What actually constitutes a "Christian?"

[BlackSabbath]

Hi everyone. This is my first post on this forum. I have a question about what actually constitutes a "Christian?"

Every time I hear of a Christian person that does some very obvious wrong, I hear the same defense over and over. "Well, they're not actually a true Christian, because a true Christian wouldn't do that". It's the same as the no true Scotsman fallacy where the definition of something changes to suit the condition. From Wikipedia:

No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy where the meaning of a term is ad hoc redefined to make a desired assertion about it true. It is a type of self-sealing argument.

The no true Scotsman fallacy goes like this:


Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

As you can see, the definition in this case of a Scotsman changes to suit the circumstance. And the no true Scotsman fallacy is constantly used by Christians in the same manner.

So for eg, the inquisitions and bloody crusades through history and the Puritan witch burnings weren't perpetrated at all by Christians, because no "true Christian" would do such things.

It's a bit like when Christians say for eg, that just going to church every week doesn't make you a Christian in the same way that living in a garage makes you a car. However, I am not satisfied with this as it sounds like a cop out. This type of reason seems to be an easy way out of any Christian wrong doing-even grievous wrong doing like murder and torture. Because anytime any Christian believer is found or proved to have done wrong, they are dismissed as not being a true Christian.

I also find it ridiculous to accept that in the end, people such as Popes, pastors, preachers, bishops, cardinals, rectors etc are labelled as not being a true Christian if they are caught or proved in some wrong doing. To say that one of the corrupt Popes through history wasn't really a Christain to me sounds ludicrous.

So this is what I personally think. Yes I will agree that going to church every week does not make you of good Christian character. However, I personally believe that if a person believes in Christianity and is active in their faith such as regualar church attendance, then by definition ( in other words technically ), they are a Christian. They may not be necessarily a good Christian, but they are still technically a Christian.

To me, the line has to be drawn somewhere where we define someone as a Christian. This business of "true" Christian versus a false one seems to me to be constantly shifting the goal posts. Constantly redefining what a Christian is so as to never implicate bad Christian behaviour. For when that behaviour is found to be bad, the simple solution is to dismiss them as not being "true Christians".

To me, the line drawn in the sand is if you believe and are active in your faith, regardless of how good or bad you are, then you are technically a Christian. So that no other Christian can dismiss you as not being a true Christian if you do bad.

Or let me put it another way by way of analogy. Many of us have had bad experiences with mechanics for eg. Either by way of over charging or poor and incompetent service. Now, if one particular mechanic is crooked, no one says "well he's not a real mechanic". If a person has gone through the correct certifiable trade course and has an official license, he is a mechanic-period. Even an incompetent mechanic cannot be dismissed an not being a real mechanic if he his training has been complete and is licensed.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same for Christians. I am sick to death of all these excuses for bad, corrupt and vile behaviour by Christians as "not being true Christians". My definition is if you are a believer and are active in the faith, then you technically are a Christian. Good or bad as you are, it doesn't change that fact and you can't be dismissed as not being a "true Christian".

Do you agree?

[McCulloch]

Jesus defined what a true Christian is in his prayer in chapter 17 of John. Verse three says, "This is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

No he does not. He defines how to know God. How to have eternal life.

To know God you must first realize that you are separated from God because of your sins. Jesus died to take the punishment that we deserve and if we repent of our sins and put our faith in Jesus we are forgiven and we enter into a new relationship with God.

Thank you for the sermon. Did Jesus, ghost written by John, make any of these points in chapter 17?

I know from personal experience that it is possible to claim to be a Christian and to act as if you are one without personally experiencing this relationship. I have always believed that the Bible is true and that Jesus is the savior but for a long time I didn't understand how to receive the salvation he offers. I got baptized and joined a church because I thought that was the way to become a Christian. I tried to live a good life so that I could earn salvation. During this time I thought I was a real Christian and I suspect that most of the people who knew me thought the same thing. But the problem was that my faith consisted of knowing that certain facts about God and Jesus were true, not actually knowing them personally. But I eventually learned that besides knowing these facts were true I must personally repent of my sins and put my faith in Jesus. When I did this my sins were forgiven and I became in reality what I had only professed to be before.

