What are the Characteristics of a NT Christian?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Metaphysical truths include things like the Principle of Non-Contradiction.  If the PNC is not true then that would mean that reason itself is not effective. That is a self-defeating position.

Thank you for mentioning this point, Neo-Scholastic.

With all due respect and out of curiosity, does god have both rational and irrational qualities [A]? Assuming [A] is the case, from a theistic view, if god is the ultimate source of metaphysical truth and people are to be representatives of god’s attributes, then do they also put god’s irrationality into practice (would this explain the presence of conflicting/contradictory religious ideas/truths)? Thus, is reason an effective tool to use in understanding/justifying one’s theistic beliefs/position, or does utilizing this tool ultimately lead one to a self-defeating position? Is it necessary to have a blend of rationality and irrationality in order to make sense of one's beliefs? Hence, from a theistic view, does the PNC always hold?

Thank you for your time, attention, and thoughtful responses.

I must admit that I do not fully understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not sure what you mean by a rational quality unless you mean something about which it is possible to reason. In that case, anything we can say that is true about God would be consistent with how God actually is. What would you consider to be an irrational quality of God?

Otherwise it is important to remember that, some things are pre-rational. In most cases, people do not reason their way towards a memory or a perception. When someone remembers his eleventh birthday, he just does remember it. People don't assemble evidence to figure out what they remember (although facts can help prompt us to remember). Likewise, if someone sees a cow in his yard, he sees a cow. Perceptions and memories are things from which people reason; they don't reason towards memories and perceptions. People share their experiences and their memories, they discuss them, reason about them, and they come to different conclusions. During a debate, it doesn't help to invalidate another persons experiences or memories by calling them irrational. The term simply does not apply because memories and perceptions are properly basic*. One can; however, call into question the conclusions people draw based on their memories and perceptions. Faith is like memory and perception. It is the pre-rational apprehension of the divine. Faith beliefs may be later subject to defeaters, but initially they are, like memories and perceptions, properly basic. We reason from faith (or the lacks thereof) and not towards it.

Your last question is does the PNC always hold? Yes. The alternative is nihilism.

*This is not a absolute rule. People do experience false memories and are fooled by illusions. In these cases, the knowledge they thought they had is contradicted by some defeater. That does not change the order of the cognitive process. The memory or perception must first be present before it can be scrutinized to determine if the mind performed those functions properly.