What Must a Christian Believe?

Great Debates
21

I should add that a specific belief about the Bible is not required, IMHO.

22

The word “Deist” has a specific meaning, as Dangerosa has already explained, but believing in evolution doesn’t make you non-Christian. I think most mainstream denominations accept the theory; I know that the Catholic Church does, for instance.

23

Given that the largest single Christian denomination worldwide recognizes evolution as the scientific explanation for the development of life on Earth, and a whole heap of others really have no problem with it, I chance to say you are in the clear.

As was mentioned by Dangerosa, “Deist” refers to those who believe there is a God, or a Divine Principle, but everything else in the universe and in history is fully naturalistic. If you believe in “salvation from sin” in the usually-understood sense, you’re not a Deist

24

Just to clarify, the Catholic church accepts evolution as valid: but it doesn’t “believe,” or endorse evolution. It accepts it in the sense that it allows for it and has no problem with it (as long you still believe in several key doctrines, like ensoulment), not that it is the explict position of the church.

25

Is Shelby Spong a Christian? He can recite the creeds, but only metaphorically in some aspects. Are all the Christians prior to the writings of the creed Christians? Keep in mind that the creeds were written by a dominant group, not simply for fun, but in part for the express purpose of a rejecting the ideas of other people calling themselves Christians.

26

I’ll have a go at it.

A Christian believes, at absolute minimum:

  1. That there was an actual historical person, the basic biographical details of whom are reasonably consistent with the “Jesus of Nazareth” figure we read about in the Gospels and in other writings of that era.

  2. That this Jesus had a divine nature: ie, that he expressed the Deity in a sense well beyond that in which ordinary people are “in touch” with God, or are “in the image of God.”

  3. That this Jesus was privy to truths about the “will” of God and the fate of mankind, which he disclosed through his ministry upon the earth.

  4. That he was the most excellent of all humankind, and the perfect exemplar of how humans should act.

  5. That he was put to death by the ruling authority, but was seen to live again after his execution.

  6. That one can have a person-to-person relationship even now with this individual; and that by seeking and maintaining this relationship, inherently one of mutual love, one is assurred of a desirable state in the afterlife.

As a codicil to #6, a person who professed to believe that proposition but who chose not to try to seek and maintain the said relationship, would be a “theoretical” but not “actual” Christian, by my lights. Perhaps there is an assumed, never stated axiom that actual religious belief (not mere profession thereof) leads to religiously-informed behavior.

I do not affirm that a true Christian must believe that our modern received Bible is authoritative in any particular part; nor in any particular doctrine of the Trinity; nor in “judgment and damnation” as now generally conceived; nor in the authority of any established church or sect; nor in any particular doctrine regarding the nature of God.

All of the above is to be taken as descriptive of how a word is used in its absolute widest sense; it does not necessarily provide the world-picture that I think true.

27

I think this sums it up:

He is the One who sees our hearts and knows us.

Dinsdale brought forth a good point concerning denominations/sects stressing “their differences from each other, instead of emphasizing and glorying in their commanalities”. I have wondered about that myself and know it is wrong, yet my wandering mind can be guilty of it sometimes. Tris is ever so right in point out “I don’t think that means something is wrong with them, that He will “fix” in the end, or at least not more than He will have to fix me, for instance.” That self-correcting thought follows me whenever I error and judge.

Thank you, Tris for yet another gift of wisdom.

28

I think this sums it up:

He is the One who sees our hearts and knows us.

Dinsdale brought forth a good point concerning denominations/sects stressing “their differences from each other, instead of emphasizing and glorying in their commanalities”. I have wondered about that myself and know it is wrong, yet my wandering mind can be guilty of it sometimes. Tris is ever so right in point out “I don’t think that means something is wrong with them, that He will “fix” in the end, or at least not more than He will have to fix me, for instance.” That self-correcting thought follows me whenever I error and judge.

Thank you, Tris for yet another gift of wisdom.

