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

[Katzpur]

I am little wary of Christians who say that other Christians of different denominations either "Not true Christians" or "heretical Christians". We Christians need to stand together- we shouldn't be pointing our fingers and saying "that person is not a true Christian because "so and so". Now, I am not lecturing anyone, I am just stating my opinion.

This is why I refused at first to even get involved in this discussion. Whenever people start trying to establish a definition of the word "Christian," somebody ends up getting left out. I've even inadvertently excluded people based on definitions I've tried to come up with. I've learned that it's hurtful and really pretty pointless for Christians to try to decide who gets to be in their little club, so I won't play the game. It was only when my own beliefs were attacked as "heresy," that I jumped in to defend them. Now I'm thinking that even that was a mistake. I don't believe that Jesus is at all pleased by conversations of this sort.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is why I refused at first to even get involved in this discussion. Whenever people start trying to establish a definition of the word "Christian," somebody ends up getting left out.

AFAICT, nobody's left out of my definition ("a follower of Christ, as he or she understands Christ"), though some people's posts here and elsewhere have implied that it's too broad.

I've even inadvertently excluded people based on definitions I've tried to come up with. I've learned that it's hurtful and really pretty pointless for Christians to try to decide who gets to be in their little club, so I won't play the game. It was only when my own beliefs were attacked as "heresy," that I jumped in to defend them. Now I'm thinking that even that was a mistake. I don't believe that Jesus is at all pleased by conversations of this sort.

You're probably right. The question of who qualifies as a Christian (aside from the minor question of semantic correctness) seems to be mainly about judging others, IMO.

 

[Katzpur]

AFAICT, nobody's left out of my definition ("a follower of Christ, as he or she understands Christ"), though some people's posts here and elsewhere have implied that it's too broad.

I'd say that your definition is pretty accurate, but I know of a few Christians on another forum I participate on who say (despite the scripture references to the contrary) that Jesus never asked us to follow Him, that He never wanted to be an "example" of any kind, and that "true Christians" just believe in Him without feeling compelled to follow Him.

You're probably right. The question of who qualifies as a Christian (aside from the minor question of semantic correctness) seems to be mainly about judging others, IMO.

That's all it is. If a person believes himself to be a Christian, I consider him to be a Christian. It's as simple as that, in my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd say that your definition is pretty accurate, but I know of a few Christians on another forum I participate on who say (despite the scripture references to the contrary) that Jesus never asked us to follow Him, that He never wanted to be an "example" of any kind, and that "true Christians" just believe in Him without feeling compelled to follow Him.

Is that enough to be a Christian? As I've heard pointed out more than once, even Satan believes in Christ.

But I think there might be a bit of muddling of definitions going on here. I'm not making any theological claims about what saves a person, or what the Christian faith says saves a person, which seems to be the basis for the way they're phrasing things.

IMO, they're equating "saved" with "Christian". I think these are separate questions, and if we end up with a formulation that says some non-Christians will be saved, that's fine with me.

 

[ChristineES]

Is that enough to be a Christian? As I've heard pointed out more than once, even Satan believes in Christ.

But I think there might be a bit of muddling of definitions going on here. I'm not making any theological claims about what saves a person, or what the Christian faith says saves a person, which seems to be the basis for the way they're phrasing things.

IMO, they're equating "saved" with "Christian". I think these are separate questions, and if we end up with a formulation that says some non-Christians will be saved, that's fine with me.

That is the question. If a person calls himself or herself a Christian, they ought to follow or at least try to follow Jesus' commands which include but are not limited to "show mercy and you will shown mercy", "condemn others and you will be condemned", "judge not, or you will be judged the same way you judge others", "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Love God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind, and your strength (or might)", "feed the hungry and clothe the naked". I could go on and on but I don't want to write a novel . Instead of looking at others and saying "that person is not a true Christian", we should be look at ourselves to see if we are doing what we are supposed to. Don't worry about others worry about yourself.

 

[Katzpur]

Is that enough to be a Christian? As I've heard pointed out more than once, even Satan believes in Christ.

Note: I didn't say that if a person believes in Christ, he's a Christian. This is what your response implies I said. What I said was, "If a person believes himself to be a Christian, I consider him to be a Christian." A lot of non-Christians believe in Christ (as a real person) but do not consider themselves to be Christians.

IMO, they're equating "saved" with "Christian".

Yes, they are, and the two are not the same.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Note: I didn't say that if a person believes in Christ, he's a Christian. This is what your response implies I said.

I'm getting a bit confused now, but I was intending to respond to the point of view you said that the people on the other forum put forward, not your personal view that you gave before.

Does that make things more clear or more muddy?

