Thudlow and amarinth – who have you heard say it? what groups were they in? Or was it general mainline Christian groups (which is who I heard say it about LDS)?
This thread has wandered a bit from what I was originally asking about, but it’s been very interesting anyway. (It’s also probably my fault for not checking back in a while. 
)
I notice that a number of folks have responded to the original question with their definition(s) of what “Christian” means. To those folks, if you’re confronted by someone self-identifying as a Christian, do you then assume that they fit your definition in some way? Or do you take amarinth’s approach and presume nothing other than that they believe themselves to be Christian?
I guess, in retrospect, this could have been more suited for IMHO, but given the subject matter, I figured it might end up here eventually anyway.
Tsk, tsk… pride again. 
I never make any assumptions about anyone’s belief based solely on a claim that they are Christian. It is simply a lumping label with a vague assertion that one is probably not Muslim, Buddhist, animist, or Jewish, (although I know several people who identify themselves both as Christian and as Jewish, Buddhist, or animist–whether other Jews, Buddhists, or animists would agree is a separate discussion, to be conducted by Jews, Buddhists, or animists).
Now, in certain contexts, with a little bit more information about a particular person and their cultural background and considering the way they expressed their declaration to be a Christian, I might make an educated guess that they were from one or another Christian tradition, but I would not presume that I was correct without a bit more information from them regarding their beliefs.
It is pretty much all lumping and splitting.
I can’t say that I think that often about “salvation.” But I was brought up to believe (and this sounds reasonable to me) that people don’t become perfect when they become Christian. It may be easier for some to be sweet tempered or generous than it is for others. But it is important to keep making the effort. Knowing that you will be forgiven and can start over when you mess up is important. We don’t use this for our own convenience. (Can’t fool God, you know.) We are “saved” not just by our faith, but by the Grace of God. We may do some good works to please him, but mostly it’s probably out of love and compassion for other human beings.
Those people who do good works to be saved – well, I can’t blame them, but I hope God softens their hearts.
kalhoun, I wasn’t exaggerating when I said that I don’t think of God as being “supernatural.” I’m not certain what I do consider supernatural anymore.
I don’t believe at all in Sylvia Brown, but I don’t dismiss people who seem to know things intuitively. Some seem to be better at it that others and sometimes it may run in families. (I was very careful in the way I worded those two sentences. )
I believe that dreams can be precognative. Perhaps that has to do with the essence of time and how we perceive it. Maybe there will be a scientific explanation for what seems now like an impossibility. It doesn’t have to be supernatural just because it seems absurd.
I read about Dr. Persinger’s experiments with stimulating part of the brain with a machine to create the feeling of a spiritual presence, and this raises more questions than it answers. As man evolves, is his ability to perceive the presence of God evolving also?
Weren’t the Apostles Jews ,and their followers were Jews who believed that Jesus was the:Christ" thus they were Christians? When Gentiles were converted they also were called Christians?
Monavis
>As posted, your response gave the appearance that Protestants, as a group, did not feel that they needed to perform good works, merely to believe.
>I.e. Protestants (at least some of them) would argue that faith isn’t faith if it doesn’t result in works.
This is an interesting point, and I think (though it’s certainly debatable) that the difference is that “sola fide” is a core principle but not important in practice except in pathological cases. I mean, it’s the faith part that’s going to get a good Protestant into Heaven, but of course that Protestant would also naturally be doing good works. Maybe it matters in the pathological case of some hypothetical person who is hopelessly disabled, who has the faith but really can’t do anything helpful.
I am also cheating a little, perhaps. The principle of “sola fide” is a tidy package, but it’s defined by the Catholic church as a principle of Protestantism. I actually don’t know what Protestants say about “sola fide”, or whatever they may call this principle.
Part of the problem is that there’s no such thing as “official Protestant teaching” the way there is “official Catholic teaching.”
Actually, Sola fide originated with Martin Luther and is a distingusihing characteristic adopted by Protestants in his tradition; it is not something that the RCC invented to categorize Protestants.
This discussion, for example, is published by TRINITY CHURCH A charter member of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches.
People from conservative and mainline (though more on the conservative side of mainline) Protestant groups.
Honestly, though, it really doesn’t come up very much. There are usually more important and/or more interesting things to discuss.
To BE a Christian, one need only be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Ghost) and sealed as Christ’s own forever. But the OP asks what one has to BELIEVE to be a Christian. And the answers to that are as numerous as there are believers.
Maybe my posts in this thread are invisible, but I’ll give it another shot anyway.
There are Christian denominations which do not follow that practice or belief for membership.
There are also approximately that same number of answers for practice.