Thank you for the witness. Not that it is at all relevant to the debate, but thanks anyway. Did you really think that you could earn your way to heaven while going to church and hearing that you cannot every week? Do you have a comprehension problem? It is not like most churches make the concept of grace a big secret now is it?

Having said that, we do need to keep the term "Christian" has meaningfully understandable as possible. The best way to slice this would be that a Christian accepts the atoning role of the Savior for all of mankind.

So you would exclude the Calvinists who teach that Christ's atonement is for the elect only?

The definition of Christian is one who BELONGS to Christ, thus the IAN in Christian with Christ showing the possessor.

No. That is not how language works. For example, a Freudian is not someone who belongs to Sigmund Freud, but one who follows the teaching of Freud. Or a Keynesian is a person who maintains or supports the theories, doctrines, or policies of John Maynard Keynes.

All Christians are IN Christ. Now, that's how you know you are a Christian.

Have you ever met a Christian who did not claim to be in Christ? What does that mean anyway?

Being purchased with the blood of Jesus means we are his possession now. Purchase means there is a new ownership. The payment was Jesus blood.

This is a rather gruesome expression of Christianity. Can you explain how this makes any sense?

once we confess our sins and ask forgiveness, we are in the grip of the holy spirit, Jesus and God. People say you have to repent. Well if you are calling upon Jesus I can guess that you might have just done that. Repent means to change your mind. You have made the CHOICE to leave all that is evil and filthy and turn to Jesus.

So Christians no longer choose to sin? Right?

[cholland]

So you would exclude the Calvinists who teach that Christ's atonement is for the elect only?

Most Calvinists I know do not believe in limited atonement. They're TUIPs.

[InteriorPaintersInReading]

The definition of Christian is one who BELONGS to Christ, thus the IAN in Christian with Christ showing the possessor.

No. That is not how language works. For example, a Freudian is not someone who belongs to Sigmund Freud, but one who follows the teaching of Freud. Or a Keynesian is a person who maintains or supports the theories, doctrines, or policies of John Maynard Keynes.

I simply stated the obvious. Definitions do not make you born again. When you compare scripture with scripture in context...yes, being a Christian means belonging to Christ. However, having a label placed on you does not make you a Christian, so people who SEE you as someone who follows Jesus on the outside through your actions does not qualify you as a Christian. Calling yourself or having others calling you a Christian does not make you one inwardly.

All Christians are IN Christ. Now, that's how you know you are a Christian.

Have you ever met a Christian who did not claim to be in Christ? What does that mean anyway?

Again, God judges. Lots of people claim they are in Christ, but deny many many bible doctrines on salvation and the power of God. Gods word is the judge.

Being purchased with the blood of Jesus means we are his possession now. Purchase means there is a new ownership. The payment was Jesus blood.

This is a rather gruesome expression of Christianity. Can you explain how this makes any sense?

If it does not make sense to you I guess you never read the Bible or you have not read it in context and compared with other scripture. What do you think removes your sins? The actual death alone? In the OT there was always a spotless lamb that was slain to use the blood for a offering. Now Jesus is called the Lamb of God meaning the lambs of the OT were lambs of men. Big difference. Jesus was truly without spot. If Jesus died on the cross without the shedding of any blood, how would our sins be washed away? Is it gruesome because you do not want to believe what you have read before or some other reason? Its not an expression of Christianity. It is the main theme of Christianity. The bible says Jesus in Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves , and to all the flock , over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers , to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

once we confess our sins and ask forgiveness, we are in the grip of the holy spirit, Jesus and God. People say you have to repent. Well if you are calling upon Jesus I can guess that you might have just done that. Repent means to change your mind. You have made the CHOICE to leave all that is evil and filthy and turn to Jesus.

So Christians no longer choose to sin? Right?[/quote]

No, Sinners choose to come to Christ through the drawing of the Holy Spirit, which can be denied. Sinners choose that their sins are not helping them. No one can stop sinning in this body. Your speaking of sinless perfection and if you believe that I find it hard that you believe the rest of the bible. Maybe, you are just a bit confused with reading all these boards. If you are weak in the spirit and read al the debates you can be attacked by satan in your mind. For all that matters, I am not God and can not make a 100% accurate statement on your heart.