 

[Katzpur]

I'm getting a bit confused now, but I was intending to respond to the point of view you said that the people on the other forum put forward, not your personal view that you gave before.

Does that make things more clear or more muddy?

You're confused? I'm absolutely lost. If what I have said on this forum doesn't make sense to you, it probably doesn't make sense to other people either. If that's the case, please quote me, tell me why you're confused and I'll try to explain my position better.

 

[ChristineES]

You're confused? I'm absolutely lost. If what I have said on this forum doesn't make sense to you, it probably doesn't make sense to other people either. If that's the case, please quote me, tell me why you're confused and I'll try to explain my position better.

I understand what you are saying. :beach:It is a tough topic.

 

[Katzpur]

Still waiting for a response to my Post #109, Islmaila.

 

[Falvlun]

This is why I refused at first to even get involved in this discussion. Whenever people start trying to establish a definition of the word "Christian," somebody ends up getting left out. I've even inadvertently excluded people based on definitions I've tried to come up with. I've learned that it's hurtful and really pretty pointless for Christians to try to decide who gets to be in their little club, so I won't play the game.

The point is, though, that as a distinct religion, Christianity is a "club". To be a part of that club, there are certain requirements. You can't both be a distinct religion AND be all inclusive. Some people are going to be left out based upon their off-the-wall interpretations. That's fine. They can create their own club. It shouldn't be hurtful to point out "Hey, your beliefs don't really fit into this broad concept of Christianity." It just might be the truth.

 

[Katzpur]

The point is, though, that as a distinct religion, Christianity is a "club". To be a part of that club, there are certain requirements. You can't both be a distinct religion AND be all inclusive. Some people are going to be left out based upon their off-the-wall interpretations. That's fine. They can create their own club. It shouldn't be hurtful to point out "Hey, your beliefs don't really fit into this broad concept of Christianity." It just might be the truth.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point is, though, that as a distinct religion, Christianity is a "club". To be a part of that club, there are certain requirements. You can't both be a distinct religion AND be all inclusive.

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.

 

[waitasec]

ah, interesting. 18 pages in and we can't define christianity and what makes a christian.
this pretty much implies that christianity is subjected to personal opinion. not very impressive in my book.

 

[Shermana]

The word "Christian" should only be used for its original Designation of Messianic Jews such as the Church of Antioch where it was first applied. Words like "Catholic" and "Greek Orthodox" and "Evangelical" are much better than "Christian" because they reflect the organizational doctrine rather than a claim to in/exclusiveness. Similar to how Muslims are divided into Sunni, Shia, Sufi, or Wahabist within Sunni, all "Christian" denominations should be either hyphenated or not use the word "Christian". Maybe Peter should be the rule of which "Chrisitan" is defined.

When you take the Pauline epistles out of the picture, the idea of what "Christian" means becomes very difficult to argue against. But with the Pauline Epistles, suddenly (at least the way most interpret them) you don't have to actually be like Jesus, you just "Gotta believe!" (Whatever it means in their terms to "believe") I'd go so far as to say that Paul's Epistles have ended up making people NOT Christian (though they may think they are). I personally don't think Luther was "Christian" whatsoever, or "Calvin", though they may have believed they were.

If anyone can be what they say they are, call me El Presidente!

 

[Katzpur]

Words like "Catholic" and "Greek Orthodox" and "Evangelical" are much better than "Christian" because they reflect the organizational doctrine rather than a claim to in/exclusiveness.

I agree, as long as they are all recognized as being a part of an even larger group -- Christianity.

Similar to how Muslims are divided into Sunni, Shia, Sufi, or Wahabist within Sunni, all "Christian" denominations should be either hyphenated or not use the word "Christian". Maybe Peter should be the rule of which "Chrisitan" is defined.

You mean like "Catholic-Christians," "Orthodox-Christians," "Baptist-Christians" and "LDS-Christians"? Sounds good to me.

I personally don't think Luther was "Christian" whatsoever, or "Calvin", though they may have believed they were.

I'm just curious as to why your don't believe they were Christians. Did they not worship Jesus Christ? I suspect you believe they worshipped Jesus Christ, but should be disqualified for some other reason.

If anyone can be what they say they are, call me El Presidente!

And you really think this analogy is reasonable? Tell me, who gets to decide who's a Christian and who's not?

 

[JacobEzra.]

The word "Christian" should only be used for its original Designation of Messianic Jews such as the Church of Antioch where it was first applied. Words like "Catholic" and "Greek Orthodox" and "Evangelical" are much better than "Christian" because they reflect the organizational doctrine rather than a claim to in/exclusiveness. Similar to how Muslims are divided into Sunni, Shia, Sufi, or Wahabist within Sunni, all "Christian" denominations should be either hyphenated or not use the word "Christian". Maybe Peter should be the rule of which "Chrisitan" is defined.

