I don’t believe this is true. It is about knowing God personally, not just as a person would read a autobiography, but knowing God as a person, the King, your Father, and your best friend. As such Adam, Moses, and King David (to name a few) certainly knew God personally, even so they all made human mistakes, letting some desires of the flesh come between them and God. They all tried to follow the leadings of God to the best of their ability and repenting (or at least knew) when they knew their human tendencies got the better of them. The difference is that Jesus didn’t give in to the human desires, He alone is able to walk the walk totally, this is what set him apart, Holy perfection that man is incapable of.
The bare minimum belief-wise (as opoosed to practices):
- Trinitarianism
- Bodily resurrection of Jesus
Nope. Not true. You’d be hard pressed to make a comprehensive case that the Apostles believed in Trinitarianism, let alone make a case that modern Christians should. (if the bible is to be the arbiter…)
Now if you are making the case that most Christians are Trinitarians, than I would agree.
Yup, most Christians are Trinitarians, but not all are.
My take on it is that Christian means a follower of Christ. But it’s not my job to tell everyone whether or not they’re doing it right. So if someone defines himself as a Christian, I’m not going to argue–it’s not my problem to judge that. (I think I’ve seen a few too many arguments with people who insist that Catholics aren’t Christian. Not to mention us awful Mormons. I’m tired of that nastiness now.)
But there are even atheists who accept His teachings(at least many of them).
Meet non-trinitarianism, binitarianism, unitarianism, oneness, modalism, and adoptionism.
Meet docetism, Sethianism, the Ebionites, and Islam (or whatever branch of Christianity it descended from, if you want to discount it). Some Liberal Christians also give no credence to the resurrection, as don’t those who consider Jesus to have simply been a philosopher.
Some even believe that, rather than a Trinity, there is an Infinity. (i.e., we all are one with Him)
Don’t forget Mandeanism, in which the Messiah was John the Baptist.
You’d be hard-pressed to find to find anyone who didn’t find some common ground with Christ. Or Buddha, or Confucius. Christians accept what each of them individually understands to be Christ’s teachings and reject what they personally think is ephemera. (Some Christians believe in a focus on personal salvation, others in one on social justice; some believe in a prosperity theology, others believe in Liberation Theology. Some sip communal wine, others handle rattlesnakes. One could say that there are varied interpretations of His message.)
Some atheists believe in part of the message? Okay. They also consciously reject the expressly religious parts. And they don’t self-identify as Christians. That’s the bulk of the distinction.
What basis is there for disagreeing with a particular person on the question of whether they are a Christian? In other words, how is any definition other than “one who identifies himself as a Christian” justified?
People other than the person in question can decide whether he is a member of a particular church, or is in their view a “good Christian”. If there actually are any gods, they can decide the person’s saved or unsaved status. But unless you are doing it to make a rhetorical point or to manufacture examples that fit your view of what Christianity should be, why disagree with somebody else about whether they are a Christian?
Besides, self-identification may be the single, unique example of a testable definition of being Christian.
I’d say a Christian , with few exceptions, believe Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins. Poly gave a good basic description. There are variations but I’d say if you like Jesus’ philosophies but don’t see him as divine then you’re not a Christian.
Even though I appreciate his teachings I don’t believe he died and was raised from the dead to atone for our sins {as well as several other traditional beliefs} so I don’t call myself a Christian.
There might be some who try to follow his teachings but don’t believe he died for our sins. If they decide to call themselves Christians I wouldn’t argue the point. Who cares what they call themselves.
I’ve noticed that someone having the basic beliefs that seem to qualify for the title vary. The title of Christian tells you very little about what kind of person you are dealing with. They might be nice people, they might be jackasses.
A christian has to be somebody who accepts the figure of Jesus as Ultimate Teacher, at the very minimum. All Christians agree on the Nicene Creed but that was formulated against Arians who believed Jesus the First Creation and not God or His Son. The three Oriental Orthodox and Nestorian churches (Coptic, Syriac, Armenian) do not accept the Council of Chalcedon that I think produced the Apostles’ Creed and the Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian etc) do not accept the Roman translation of the Creed from Greek to Latin adding to “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father” and from the Son. The Anglicans and Lutherans in the strictest terms are probably more schismatic Catholics than true Protestants. Protestant churches don’t accept all manner of things that the others do and do often deny freewill but they would agree on the Roman creed even if they interpret it slightly differently. Nobody knows what to make of the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, except that the JWs effectively go back to Arianism that JC was a created being - but I think they believe he is the Archangel Michael.
I don’t know whether he actually existed or is a parable but they might do a lot better to pay more attention to what they say he said, than to arguing about what he was!
I am a descriptivist, which means I look for how the word is used and define it from there, not define the word and then declare certain uses correct or incorrect. Being a Christian appears to be like one of those diseases where if you have three or more symptoms you’re diagnosed with the syndrome. But that’s okay–lots of things are like that (e.g., chairs).
The things people who describe themselves as Christian appear to have in common are as follows:
-Belief in the divinity of Jesus.
-Belief in the truth of the Old and New Testament of the Bible, to a greater or lesser degree.
-Adherence to the teachings of Jesus.
-Belief that Jesus is the greatest spiritual teacher there has ever been.
-Belief in a Trinity.
-Belief in the resurrection.
I’d also include some others from this thread, but y’all get the idea. As Jerseyman noted, though, it seems that every single self-appointed Christian agrees that Jesus is the ultimate spiritual teacher. Furthermore, I’ve never met anyone who holds that position who does not identify as a Christian. (Note that atheists for Jesus believe that Jesus said some pretty great things, a position I agree with, but they do not appear to treat him as the greatest teacher ever).
So if I had to choose one criterion for who is and who is not a Christian, I’d say that it’s a person who believes Jesus is the greatest spiritual teacher and who tries, with greater or lesser success and understanding, to follow those teachings.
I think that is a wonderfully sensible viewpoint.
I’m not addressing any one post in particular, but I’ve always found it interesting and refreshing that the Rev. Billy Graham has held the belief that “heaven” is not limited to those who are Christian.
It only has meaning in context. As a statement, “I am a Christian” really doesn’t tell you a thing about the speaker other than that they have the ability to speak.
But there’s no consensus of beliefs among people who might make that statement, there’s no agreement of behaviors. There are people who say that who do not believe in any deities at all, but think Christmas trees are pretty. There are some people who are Trinitarians. There are some who think Jesus is credited with some good ideas. There was an Episcopal priest in my area last year who described herself as a Christian and a Muslim.* There’s no universally understood objective test.
If I wanted to find out if someone has beliefs similar to mine, I would not ask “are you a Christian?” because the answer would be meaningless. I’d ask about their beliefs. However, it’s very, very, very rare that I want to do that.
*She ended up getting defrocked. But at first, her church seemed pretty cool with that.
So it’s sort of like someone saying that (s)he is a conservative?
Is that so hard to understand ? 
Or a true Scotsman.
Well, generally, Graham’s belief is not that uncommon among Christians, at least in modern times. (And even for those who DO say you have to be Christian to get to Heaven, it’s usually a certain “brand” of Christianity to do so). The Catholic church, for example, does not teach that you have to be a Catholic, or a Christian to be saved, or whatever.
-Guin, vague theist, lapsed Catholic.