A cCristian in my idea is that it is aperson who follows the example of (and the words of Jesus like the fact that he used the Golden rule that was 500BC ,His last Commandment was “I leave you with one Commandment that you love one another.”
In John 10 Jesus tells the people who say he blasphemes says( acording to thePsalmist in 81 0f the RCV or 82 of the KJV;" Why do you say I blaspheme BECAUSE i CALL GOD MY FAther, WHEN YOUR FATHERS DID?"
So I guess your definition would include Thomas Jefferson as a Christian? He liked Jesus as a moral teacher and would strive to follow his example. He just didn’t believe that Jesus was divine, or born of a virgin, or resurrected after his death, or did miracles, and he called the disciples and Paul a band of dupes and impostors. I wouldn’t call Jefferson a Christian.
Oh and you’re saying that Jesus used the Golden Rule in 500 BC?
Jefferson was into Deism.
Hillel the Elder is the teacher who the Golden Rule comes from, but it has existed in some form since the Middle Kingdom of Egypt, long before 500 BC.
Which means, practically, that your definition of ‘Christian’, by which you really mean ‘relatively new style evangelical Protestantism originating mainly in the US South’ is a hijacking of the term. Although the great majority of Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, non EP Protestants) who get defined out don’t typically get upset nowadays. But it’s still true. Y’all invent a new take on Christianity mainly within the last several decades, and then define the last 2000 yrs as not Christian. It is ambitious, you must admit. 
But again no skin off my nose as a Catholic, and I take it as a symbol of y’all’s devotion which I respect (though I’m not against people without religious devotion; when/where I grew up some people were religious, mostly Catholic or Jewish though a few Protestants and Orthodox, pretty many others were non-religious, and the believer/non-believer thing wasn’t as big a deal as it seems to have become now at least on internet/in media).
Back to original question, on a census form etc useful information is potentially gathered by seeing who is affiliated in any way with a denomination calling itself Christian. Not as detailed information as interviewing people one on one, or observing them for months and then having a panel of wise people decide… But it tells you, albeit relatively little, whether somebody considers themselves affiliated with a religion or not and if so which one, a little more than not asking the question at least.
Then the idea that you have to be a saint to be a Christian, the straw man set up by many anti-Christians, is just silliness.
I hope you didn’t get the impression that that was the purpose of this thread.
OK - I am an Elder and Deacon in the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA to be more specific). Anyone can attend, membership means a class, a vote of the Elders, and standing up during a service and and answering some basic questions. That is to be an official member of our church only (these questions are close enough to the ones we use):
Who is your Lord and Savior? Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior.
Do you trust him? I do.
Do you intend to be his disciple, to obey his Word, and to show his love? I do.
Will you be a faithful member of this congregation, giving of yourself in every way, and will you seek the fellowship of the church wherever you may be? I will.
Again - that is just for membership in our church, but I thought it might shed a little more light on this particular topic.
As for who is a Christian - I will accept anyone who claims the title. I might not agree with their interpretation of scripture, and I might question some behaviours that do not appear to be Christian IMHO - but they could do the same to me. PCUSA lost many churches once we started ordaining gay and lesbian ministers and performing weddings for them. I am sure that our wayward sheep would have some choice comments about us.
I also know some Christians who do not count the Catholics, and others don’t count the Mormons.
Me? Call yourself a Christian - you are a Christian. I follow the Apostle’s Creed:
Note this line: he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I am not the judge of whether or not you are a Christian - that responsibility belongs to another power.
But jacobson threw out a definition of “Christian” that would seem to include Jefferson’s beliefs, and I was wondering whether he or anyone else would consider Jefferson to be a Christian.
Sure, but I don’t know what it has to do with anything we were discussing.
So? I already noted that the concept goes back all the way to the Christian scriptures in the first century. The KJV was simply one of several translations that carried it into English, (and was not the first to use it as several English variants preceded the KJV).
