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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay. Somehow I always throught it was the word for the smell of perfume. Seriously, if someone could actually tell me what "essence" or "substance" means as the words relate to God, I might be able to start to get my head around the Trinity. But in years of trying to get it, I've been hopelessly unsuccessful.

I dunno. Saying that three incorporeal beings (i.e. things that, by definition, have no substance at all) are "of the same substance" seems like a divide-by-zero error to me. I suppose that implies a sort of equality.

 

[Katzpur]

I dunno. Saying that three incorporeal beings (i.e. things that, by definition, have no substance at all) are "of the same substance" seems like a divide-by-zero error to me. I suppose that implies a sort of equality.

I don't know. Isn't air incorporeal? It's definitely a substance. But since you bring up the issue with corporeality, I suspect that the vast majority of Christians, who believe that the Father in incorporeal, would agree that Jesus Christ had a very definite physical presence while on earth. Now to me, that's where this "one essence" or "one substance" stuff gets really messy. How can a single-substance being (God) be both corporeal and incorporeal at the same time? On top of that, how can this single substance both fill the universe and yet occupy physical space at the same time? The Greek philosophers did a great job of explaining God. That's all I can say.

And now, after I've said that, I will say once again, that I don't see a belief or disbelief in the Trinity as being a very good way of defining who is or is not a Christian.

 

[Shermana]

I said same thing. But then the argument is its a proclamation of Faith only for the Catholics.

Nicene and Apostles creed do not go over well with the others

I suppose the Nicene creed is a good way of establishing the definition of Post 300 A.D. "Christians", in the sense of "orthodox-Christian" (Hyphenated) but that would offend those who want to include Gnostics into the group. Now for pre-300 A.D. Christians, obviously that wouldn't work, you'd have to throw out Origen for example. Also, there's the issue that the Nicene Council was sorta overturned by the Synod of Tyre, and the "Council of Constantinople" which later overturned the Synod had no greater authority to do so. What about the Nestorians and Thomasines of India? Were they not "Christian?" Were the Sabellians and Modalists who had slightly different Theologies than the Nicene idea of Trinity not Christian? Why shouldn't the Didache count just as much as the Apostle's creed?

 

[JacobEzra.]

Seriously, I think this is the only point with which I have any real strong issues. I don't really even understand what "one in essence" means. I hear the words "essence" and "substance" being used interchangeably, and yet the Bible doesn't use either word. To me, water is a substance; air is a substance; flesh is a substance; gold is a substance. I can't get my head around either of those words being used to describe God, and I definitely can't believe that the Father and the Son are the same substance. If they were, it would seem to me that they would be just one being. And yes, that's what you just got through saying they were -- one being. I believe they are two beings, equally divine and sharing the same title: God.

No. I am trying to say two different persons, but of one. But it is a very difficult belief to explain, and would only take the thread off topic. I can give you the simplest explanation. Which is, the way St. Patrick is said to have explaned it to the pagans.

Three parts, but one clover. lol I know, its very simple. But I do not want to get the thread off-topic.





But I think the majority of your question, could possibly be answer on this thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/120046-rf-ecumenical-council-all-catholic-members.html If you want to know how I understand it, and how the Catechism puts it, go to that thread and read. If you do, and have any questions and want to get a better understanding then just PM.

 

[waitasec]

it is a very difficult belief to explain

have you ever considered that maybe the reason for the difficulty is because it is a relative explanation rather than being an absolute one?

 

[idav]

And now, after I've said that, I will say once again, that I don't see a belief or disbelief in the Trinity as being a very good way of defining who is or is not a Christian.

Hopefully on final exams he will allow me to skip that question.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

So what does it mean to repent of one's sin?

Why does Jesus say its better to cast a millstone around your neck and drown yourself than "offend" (catch/harm) a child? The Catholics should be enforcing such drownings on their scandal-laden priests.

First of all, I apologize for my rudeness. Second of all, repenting of your sins means to change your mind about them. In the Greek the word for "repent" means to change your mind, and it is that change of mind that saves us, and brings us closer to God.

 

[Katzpur]

Hopefully on final exams he will allow me to skip that question.

You don't need to worry. That question isn't even going to be on the final.

 

[Shermana]

First of all, I apologize for my rudeness. Second of all, repenting of your sins means to change your mind about them. In the Greek the word for "repent" means to change your mind, and it is that change of mind that saves us, and brings us closer to God.

And if the definition of "Sin" is "Lawlessness", thus you must repent of all your lawlessness, therefore this whole "no need to obey the Law" is proven bunk.

 

[JacobEzra.]

have you ever considered that maybe the reason for the difficulty is because it is a relative explanation rather than being an absolute one?

No. But I have considered the belief to be one of the hardest to explain because it takes a lot more reading then any other belief, such as the Assumption, or even Confession.

