Defining the Christian

[JoeyKnothead]

Seems there's at least two ways to consider Jesus.

1- As a god incarnate, full of miracles and all that.

2- As a man with a message that is relatively good and therefore worthy of worship just for coming up with such a good message.

For debate:

1- Must one believe Jesus is a miracle working god in order to be considered Christian?

2- Can a person who worships Jesus as a mortal human with a great message lay claim to the word Christian?

[Jrosemary]

1- Must one believe Jesus is a miracle working god in order to be considered Christian?

2- Can a person who worships Jesus as a mortal human with a great message lay claim to the word Christian?

This is going to sound like a cop-out, but as far as I'm concerned, a Christian is anyone who says she is.

As an outsider, it's not up to me to judge which specific beliefs make (or don't make) someone a Christian. If pressed, I'd say that anyone who has Jesus at the centre of his religious life is a Christian, but many Christians would say that's an inadequate definition.

In truth, it's awfully hard to determine who is and who isn't part of a particular religious group--just look at the headaches Judaism has when it comes to patralineal descent. (If your father is Jewish but not your mother can you be Jewish without a formal conversion? Some branches of Judaism say yes; others say no.)

Maybe we should be less general: it's probably easier to determine who is an Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic, or Lutheran or Methodist rather than who is a Christian. Individual churches presumably have specific criteria. I know you can find individual Episcopalians who hold the view you expressed in point 2. The Episcopal Church, as far as I know, hasn't disowned them. So they'd still be Episcopalians, and since the Episcopal Church is a branch of Christianity, presumably they're Christians.

Of course, that can just lead to a more conservative church disowning liberal Episcopalians . . .

I am not sure if I totally agree. While I am sympathetic to the concept of 'as an outisider , I'll accept anyone', I also see from the Jewish perspective the concept of 'messanic Judaism', where I have outsiders telling me that 'see, Jews can accept Yeshua as the messiah and still be Jews'

I'm probably going to get myself into trouble here, but my definition of a Jew isn't 'anyone who says she's one.' When it comes to Judaism, I'm not an outsider, so I feel freer to judge.

To me, a Jew is anyone who is accepted as such by one of the four major branches of Judaism: Orthodox (including Chasidic), Conservative/Masorti, Reform/Progressive, or Reconstructionist.

Theoretically, my definition can include some Messianic Christians. (I refuse to use 'Messianic Jews' as a general name for them, since the ones I've come into contact with have absolutely no connection to Judaism.) A Messianic Christian might, after all, also be halachically Jewish. (Just as a practicing Muslim or a practicing Catholic or a practicing anything else might be a halachic Jew.) I wouldn't consider such a person to be a practicing Jew, but I wouldn't deny that he's a Jew either.

On the other hand, I do have a friend who is halachically Jewish who attends both a liberal synagogue and a liberal Christian church. She has Shabbat dinners and is raising her kids Jewish. She's fairly observant. She just also goes to a church on Sunday (and receives Communion, etc.) She does not try to convert her fellow Jews (or anyone else, for that matter) to Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, she's a practicing Jew (as well as a practicing Christian.) Now, I see a lot of problematic contradictions for her--but those are her headaches, not mine. (Well, they might also be her rabbi's headaches and her minister's headaches, but they still aren't mine.)

But back to the definition of a Christian: again, if pressed, I'd say that if Jesus is the center of your spiritual life--whether you regard him as Divine or as a divinely inspired human or as a worthy human whom you strive to emulate--then I'd say you're a Christian. And, practically speaking, I'm still going to accept as a Christian anyone who says she is--mainly because I don't want to get into arguments like "Are Mormons Christians?" In general, if a person tells me she's a Christian I'm not going to argue.

McCulloch, I think I understand what you're saying--and it just seems to reinforce the fact that we might never have universal criteria for defining Christians. (Or any other religious group, for that matter.)

[GentleDove]

Seems there's at least two ways to consider Jesus.

1- As a god incarnate, full of miracles and all that.

2- As a man with a message that is relatively good and therefore worthy of worship just for coming up with such a good message.

For debate:

1- Must one believe Jesus is a miracle working god in order to be considered Christian?

2- Can a person who worships Jesus as a mortal human with a great message lay claim to the word Christian?

Yes, one must believe that Jesus is the miracle working God in order to be a Christian (whether to be considered one or not, I don't know; depends on who is doing the considering).

No, a person who "worships" Jesus as a mortal human with a great message is worshipping an idol, not the God of the Bible, and he should not call himself a Christian. If he calls himself a Christian anyway, no one should believe that he actually is one.

[GentleDove]

This is not the right debate to show why the old Lewis trilemma is wrong. But underlying your discussion is the assumption that the Christian Bible is true. Could it be that is how you define a Christian, someone who accepts the Christian Bible as being true?

