Christians - what is "Christian"?

[ayani]

agreed. and agreed as well that in this life, our understanding can not be complete.

Ravi Zacharias, answering a Muslim's question about the multiplicity of Christian denominations replied "unity does not have to equal uniformity...what matters is if you know Jesus Christ in your heart or not". certainly, in light of Christ, and the indwelling of His Holy Spirit, innumerable things are known, understood, discernible, and explainable. ultimately of course, many things can not be understood from where we are, and we should not claim for ourselves to be on par with Christ, or with God. we become more like Him in faith, but we are not sinless, or independent partakers in God's divinity. i.e., we can boast nothing on our own, but boast rather in Christ and because of Him.

yet i'd also add to what you've said the belief that there is something unique and singular about Christ, which makes Him the Savior. ok, the question is, how?

well, we believe that He is risen from the dead, and has conquered death. it is promised us that whoever believes in Him should not die, but have eternal life. if one believes in His resurrection, and understands that in light of John 3:16, it is right to say that Jesus saves us from death. you can't rise from the dead unless you're first dead. and Jesus clearly didn't do this only for Himself, but for all of us.

i would also add that Jesus saves us from spiritual ignorance / darkness. i say this based on my own experiences with Him. since coming to know Him... i can't really describe it, but i can certainly say that my prayer life, my understanding of God personally, and my directives in life have done a complete 180 after coming to know Him for who He is. i also say this based on scripture such as Matthew 11:27, John 14:-7, and John 18:12.

 

[Mister Emu]

the one church that still exists which can be said to definitely be apostolic in origin

That is not true, the RCC, EO, and OO at least, and I am fairly certain the Ethiopian Orthodox as well, can all trace themselves directly to the apostles...

for me, what defines "Christian" is whether something is Biblically Christ-taught and demonstrated.

Where does Christ teach or demonstrate what should be in the Bible? The Bible wasn't handed down from heaven as is, it was determined in a council... held by the combined Orthodox and Catholic Churches...

that goes back to the question, how do we discern what is Christian and what is not? what is ok and what is not ok? what is the standard? how does one discern between a practice of men, and a teaching of God?

Prayer, and it is also why God set up a Church that would never be conquered by Satan... "The gates of hell will never prevail against you"... He gave the apostles authority to bind and release on earth and in heaven in His name, they passed that authority, and the guarantee, on to the Church.

 

[ayani]

Emu ~

i use apostolic in the sense of being founded quite clearly by an apostle. while the churches you mentioned can trace their lineages back to the apostles via church succession, the differences between these church cultures is great. each church has a unique cultural perspective, ideas, and claim to ligitamacy. and many o these churhes, at some point, made a clear distinction between themselves and other church bodies near to them.

what i find unique about the Indan Orthodox Churchis that it was definately founded by an apostle- before Thomas came to India, there was no Christianity there. it developed isolated from any other Chrisian community (save for the Assyrian Orthodox Chruch a bit later in history), and retained quite a few notably Judaic practices.

the reason i emphasize the Bible as the source for Christian thought and information about Christ, is because there are so many other sources out there which do not tell the truth about Him. Islamic scriptures deny He is the Son of God, deny the crucifixion, and deny the resurrection. other religions teach that He is important, but not uniquely divine, or that He is not the apex of God's word spoken to humanity. some sources refer to Him as "a way, but not the way".

the Gospels, however, are clear that He is unique among men, One with God, the Messiah, the Lamb, the only way to God, One with the Father, and that He was crucified for our sins, and resurrected from the dead, that we who believe in Him might have eternal life. the Gospels, being inspired, record faithfully what Jesus did and said. not all of it, by their own admission. but the important things. without their clear authority and testimony, we run into the danger of thinking things about Christ which do not truly reflect Him.

 

[Mister Emu]

i use apostolic in the sense of being founded quite clearly by an apostle.

As did I... The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and for what it is worth the Indian Orthodox Church is part of the Oriental Orthodox Church, and Oriental Orthodox churches were founded by apostles directly...

