You are being rhetorical and evasive in the above.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:50 pmYou didn't read John 3:16. Or you tried to read it, but didn't understand it. However, it's not a 100% wrong way to characterize the situation, so let's go with your metaphor anyway.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 5:13 am In the contract [covenant] between a Christian and God /Jesus is the Christian is promised eternal life in heaven upon compliances with the necessary terms as stipulated within the Gospel.
Let's view John 3:16 as a "contract."
Terms of Contract
God's Contractual Duties, as specified in John 3:16
1. Love the world.
2. Give His unique Son to pay the price for man's sin.
3. Open up a universal way of salvation.
4. Provide eternal life.
Man's Contractual Duties
Believe God has done it.
Now, that's the contract as spelled out by John 3:16. Does it still actually look "contractual" to you?
Here's John 3:16 [KJV]
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The main operative principles of a Contract are as follows;
- 1. The offer and promise by God;
"that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
2. Acceptance of the offer;
when one accept the above offer, i.e. surrender and believe in Jesus and God, John 3:16.
(Note God is omnipresent and omniscience, so there cannot be any cheating nor disingenuous acceptance.)
3. then, there is a contract [covenant, agreement, pact] in effect and both parties are obligated to fulfil their promises until the contract is mutually cancelled or void according to the terms.
So, why is the above not a contract [covenant, agreement, pact, etc.] in principle?
In the present circumstances, it would be wiser for Christians to use and emphasize the term 'contract' [whilst not denying it is also a covenant], i.e.
all Christians by definition and substance had entered into a contract with God/Jesus and the overriding terms of the contract is a Christian 'must love all, even enemies'.
As such, Christianity is a pacifist religion.
Thus all Christians are contractually bound to the above overriding term.
This above point will shut out any claim that Christianity is a violent religion based on the obvious evidences [but non-sequitor] that SOME Christians [by name] are violent and did kill at present and in the past.
Try that defense when you are faced with such accusations.
The use of the term 'contract' and contractual bound is easily and immediately understood by the majority in comparison to the term 'covenant' which is rarely used by non-Christians [it won't click easily] and even Christians themselves.
Why I resort to the above argument is to leave Islam as the sore thumb as the only inherently evil and violent religion.
This will also shut out the Muslim-apologists who often invoked the 'what-about' fallacy when faced with the evils and violence inherent in their religions, with the 'what-about Christianity', i.e. the crusades, inquisition, imperialism, Myanmar & Congo Militarist Christians, Trump, etc.