29

—1) That there was an actual historical person, the basic biographical details of whom are reasonably consistent with the “Jesus of Nazareth” figure we read about in the Gospels and in other writings of that era.—

This rules out countless Christians who are agnostic on this question.

—4) That he was the most excellent of all humankind, and the perfect exemplar of how humans should act.—

This rules out humanistic interpretations of Jesus that many Christians had before absolutism became trendy.

—5) That he was put to death by the ruling authority, but was seen to live again after his execution.—

Again: is Spong then not a Christian? Are those Christians who believe without really caring whether the events were historically true?

—6) That one can have a person-to-person relationship even now with this individual; and that by seeking and maintaining this relationship, inherently one of mutual love, one is assurred of a desirable state in the afterlife.—

So, no Catholics, eh?

30

Here’s one Wiccan’s answer to the question:

A Christian is one who sincerely attempts to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

I emphasize the two words in the previous sentence to make a point.

By sincerely, I mean they’re making a conscious effort to follow those teachings and are doing so in good faith. Somone, say in the South Pacific has never heard of Christianity, who was inadvertently following Christian teaching, wouldn’t be a Christian.

By teachings I mean the body of lore that is commonly accepted as his teaching, the present-day Bible. How one chooses to interpret that lore is another matter entirely. But everyone does agree that the Bible is his teachings and lore.

31

—But everyone does agree that the Bible is his teachings and lore.—

Does this mean there were no Christians prior to 70AD (at the earliest) or even prior to when the Bible was put together? What about all the Christians who held to teachings and stories other than those that got incorporated into the Gospels? What about the gnostics?

32

Apos:

-Does this mean there were no Christians prior to 70AD (at the earliest) or even prior to when the Bible was put together?

C’mon now, surely it doesn’t need to be explained to you Apos. His teachings were taught before it was necessary to record and then later compiled into a book. Taking a potshot at Freyr?

-What about all the Christians who held to teachings and stories other than those that got incorporated into the Gospels?-

[shrug] I’d love to hear all of what He taught, not just what a Council deemed appropriate to include in the Bible.

-* What about the gnostics?*-

I’ve only had a little exposure to what they believe to be true. In such cases, I remind myself that it is not for me to judge; that my responsibility is to center my focus on following Him.

33

One thing I decided a long time ago, was that God and Jesus didn’t ask me to decide who was getting into heaven. I’ll let him sort it all out.

However, I do believe that:

  1. One must believe in God.
  2. One must believe in Jesus Christ, son of God.
  3. That he died for your sins.
  4. That you’ll do your darndest to live according to his commandments.

Everything else is gravy, really. I’m not one for politics. Politics doesn’t seem to bring people to the word of God, but as many here can attest, nothing can run someone off faster than insisting they believe anothers paticular version of the Word of God.

34

**Apos wrote:

Does this mean there were no Christians prior to 70AD (at the earliest) or even prior to when the Bible was put together?**

I was referring to Christians in the modern sense of the word. So, even tho the Bible (in its modern sense) didn’t exist then, Jesus’s teaching did (probably in oral form). So yes, they’re Christians, tho I’m not sure what word they’d used to identify themselves.

What about all the Christians who held to teachings and stories other than those that got incorporated into the Gospels? What about the gnostics?

My definition was meant to show what are the minimum requirements for being a Christian and is very inclusive. If these groups you’re talking about accept at a mimimum what is generally accepted as Jesus’s teachings, then yes, they’re Christian.

35

Of course this problem has been around for several thousand years. The first person I’m aware of who seriously asked that question was the Emporer Constantine who went to great lengths to gather the Christion leaders of his realm to come to some sort of consensus on the matter. His concern it seemed was to ensure civil order. the result was the Nicene Creed (325 CE) as follows.

It seems to me the moment the government got involved in church matters the need to institutionalize the matter of identifying the minimal core specifics of Christian faith was born. Of course once that takes place, minority views are excluded, even cursed as evil, and subject to reprisal.

