ideology or a social class rather than a lifestyle of obedience to God.
Cultural Christianity is not true Christianity. A true Christian is one who has received Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior (John 1:12). Christ’s death and resurrection has been appropriated to that person as his or her substitute for sin (Romans 10:8–10; 2 Corinthians 5:21). The Holy Spirit indwells that person (Romans 8:9). “Receiving” Christ is far more than a mental acknowledgment of truth. Satan acknowledges the identity of the Son of God (Mark 5:7). The faith that saves us also changes us (see James 2:26). Jesus said that anyone who wishes to become His disciple must “deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Luke 9:23). While we cannot earn salvation by sacrifice or good works, a lifestyle transformation and desire to please the Lord are direct results of being “born again” (John 3:3).
The following are some identifying marks of cultural Christianity:
• Denying the inspiration of Scripture or parts of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21).
• Ignoring or downplaying true repentance as the first step toward knowing God (Matthew 4:17; Acts 2:38).
• Focusing on Jesus’ love and acceptance to the exclusion of His teaching on hell, obedience, and self-sacrifice (Matthew 4:17; 23:33; Mark 9:43; Luke 12:5).
• Tolerating or even celebrating ongoing sin while claiming to know God (Romans 1:32; 1 Corinthians 5:1–2; 1 John 3:9–10).
• Redefining scriptural truths to accommodate culture (Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6).
• Understanding Jesus to be primarily a social reformer, rather than God in the flesh who is the sacrifice for our sin (Matthew 10:34; Mark 14:7).
• Claiming God’s promises while ignoring the requirements included with them (Psalm 50:16; Jeremiah 18:10).
• Denying or minimizing Jesus’ claim that He is the only way to God (John 3:15–18; 14:6).
• Performing enough religious activity to gain a sense of well-being without a true devotion to Jesus (Galatians 5:16–17; Romans 8:9).
• Talking much about “God” in a general sense, but very little about Jesus Christ as Lord (John 13:13; 14:6).
• Seeing protection and blessing as goals to be achieved, rather than byproducts of a love relationship with God (Mark 12:30; Deuteronomy 11:13–17).
• Choosing a church based upon any or all of the above (Revelation 3:15–17).
Jesus’ warning in Matthew 7:21–23 should be a wake-up call to cultural Christianity: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’”
Fine tuning in the universe and now biology how interesting
@Kjvav Yes, correct, devotion and affirmation of Jesus as Lord, and belief in his deity, atoning death, and resurrection are the central beliefs that mark a Christian and upon which Christianity arose. If, for example, someone claims to be "Christian," but rejects these tenets, then I, too, have a problem accepting that. I am not anyone's judge, so I won't do that, but even for those who reject Christianity, these beliefs are still historically what makes someone a Christian and are not peripheral but central and essential claims that the first century Christians themselves gave as the reason and basis for their Christian faith. So, I agree with you on that point that anyone who rejects those tenets but claims to be a "Christian" is obviously confused about what Christianity really is. To me, that's like someone claiming they're a Darwinist but also saying that they don't believe in natural selection---it's nonsensical.
*But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about professing Christian believers who believe and profess "Jesus as Lord" and affirm his deity and atoning death and resurrection....Are you really going to be so audacious and set yourself up as "god"-their judge by pronouncing that Christians who profess faith in Jesus as Lord and accept his atoning death and resurrection for salvation are not Christians but are in danger of eternal judgment if they believe the universe is billions instead of thousands of years old???
@Kjvav You are mistaken. You are confusing the common (mis-)understanding of a theory as a conjecture. A scientific theory, however, is not conjecture but an explanation of the observed facts and makes testable predictions. Replace "theory" with "explanation" to get the correct sense. For example, the "Big Bang Explanation" (of cosmic background radiation, elemental abundances, Doppler redshift...). We observe an expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, elemental abundances of 74% hydrogen, 24% helium, etc. "The Big Bang Theory/Explanation" is a scientific explanation for why this is so.
There a real difference between an observed fact and conjecture? Getting consistent answers to data isn't always because we are absolutely correct in everything we assume.
@Kjvav You are mistaken. You are confusing the common (mis-)understanding of a theory as a conjecture. A scientific theory, however, is not conjecture but an explanation of the observed facts and makes testable predictions. Replace "theory" with "explanation" to get the correct sense. For example, the "Big Bang Explanation" (of cosmic background radiation, elemental abundances, Doppler redshift...). We observe an expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, elemental abundances of 74% hydrogen, 24% helium, etc. "The Big Bang Theory/Explanation" is a scientific explanation for why this is so.
