Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
IMO that is exactly what a heretic would say.
I may be a heretic, but I don't claim to be Christian.IMO that is exactly what a heretic would say.
So "Christian" equals "approved by God"?
I may be a heretic, but I don't claim to be Christian.
So "Christian" equals "approved by God"?
Referring to Jesus Christ, though... not Christians generally. Not every Christian is a Messiah.
I dispute this definition of "church".
So... if a person's beliefs don't have Christ's stamp of approval - by whatever criteria you use to decide whether it's been granted - then they're not followers of Christ?
Very little of what you just argued comes from the Bible.
Hmm.
Christian = Follower of Christ as in one who obeys what the Messiah does and says to obey.
On what grounds? The word Ekklessia is literally "called-outs". Are you saying my definition is non-biblical? Oh wait, you did...without details why.
That's sorta what 1 John 3:4-10 says isn't it. And Paul with the whole "Anyone who preaches a doctrine different than mine, let him be damned", that one's hard to gloss over.
Because it's not Biblical or historical, it's a recent title claimed by adherents well after it was first applied. It's like the word "Early Church". What does "Early Church" mean? What does "Church Father" mean? Origen would have been probably burned had he lived in the 4th century. Tertullian lived a century after Paul died. The issue here is who wants to call what, as opposed to a standard historical definition from which to base all future hyphenations from. If you think the Gnostic groups like Cainites and Sephites were "Christian", I will bet you dollars to yen 90% of Christiandom will fiercely disagree that they were "Christians". So, for the sake of objectivity, I am proposing that the word "Christian" should only be used unhyphenated when referring to its original 30-70 A.D. roots. All other uses should simply require a hyphenation to distinguish themselves from this initial Jewish sect. Fairly simple.
Which part exactly? Accusations generally go best with details. So you're saying Ekk-lessia does not equal "Out-calleds" or "elect", what then does it mean? The meaning of "Christ" was wrong? The "Many will be called, few will be chosen" part doesn't come from the Bible? Please elaborate what specifically I said was not biblical, and what the biblical definition is instead.
And that's where the issue stems from. You don't want to use the Bible and objective history to define the word, as I said should be the only case its used except for hyphenations, you believe anyone who thinks they are something should be entitled to say they are. That's fine, but I'm talking about historical, objective purposes.
I doubt you will find more than a few who would agree that those who deviate beyond the general orthodoxy would be Christians. Likewise, I may not find more than a few who would agree that Christian should only be used without hyphenation for the 30-70 A.D. believers, but I'll say that the matter of doctrine and belief is in fact very important, or anyone can believe anything they want about Christ as long as they say they believe in him, this includes Gnostic Christians which I will bet dollars to yen most Evangelicals will deny Christian title to.
Cheering for a football team and worshiping one who commanded obeying a set of commandments and rules is not the same. You are essentially making the same case that Katzpur made, that it's all about who you worship. I said I disagree, because of the verse "Worship me in Spirit and Truth". I don't believe any Christian can truly worship in "Spirit and Truth" unless G-d approves of their worship, as the scripture says. You say my view is not Biblical, but you leave out why for a reason, because it IS Biblical. Every part of it.
As I said in my previous example, Christ said that if you love him you will obey his commandments, and if you don't love him you won't, quite a major difference in the analogy with Football fans.
Only in a post-modern deconstructive view where absolutes and biblical definitions don't matter, you are welcome to such a view nonetheless, however much I disagree.
I do, and I respectfully disagree, especially on the grounds that my view IS Biblical, and your view isn't.
See... everything after "follower of Christ" is just your own interpretation.
We're talking about the definitions of words now, in the present. While etymology can be interesting, it doesn't trump the actual, modern usage when we're defining terms.
It's irrelevant.
I'm confused: If you don't like it, why did you give it?
It's your whole approach. You latch onto single words from the Bible and then go off on weird eisegesical tangents.
No, we're not talking about historical purposes; we're talking about current usage. History can inform our judgement, but it's not the whole story.
I find that hard to believe.
Enh. I've had Evangelicals tell me that Catholics aren't Christian.
I'm not saying they are.
That's right. Worship Christ and you're a Christian.
And if you want to use that to create your personal definition of some term like "Christian worshipping in Spirit and Truth", then go for it. But this is a subset of the people who can be validly termed "Christian", which probably includes many, many people whose beliefs you think God disapproves of.
Enh. If Christians actually went by what Jesus said in the Bible, they'd put a way bigger emphasis on ritual foot-washing than just about anything else. By the measure you suggest, I'd be hard-pressed to find any Christians at all.
Why? You can still condemn people as "bad Christians", "heretical Christians" or "hell-bound Christians"... but they're still Christians.