However, the use of the phrase to refer to persons of a particular religious bent did not enter the common usage until after the 1950s. Similarly, “accept Jesus as one’s personal savior” was pretty much coined at the beginning of the 1970s. There is nothing wrong with its use, but it is anachronistic to apply it to the expression of beliefs prior to that time.
Don’t forget the first part. The highest commandment was to love the Lord your God with your whole heart, soul and mind. And love your neighbor as yourself.
Catholic people believe we were saved by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Through Baptism, we are reborn in the spirit and original sin is washed away. But we still sin, and that is where Penance/Confession comes in, to be forgiven of the sins we have committed in this life.
A True Christian would never treat another as a non-Christian …
I was going to make the same point that Corry El made: Velocity’s definition of Christian is based on the Protestant principle of “Sola fide”, coupled with a very specific meaning of “born again”, the two common to certain evangelical denominations but not shared by all Christians.
If that is Velocity’s personal definition of a Christian, so be it, and it explains his post in the other thread. However, that pair of definitions, taken together, probably excludes Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox, so I personally don’t think it’s a good working definition of “Christian”.
Mom tells Junior “We are Baptist”
Junior runs around his whole life saying “I’m a Baptist” No matter Junior has not set foot in a church ever, and does not even know what the 1st 3 words from Genesis are and thinks Peter, Paul, and Mary are a folk band from the 60’s and only mentions God when he smashes his thumb with a hammer.
Junior is a Baptist in name only, someone told him that is what he is, so he just repeats it, has 0 real meaning for him, he could not even tell you what a Baptist was, just knows he is one.
Swap Baptist for Christian, same difference.
Other stuff is going to be very subjective based on individual opinion.
Regarding the “born again” aspect, the problem with this definition is that it eliminates any implication of being a moral person from Christianity. If all someone has to do is profess that they believe in the divinity of Jesus and that will get them to heaven, they are basically giving themselves a free pass to behave in whatever way they want and do whatever evil things they want to because they have the out of being a “true believer”. I think a Christian should believe that the teachings of Jesus represent a good moral code and try to follow those teachings. To say that the moral teachings don’t matter and all that is required is “belief” cheapens the term. I say this as a deist who was raised Catholic and sees a lot of hypocrisy from this type of Christian.
Jefferson explicitly said he wasn’t a Christian. He did not believe Jesus was the Christ but simply a great moral teacher, arguably the greatest moral teacher in his opinion.
I’m Catholic and I don’t get it either. Christ said “Your faith has saved you. Go and sin no more”. Be holy like my father is holy, and being holy and a child of the Father then means go and act a certain way – turn the other cheek, give to those who need it. And if you have done wrong, make peace with it. True, nothing we can do will save us; it’s all God’s grace and power that saves us, but that should make a difference in how we live.
I wonder what you think of us Christian Universalists? 
On the born again stuff, that would also exclude Lutherans, FWIW. Anyways, as to the question in the OP, I generally allow people to be considered Christian if they say they are, even if I personally believe that some of those people act in a un-Christian way. I think, sociologically speaking (if you want to parse percentages, etc), church attendance is probably a good way to determine those who trust in God vs. those who use it merely as an identifier.
That was what I thought, but didn’t know enough about Lutheranism to include them.
So, to update my earlier post, Velocity’s reliance on Sola fide and a particular meaning of “born again” to define Christianity likely excludes Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and Orthodox from his definition of “Christian”.
That would explain his post on the other thread, but strikes me as too narrow.
Though, Lutherans are generally fine with sole fide, as Martin Luther came up with that one ;). Though we tend to slightly more nuanced about it (sole fide for justification purposes)…
Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
Well, yeah. Depending on who is saying it, it may mean that God is refusing you (that’s not my take, but it’s how many people mean it) or that while He would take you in, you’re rejecting Him. Think of someone who’s shivering and gets offered a blanket but won’t take it: is the blanket upon their shoulders? I’ve known people who would and did reject a blanket if it was offered by the wrong person. My Grandfather From Hell was a believer against his own will: he was convinced that he’d go to Hell, and in fact there were things he’d do specifically aiming to piss off God. He rejected the Divine Grace, refused to let it cover him.