But my personal view with respect to the question itself somewhat mirrors Scott Dickerson’s first five points. I like to identify my brothers and sisters in Christ as those who recognize/honour Christ as the divine Son of God, who ransomed Himself for all of us. As such I see the role of the Christian to spread love and joy and proclaim the good news about our loving Father and the role the Son has played to redeem us from the pain and suffering of this world, preparing us to enter into his glory.

I do not see a “Christian” as having instantaneously secured salvation for himself or even having a leg up on an atheist. Salvation was secured for all of us at Calvary. Rather we are all on a continuum of character improvement that continues beyond the grave with the circumstances of our lives and beyond (by divine intervention)moulding us for a role in the coming Kingdom. I see myself as one of these “slow” Christians. Countless times I have allowed my vanity and greed to get the better of me, putting me through “needless” consequences . As a result, I have not been given a calling, other than to proclaim my feeble message of universal salvation which is politely read at least, I hope.

Those who in this life reject Christ as the Son of God will change their mind and worship him at some point when they get to the other side. (They will believe in him and will not perish) And believe it or not I arrive at these views based on fundamental readings of scripture.

36

that s/he is a CHRISTIAN.
i’m sorry but there are a lot of dumb people calling themselves christians and there ain’t nuthin’ anybody can do about it.

Dal Timgar

37

forgot:

some man announced to some other people that i was a christian once. i thought about punching him out for insulting me.

Dal Timgar

38

Apos, in response to your responses:

  1. “That there was an actual historical person…” etc.
    “This rules out countless Christians who are agnostic on this question.” You’re telling me that there are large numbers of people who cannot affirm even the likelihood that some actual person, whose life history is vaguely similar to that depicted in the traditional writings, really existed, nevertheless choose to denote themselves by the word “Christian”–correct? There are two reasons why I might agree with you. First, for a brief time I defined myself as a Christian in just that very sense. I was unpersuaded about the historicity of many details regarding Jesus of Nazareth: and indeed thought it at least possible that no such person had ever existed. I followed Jesus in the way others might “follow” Starfleet Regulations. But upon rethinking my personal philosophy I concluded that I was being dishonest, perhaps even a bit cowardly, in appropriating to an ideosyncratic use a word that had a core of definite semantic content, though (as usual!) one with fluid edges. Persons interested in, or inspired by, what is to them the “legend” of Jesus, but who have no tendency to think there really was a person behind the name, do not seem to me to be fishing in waters even close to the consensus meaning of “Christian.” A person can be a Platonist without believing anything in particular about “Plato.” In Philosophy, it’s the persuasiveness of the teaching that counts. In (Western-style) religion, by contrast, the credibility of the teaching rests upon the authoritativeness of the teacher.
    The second basis of possible agreement is, simply, my belief that most people who categorize themselves as “Christian” have no real interest in the matter of the historicity of the Jesus story. They don’t think about it; and it might be that someone who doesn’t think about a subject is, in a way, an “agnostic” about it. Yet–if one stops such a person and inquires as to his belief, it seems he will verbally affirm something that has never crossed his mind even once…And perhaps a “willingness to affirm when challenged” reflects something, if not a full-fledged belief.

  2. “That he was the most excellent of all humankind, and the perfect exemplar of how humans should act.” — "This rules out humanistic interpretations of Jesus that many Christians had before absolutism became trendy. " Do you mean “humanistic” in the sense in which it is linked to agnosticism/atheism? Then your comment is correct: I think agnostics/atheists who call themselves “Christian” are misusing a word–not to impute to them any bad motive, of course. However, I don’t actually mention anything theistic or supernatural in my point, so perhaps you are disagreeing with my superlatives “most” and “perfect.” And even the gospells speak of Jesus as sometimes impatient, despairing, angry, uninformed (eg, “Who touched me?”), and so on. What I was trying to say, failing miserably, was that Christians must believe that the actual life of their worship-figure mirrored goodness and truth over all, to a degree representing a quantum leap above the usual run of humankind. (It is clearer to express this in reverse. A Christian can NOT believe that Jesus was just a wise teacher and one heck of a great guy.)

