What makes someone a Christian?

Great Debates
1

Inspired by this thread, I got curious as to what exactly makes someone a Christian.

People mention things like “theists here have a more nuanced view of the Bible” and “not all Christians here believe in an inerrant Bible”, but this “more nuanced view” was not explained and it was not clear to me what, specifically, makes someone a Christian if they don’t believe everything that’s in the Bible.

What does make someone a Christian? Possible answers:

(1) Simply declaring “I am a Christian”
(2) Believing that there is a God who created the world and that Jesus was the son of God (part of the holy trinity that constitutes God)
(3) Believing a subset of what is in the Bible.
(4) Believing that every thing in the Bible is true.

You guys can add other possibilities I haven’t covered.

My comments regarding these options:
Option (1) is beautiful in its simplicity, but unacceptable. I can always declare “I am the Queen of Spain”, but that doesn’t make it so.

Option (2) is a bit more detailed than (1), and I guess, technically, it should be sufficient, but in my opinion it is still not enough. If you believe in the above but also believe that killing is OK, I don’t think you should be considered a Christian.

Option (4) is beautiful in its simplicity, and somewhat consistent in its logic, but suffers from the problem that the Bible has many errors and contradictions which make it impossible that everything in the Bible is true.

Which leaves us with Option (3).
Option (3) has the following problem: Who decides what subset of the Bible you have to believe in to be a Christian?

Is this a personal decision? Does everyone have a different subset? Then, it would be hard to speak of a single religion.

Is this a function of the times we live in? That is, does this subset change as the years go by? Then, does that mean that “Christians” from the past cannot be considered Christians by our standards, since their subset was different from what we consider the subset that defines a Christian?

Someone might say: “People can consider themselves, say, Republican without having to agree with every position the Republican party has on every issue”. I think the difference here is that one is a religion and the other is a political party.

A political party just has a list of objectives, and if you agree with enough of them, you vote for that party to maximize the number of policies you want enacted.

A religion, on the other hand, supposedly says “We know how things are, and this is how they are” and so people should either accept that or not accept that.

If someone you know says “I know how things are, and this is how they are”, and you think, I think he’s right on most issues, except for these couple of issues where I think he is wrong, doesn’t that disprove the statement that he knows how things are?

Anyway, besides answering some of my specific points above, the basic question is: What, in your opinion, makes someone a Christian?

2

The lithmus test for a monarch is a bit more straight forward and narrowly defined than that of a given religious affiliation. Add to that the great and largely accepted variety and spectrum of religious practices and you can easily see how difficult it becomes to deny anyone’s self proclaimed religious identity.

3

I understand that Albert Schweitzer, generally considered an exemplar of “Christian” morality, concluded that the evidence for the historical Jesus was not incontrovertible. He felt that following the moral teachings of Jesus was the important thing. This would seem to me to be a minimum core to calling oneself a Christian.

4

IMHO, believing yourself to be a Christian.

5

But, if I believe I’m a Christian, and I also believe in Zeus and that it is OK to kill other people, am I really a Christian?

6

Please notice that your premises are set up, one working self-identification and three subscribing to intellectual assent. The world is substantially more open than that.

First, “I am a Christian” is not logically parallel to “I am the Queen of Spain.” The first says, “There are a set of people so designated, and I choose to be a part of that set.” There may be flaws incumbent in that choice, owing to how that designation is assigned and whether or not the “I” who so chooses fits the category. But it is not equivalent to the second statement, which says, “There is a title ascribed to a particular individual, and I am the person entitled to that title, because I am that particular individual.” That the Pope or Jerry Falwell self-identify as Christian is not a bar, in and of itself, to my so self-identifying. That “Queen of Spain” designates the wife of Juan Carlos, Rey de España, and I am not married to him, is an effective bar to that designation.

Second, intellectual assent to a proposition does not necessarily make an individual a member of the set which that proposition describes. My understanding that the term eunuch describes a man whose testicles have been removed does not make me a eunuch; my accepting the idea that Karl Marx was co-author of the Communist Manifesto does not make me a Communist.