When you take the Pauline epistles out of the picture, the idea of what "Christian" means becomes very difficult to argue against. But with the Pauline Epistles, suddenly (at least the way most interpret them) you don't have to actually be like Jesus, you just "Gotta believe!" (Whatever it means in their terms to "believe") I'd go so far as to say that Paul's Epistles have ended up making people NOT Christian (though they may think they are). I personally don't think Luther was "Christian" whatsoever, or "Calvin", though they may have believed they were.

If anyone can be what they say they are, call me El Presidente!

Right. Even though St. Paul was an Apostle.

Messianic Jews have already been discredited in the 1 century when Judaizers were declared wrong.

 

[Shermana]

Judaizers were wrong for trying to enforce an unscriptural commandment, which is to C-cise yourself, which is only mandated for your child. The term "Judaizer" is highly misunderstood and a strawman has been made out of it that stuck through the ages. In their terms of what "judaizer" means, John was a Judaizer. 1 John 3:4-10 and 5:3 are pretty hard to misunderstand. Jesus was a Judaizer. James was a definite Judaizer.

There is debate around the authenticity of Acts 15. Why is the commandment to not eat blood retained? Are those the only 4 rules one must obey?

There's also the question of whether St. Paul was truly an "Apostle" and what he actually taught. Some epistles are widely held as spurious such as Ephesians. The early Ebionites didn't think so, and the Torah obedient Nazarenes who accepted him as one considered him to be like them.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Judaizers were wrong for trying to enforce an unscriptural commandment, which is to C-cise yourself, which is only mandated for your child. Other than that, John was a Judaizer. 1 John 3:4-10 and 5:3 are pretty hard to misunderstand.

There is debate around the authenticity of Acts 15. Why is the commandment to not eat blood retained? Are those the only 4 rules one must obey?

There are laws to be followed outlined through out the Gospel and Epistles.

Judaizers did more then advocate circumcision, but to follow the law.

1 John 3:4-10

[4] Whosoever committeth sin committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity. [5] And you know that he appeared to take away our sins, and in him there is no sin.


[6] Whosoever abideth in him, sinneth not; and whosoever sinneth, hath not seen him, nor known him. [7] Little children, let no man deceive you. He that doth justice is just, even as he is just. [8] He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil. [9] Whosoever is born of God, committeth not sin: for his seed abideth in him, and he can not sin, because he is born of God. [10] In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just, is not of God, nor he that loveth not his brother.

This I do not even see how you can even come close to interpretate it to mean follow the mosaic law

From ch. 5

[1] Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. [2] In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. [3] For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. [4] For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. [5] Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

I can understand how this may mean to follow mosaic law. But at the same time, it can mean the commandments from Gospel. It seems to vague, but in context of Acts.....

From Acts. 15

. [4] And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them. [5] But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.
[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [8] And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

You honestly think they were just talking of circumcision? St. Peter says in the second bold that the law is unbearable.

Again from 1 John Ch 5

[6] This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth. [7] And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. [8] And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one

 

[JacobEzra.]

Judaizers were wrong for trying to enforce an unscriptural commandment, which is to C-cise yourself, which is only mandated for your child.

And this is wrong. Abraham circumcised himself at, what age?99. Maimonides includes circumcision in the 613 commandments.

Genesis 17

[1] And after he began to be ninety and nine years old, the Lord appeared to him: and said unto him: I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be perfect. [2] And I will make my covenant between me and thee: and I will multiply thee exceedingly. [3] Abram fell flat on his face. [4] And God said to him: I AM, and my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. [5] Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.


[6] And I will make thee increase, exceedingly, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. [7] And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and between thy seed after thee in their generations, by a perpetual covenant: to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. [8] And I will give to thee, and to thy seed, the land of thy sojournment, all the land of Chanaan for a perpetual possession, and I will be their God. [9] Again God said to Abraham: And thou therefore shalt keep my covenant, and thy seed after thee in their generations. [10] This is my covenant which you shall observe, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised:

[11] And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. [12] An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock: [13] And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. [14] The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.

.

[23] And Abraham took Ismael his son, and all that were born in his house: and all whom he had bought, every male among the men of his house: and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskin forthwith the very same day, as God had commanded him. [24] Abraham was ninety and nine years old, when he circumcised the flesh of his foreskin. [25] And Ismael his son was full thirteen years old at the time of his circumcision.

[26] The selfsame day was Abraham circumcised and Ismael his son. [27] And all the men of his house, as well they that were born in his house, as the bought servants and strangers were circumcised with him.

The commandment is for anyone who is under that covenant.