Well, like I said earlier, I don't think your view actually is Biblical. The Bible doesn't actually define "Christian", so any definition of the term is necessarily going to need a fair bit of extra-Biblical input.
This is the crux of our disagreement, I simply disagree that modern terminology can trump origins. For instance, the word "worship" is no longer used in its original sense of "Worth-ship", neither does it generally mean what it means in Hebrew and Greek which is "Bow down/kneel/physically display loyalty" but has taken on meanings like "praise" and "believe in" which are separate concepts. For the sake of finding an objective definition of "Christian" in modern terms, there must be some bindings other than claiming to "worship" Christ, as you can see, even Evangelicals call Catholics "not Christians", so finding an objective definition to suit everyone is not going to happen. I will keep the argument to this issue of its origins.
Oneness Pentacostals still teach that Jesus was G-d, their version of the Trinity is just different, it's ultimately the same no matter how they define it. Their doctrine is not nearly deviant enough from "orthodoxy" as say Gnostics. Evangelicals who say Catholics aren't Christians have an equal right to say their opinion (Which apparently seems to be doctrinally-based like mine), just like one would have a right to say Catholics are and others aren't, many say that JWs aren't Christian because they don't believe Jesus was G-d, they have a right to their opinion, but its only more proof that there will be little agreement to agree to disagree on most major issues. Thus, a hyphenation approach would sort this all out and prevent claims to exclusiveness and inclusiveness outside of its initial historical situation, which I think would be most fair.
Yes, however, it uses several terms to refer to those people who are referred to as Christians, as such as the "Church" and the "Elect". Likewise, we can look at who the word was being used by and for. Peter uses it, and it is used by those under Peter's wing. Peter was a Torah observant Jew, the Church of Antioch was a Jewish sect, even if one accepts Acts 15 as authentic (there is controversy against it) Peter's church was not the one making changes in doctrine, it was the same as James' jerusalem church. By the Bible's own standard, the people referred to as "Christians" (by outsiders as well as Peter) were those of the Antioch Church. Now if you dispute that the Antioch Church wasn't a Torah observant Jewish sect, that's another story.
I'd be interested in an exegetical treatment of the passage in question here before I'd comment.
Yes, the word "worship" has changed meaning over time. I think this supports my argument more than yours.
Why?
The fact that some people use a word incorrectly doesn't mean we can't agree on a definition.
So to you, the Trinity is not a part of "general orthodoxy"? What is, then?
It's probably no more "deviant" from mainstream orthodoxy than Mormonism, but you said before that they're not Christians, didn't you?
In practical terms, it's unworkable, because most Christian denominations I know of probably wouldn't want to identify themselves with a hyphenation. Each one tends to think that it's "God's True Church" and all the others are wrong, so nobody's going to want to take a back seat to what they view as heresy.
This is all irrelevant. While the Bible specifies a few people and groups who were Christians, it doesn't specify who isn't.
What I mean to say is that Oneness Pentacostals still hold on to the same core values as the Trinity, they just reject the terminology and expression of it, they still believe Jesus was G-d, I fail to see the actual difference in practice. I think the Oneness rejection of the Trinity is the rejection of their methodology to arriving at the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.
Not really. The word "worship" doesn't change when it's mentioned in the Bible, it's only changed to suit the definitions of people as they wanted to see it. This proves MY point.
It was spoken of for members of the Antioch Church. As I said, they were basically a Jewish sect. The Bible only refers to the disciples under Peter as "Christians". Thus, you can easily draw a line between the beliefs of what constituted those who were called "Christians". Your argument that it's not saying who "isn't" a Christian, in my opinion, is irrelevant, the Bible doesn't say who isn't a Jew either. The point being, going by a Biblical definition alone, we can say "Here is the root group, compare to later groups who call themselves such, do they compare to the original group", that is why I support hyphenation.
I don't see your rationale here as all that different from what I've heard from Mormons describing the "Godhead". What makes the one "Christian" and the other not?
Human culture has moved on from the Bible. It's a had an influence on our society, but it's not the only influence.
So the Bible is silent on more than one point. I don't see how this is a problem.
I didn't throw it out; I said that it's irrelevant to the question of who the label "Christian" applies to. It probably has a bearing on theological discussions, but this question of terminology is not a theological discussion.
If it was glaringly simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we? Clearly, we don't all agree that some 4th century Creed is the "be all and end all" of what it means to be a Christian. As I asked someone else, why do I have to believe some creed if I believe what it says about God in the Bible? If the creeds really don't add anything to what's in the scriptures, what's the big objection to my refusing to accept it?
What about parts of the creed?
Nope. I don't believe that Jesus was his own father.
virgin birth is quite frankly kind of a ridiculous myth that i can't take seriously, and i prefer to focus on jesus' life rather than his death.
So... if you don't believe that God is beside himself, you're not a real Christian?