In the OO, the Coptic Church was founded by Mark, the Syriac by Peter, Armenian by Bartholomew and Thaddeus...

The Assyrian Church was founded by Thomas...

In the EO, the Alexandrian Church was founded by Mark, Antioch by Peter, the Church at Jerusalem?

the reason i emphasize the Bible as the source for Christian thought and information about Christ, is because there are so many other sources out there which do not tell the truth about Him.

It is the best written source for Christian thought and information, but it was written by men, and it was compiled by men, and it is highly likely the contents of the Bible you use was determined over 300 years after Jesus...

without their clear authority and testimony, we run into the danger of thinking things about Christ which do not truly reflect Him.

Without a clear authority and testimony we run into those dangers, both the Bible, and the Tradition that produced that Bible are equally capable of halting those dangers(the Church did get along before the Bible existed )

 

[Katzpur]

...and it is also why God set up a Church that would never be conquered by Satan... "The gates of hell will never prevail against you"...

Mister Emu, you are putting a modern-day spin on a phrase that simply didn't exist when Christ made that promise to His Apostles. You think of "the gates of Hell" meaning "Satan." To the Apostles, it would have merely referred to the entrance to the Spirit World where the spirits of the dead go.

He gave the apostles authority to bind and release on earth and in heaven in His name, they passed that authority, and the guarantee, on to the Church.

So if they passed apostolic authority on, why is the Church not led today by Apostles? Why have there been no Apostles on the earth since the end of the first century, when Paul specifically said they were to be a part of the Church until we all came into a unity of the faith?

 

[Mister Emu]

Mister Emu, you are putting a modern-day spin on a phrase that simply didn't exist when Christ made that promise to His Apostles. You think of "the gates of Hell" meaning "Satan."

In a way... I was wrong... it is more of death will not prevail against the Church... that is the Church will never die, it will never be gone...

So if they passed apostolic authority on, why is the Church not led today by Apostles?

Now, you are the one applying a modern understanding to an ancient word... apostle was a title for people sent on foreign missions... For instance, the Eastern Church sometimes calls the 70 disciples the 70 apostles...

Why have there been no Apostles on the earth since the end of the first century

There have been though Archmandrite Sebastian Dabovich Apostle to America, Saint Patrick: Apostle to Ireland, Sts. Cyril and Methodius Apostles to the slavs, St. Innocent Apostle to Alaska, St. Martin of Tours Apostle to the Gauls

when Paul specifically said they were to be a part of the Church until we all came into a unity of the faith?

Could you cite this please, I went and did a cursory search for the word apostle and couldn't find anything... Even if it did, I wouldn't think it would have the same meaning you ascribe...

 

[Katzpur]

In a way... I was wrong... it is more of death will not prevail against the Church... that is the Church will never die, it will never be gone...

I agree -- with respect to the "invisible Church." But Paul clearly prophesied of an apostasy of the early Church. Everything he said indicated that it would be enormous in scope. The gospel that Jesus Christ taught does continue to be taught to those awaiting the resurrection, though. That ministry was started by Christ himself, when He visited the spirits in prison during the three days His body lay in the tomb.

Now, you are the one applying a modern understanding to an ancient word... apostle was a title for people sent on foreign missions... For instance, the Eastern Church sometimes calls the 70 disciples the 70 apostles...

Well, the Eastern Church can call the 70 apostles if they want, but that does not give them apostolic authority. Christ called twelve men and specifically ordained them to be Apostles. He called seventy others to serve foreign missions. The twelve were obviously missionaries, too, but they had roles and responsibilities the other seventy did not have. The Apostles were frequently spoken of as "the twelve" in the New Testament, and they were the leaders of the Church after Christ's Ascension.

There have been though Archmandrite Sebastian Dabovich Apostle to America, Saint Patrick: Apostle to Ireland, Sts. Cyril and Methodius Apostles to the slavs, St. Innocent Apostle to Alaska, St. Martin of Tours Apostle to the Gauls

Unless these individuals were specifically ordained by someone already holding the same authority as the original twelve Apostles held, they were apostles in name only. If you could trace their line of authority back to one of the individuals referred to as an Apostle in the New Testament, I'd be willing to consider that I might be wrong.

