What is Christianity, and what makes a Christian a Christian?

[Gjallarhorn]

It's come up several times in discussions and debates on this forum. People will be arguing about Christianity without having a set definition. I have seen people claim that Christianity is accepting the entire Bible as fact, only the New Testament, only the Gospels, and some strip it down even less than that.

What I want to know is, what is the bare-bones definition of Christianity? The definition that if you do not adhere to it you cannot legitimately call yourself a Christian. Must you believe Jesus existed? That he still exists? That the Bible is true? Must you believe in God? Does the story of the virgin birth matter? Etc.

Anyone who answers, please check your answer for any hidden suppositions and add them to your answer. I'm tired of people posting oversimplified definitions.

 

[Falvlun]

The belief that Jesus atoned for the sins of humanity as a means to reconcile God with man.

I find this to be the core belief unique to Christianity. I will be interested to see what Christians think of it. Central is the theme that man and God are separated, due to the imperfect nature of man. Jesus created, or fixed, or showed us how to fix, the bridge that now spans the gap. Note that atonement can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and still fall under the description of "atonement".

 

[SageTree]

(subscribed)

 

[sojourner]

The belief that Jesus atoned for the sins of humanity as a means to reconcile God with man.

I find this to be the core belief unique to Christianity. I will be interested to see what Christians think of it. Central is the theme that man and God are separated, due to the imperfect nature of man. Jesus created, or fixed, or showed us how to fix, the bridge that now spans the gap. Note that atonement can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and still fall under the description of "atonement".

I think "substitutionary atonement" when I hear the term. And I don't think that's what you have in mind. Certainly a lot of Christians do believe in substitutionary atonement, but that's not a "core belief," for many do not. it's not the only valid theological construction.

I think what must happen in order for a person to call himself a "Christian" is that the person must make a sincere attempt to follow Jesus. That can take any number of forms. Adhere to Jesus' teachings, look to Jesus as a model, see Jesus as an avatar for God's grace, understand Jesus as "the perfect man," claim Jesus as "savior," submit to Jesus as "King of Heaven," proclaim Jesus as Messiah, etc.
The important thing, I think, is to order one's life such that Jesus is the impetus for one's living. Whatever that means.

 

[Falvlun]

I think "substitutionary atonement" when I hear the term. And I don't think that's what you have in mind. Certainly a lot of Christians do believe in substitutionary atonement, but that's not a "core belief," for many do not. it's not the only valid theological construction.

I agree: substitutionary atonement is not the only form of atonement out there. And it's actually a relative newcomer to the scene. Basically, if at the end of the day, Jesus provided the means for reconciliation, then I'd consider that atonement. Redemption is the other word that pops into mind; perhaps that is less loaded.

An intriguing form of atonement I recently heard of is the moral influence theory, in which Jesus simply provided the template of behavior which we must follow to reconcile ourselves with God. That seems to be about as liberal interpretation of atonement as one could wish for.

I think what must happen in order for a person to call himself a "Christian" is that the person must make a sincere attempt to follow Jesus. That can take any number of forms. Adhere to Jesus' teachings, look to Jesus as a model, see Jesus as an avatar for God's grace, understand Jesus as "the perfect man," claim Jesus as "savior," submit to Jesus as "King of Heaven," proclaim Jesus as Messiah, etc.
The important thing, I think, is to order one's life such that Jesus is the impetus for one's living. Whatever that means.

I find this to be so vague, so broad, as to be basically meaningless. For example, I have a friend who considers himself a Buddhist Christian. The Christian part, he claims, is because he believes Jesus to be a perfect template of uniqueness. He rejects that he should follow any of Christ's teachings (he is in fact horrified by most of them) as part of his Christianity, and he also rejects that he should model any of Jesus' actions or methods, as that would defeat the purpose of being unique. While this friend may indeed be considered a follower of Christ, and indeed considers himself to be one, I cannot consider him a Christian. Too much has been stripped away.

What is the purpose of following Jesus? That is the question, I believe, that will point you to the basic belief of Christianity. It is not merely to call oneself a Christian. The purpose of following Christ, as far as I can tell from Christian theology, is to reconcile man with God. So, we are back to the concept of atonement, Jesus, and reconciliation.

 

[sojourner]

I agree: substitutionary atonement is not the only form of atonement out there. And it's actually a relative newcomer to the scene. Basically, if at the end of the day, Jesus provided the means for reconciliation, then I'd consider that atonement. Redemption is the other word that pops into mind; perhaps that is less loaded.