[Vanguard]

Having said that, we do need to keep the term "Christian" has meaningfully understandable as possible. The best way to slice this would be that a Christian accepts the atoning role of the Savior for all of mankind.

So you would exclude the Calvinists who teach that Christ's atonement is for the elect only?

Well, I would imagine that if you define "elect" as those who entered the "fullness" (Geesh, I don't even know what to call it anymore!) then by definition the atonement made the difference only for them. Did it cover every one? In a sense, no, as not everyone will be found in his presence. I don't think this is about whether the Atonement covered only a portion of the people as it is about the individual not taking advantage of the offering as much as his capacity allowed.

I say the Calvinists are Christians.

[InteriorPaintersInReading]

Having said that, we do need to keep the term "Christian" has meaningfully understandable as possible. The best way to slice this would be that a Christian accepts the atoning role of the Savior for all of mankind.

So you would exclude the Calvinists who teach that Christ's atonement is for the elect only?

Well, I would imagine that if you define "elect" as those who entered the "fullness" (Geesh, I don't even know what to call it anymore!) then by definition the atonement made the difference only for them. Did it cover every one? In a sense, no, as not everyone will be found in his presence. I don't think this is about whether the Atonement covered only a portion of the people as it is about the individual not taking advantage of the offering as much as his capacity allowed.

I say the Calvinists are Christians.

I think in a way we are all Elect, or in other wards we are all CHOSEN to have the Gospel delivered to us. I also think God knows all things and simply chooses who He already KNOWS will be saved. Its like being able to watch a football game a day before it plays. Then fast forward to the office football pool and you CHOOSE the Vikings to win. You already knew they were going to win, but the game was still allowed to be played out.

If Gods plan was to not allow Jesus to die for all, then the person who is damned would have had a beef to argue and call God unjust.

Here is proof that Jesus did die for all.

Romans 5:6 For when we were yet without strength , in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Now it says He died for the un godly right? The un godly are:Everyone who was created because we were all born into sin. We are all as filthy rags as the OT states. So, is there a "Special" group of un godly that He did not die for? Not at all.

Thanks

[Jonah]

An authentic Christian would be a person who takes the direct meaning of the word messiah/christ seriously: "annointed"...for personal responsbility to act for the redemption of the world.

Authentic Christianity will not exist as a formal entity until enough folks actually get the "duh" of Jesus...WWJD?....is not a matter of Jesus being anyone's designated driver in the great drunken frat party of humanity.

Authentic Christianity happens when someone has properly "heard" that it is not Jesus alone who is the Christ, but they also.

[InteriorPaintersInReading]

Authentic Christianity happens when someone has properly "heard" that it is not Jesus alone who is the Christ, but they also.[/quote]

Define they.

[Jonah]

Good point.

A "they" would be a gentile who takes the historical Jesus seriously in the task of taking up the Golden Rule as a matter of personal responsibility toward redemption (salvation from destruction aka Armageddon) of the world.

[McCulloch]

Being purchased with the blood of Jesus means we are his possession now. Purchase means there is a new ownership. The payment was Jesus blood.

This is a rather gruesome expression of Christianity. Can you explain how this makes any sense?

If it does not make sense to you I guess you never read the Bible or you have not read it in context and compared with other scripture.

I have read the Bible. I am not sure what other scriptures you intend me to have compared the Bible with. I think that it is awfully presumptuous of some Christians to assert that those who do not understand the message of the Bible could not have read it.

Here is my quick summary of the plan of salvation as outlined in the Bible. Let me know if I am misrepresenting anything.