I think I am kinda asking whether one accepts the Bible as "true in all regards", or whether it should be considered "true in its intent", or some such phrasing. (Obviously for this subforum one'd need some biblical backing)

Is there any specific Christian doctrine that says one must believe the Bible, as Falwell says, "to be the inerrant word of God", which I take to mean literally true on all counts, or is there legitimate debate among Christians about this take?

There's really no reason to call yourself a Christian, if you don't believe the Bible contains the very words of God. Yet many call themselves Christians because they like some of the morality in the Bible, I guess; or maybe it's their cultural/family tradition. I would rather they just take the morality they like and stop calling themselves Christians. It's hypocritical.

[McCulloch]

There's really no reason to call yourself a Christian, if you don't believe the Bible contains the very words of God. Yet many call themselves Christians because they like some of the morality in the Bible, I guess; or maybe it's their cultural/family tradition. I would rather they just take the morality they like and stop calling themselves Christians. It's hypocritical.

In other words being Christian = believing the New Testament uncritically

Those who follow the traditions, teachings and example of Jesus without such a literalist belief, need not apply.

[GentleDove]

There's really no reason to call yourself a Christian, if you don't believe the Bible contains the very words of God. Yet many call themselves Christians because they like some of the morality in the Bible, I guess; or maybe it's their cultural/family tradition. I would rather they just take the morality they like and stop calling themselves Christians. It's hypocritical.

In other words being Christian = believing the New Testament uncritically

Those who follow the traditions, teachings and example of Jesus without such a literalist belief, need not apply.

That's correct. If one doesn't believe the divine Word enscripturated, then one won't believe the divine Word incarnate (which is the end or purpose of the Scripture) unto salvation. Christianity, unlike all other world religions, is not based in works-righteousness. Salvation is not by good morality but by faith in the God Who saves (Jesus Christ).

If God wants them, he'll "apply" them for membership (faith) through the preaching of His word by "applying" the Holy Spirit to them. I'm not saying they (unbelievers) can't attend the meeting of the church (believers); they should--but they are simply not Christians (at least not yet).

[Jrosemary]

Seems there's at least two ways to consider Jesus.

1- As a god incarnate, full of miracles and all that.

2- As a man with a message that is relatively good and therefore worthy of worship just for coming up with such a good message.

For debate:

1- Must one believe Jesus is a miracle working god in order to be considered Christian?

2- Can a person who worships Jesus as a mortal human with a great message lay claim to the word Christian?

Yes, one must believe that Jesus is the miracle working God in order to be a Christian (whether to be considered one or not, I don't know; depends on who is doing the considering).

No, a person who "worships" Jesus as a mortal human with a great message is worshipping an idol, not the God of the Bible, and he should not call himself a Christian. If he calls himself a Christian anyway, no one should believe that he actually is one.

No one should believe that he actually is one?

Speaking as an outsider again, you've haven't given me a good reason to accept your definition of a Christian over anyone else's. Why should I take your definition over a that of a liberal Episopalian who has a lower Christology and possibly rejects the idea that Jesus is exactly the same as God?

If you had said that you were giving your personal definition of a Christian, I wouldn't argue you. You're an insider and presumably feel justified in making such a judgment. But you haven't given an outsider like me any reason to accept your definition.

You probably can't answer this to my satisfaction. You can quote chapter and verse of the New Testament, but we all know that other people calling themselves Christians will read the Christian Scriptures differently. Moreover, other people will give different weight to Scripture.

Again, this is why I think it's easier to define someone as a Roman Catholic, or American Baptist, or whatever than to define 'Christian' in general. (By the same token, it's sometimes easier to define someone as a Reform Jew or Conservative Jew than to define a 'Jew' in general, because that way you can bypass vexing controversies like patralineal descent.)

[McCulloch]

In other words being Christian = believing the New Testament uncritically

Those who follow the traditions, teachings and example of Jesus without such a literalist belief, need not apply.

That's correct. If one doesn't believe the divine Word enscripturated,

This passage merely points out that they had received the word of God from us (some group identified with the author). It makes no statement as to what this word is, scripture, spiritual wisdom, personal teaching or whatever.

then one won't believe the divine Word incarnate

Not all Christians take the Revelation of John literally.

(which is the end or purpose of the Scripture) unto salvation. Christianity, unlike all other world religions, is not based in works-righteousness.

Matthew 25 and James 2 could teach otherwise.

[GentleDove]

Seems there's at least two ways to consider Jesus.

1- As a god incarnate, full of miracles and all that.

2- As a man with a message that is relatively good and therefore worthy of worship just for coming up with such a good message.

For debate:

1- Must one believe Jesus is a miracle working god in order to be considered Christian?

2- Can a person who worships Jesus as a mortal human with a great message lay claim to the word Christian?

Yes, one must believe that Jesus is the miracle working God in order to be a Christian (whether to be considered one or not, I don't know; depends on who is doing the considering).