Could you cite this please, I went and did a cursory search for the word apostle and couldn't find anything... Even if it did, I wouldn't think it would have the same meaning you ascribe...

Sure. It's Ephesians 4:11-14. “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive…”

If I were to try to explain in modern English what Paul was saying, I would say this:

And He (Jesus Christ) appointed apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. His purpose in doing so was to perfect His followers, to minister to them and to teach them. These were to remain in place until all of us are unified in the faith and in our knowledge of the Son of God, enabling us to grow to maturity in the Lord. Otherwise, we will continue to be like children in the gospel, persuaded first one way and then another, and unable to distinguish between true and false doctrines, being subject to the teachings of those who are crafty and who desire to deceive us.

I'm curious as to how you would interpret it?

 

[ayani]

what defines an "apostle"?

an apostle certainly *can* mean one of the twelve, and it does. yet it can also mean a missionary of the Gospel- someone who goes unto others and shares who Jesus is, what He did, His resurrection, and His uniqueness in relation to the Creator and to men.

a Christian traveling to a small tribe or people who had never heard the Gospel before, preaching about the Son of God, could also be called an apostle. i could also be called an apostle when i share the Gospel with co-workers. that dosn't mean that i'm holy, perfect, or unique among Christians. what it does mean is that i go forth and tell others about Jesus Christ.

 

[ayani]

It is the best written source for Christian thought and information, but it was written by men, and it was compiled by men, and it is highly likely the contents of the Bible you use was determined over 300 years after Jesus...

doubtless. yet all the texts comprising the NT were written within the decades of Christ's ascension, not centuries after. composed either by eye-witnesses of Jesus' minstry, or with their input, or by early Chrstian leaders. and while what would come to make up the NT was decided on later in Christian history, there is nothing i know of to indicate that these texts were not treasued by early Christians as authoritative, true in content and message, and useful for teaching and instruction.

i believe the Bible to be inspired. penned by men, and later compiled by men, but inspired by God's Spirit. my position on the Bible's centrality stems from how i came to Chitian faith- not through any church tradition but through a personal encounter with Christ's saving power.

i now believe, firmly, that Jesus' unique sovereignty, Personhood, and saving grace trasncends the authority of any church, tradition, or claim to apostolic lineage. Christian unity need not mean uniformity- i've met faithful, saved Christians of many deniomination, and of none. what matters ultimately is the Son, who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. who is risen, One with the Father, and who has shown over and over that He is able to reach down into human lives, and do amazing and miraculous things.

 

[Katzpur]

what defines an "apostle"?

an apostle certainly *can* mean one of the twelve, and it does. yet it can also mean a missionary of the Gospel- someone who goes unto others and shares who Jesus is, what He did, His resurrection, and His uniqueness in relation to the Creator and to men.

a Christian traveling to a small tribe or people who had never heard the Gospel before, preaching about the Son of God, could also be called an apostle. i could also be called an apostle when i share the Gospel with co-workers. that dosn't mean that i'm holy, perfect, or unique among Christians. what it does mean is that i go forth and tell others about Jesus Christ.

I disagree, ayani. Jesus never referred to anyone other than the twelve as apostles. When you share the gospel with co-workers, you are a disciple. You have not been ordained an apostle and you can't simply choose to be one because you love your Savior.

 

[ayani]

actually Katz, it could be argued that it is more appropriateto call me an apostle, and less apropriate to call me a disciple. i say this because the disciples knew Him personally durng His ministry, saw Him, touched Him, and saw first hand His acts.

Paul dscribed Himself as an apotle, yet apparently never met Jesus during His ministry, nor was He an original disciple. he became converted when the risen Christ made Himself known to Paul, and after that was called an apostle, preaching Christ as the Messiah and Son of God to non-Jews.

it could also be argued that any born again believer can call themselves either- seeming as Jesus is risen from the dead, alive today, and often appears to people, inspiring their conversion. such a believer may not have been in Galillee 2000 years ago, but they are as sure of Jesus' reality and living presence 2000 years later. they have met Him, known Him, trusted Him, and now speak of Him to others.

they are both a disciple and an apostle, as they serve and speak for a Living Messiah, whom they know personally.