  3. “That he was put to death by the ruling authority, but was seen to live again after his execution.” — “Again: is Spong then not a Christian? Are those Christians who believe without really caring whether the events were historically true?” Not familiar with the views of Spong. I’ve addressed some of the substance of your second question above. The central issue: Is one accurate and informative, or the reverse, if one calls oneself a Christian while being unwilling to affirm that some person, identified with Jesus of Nazareth, really did die, and later on really was observed (not hallucinated, not merely believed) to be living on. Note that this requirement demands a stronger affirmation than the earlier one. Even if you’re not sure of the veraciousness of many of the given details of Jesus’ life–or even whether his name was Jesus–to call oneself a Christian seems to me to imply that one commits to the proposition that a Jesus-like person returned from death.

  4. “That one can have a person-to-person relationship even now with this individual; and that by seeking and maintaining this relationship, inherently one of mutual love, one is assurred of a desirable state in the afterlife.” — “So, no Catholics, eh?” Definitely NOT the intended implication. I don’t see the statement as excluding Catholics. Do you mean: because I fail to mention the sacraments as necessary qualifications for admission to Heaven? It is my understanding (please correct me–I’m not a Catholic) that the sacraments, offered expressions of Christ’s love, are only genuinely given to those willing to receive them, which implies at minimum a properly worshipful love of Christ, eternal head of the Church. If your objection is to “person-to-person,” sans the mediation of the Church and its priesthood: Does the Catholic Church teach that an impenitent and unwilling parishoner may yet attain Heaven entirely by action of the Priest? If so, pardon my ignorance. If no, I would regard that prerequisite (being penitent and willing) as the Church’s way of recognizing the necessity that an individual establish a person-to-person relationship with Christ. My informal reading of the Catholic Catechism, the section on the sacrament of baptism, suggests that the doctrine is that those who have been given knowledge of Christ and are capable of receiving it (as opposed to little children, say) must, prior to receipt of baptism, go through a process of establishing a relationship with Christ productive of a desire for it. But I’ll avoid getting in hot water by presuming to tell Catholics what their doctrines really mean!

39

Apos, in response to your responses:

  1. “That there was an actual historical person…” etc.
    “This rules out countless Christians who are agnostic on this question.” You’re telling me that there are large numbers of people who cannot affirm even the likelihood that some actual person, whose life history is vaguely similar to that depicted in the traditional writings, really existed, nevertheless choose to denote themselves by the word “Christian”–correct? There are two reasons why I might agree with you. First, for a brief time I defined myself as a Christian in just that very sense. I was unpersuaded about the historicity of many details regarding Jesus of Nazareth: and indeed thought it at least possible that no such person had ever existed. I followed Jesus in the way others might “follow” Starfleet Regulations. But upon rethinking my personal philosophy I concluded that I was being dishonest, perhaps even a bit cowardly, in appropriating to an ideosyncratic use a word that had a core of definite semantic content, though (as usual!) one with fluid edges. Persons interested in, or inspired by, what is to them the “legend” of Jesus, but who have no tendency to think there really was a person behind the name, do not seem to me to be fishing in waters even close to the consensus meaning of “Christian.” A person can be a Platonist without believing anything in particular about “Plato.” In Philosophy, it’s the persuasiveness of the teaching that counts. In (Western-style) religion, by contrast, the credibility of the teaching rests upon the authoritativeness of the teacher.
    The second basis of possible agreement is, simply, my belief that most people who categorize themselves as “Christian” have no real interest in the matter of the historicity of the Jesus story. They don’t think about it; and it might be that someone who doesn’t think about a subject is, in a way, an “agnostic” about it. Yet–if one stops such a person and inquires as to his belief, it seems he will verbally affirm something that has never crossed his mind even once…And perhaps a “willingness to affirm when challenged” reflects something, if not a full-fledged belief.