No, a person who "worships" Jesus as a mortal human with a great message is worshipping an idol, not the God of the Bible, and he should not call himself a Christian. If he calls himself a Christian anyway, no one should believe that he actually is one.

No one should believe that he actually is one?

If he thinks Jesus was merely a mortal man.

Speaking as an outsider again, you've haven't given me a good reason to accept your definition of a Christian over anyone else's. Why should I take your definition over a that of a liberal Episopalian who has a lower Christology and possibly rejects the idea that Jesus is exactly the same as God?

If you had said that you were giving your personal definition of a Christian, I wouldn't argue you. You're an insider and presumably feel justified in making such a judgment. But you haven't given an outsider like me any reason to accept your definition.

You probably can't answer this to my satisfaction. You can quote chapter and verse of the New Testament, but we all know that other people calling themselves Christians will read the Christian Scriptures differently. Moreover, other people will give different weight to Scripture.

Again, this is why I think it's easier to define someone as a Roman Catholic, or American Baptist, or whatever than to define 'Christian' in general. (By the same token, it's sometimes easier to define someone as a Reform Jew or Conservative Jew than to define a 'Jew' in general, because that way you can bypass vexing controversies like patralineal descent.)

I gave some chapter and verse in my answer to McCulloch here. I am claiming the Bible's claims of what a Christian is--all of the Bible's claims (although I couldn't quote all Bible passages that deal with this issue because I would have to basically just refer everyone to the whole Bible). I didn't write the Bible, therefore, what I'm claiming is not just my personal definition.

The beauty of words is that they have meaning. They don't mean just whatever you feel like, depending on how one reads it, like some existentialist, deconstructionist nightmare, or else communication is meaningless, and there is no reason to be on a debate site.

For example, the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis Chapter 1 means a literal 24-hour, evening-and-morning day. If you see someone wanting to "read this differently," then you are witnessing someone changing the meaning of the word to suit themselves. In other words, they don't believe the words of the Bible.

Non-Christians who claim to be Christians always want to "cut out," change, take out of context, or simply ignore portions of the Bible, as Jefferson famously did. Yes, they may quote some parts, the parts they judge in their autonomy to be acceptable to them. However, they cannot accept the God of the Bible, Who is revealed in all of the Bible, and they would have to deny parts of the Bible. They have never been converted to God's way, they are still each going his own way.

The gospel--that God saved sinners from sin, death, hell and the devil through Christ's atoning work on the cross and His resurrection and whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but inherit everlasting life--which is the minimum a Christian could believe in and still be considered a Christian, makes no sense Jesus Christ was not fully God and fully human as the Bible reveals. There are plenty of other moralistic religions to choose from, why gut the Bible to form a new "liberal Christian" moralistic religion?

If you, a non-Christian, find yourself identifying with or in fuller agreement with a "liberal Christian," it's because they share your non-Christianity.

[GentleDove]

In other words being Christian = believing the New Testament uncritically

Those who follow the traditions, teachings and example of Jesus without such a literalist belief, need not apply.

That's correct. If one doesn't believe the divine Word enscripturated,

This passage merely points out that they had received the word of God from us (some group identified with the author). It makes no statement as to what this word is, scripture, spiritual wisdom, personal teaching or whatever.

Christians believe that God preserved His Word in the Scriptures from Moses through the times of the early church until, as a defense against widespread heresies, wise and learned men in the faith providentially (under God's control) canonized Scriptures and created the Bible, which we know today.

then one won't believe the divine Word incarnate

Not all Christians take the Revelation of John literally.

Literally? I don't know what you mean by that. What Scripture is saying is that Christ is the spiritual image of God, the perfect revelation of the heart, mind, and will of God.

(which is the end or purpose of the Scripture) unto salvation. Christianity, unlike all other world religions, is not based in works-righteousness.

Matthew 25 and James 2 could teach otherwise.

When someone is saved and is made a Christian, he repents of his sin and now had been given a heart, a will, a disposition, to follow Christ and His ways. The Christian now defines morality as the the morality God has revealed to be His own morality--because he has been saved, not in order to earn salvation. Rather he has received salvation, and the evidence of that salvation is that he walks in God's ways (performs good works).

Matthew 25 is saying that those who are not saved do not trust and obey God, and those who are saved do trust and obey God.

James 2 is saying a faith, so-called, without works is dead. James is not saying works are all you need. He's saying if you claim to have justifying faith (that is, a living faith that lays hold of the justification won by Christ), but don't show the fruit (good works) of that faith, then you really don't have that true, justifying faith at all. James is saying the evidence of faith (of having been saved--past tense) is good works. "I will show you my faith [which I already have] by my works [the fruit of that living faith]."

[Slopeshoulder]

1. No. Miracles are metaphors, and either way not to be used as "proof" of anything.

2. Yes. A Christian can be someone who aligns with the Jesus story, mesage, tradition, and community.