An intriguing form of atonement I recently heard of is the moral influence theory, in which Jesus simply provided the template of behavior which we must follow to reconcile ourselves with God. That seems to be about as liberal interpretation of atonement as one could wish for.


I find this to be so vague, so broad, as to be basically meaningless. For example, I have a friend who considers himself a Buddhist Christian. The Christian part, he claims, is because he believes Jesus to be a perfect template of uniqueness. He rejects that he should follow any of Christ's teachings (he is in fact horrified by most of them) as part of his Christianity, and he also rejects that he should model any of Jesus' actions or methods, as that would defeat the purpose of being unique. While this friend may indeed be considered a follower of Christ, and indeed considers himself to be one, I cannot consider him a Christian. Too much has been stripped away.

What is the purpose of following Jesus? That is the question, I believe, that will point you to the basic belief of Christianity. It is not merely to call oneself a Christian. The purpose of following Christ, as far as I can tell from Christian theology, is to reconcile man with God. So, we are back to the concept of atonement, Jesus, and reconciliation.

I agree with you with the following caveat:
Is not reconciliation with God captured in ordering one's life such that Jesus is the impetus for one's living? if Jesus is reconciliation, then living one's life wherein Jesus is the impetus means living into a paradigm of reconciliation, yes?

 

[Katzpur]

What I want to know is, what is the bare-bones definition of Christianity? The definition that if you do not adhere to it you cannot legitimately call yourself a Christian. Must you believe Jesus existed? That he still exists? That the Bible is true? Must you believe in God? Does the story of the virgin birth matter? Etc.

I'm going to start out by saying that, as far as I'm concerned, if a person believes himself to be a Christian, he has as much right to say that he is as I have to say he isn't. I have been told so many times in my life that I'm not a Christian that I refuse to even play that game. It's hateful and juvenile. I'd list the criteria that seem to define the word "Christian" to me, but if I were to do so, I would undoubtedly end up posting something that would exclude someone who wishes to be included.

 

[ChristineES]

A Christian is someone who follows Jesus and His teachings, which you can find in the 4 Gospels, and other places. There are many, many denominations due to Paul's epistles and interpretation. But the basic is following Jesus and obeying, to the best of your ability, His commands. We are not better than other people and we do fall short on occasion but we believe in forgiveness.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I'm going to start out by saying that, as far as I'm concerned, if a person believes himself to be a Christian, he has as much right to say that he is as I have to say he isn't. I have been told so many times in my life that I'm not a Christian that I refuse to even play that game. It's hateful and juvenile. I'd list the criteria that seem to define the word "Christian" to me, but if I were to do so, I would undoubtedly end up posting something that would exclude someone who wishes to be included.

This I feel is the end stage of inclusivism. Anyone who wants can be anything they want. By your statement I have every right to be a Christian atheist, a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus, a Christian who thinks Jesus was absolutely wrong in all aspects, or even a Christian who has never even heard of Jesus. Words have meanings. I'm asking for your definition for Christianity. If it cuts some people out that's okay.

 

[idav]

..a Christian who thinks Jesus was absolutely wrong in all aspects.....

That would be an anti-christ. As long as they either follow him, admire, worship, or just think he is the bestest philosopher and want to form a religion around him then they can call there self a christian. If they go further I might debate their calling themselves christian if they don't even like the guy.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

That would be an anti-christ. As long as they either follow him, admire, worship, or just think he is the bestest philosopher and want to form a religion around him then they can call there self a christian. If they go further I might debate their calling themselves christian if they don't even like the guy.

I was only elaborating on the conflicts that arise from not defining something for the purpose of inculsivism.

 

[Katzpur]

This I feel is the end stage of inclusivism. Anyone who wants can be anything they want. By your statement I have every right to be a Christian atheist, a Christian who doesn't believe in Jesus, a Christian who thinks Jesus was absolutely wrong in all aspects, or even a Christian who has never even heard of Jesus. Words have meanings. I'm asking for your definition for Christianity. If it cuts some people out that's okay.