• God created humans in his own image. He told them not to do certain things, or else they would die and he put them into a garden with a talking snake, whom he foreknew would deceive them into disobedience. So, just as he foreknew they would, they sinned. But he did not kill them. Instead he kicked them out of the garden and cursed them with hard work and painful labour. Their descendants became more and more evil so God decided to destroy them all, except for eight who he saved in a boat.
  Their descendants also became evil. But God had a plan. That plan was to become the god of a small nomadic tribe, turning it into a nation and then destroying that nation and restoring that nation under the rule of the Romans. Then God himself would become a human so that the other humans would kill him. That way God himself, in human form, would pay the price for the disobedience of all of the humans before and since. God then raised himself from the dead.
  Even though the price had been paid for everyone, God still does not forgive everyone, but only a select group.

What do you think removes your sins?

Nothing removes sins. A sin is an act of wrongdoing. Once it is done it is done. Only a denial of reality can change that.

The actual death alone? In the OT there was always a spotless lamb that was slain to use the blood for a offering.

That does not make sense either.

Now Jesus is called the Lamb of God meaning the lambs of the OT were lambs of men. Big difference. Jesus was truly without spot. If Jesus died on the cross without the shedding of any blood, how would our sins be washed away? Is it gruesome because you do not want to believe what you have read before or some other reason?

So it is just for the God to transmute our punishment to someone who is undeserving of it. Why? But to address your question, I wonder how anyone can sing "Washed in the Blood" without wincing. I don't find any comfort in the idea of washing in someone else's blood.

once we confess our sins and ask forgiveness, we are in the grip of the holy spirit, Jesus and God. People say you have to repent. Well if you are calling upon Jesus I can guess that you might have just done that. Repent means to change your mind. You have made the CHOICE to leave all that is evil and filthy and turn to Jesus.

So Christians no longer choose to sin? Right?

No, Sinners choose to come to Christ through the drawing of the Holy Spirit, which can be denied. Sinners choose that their sins are not helping them. No one can stop sinning in this body. Your speaking of sinless perfection and if you believe that I find it hard that you believe the rest of the bible. Maybe, you are just a bit confused with reading all these boards. If you are weak in the spirit and read al the debates you can be attacked by satan in your mind. For all that matters, I am not God and can not make a 100% accurate statement on your heart.

No, my question and point is more basic than that. Christians claim to have the Spirit of the God of all Creation dwelling within them and guiding them. With such a Holy Comforter, why would any true Christian ever choose to sin? Why would it not be possible for a Christian to cease from sinning? Is god not that powerful?

[MagusYanam]

Here is my quick summary of the plan of salvation as outlined in the Bible. Let me know if I am misrepresenting anything.

God created humans in his own image. He told them not to do certain things, or else they would die and he put them into a garden with a talking snake, whom he foreknew would deceive them into disobedience. So, just as he foreknew they would, they sinned. But he did not kill them. Instead he kicked them out of the garden and cursed them with hard work and painful labour. Their descendants became more and more evil so God decided to destroy them all, except for eight who he saved in a boat.
Their descendants also became evil. But God had a plan. That plan was to become the god of a small nomadic tribe, turning it into a nation and then destroying that nation and restoring that nation under the rule of the Romans. Then God himself would become a human so that the other humans would kill him. That way God himself, in human form, would pay the price for the disobedience of all of the humans before and since. God then raised himself from the dead.
Even though the price had been paid for everyone, God still does not forgive everyone, but only a select group.

I would say rather that you're conflating a whole bunch of worldviews which don't really belong together. The result is, naturally, nonsensical. You can't have free will and not have free will at the same time, for example, so it makes little sense to say that God had foreknowledge of someone's disobedience for which they must take responsibility.

The classical Christian view of the atonement is that Jesus overcame Death (the sum total of the systems of domination and destruction in human society) through his own willing death, and that through that act salvation was made available to all people. But this requires an almost existentialist understanding of the Crucifixion and of the Resurrection, and thus of salvation - that Jesus won over Death by proving the powers of Death inadequate against his will, and that his Resurrection is made at once possible and absolutely necessary by our own individual realisations of this.

As to my definition of 'Christian', I doubt many would hold it, but it is more akin to a direction (toward Christ) than to a nationality or an attribute. This lends itself toward a centred-set model of the Church, rather than the bounded-set model most of Christendom today is comfortable with.