 

[Falvlun]

Mormons have never claimed to be part of "traditional" Christianity. We don't even want that designation, but when people say we not "Christians" at all, what impression does that leave with the listener? 99.9% of the time, when people say that a certain denomination is not "Christian," the intent is to demean. The people who do this are generally defining "Christian" in such narrow terms that they are excluding tens of millions (or more) believers and worshippers of Jesus Christ, leaving essentially only the people who believe exactly as they do.

I don't think it's that simple.

Sure, Christianity can be considered a "club", but right now we're trying to deduce the rules of membership by who is and isn't a member. Any hypothetical set of rules that excludes existing members must be wrong on its face.

My point is that, at some point, someone is going to get excluded. A Christian is different than a Buddhist, an atheist, a Muslim, a I-don't-care-and-never-think-about-religion person. Just because any of these people might choose to call themselves a Christian does not mean that they actually are one. When attempting to define Christianity, the fear of hurting someone's feelings, or possibly excluding some fringe element, shouldn't paralyze the process.

Katzpur, I assume there are some distinct elements that make a person a Mormon. You would consider a Lutheran a Christian, but you wouldn't consider him to be a Mormon. Why are we comfortable doing that (because I do find that most people who may be squeamish about excluding people from Christianity seem to have no problems in seeing distinctions in denominations) but not in defining Christianity as a whole? What is the difference?

 

[Falvlun]

After considering some of the replies in this thread, I have modified my definition of Christianity:

My original definition consisted of what I find the core belief of Chrisitanity to be, namely: The belief that through the actions of Jesus, mankind is (can be) reconciled to God. (Or, to put it in less neutral, more traditional words: Jesus provided the atonement for the sins of the world.) I find this to be the central tenet of Christianity because a) it is completely unique to Christianity and b) it gets to the heart of why Jesus (the central figure of Christianity) is followed, revered, and worshipped.

But I realized this definition is incomplete without including some aspect of what "following Jesus" would entail.

What constitues a "follower of Jesus"? Jesus made many requests and demands of his followers, but when pressed, there were two he claimed as most important: 1) Love God with all your heart and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. So, to be a follower of Jesus, at the very least, one must attempt to follow those two commandments.

So, to combine the two: A Christian is someone who loves God with all his heart, loves his neighbor as himself, and believes that Jesus provided the means of reconciliation between God and man.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

After considering some of the replies in this thread, I have modified my definition of Christianity:
My original definition consisted of what I find the core belief of Chrisitanity to be, namely: The belief that through the actions of Jesus, mankind is (can be) reconciled to God. (Or, to put it in less neutral, more traditional words: Jesus provided the atonement for the sins of the world.) I find this to be the central tenet of Christianity because a) it is completely unique to Christianity and b) it gets to the heart of why Jesus (the central figure of Christianity) is followed, revered, and worshipped.
But I realized this definition is incomplete without including some aspect of what "following Jesus" would entail.
What constitues a "follower of Jesus"? Jesus made many requests and demands of his followers, but when pressed, there were two he claimed as most important: 1) Love God with all your heart and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. So, to be a follower of Jesus, at the very least, one must attempt to follow those two commandments.
So, to combine the two: A Christian is someone who loves God with all his heart, loves his neighbor as himself, and believes that Jesus provided the means of reconciliation between God and man.

...and don't forget Jesus new commandment at John [13vs34,35] to love others as he loved us.

 

[Katzpur]

Just because any of these people might choose to call themselves a Christian does not mean that they actually are one. When attempting to define Christianity, the fear of hurting someone's feelings, or possibly excluding some fringe element, shouldn't paralyze the process.

But who has the authority to define the word in the first place, if not self-professed Christians?

Katzpur, I assume there are some distinct elements that make a person a Mormon. You would consider a Lutheran a Christian, but you wouldn't consider him to be a Mormon. Why are we comfortable doing that (because I do find that most people who may be squeamish about excluding people from Christianity seem to have no problems in seeing distinctions in denominations) but not in defining Christianity as a whole? What is the difference?

To me, the difference lies primarily in intent. Most people who claim to be Christians sincerely believe themselves to be so. Obviously, I consider myself to be a Christian. I base that upon my own understanding of what the word means. Since there is no single definition that all Christians can agree upon, to me the only logical way of determining who's a Christian and who isn't is to simply take the professing Christian's word for it. I have never heard a Lutheran insist that he is a Catholic, or a Baptist insist that he's a Methodist, but I'm pretty sure they'd all insist that they were Christians.

The bottom line is that God knows who's a Christian and who isn't. With regards to Mormonism per se, I'll tell you what I believe the reasoning is behind some people's refusal to acknowledge us as Christians. The bottom line is that we're converting their members at a rate of 800 people worldwide per day and we're constructing a new church somewhere in the world to accomodate them every 16 hours. When people perceive a threat, they will do whatever it takes to convince potential converts to not even consider looking into the faith.

