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]

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.

This is my understanding of the standard evangelical Christian view. Are you saying that Evangelicals deny God's foreknowledge?

[SpiritQuickens]

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?

A Christian is someone in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. They believe that God the Father sent Jesus Christ, the Son of God and God in the flesh, to live a perfect life, and die punished though a sinner, bearing our punishment on the cross so that sinners like us who deserve that kind of punishment could have Christ's perfect righteousness credited to him provided he believe He did this for him.

"No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God."-1 John 3:9.

A true Christian will not habitually and remorsefully disobey God by doing what is contrary to what He tells us in His Word. One should always be careful about judging who is and who isn't a true Christian. All Christians struggle with sin (Rom.' 7:14-25).

The true test is whether or not you are striving genuinely to put your sin to death and live a holy a life. A true Christian should be up front about the fact that he often fails to live up to God's standards (God's standards are perfect, which is why we needed a sacrifice in the first place, since "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"-Rom. 3:23). Someone who habitually parties, clubs, disobeys God and doesn't care, is probably not a Christian. We need to look at what God's Word says about how to behave, and observe how a person is behaving and what their attitude toward their behavior is.

[Rationalskeptic]

The definition of Christian is one who BELONGS to Christ, thus the IAN in Christian with Christ showing the possessor. For you to BELONG to Christ means a PURCHASE had to take place. The PURCHASE was BY the BLOOD of JESUS on the cross. This however does not mean ALL are purchased because ALL will not be SAVED because we have the WILL and right to refuse the gift. Gifts are not something that can be imposed on a person. They have to be RECEIVED.


All Christians are IN Christ. Now, that's how you know you are a Christian. I think too many people have Jesus belonging to them and not enough of us belonging to Christ.

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.


Romans 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus , who walk not after the flesh , but after the Spirit.

To be IN Christ means we have been cemented into Him. We are not able to be removed from Jesus because the Holy spirit Keeps us saved. We are in Jesus which is IN God.

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.

Thanks

The definition of Christian is partly subjective because many people have different ideas on Christ and what it means to be on his side. For example, I think that being a Christian is based on belief, while you think that being a Christian requires intervention from Christ. You apparently think that it takes his "holy spirit" to be Christian. The word"Christian" is just a word and many people, even believers in Christ define it in different ways. I want a word which conveniently defines those followers of Christ and is agreeable to most people.

Your definition of Christian assumes that Jesus is God because you think being Christian requires his "holy spirit." This will not work for those who do not practice Christianity the same way you do, and those who do not believe he is God. A more simple and clear way to define a Christian is a person who believes the basic tenets of Christianity.