Third, there is a tremendous problem with your third and fourth propositions, in that they somehow equate “the Bible” with “Christianity.” Since the Christian Bible was not compiled until after the Apostles had died, we can logically conclude from your propositions #3 and #4 the amazing premises that, since they did not subscribe to the inerrancy of all or a subset of a not-yet-existent Bible, they were not Christians.

Please note that the Creeds, while they may get into inordinate theological detail describing God the Father, Jesus Christ and the events of His life, and the Holy Spirit and the things He engenders, begin in the same way: “I believe in God… and in Jesus Christ … and in the Holy Spirit…” That terminology is deliberate, and not equivalent to “belief that…” To quote Jesus, “The devils also believe, and tremble.” Rather, it describes an investment of radical trust and commitment in the Deity in which faith is affirmed.

7

As I said: “You guys can add other possibilities I haven’t covered.”

I agree. It was a silly example. A more relevant example was my reply to Rucksinator: “if I believe I’m a Christian, and I also believe in Zeus and that it is OK to kill other people, am I really a Christian?”

I have no idea how this relates to what I said, or how I implied any such thing.

Good point, but as I said in the OP, the list only represented “*some *possibilities”, not “all possibilities”.

But, I think the point stands that there is a book that claims to contain the “Truth” about the world according to a religion called Christianity, so people have to take a stand as to how much, if any of that book they think is correct.

And it does cause problems when someone who claims to belong to Chrisitanity, only thinks a subset of that book is correct, because of the issues I mentioned with regards to option (3).

It’s not clear to me that “I believe in God” is not the same as “I believe that there is a God”.

For example, “Kids believe in Santa Clause” generally means “Kids believe that there is a Santa Clause”.

On a more serious note, one of the Creeds I am familiar with in Greek says
“Pistevo eis ena Theo, patera pantokratora” (I believe in one God, father and almighty) and the Greek phrase “Pistevo eis ena Theo” could be taken to simply mean that I believe that there is one God, and not that it describes an investment of radical trust and commitment to this Deity.

In any case, what is your answer to the question: What makes someone a Christian?

8

This is close to what I think being a Christian is.

But you have to add belief in God and belief in Jesus as God, because, if you just follow the moral teachings of Jesus but don’t believe in God, you’re just a nice guy, not a Christian.

Not that simply being a nice guy is a bad thing, but we’re trying to get to the definition of Christian here.

9

Well, as an observation, I know several good and honest Pagans and related non-Christian theists. I certainly believe that Freyr the poster is telling me the truth as he experienced it in his theophany of Freyr the Vana. I have little doubt that Sister Coyote’s mystical experiences have some reference to something she experienced.

Ergo, there is a sense in which I “believe in” Freyr and Coyote, in the intellectual assent sense of the term. That is, I accept the testimony of people I trust as to the veracity of their experiences involving deities not contemplated in the Christian system.

But I don’t believe in those gods. I put no trust in them; I am not committed to them. I have not formed a relationship with them; I have not given my word to follow their commandments, and live according to their precepts. I have done so with God the Holy Trinity.

It happens that I subscribe to the premises of the Nicene Creed, given a few nuances on what they actually mean to say. But creedality is not for me the mark of “being a Christian” – it’s that radical commitment of self to the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, that is the defining factor.

10

I was thinking along the analogy of a Marxist being someone who agrees with Marx. Your definition of a Christian is no better or worse than mine. The concept is vague enough to allow multiple definitions, I’m sure. If this thread goes on for long, we’ll see a lot of 'em.

11

But Christianity is a religion, not a political philosophy.

It’s hard for me to see how you can be an atheist and still be a Christian, even if your actions follow what Jesus said.

12

I understand that you believe that they had those experiences, but I’m not sure whether you think that the fact that they had those experience means that those dieties exist.

This seems to imply to me that you do accept that those gods exist, but that you are just not committed to them or have a relationship with them.

If this is true, are you really a Christian? Isn’t one of the core beliefs of Christianity that there is only ONE God? Can you violate one of the core beliefs and still be a Christian?