 

[Mister Emu]

But Paul clearly prophesied of an apostasy of the early Church. Everything he said indicated that it would be enormous in scope. The gospel that Jesus Christ taught does continue to be taught to those awaiting the resurrection, though.

From what I can remember it never specifies in the early Church... and even an apostasy of enormous scope could not completely remove Christ's Church from the world, or the promise is false...

Christ called twelve men and specifically ordained them to be Apostles. He called seventy others to serve foreign missions.

That is what apostle means though, what you are saying is that he ordained twelve men as apostles, and called seventy others to serve as apostles...

The Apostles were frequently spoken of as "the twelve" in the New Testament, and they were the leaders of the Church after Christ's Ascension.

I never said that they didn't have other duties/responsibilities/etc...

Unless these individuals were specifically ordained by someone already holding the same authority as the original twelve Apostles held, they were apostles in name only. If you could trace their line of authority back to one of the individuals referred to as an Apostle in the New Testament, I'd be willing to consider that I might be wrong.

Indeed, I will do my best, what you are looking for is: Peter ordained x, x ordained x... and so on until, say, x ordained St. Patrick?

I'm curious as to how you would interpret it?

Pretty much the same as you... as I've said, we do still have apostles in the Church...

 

[Katzpur]

actually Katz, it could be argued that it is more appropriateto call me an apostle, and less apropriate to call me a disciple. i say this because the disciples knew Him personally durng His ministry, saw Him, touched Him, and saw first hand His acts.

Look up the word "disciple" in the dictionary, ayani. A disciple is a pupil, follower or adherent. That's all it is. A disciple of Christ is one of His followers. That's what you are and that's what I am. In Luke 6:13, we read, "And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles."

Paul dscribed Himself as an apotle, yet apparently never met Jesus during His ministry, nor was He an original disciple. he became converted when the risen Christ made Himself known to Paul, and after that was called an apostle, preaching Christ as the Messiah and Son of God to non-Jews.

Paul didn't just "describe himself" as an Apostle. Romans 1:1 says that he was "called to be an Apostle." Being "called an Apostle" is not the same thing as being "called to be an Apostle." Men can call anyone they want an Apostle. Only God can call someone to be an Apostle. It was not because Paul preached the Gospel that he was an Apostle. It was because he was an Apostle that he preached the Gospel.

it could also be argued that any born again believer can call themselves either- seeming as Jesus is risen from the dead, alive today, and often appears to people, inspiring their conversion. such a believer may not have been in Galillee 2000 years ago, but they are as sure of Jesus' reality and living presence 2000 years later. they have met Him, known Him, trusted Him, and now speak of Him to others.

Of course anything can be argued. But arguing it doesn't make it so.

they are both a disciple and an apostle, as they serve and speak for a Living Messiah, whom they know personally.

Whatever...

 

[ayani]

yet i would point out that anyone having been convinced of Christ, of His uniqueness, and of His saving power, is then called to tell others about Him. how can one not? to share their own experience, and indicate how Jesus is different, what He teaches, what He did, and Who He is. if we're not proclaiming that, well... what's the point in being Christian? keeping Him to ourselves?

i would not give myself any kind of special title just to sound neat. i would not introduce myself to anyone as "Grace, an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ". but i would argue that as Christ certainly lives, calls people today, and works in their lives to give them chances to share the Gospel, that there have been and are now many apostles, disciples, ambassadors for Christ, and Spirit-filled bringers of the Good News serving Him, and sharing Him.

Sadhu Sundar Singh stands out as a remarkable example. i had never heard of this man before talking with a Christian from India, but his story is remarkable, and wonderful.