 

[ChristineES]

But who has the authority to define the word in the first place, if not self-professed Christians?

To me, the difference lies primarily in intent. Most people who claim to be Christians sincerely believe themselves to be so. Obviously, I consider myself to be a Christian. I base that upon my own understanding of what the word means. Since there is no single definition that all Christians can agree upon, to me the only logical way of determining who's a Christian and who isn't is to simply take the professing Christian's word for it. I have never heard a Lutheran insist that he is a Catholic, or a Baptist insist that he's a Methodist, but I'm pretty sure they'd all insist that they were Christians.

The bottom line is that God knows who's a Christian and who isn't. With regards to Mormonism per se, I'll tell you what I believe the reasoning is behind some people's refusal to acknowledge us as Christians. The bottom line is that we're converting their members at a rate of 800 people worldwide per day and we're constructing a new church somewhere in the world to accommodate them every 16 hours. When people perceive a threat, they will do whatever it takes to convince potential converts to not even consider looking into the faith.

Good post, Katzpur.

In addition to that, I would say that each person knows, inside their own hearts, if they are a true Christian or not. There are some exceptions, of course, to any rule. Only God can know a person's heart, but I would say that a person can usually know his or her own heart as well.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Good post, Katzpur.
In addition to that, I would say that each person knows, inside their own hearts, if they are a true Christian or not. There are some exceptions, of course, to any rule. Only God can know a person's heart, but I would say that a person can usually know his or her own heart as well.

Didn't the Pharisees think they had sincere hearts?

If the heart could truly be trusted inside then why did Jeremiah [17v9;10v23] write that the human heart is deceitful above all else and is desperate and who can know it ?

The heart is treacherous [a traitor] because if a person makes decisions thinking by his imperfect heart, then after making a decision, the heart gives all the reasons why the person should not have done what he did.

 

[Katzpur]

Didn't the Pharisees think they had sincere hearts?

If the heart could truly be trusted inside then why did Jeremiah [17v9;10v23] write that the human heart is deceitful above all else and is desperate and who can know it ?

The heart is treacherous [a traitor] because if a person makes decisions thinking by his imperfect heart, then after making a decision, the heart gives all the reasons why the person should not have done what he did.

Somehow, I don't think that's what Christine had in mind.

 

[ChristineES]

Didn't the Pharisees think they had sincere hearts?

If the heart could truly be trusted inside then why did Jeremiah [17v9;10v23] write that the human heart is deceitful above all else and is desperate and who can know it ?

The heart is treacherous [a traitor] because if a person makes decisions thinking by his imperfect heart, then after making a decision, the heart gives all the reasons why the person should not have done what he did.

The Pharisees did have sincere hearts. It is just that they worried more about following the Law than following God. Christians do that, too. They worry more about following the rituals than they do about worshiping God. It think we have all been guilty of that at one time or another.

On top of that, we all have imperfect hearts, if we go by our teachings. And that is why we need to be forgiven.

 

[Charity]

The whole conclusion of this matter is What someone else thinks is a Christian and what the person who believes themselves to be a Christian is not open to anyones opinion except it is between the "Christian" and God.

If I say I'm a Christian, end of story I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone it is a personal relationship and If God is happy, and I'm happy then everything is great.

 

[Falvlun]

But who has the authority to define the word in the first place, if not self-professed Christians?

I believe that words have meaning-- you don't just get to make up definitions in order to be all-inclusive. The core beliefs of Christianity have been largely defined by the past 2000 years of existence. These beliefs are what is important in determing the definition, not merely the fact that Jane Doe decides to call herself a Christian.

I think my definition of Christianity is about as general and inclusive as you can get, while still making a meaningful distinction.

To me, the difference lies primarily in intent. Most people who claim to be Christians sincerely believe themselves to be so. Obviously, I consider myself to be a Christian. I base that upon my own understanding of what the word means. Since there is no single definition that all Christians can agree upon, to me the only logical way of determining who's a Christian and who isn't is to simply take the professing Christian's word for it. I have never heard a Lutheran insist that he is a Catholic, or a Baptist insist that he's a Methodist, but I'm pretty sure they'd all insist that they were Christians.

What of atheist Christians? Or the example I gave back on page 1?

Besides, you don't really define Chrisitianity by saying it's simply the "religion for all the people who call themselves Christians." That just begs the question: What is a Christian?

The bottom line is that God knows who's a Christian and who isn't. With regards to Mormonism per se, I'll tell you what I believe the reasoning is behind some people's refusal to acknowledge us as Christians. The bottom line is that we're converting their members at a rate of 800 people worldwide per day and we're constructing a new church somewhere in the world to accomodate them every 16 hours. When people perceive a threat, they will do whatever it takes to convince potential converts to not even consider looking into the faith.

To be clear, it's more of the intellectual concept of what constitutes Christianity that interests me, not the ability to go around saying "You're not a real Christian, so ha!".