Out of curiosity, do you believe in the existence of other deities simply because you believe that the personal experiences of some people involving these deities actually happened? Because, it is possible that those people had those experiences without those deities necessarily existing.

How did you decide what “they actually mean to say”, as opposed to what the Creed actually says?
Also, can you share some examples of these nuances?

I guess similar to what “Hoodoo Ulove” mentioned, and similar to what I think also.

13

In my experience, to be accepted by the majority of people who are generally recognized as ‘christians’ (in the US at least), one must believe that : Jesus was the son of God, he died and rose from the dead, and that he is one part of the Trinity. In my area, it is also firmly held that one must also believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven, but I’ve lived other places in the nation where this last issue is not held as a necessary belief.

My past assertions that one who follows his teachings regarding loving ones neighbor as oneself, forgiving ones enemies, and turning the other cheek, etc. etc. entitles one to call oneself a christian have consistantly been rejected by the abovementioned majority.

I will defend the right of anyone to call themself a christian if they so choose. But those choosing to do so should recognize that defining themselves as such when the majority of christians would deny them the designation is bound to lead to some frustration.

It’s been a pleasant discovery to learn of a number of people who self-designate as christians here at the SDMB are much more accepting of other definitions of what makes a christian. But I’ve encountered few such in real life.

Very few christian denominations are non credo. Most do have a list of beliefs that they consider to be central to their view of christianity. I’ve been unable to find a comparative website of the various credos, but it certainly would be interesting to look at!

14

Actually, now that I think about it, weren’t a lot of important theological questions about Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit decided a few centuries after the death of the Apostles?

If so, how could they have been Christian, if being Chistian means accepting a certain set of core beliefs that were decided upon later? How do we know exactly what each of the Apostles thought about the important theological issues surrounding Jesus?

I guess we could call them proto-Christians.

15

christian: someone who believes that Jesus was God come to earth in human form, who died to take the punishment for our sins. Then the person tells Jesus he is sorry for his sins, accepts Him as savior and lives to show and tell others about spiritual life.
Being good has nothing to do with it. Nor does any denomination.

16

Perhaps this is a workable definition: A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and that He is the source of Salvation, and has therefore pledged themself to follow His way as best they can. This is somewhat like your second option, but with differences.

For one thing, being Christian merely refers to being a follower of Christ. It does not necessarily require an acceptance of the Holy Spirit; so it differs from your mention of the Trinity. Granted most Christians accept that there is a Holy Spirit, but it’s not technically required to be a Christian. You pretty much have to accept the Father, though, since Jesus is by definition “the Son of the Father”.

For another thing, being a Christian doesn’t require acceptance of the Scriptures either; as has already been pointed out. However, the various groups of Christians deciding to accept the Scriptures in total or in part, and which parts to accept, is one of the major factors leading to so many Christian denominations. Nevertheless, they all are Christians as long as they are committed to following Christ.

Also, as has already been mentioned, just believing that Jesus existed and that He was who He said He was is not enough. There also has to be an acceptance that He is the source of Salvation, and a commitment of one’s life to learning what He wants and to follow His teaching to the best of one’s ability. Those who accept the Scriptures would argue that this is one of the main ways of learning what Jesus wants His followers to do. Those who don’t accept Scriptures are dependent only upon the Holy Spirit. Those who don’t accept either Scriptures or the Holy Spirit are then very limited in their sources of instruction. But again, as long as they are committed to Jesus, however they might gain their understanding of Him, are considered Christians.

As to your mention of belief in other gods, with the definition given above one could believe in the existence of other gods as long as one was committed to following Christ. While the concept of God as “the one and only” is by far the most common belief, it is not absolutely required in order to be a Christian; only commitment to Christ is needed. (And it is this commitment to Christ which would preclude one from also being committed to Zeus, as you suggested. One could theoretically believe in the existence of Zeus without being committed to him, though. Trying to maintain a commitment to both Jesus and Zeus would comprise a new religion.)