...Jesus is risen from the dead, alive today, and often appears to people, inspiring their conversion. [a converted believer] may not have been in Galillee 2000 years ago, but they are as sure of Jesus' reality and living presence 2000 years later. they have met Him, known Him, trusted Him, and now speak of Him to others.

were this not true, i would not be a Christian... were this not true, countless men and women who had never read or held a Bible or been to a church would not be Christians. as one reads, for example, Acts, some key things showing that one is Christian is an understanding of Who Jesus is, and a desire to serve Him, reflect Him, and share Him.

 

[Katzpur]

yet i would point out that anyone having been convinced of Christ, of His uniqueness, and of His saving power, is then called to tell others about Him.... as one reads, for example, Acts, some key things showing that one is Christian is an understanding of Who Jesus is, and a desire to serve Him, reflect Him, and share Him.

I agree completely!

 

[jtartar]

i was looking over this article tonight, and got thinking...

it seems that hisorically there have been two ways of saying "Christian". something can be Christian becaue it is believed or practiced by people or churches identifying with Jesus Christ, or something can be Christian as in "Biblically Christ-taught or demonstrated".

for example, the veneration of saints / pious Chistians. if "Christian" is taken to mean something Biblically taught or demonstated by Jesus of Nazareth, than the adoration of saints / especially pious Christians is not Christian, as Jesus prays only to the Father, and being One with God Himself recieves prayer and worship from others. but if "Christian" simply means what is historically practiced or believed by Christians, that the practice of saint veneration is certainly Christian, as it is widespread and historical.

for a Christian, where to draw the line between the traditions of men, and the ways of God? can one be a disciple of Christ Jesus while doing / believing things not Biblically taught or mentioned by Him?

ayani,
You are very perceptive. You have brought up a point that not many people who call themselves Christian, do not understand:: Just because you call yourself a Christian, does not make it true, Titus 1:16. Jesus mentioned that many would say; Lord, Lord, did we not prophecy in your name, and expell demons in your name and perform many powerful works in your name?? Matt 7:21-23. What did Jesus say?? He said, I never knew you, Get away from me you workers of LAWLESSNESS.
Peter tells us that to be a Christian we must be a footstep follower of Jesus, 1Pet 2:21. Just how many today try to follow in Jesus footsteps?? Matt 16:24-26.
Jesus said that you would recognize his disciples by the love they would show, John 13:34,35.
John says that we should be ready to give our life for our spiritual brothers, 1John 3:16, just as Jesus did, John 10:15. Do you believe that socalled Christians are ready to die for another Christian?? Whenever, whatever nation socalled Christians live in, are called to war against another nation, are they not willing to kill their brothers on the other side?? Is that the kind of love Jesus was talking about??? 2Tim 2:24, 2Cor 10:3,4. Christians are to seek peace and pursue it, Rom 12:17-19, 1Pet 3:11.

 

[ukMethodist]

for a Christian, where to draw the line between the traditions of men, and the ways of God? can one be a disciple of Christ Jesus while doing / believing things not Biblically taught or mentioned by Him?
---

Hope so, otherwise chemistry would be out of the picture

The bible is not a science book. It's not written for our information, but our transformation.

 

[Heneni]

What is a christian?

They pledge no allegiance to any human king or goverment, but acknowleges one king and god under who's rulership they fall. If any king of goverment should require them to break the laws of their heavenly king...they shall submit to the punishment of that goverment without violence for breaking the laws of man.

heneni

 

[Katzpur]

What is a christian?

They pledge no allegiance to any human king or goverment, but acknowleges one king and god under who's rulership they fall. If any king of goverment should require them to break the laws of their heavenly king...they shall submit to the punishment of that goverment without violence for breaking the laws of man.

heneni

But in the Bible, heneni, we are taught to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. I don't think the Bible teaches that we should pledge no allegiance to any government. Can you even imagine a world without some kinds of civil laws?

 

[ἀλήθεια]

From what I can remember it never specifies in the early Church... and even an apostasy of enormous scope could not completely remove Christ's Church from the world, or the promise is false...

And we would like to know when the following took place, wouldn't we?

2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2)