There a real difference between an observed fact and conjecture? Getting consistent answers to data isn't always because we are absolutely correct in everything we assume.
Not clear what you're trying to say or what it has to do with having a correct understanding of what a scientific theory is, but the point is pretty simple:
People who say evolution's "just a theory" think they're being derogatory and scoring some great point for "their side," when in reality they're just demonstrating their ignorance of what a scientific theory really is.
@TruthMuse But once again, we digress from your OP. You also may have missed a couple posts where I tried to steer the conversation back to your original post.
See post #25 -- where I posed a question to you (genuinely curious to hear your response)
Also, see post #30 --where I express support of your OP as an important discussion that still needs to be had and more fully addressed in biology
@Kjvav Yes, correct, devotion and affirmation of Jesus as Lord, and belief in his deity, atoning death, and resurrection are the central beliefs that mark a Christian and upon which Christianity arose. If, for example, someone claims to be "Christian," but rejects these tenets, then I, too, have a problem accepting that. I am not anyone's judge, so I won't do that, but even for those who reject Christianity, these beliefs are still historically what makes someone a Christian and are not peripheral but central and essential claims that the first century Christians themselves gave as the reason and basis for their Christian faith. So, I agree with you on that point that anyone who rejects those tenets but claims to be a "Christian" is obviously confused about what Christianity really is. To me, that's like someone claiming they're a Darwinist but also saying that they don't believe in natural selection---it's nonsensical.
*But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about professing Christian believers who believe and profess "Jesus as Lord" and affirm his deity and atoning death and resurrection....Are you really going to be so audacious and set yourself up as "god"-their judge by pronouncing that Christians who profess faith in Jesus as Lord and accept his atoning death and resurrection for salvation are not Christians but are in danger of eternal judgment if they believe the universe is billions instead of thousands of years old??? John 8:47 “He that is of God heareth my words. Ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God”. That’s not me being “audacious”, that’s the Word of God.
Not to be pedantic (too late), but technically, and perhaps ironically, there's no real way to *prove* the scientific method and the underlying assumptions of empirical method are not, themselves, empirically verifiable. The scientific method certainly has great utility, but it also has limitations and is not the only epistemological "way-of-knowing." A lot of people write-off philosophy as useless, but here's one place where philosophy has been very useful, by critically analyzing our epistemological methods and revealing the uncertainty and unreliability that exists in humanity's different "ways-of-knowing," including science. But again, we digress from the OP
One of the greatest contributions of philosophy was from the school of Skepticism. which gave birth to the Scientific Method.
The more I learn on this subject the more I realize how much I truly don't know. The issue (and history) is actually quite complicated. The truth of the matter is that *THE* "Scientific Method" is an educational construct and oversimplification that does not exist in reality. There is no one "scientific method," science employs numerous methodologies and types of reasoning, none of them technically unique to science, there is much overlap, and it is actually quite difficult and not as easy as it at first appears to clearly demarcate science from non-science. For a fuller treatment on the subject, see, for example: Plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method
*I do like pithy quotes, though, and your mention of Skepticism reminds me of one of my favorites by Pascal:
"It is not certain that all is uncertain, to the glory of skepticism"
@Kjvav Yes, correct, devotion and affirmation of Jesus as Lord, and belief in his deity, atoning death, and resurrection are the central beliefs that mark a Christian and upon which Christianity arose. If, for example, someone claims to be "Christian," but rejects these tenets, then I, too, have a problem accepting that. I am not anyone's judge, so I won't do that, but even for those who reject Christianity, these beliefs are still historically what makes someone a Christian and are not peripheral but central and essential claims that the first century Christians themselves gave as the reason and basis for their Christian faith. So, I agree with you on that point that anyone who rejects those tenets but claims to be a "Christian" is obviously confused about what Christianity really is. To me, that's like someone claiming they're a Darwinist but also saying that they don't believe in natural selection---it's nonsensical.
*But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about professing Christian believers who believe and profess "Jesus as Lord" and affirm his deity and atoning death and resurrection....Are you really going to be so audacious and set yourself up as "god"-their judge by pronouncing that Christians who profess faith in Jesus as Lord and accept his atoning death and resurrection for salvation are not Christians but are in danger of eternal judgment if they believe the universe is billions instead of thousands of years old??? John 8:47 “He that is of God heareth my words. Ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God”. That’s not me being “audacious”, that’s the Word of God.
You still didn't answer the question. Here, let's put it a different way. Imagine a Christian who believes *everything* that you do *except* for one difference: they believe the universe is billions and not thousands of years old. Is that person still a Christian?
