What makes someone a Christian?

Great Debates
21

I think most people here agree with this position.

Anecdotally, I recently attended a high holiday religious service with my family at their reform temple. I was amused, maybe a little relieved even, to hear the rabbi announce that even atheists (which I consider myself to be) are considered to be jewish (provided they were born to jewish parents, of couse). So you see, this kind of religious stratification is not restricted to Christianity alone.

I think you’ll agree that this is a classic begging of the question. A book that claims itself to be self evident of anything, cannot be used as incontravertible proof of it’s own claims. Independent and reliable sources must exist to support these claims.

I think most people are saying that it’s a personal process and decision.

You don’t. But here again… personal decision.

Correct. Only in as far as it’s your own pesonal Truth. What you do with that information is also entirely up to you.

22

I would agree, but add that for me to consider you a Christian, the walk needs to be walked, not just the talk, talked. I see many people, confident in their faith, do horrible, debasing things to others–sometimes even in the name of Christ! To me, these folks are NOT Christian, no matter how fervid their proclamations are. They are Pharisees, really. But that’s another thread.

But you didn’t ask for my personal defintion. I would go with QtM’s defintion. Here is my Random House College Dictionary’s definition (one of them):

“adhering to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.”

Would that more did that …

23

I think you need to distinguish between the historian’s definition and the theologian’s.

A historian MUST take a person’s self-designation as the definition, otherwise the historian would be making theological distinctions: “You’re not really a Christian because you don’t [believe/do something that Christians SHOULD do]” From the historical point of view, it doesn’t matter whether you are a 2nd century Gnostic or a 20th century Jehovah’s Witness, if you say you are a Christian you ARE one.

The theologian, of course, comes from a particular faith tradition, and can choose to define Christian any way they like. A Roman Catholic theologian, for example, would probably require a belief in the Trinity, while a JW thelogian wouldn’t. The definition could even be time-dependent. The RC theologian would certainly admit that there were Christians before 200 AD, even though the concept of the Trinity wasn’t worked out until the 4th century. From the New Advent article on Christianity :

The OP’s emphasis on Biblical definitions clearly derives from Protestant theology. According to the RC church, Christianity is founded on

  1. the Bible
  2. the creeds, and
  3. church traditions and teachings.
    In fact, if you look closely at Protestant doctrines of the faith, even the ones that claim to be based on “Bible only” depend heavily on particular tradtions of interpretation of the Bible. So they are basing their faith, not on “Bible only”, but on “Bible plus tradition”. They’re just less honest about it.
24

Quote Polerius: “Without the Scriptures, how do we know who Jesus was and what he said and what ‘his way’ is?” … “anyone who is a Christian has to get that information from the Bible” … “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?”

This would relate first to those of Jesus’ own time who had first-hand knowledge of Him, and to those who didn’t interact with Jesus but who later had first-hand interaction with the Apostles; all of these people not having access to Scriptures which had not yet been written. (Which was one of the questions.) This would also apply to those who learn of Jesus and His way through oral histories and ceremonial traditions, rather than through Scriptures. It would also apply to those who have no access to Scriptures but who gain insights of God through visions and interactions with angels. (For example, those of isolated jungle cultures.)
Quote Polerius: “I’m not a religious scholar, so I don’t have any quotes from Jesus himself as to whether there is only one God” … “I always assumed he meant ‘The one and only God’ when he spoke of ‘the Father’.”

Of course God the Trinity considers Himself the ‘one and only’, but I thought we were referring to what humans believe. And I was suggesting that one could consider Jesus to be the ‘True God’ while also harboring a belief in the existence of other gods, although not necessarily committed to following them. For example, an argument could be made that Satan considers himself to be a god – he has set himself up as an alternate spiritual power and seeks followers to worship him. The majority of Christians acknowledge the existence of Satan even while not wanting to serve him. Thus he could be considered another god, an anti-god so to speak, within the Christian paradigm.

As for scriptural reference to other gods, you only need to look as far as the Ten Commandments; i.e. #1 – “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” This would suggest the existence of other gods or beings which people might be tempted to worship in place of the True God. (As an aside, tradition generally uses a capital ‘G’ when referring to the ‘one and only’ God, and a lower-case ‘g’ when referring to beings that claim to be or are considered by some to be gods, but which are not the true God.)

Finally, I would suggest that there are, in fact, writings and references to Jesus and His life beyond what’s contained in the Bible. These would include secular histories, letters, and non-canonical spiritual books, all of which refer to Jesus and His teachings, but which weren’t included in the Scriptures.

I think the definition given is still workable.

25

How don’t know how large an area you are referring to, but I have always found at least a few open-minded souls in even the most rural, relgiously conservative areas.

My father was a farmer and grocer in the rural South. He was also a Sunday School teacher and elder in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Yet he was open to learning from the world’s great religions. I was taught not to be exclusive in my thinking about the value of other faiths.

Although that’s just anecdotal, membership in a denomination doesn’t always mean full and complete agreement with everything that church teaches.

Maybe you’ve met them and just don’t know it because they didn’t try to corner you, tell you how to run your life, or endoctrinate you.

These are just some thoughts. You know your situation and I don’t.

26

You just have to call yourself one, period. :cool:

27

Oh, I’ve met open-minded, accepting people in my area. Some of them are even my relatives. But they tend to keep quiet about it, because around here it is a minority opinion. People still can and do get condemned from the pulpit over their activities. It’s not nearly as bad as it used to be, and a lot of ‘outsiders’ have infiltrated the area, but since they’re not really active in the community, they’re not considered a part of it.