  2. “That he was the most excellent of all humankind, and the perfect exemplar of how humans should act.” — "This rules out humanistic interpretations of Jesus that many Christians had before absolutism became trendy. " Do you mean “humanistic” in the sense in which it is linked to agnosticism/atheism? Then your comment is correct: I think agnostics/atheists who call themselves “Christian” are misusing a word–not to impute to them any bad motive, of course. However, I don’t actually mention anything theistic or supernatural in my point, so perhaps you are disagreeing with my superlatives “most” and “perfect.” And even the gospells speak of Jesus as sometimes impatient, despairing, angry, uninformed (eg, “Who touched me?”), and so on. What I was trying to say, failing miserably, was that Christians must believe that the actual life of their worship-figure mirrored goodness and truth over all, to a degree representing a quantum leap above the usual run of humankind. (It is clearer to express this in reverse. A Christian can NOT believe that Jesus was just a wise teacher and one heck of a great guy.)

  3. “That he was put to death by the ruling authority, but was seen to live again after his execution.” — “Again: is Spong then not a Christian? Are those Christians who believe without really caring whether the events were historically true?” Not familiar with the views of Spong. I’ve addressed some of the substance of your second question above. The central issue: Is one accurate and informative, or the reverse, if one calls oneself a Christian while being unwilling to affirm that some person, identified with Jesus of Nazareth, really did die, and later on really was observed (not hallucinated, not merely believed) to be living on. Note that this requirement demands a stronger affirmation than the earlier one. Even if you’re not sure of the veraciousness of many of the given details of Jesus’ life–or even whether his name was Jesus–to call oneself a Christian seems to me to imply that one commits to the proposition that a Jesus-like person returned from death.

  4. “That one can have a person-to-person relationship even now with this individual; and that by seeking and maintaining this relationship, inherently one of mutual love, one is assurred of a desirable state in the afterlife.” — “So, no Catholics, eh?” Definitely NOT the intended implication. I don’t see the statement as excluding Catholics. Do you mean: because I fail to mention the sacraments as necessary qualifications for admission to Heaven? It is my understanding (please correct me–I’m not a Catholic) that the sacraments, offered expressions of Christ’s love, are only genuinely given to those willing to receive them, which implies at minimum a properly worshipful love of Christ, eternal head of the Church. If your objection is to “person-to-person,” sans the mediation of the Church and its priesthood: Does the Catholic Church teach that an impenitent and unwilling parishoner may yet attain Heaven entirely by action of the Priest? If so, pardon my ignorance. If no, I would regard that prerequisite (being penitent and willing) as the Church’s way of recognizing the necessity that an individual establish a person-to-person relationship with Christ. My informal reading of the Catholic Catechism, the section on the sacrament of baptism, suggests that the doctrine is that those who have been given knowledge of Christ and are capable of receiving it (as opposed to little children, say) must, prior to receipt of baptism, go through a process of establishing a relationship with Christ productive of a desire for it. But I’ll avoid getting in hot water by presuming to tell Catholics what their doctrines really mean!

40

—C’mon now, surely it doesn’t need to be explained to you Apos. His teachings were taught before it was necessary to record and then later compiled into a book. Taking a potshot at Freyr?—

Not at all. But maybe some things need to be explained by you. Anyone who studies early Christian history knows that there was NOT a single agreed upon body of teachings. There was, instead, an incredible amount of controversy and theological infighting as to who was right, including the systematic destruction and persecution of minority views, of which the single codified Bible was a final blow. But simply defining the Bible as the one true record bypasses all this controversy illegitimately, which can be just as live today as it was then.

—I’ve only had a little exposure to what they believe to be true. In such cases, I remind myself that it is not for me to judge; that my responsibility is to center my focus on following Him.—

So… do you have anything to add to the discussion of “Christian”? The whole point in me bringing up these outsider Christians views is to note that they are systematically excluded by some of the definitions of “Christian” given here.