That’s not the question. The question is, “Can a person who understands that something is the clear teaching of Scripture and claims that that thing is untrue actually be a Christian, and the answer is no.
You want to know what I see? I see Stephen’s statement as proof that this is not an intellectual issue (as much as the anti-God side wants it to be) but is most definitely a spiritual issue.
....
That's odd criticism - I was answering another member who had posted this remember...
"you think the universe just assumed all of the proper conditions for life to form, strive, and thrive here without direct intervention? "
If the question posed includes an obvious reference to some deity (what else might direct intervention mean?), then don't blame me if I answer in that context.
It was TruthMuse who steered the discussion in that direction, not me!
It was an observation, not a criticism. If you reread the entire post you’ll see that what I said about you, I said about myself also. I’m aware of who your response was to and why.
That’s not the question. The question is, “Can a person who understands that something is the clear teaching of Scripture and claims that that thing is untrue actually be a Christian, and the answer is no.
You have now strayed outside of Christian teaching yourself by adding extra conditions for salvation that aren't there. And no, that is not the question, because not everything in the Bible is of equal, central importance. Is a person's belief about Balaam's donkey just as important as their belief about the cross? Does it really even matter what a person believes about Balaam's donkey? Is it some kind of cosmic, divine deal-breaker if someone has a different or even erroneous belief about Balaam's donkey or even the age of the universe? Plus, your "clear teaching" is just code for what *you* personally believe is the "clear literal teaching," but there are legitimate disagreements among Christians on non-essential issues, and even YECs and fundamentalists don't always interpret everything according to the "clear" (i.e., literal) meaning, despite their claims to the contrary and the great amount of ink they spill on the subject.
No, that's not the question. The question is much simpler and more direct: Is the age of the universe a salvation-issue? No, it is not. Ergo, a person can be a Christian and still believe the universe is billions of years old--and, in fact, many do. Ergo, your claim that belief in billions of years boils down to an issue of God vs. Atheist/Anti-God is a false dichotomy.
(And, of course, we continue to digress from the OP, but no one seems to be bothered by this so I guess I won't worry either)
Conversations ebb and flow. This is not a classroom, I really don’t understand people’s concern about deviating from the original post.
If the OP doesn't care, then I don't. But if the OP does, then that should be respected. Posting irrelevant comments is little different from spam, but @TruthMuse doesn't seem to mind. Either way, your "points" are not helping the case @TruthMuse was trying to make with regard to biological information, but are, in fact, detracting and taking the focus away from it.
If you can stop focusing on the YEC issue and things like Baalam’s donkey for a moment, you may be able to see the point I am making. It is that you cannot purposely deny what Scripture says (listen clearly, I’m saying purposely denying) and be a Christian. I’m not saying you can’t make a mistake, we all make mistakes. I’m saying you can’t say “I know it teaches that, but I won’t believe it”. So your “Balaam’s donkey” is not the issue. The issue is belief in the Word of God. I gave you a clear passage, and your response was “I don’t think...” . The Scriptures are clear (John 3 also), if you don’t believe, it is because you are not of God. Race car drivers drive race cars, fire fighters fight fires, and believers believe the word of God. You are too quick to place people in heaven.
I have to ask this, based on your arguments so far, I have to assume you separate repentance from salvation also, no?
@Kjvav No, I do not separate salvation and repentance. You, however, are still dodging the main issue over which the present discussion started. It's a simple question. Surely, you are capable of providing a clear and direct answer. According to Christian teaching, does a person's salvation depend on what they believe about the age of the universe? Yes or No?
All that scripture teaches us as fact is what some people in the late Bronze-Age believed as fact. It doesn't demonstrate in any way why we should believe the same.
All that scripture teaches us as fact is what some people in the late Bronze-Age believed as fact. It doesn't demonstrate in any way why we should believe the same.
Pithy, but ultimately inaccurate and overly reductionistic.
(And in fairness, my above response is also too simplistic and dismissive, when, in fact, that last part about how it "doesn't demonstrate in any way why we should believe the same"--if I'm understanding that correctly--speaks to a similar point I've tried to explain to kjvav on another thread (namely, that Bible-based arguments are not convincing to those who don't accept the Bible!)
@Kjvav No, I do not separate salvation and repentance. You, however, are still dodging the main issue over which the present discussion started. It's a simple question. Surely, you are capable of providing a clear and direct answer. According to Christian teaching, does a person's salvation depend on what they believe about the age of the universe? Yes or No?
You are ignoring my point and I don’t wish to continue making it. If you wish to place purposeful Scripture deniers in heaven, that is your perogative. I wont
There are not.