It might be okay with you, but it's not okay with me because I've been on the receiving end of this kind of discrimination and I know how it feels. You examples are so far off the chart that they don't make any sense at all. A Christian, at the bare minimum, would have to have at least heard of Jesus Christ and accept the validity of what He taught. The question, however, becomes, "What did Jesus teach and who did He claim to be and do?" That's where the disagreements come in. I think that most people who call themselves Christians believe that they are interpreting Jesus' words the way Jesus would have wanted them to and that they believe He was what He claimed to be. The problem is that they can't even agree as to what He claimed to be. Look at the thread, "Did Jesus say He was God?" Some people say He did; others say He didn't. I don't know who has the right to say their definition is the one Jesus Christ himself would say is the correct one.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It might be okay with you, but it's not okay with me because I've been on the receiving end of this kind of discrimination and I know how it feels. You examples are so far off the chart that they don't make any sense at all. A Christian, at the bare minimum, would have to have at least heard of Jesus Christ and accept the validity of what He taught. The question, however, becomes, "What did Jesus teach and who did He claim to be and do?" That's where the disagreements come in. I think that most people who call themselves Christians believe that they are interpreting Jesus' words the way Jesus would have wanted them to and that they believe He was what He claimed to be. The problem is that they can't even agree as to what He claimed to be. Look at the thread, "Did Jesus claim to be God?" Some people say He did; others say He didn't. I don't know who has the right to say their definition is the one Jesus Christ himself would say is the correct one.

So, core Christianity is the acceptance of Jesus as a vague concept, who may or may not have existed. Good to know.

 

[Katzpur]

So, core Christianity is the acceptance of Jesus as a vague concept, who may or may not have existed. Good to know.

Really? And you obviously think that's what I said. I'd try again, but since I don't think you put much effort into understanding my last post, I doubt you'd put in any more effort to understand any further posts. Now if you really want further dialogue, you might consider re-reading what I just posted and then asking yourself if I really said anything at all about accepting Jesus as "a vague concept, who may or may not have existed." I hate to tell you, but your paraphrasing really sucks!

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Really? And you obviously think that's what I said. I'd try again, but since I don't think you put much effort into understanding my last post, I doubt you'd put in any more effort to understand any further posts. Now if you really want further dialogue, you might consider re-reading what I just posted and then asking yourself if I really said anything at all about accepting Jesus as "a vague concept, who may or may not have existed." I hate to tell you, but your paraphrasing really sucks!

A Christian, at the bare minimum, would have to have at least heard of Jesus Christ and accept the validity of what He taught..

If what he taught is up to debate, then it can't be said to be a defining point, can it? That leaves knowing of Jesus Christ, which doesn't entail much.

 

[Katzpur]

If what he taught is up to debate, then it can't be said to be a defining point, can it? That leaves knowing of Jesus Christ, which doesn't entail much.

It would leave knowing Jesus Christ and accepting as valid what you believe He taught -- even if someone else interpreted His teachings differently than you.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

It would leave knowing Jesus Christ and accepting as valid what you believe He taught -- even if someone else interpreted His teachings differently than you.

...which still gives no opinion of whether Jesus lived or not, considering characters in books teach things too.

If I interpreted Jesus's teachings in the exact opposite way to someone else, are we both still Christians?

 

[Katzpur]

...which still gives no opinion of whether Jesus lived or not, considering characters in books teach things too.

Well obviously there would be little point in believing someone taught something if you didn't believe He existed.

If I interpreted Jesus's teachings in the exact opposite way to someone else, are we both still Christians?

Maybe. I know there are LDS teachings which traditional Christians insist directly contradict what the Bible says. These people say this proves Mormons aren't Christians. As a Mormon, I say these folks just don't correctly understand our beliefs and that, correctly understood, they don't contradict the Bible in the slightest.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Well obviously there would be little point in believing someone taught something if you didn't believe He existed.

Tell that to book and movie nerds worldwide.

Maybe. I know there are LDS teachings which traditional Christians insist directly contradict what the Bible says. These people say this proves Mormons aren't Christians. As a Mormon, I say these folks just don't correctly understand our beliefs and that, correctly understood, they don't contradict the Bible in the slightest.

One of the main reasons for this discussion. I hear way too many people say "well at least we're both (insert label here)", or something to that effect. In most cases the two parties can't even agree on what it even means.

 

[Katzpur]

One of the main reasons for this discussion. I hear way too many people say "well at least we're both (insert label here)", or something to that effect. In most cases the two parties can't even agree on what it even means.

Well, you've got a point there. But since I've never heard an atheist claim to be a Christian or a Hindu claim to be a Christian or a Muslim claim to be a Christian, I will continue to acknowledge as a fellow-Christian, anyone who actually believes himself to be a Christian. Sorry if I'm not being exclusionary enough for you.