One newcomer posted some ads about having people over to her place to introduce people to her Ba’hai faith. Said faith was promptly and roundly condemned as “leading to hell and damnation” not only in the local churches, but in ads printed in the local advertising weekly! For week after week after week! Until she ceased her public efforts to share her experiences.

28

“I am a Buddhist”

There, does that make me a Buddhist? :cool:

29

Believing that Jesus was the son of God.

30

Sorry, should have said and is the son of God.

31

“What we are observing is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our type of question.” — Arthur Eddington

Eddington’s view on science is pretty much my view on this topic. It seems to me that a reasonable definition of Christian might be “Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus’s teachings”. (American Heritage). A disciple might be “One who embraces and assists in spreading the teachings of another”. (Ibid). Christian and disciple of Christ, therefore, are synonyms. Perhaps there is no better authority on who is thus identified than Christ Himself: “By this will all men know you are my disciples, that you love one another.” — (Jesus).

Having love for one’s fellow man, therefore, is what identifies one as Christian.

One of His teachings is that man is a dual creature, on the one hand physical and on the other spiritual. Man is born of water (physical birth) and of spirit (metaphysical birth). He says that God is entirely the latter: “God is spirit.” — (Jesus). Surely, whatever God is is what is significant, since God is eternal and perfect. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that what is significant in determining a man’s relation to God is his heart: “The vital center and source of one’s being… The most important or essential part” (Op Cit), and not his brain: “The portion of the vertebrate central nervous system that is enclosed within the cranium, continuous with the spinal cord, and composed of gray matter and white matter” (Op Cit).

Inasmuch as an intellectual conviction originates from the brain, an intellectual conviction is an insufficient determining factor as to whether someone is a follower of Christ. Or as Eddington might put it, asking what someone believes intellectually is asking the wrong type of question, and exposes a view, not of God Himself, but of God’s creation.

Thus, a man who denies even the existence of Christ with his words (from his brain) might well be more Christian (in his heart) than the man who proclaims a faith in Him. Jesus Himself deals with this matter specifically. He says that there will be those who, upon seeing Him, will call Him “Lord” and boast that they have done many wonders in His name. But He will tell them, “Get away from me, you evil-doers! I never knew you.” He tells a story about two men, both of whom are ordered by their master to tend the vineyard. One man says he will go do the work, but does not. The other says that he will not, but goes and does the work anyway. “Which of these men,” asks Jesus, “do you believe has done the will of his master?”

If you discern a flaw in my logic, please advise.

32

Incidentally, based on my own reasoning, I’m forced to say that I’m not a Christian, but wish I were.

33

Excellent point. I agree.

34

In general I agree that someone who denies the existense of Jesus can be “more Christian” in some sense than someone who claims to be a Christian.

But, strictly speaking, this person is just a nice guy, not a Christian.

For example, assume there was a guy 3000 years ago called Kanuck and he said that his Father was a Giant Green Lizzard in the sky, and he also told people how to live their lives (love one another, etc) based on what the Father wants.

So, if someone living today did not believe that Kanuck had a Father who was a Giant Green Lizzard in the sky, but nevertheless lived according to the teachings of Kanuck, could we call this guy a “Kanuckian”? Personally, I don’t think so.

Because, if someone says “I’m a Kanuckian”, you will ask “Oh, you believe in the Giant Green Lizzard in the sky?”.

There has to be a way to distinguish between people who buy the whole theory proposed by Kanuck, and people who just live by his teachings, because I think there is a difference.

(Maybe not a difference as to whether or not Kanuck will save them, but a difference in their personal philosophy)

For a more down-to-earth example, there is a type of school called a Waldorf School, and is based on the ideas of Rudolf Steiner. His ideas are pretty out there, but the resulting educational approach maybe something you agree with.

So, if someone agrees with the educational approach (e.g. discourage computer use by young children, etc), does that make them a follower of Stein, even if they don’t buy all the theories that Stein used to arrive at his educational approach?

Personally, I don’t think so.

35

I understand your point, and I think it is valid, but unsound. If Stein was the first to walk the trail, then by definition, all others who walk the same trail are following him. The reason I said your position is valid but unsound is that with Christ, there is this premise: “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.” He therefore precedes all others who walk the path of love.

You now have two separate logical arguments in favor of my position. Do you find a logical flaw?

36

Liberal, wouldn’t you think it a bit odd to assert that, say, a Tibetan Buddhist who had never heard of Jesus was a Christian? No matter how loving his heart?

37

I think this article does a pretty good job of explaining which issues are important and which are nitpicky.

It’s long, but well worth the time to read it.

38

I don’t know what Poly’s answer is, but from where I stand, the term is so vague and so loosely defined, as to be meaningless.

If you can call yourself a Christian without believing in the bible in its entirety, then so can anyone else. And still consider themselves Christian.

If you can put more importance on some parts of the bible than others, then everyone else is free to pick some, or none of the bible, as it suits them…and still qualify as a Christian. There are no rules for joining. You just have to say it and it is so.

39

I can understand why someone might say that. At the crux of it all is how Christian is defined. I defined it according to Christ’s own declaration about how to identify His followers, and drew all my premises from there.

I think that what happens is that some people try to pigeonhole Christ as something like the captain of a football team. Their own team. And then all the other people are on other teams. Bad teams. Teams without Christ. That’s also why I quoted Eddington, because those people are looking at the whole thing the wrong way. Christ is not the captain of any team; He is the game of football.

40

The part of your post that stands out to me the most is “I think”. Everyone interprets it differently, so all are acceptable. There is no single body that defines it, so absolutely ANYONE can call himself a Christian and be correct.