At this point there may be disagreement among the various groups (denominations) of Christians about which set of beliefs is more accurate and most representative of what Christ really wants of His followers; and there may also be a sentiment that the other groups are uninformed or delusioned to some degree. But these are just denominational differences; they are all still part of the Christian religion. Despite their differences, however, most groups will at least grudgingly admit that anyone who is “sincerely committed to accepting and following Christ” is a Christian regardless of whether or not that individual’s beliefs fit with those of the mainstream denominations.

17

Well, I want to be a Christian.

I try to be one.

I actually don’t care much what anyone thinks about whether or not I am actually a Christian, by their definition, except one person. That, of course would be Jesus. His opinion matters. Even God has set aside judgement in His favor. Kinda presumptuous of me puttin’ in my two cents in that company, don’cha think?

I think He wants me to accept your word for what you believe, and to see you in your actions, if I wish to know what I can of your heart, and spirit. Of course my opinion on the state of your spirit is just another mortal opinion, and is generally of no importance. He has advised me to love you, whatever my opinion of you might be.

Love is the greatest of all things, and Jesus is the human embodiment of love. He is also much more than that, but finite perceptions of infinite character are pretty much finite reflections. What I tell you of Jesus says more about me than it does about Jesus.

If you do all that a Christian is called upon to do, and avoid self-righteousness, and false pride, then I think you might find that you are a bit too busy to get involved in refutations of anyone else’s qualification to call themselves a Christian. You might, from time to time feel compelled to speak out against evil, when you see it done in His name. But you might be wrong about that, so be careful.

Tris

“I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” ~ John Locke ~

18

Without the Scriptures, how do we know who Jesus was and what he said and what “his way” is?

Since there is no other historical document that describes who Jesus was and what he said, anyone who is a Christian has to get that information from the Bible, which means that they have to accept at least part of what the Bible says as true.

If they don’t accept the only existing description of him and what he said, how is it possible for people to be committed to Jesus? Who is “Jesus” anyway, once you discard the Bible?

I’m not a religious scholar, so I don’t have any quotes from Jesus himself as to whether there is only one God, but a quick web search resulted in this:

I’d be interested to see if Jesus himself said anything about this issue (anyone have any cites?), because I always assumed he meant “The one and only God” when he spoke of “the Father”.

19

Your definition is highly personnal. For instance equating hrist and God would mean that the arianist, who made up a large chunk of christianity until the 6th century or so, weren’t christians.

“accept him as a savior”, though generally technically true, is heavily loaded as demonstrated by a couple recent threads on this topic.

“tell others about spiritual life” , ie witnessing is also strongly emphatized in some enominations and not in others. Besides, if “being good” is irrelevant (ie works don’t matter), then it means that one’s behavior is irrelevant, and this should include “tellin others”. If I can kill you and still be a christian, then I can also abstain from witnessing and still be a christian.

20

Of course it doesn’t matter what other people think about anyone’s religious self-categorization.

But, if you think that the most important thing is what Jesus thinks, then he might not even care if you’re a Christian or not. We have no real way of knowing whom he’ll save. He might send some self-professed Christians to hell and save a Satan-worshipping axe murderer.

So, the main question in the OP is not “let’s find out who is a Christian to see who gets saved”, but a more philosophical one: “how much of the common perception of what a Christian is can we throw out and still call someone a Christian?”

For me at least, this thread has been enlightening because, for example, from above, some have mentioned that you can believe in the existence of other Gods and still be a Christian, which goes against everything I know about Christianity.

If I’m not mistaken, at least one person above implied that you can be an atheist and be a Christian, which again flies in the face of what belonging to any religion means.

Also, something I intended to discuss in this thread but I guess I didn’t word it correctly in the OP is: for those who accept a subset of the Bible as truth, how do they personally reconcile the issues arising from accepting only part of a book that claims to describe the “Truth”?

That is

  • who decides which subset is correct?
  • If one subset is wrong, then how do you know that any part is correct?
    If you are the sole arbiter of which parts are correct and which parts are false,
    then it means you, personally, know “the Truth”.