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?

[Slopeshoulder]

Have you heard the old CS Lewis quote about this? Here it is paraphrased

Option 1- He is documented in the Bible as doing miracles, so he either had good or bad intentions. If he was deceiving people and trying to lead them astray, then he was like an evil wizard, or something.

OR he was psycho- has great 'ideas' but claimed he was God and there was no way to get to God the Father except through him.

OR he had 'good intentions', was very wise, and could do miracles, and was God in he form of Man.

So yea, I think to be a 'real' Christian you have to worship Jesus as God, because scripture doesn't leave any other options.

Of course anyone CAN choose to worship Jesus as a good man, but it doesn't align with scripture. Sorry- you have to jump-in and be a crazy.

Or this proves my 25 year old contention that CS Lewis was a lightweight and way out if his depth. He'd be laughed out of div schools today (and was never mentioned the 8 I've hung around in; doing so would earn one a silent room and a lot of smirks). Because the alternative is that these accounts are stories written by people with a narrative, theological agenda, and were never ever meant to be literal history in every detail, not eben by the people who wrote them. I doubt Jesus ever claimed to be God in the sense that John wrote or you take him to mean. Lewis is arguing from false premises. But if his field had been Theology and not English, he would have known that.

[Slopeshoulder]

[quote="

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.[/quote]

So Gentle Dove, the only Christian is he or she who takes the most extremist, exclusvisist, uncritical, fundamentalist view, and then repeats that over and over?
How does one debate that?
Can you tell me how within the broader Christian community your views differ in kind from Taliban or Wahhabist opinions within Islam? In detail?
BTW, I for one did the whole Jesusy repentance-transformation thing 30 years ago, then a year later I concluded that the whole born again-fundamentalist thing was whack, then studied theology for six years full time at seminaries full of renowned scholars and deeply committed christians, then went on a long journey of spirit, meeting all along the way oodles of professional full time christians who all agreed that the formula you quoted as the "minimum" a christian should believe is best left to extremists, fundamentalists, and christo-fascists. The rest of us would be non-extremist, non-fundamentalist and enjoy a nice big tent, as CHRISTIANS. We even talk to Buddhists and Jews all the time and like all they have to say. Even many athiests too! We call them Secular Sacreds. Great folks!
I think God loves them too. Great guy that God.

[ChaosBorders]

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?

I had forgotten which forum we're in and would have torn apart the Lewis Trilemma myself, but I guess it actually works a lot better with this context.

That being said, it doesn't really answer the question.

Let's look at the dictionary definition first:
noun
1. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
2. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
3. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Christian

By this definition, almost anyone who calls themselves Christian would qualify.

Let's look at the Biblical references to "Christians":

Acts 11:26 The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

1 Peter 4:16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

The first "Christians" did not think of themselves as such, but were labeled that by outsides for their beliefs. Eventually Christians stopped viewing it as the insult it was intended to be and started using it for themselves.

However, the real debate of interest is should those who believe in the literal truth of the Bible even be calling themselves Christian? Given the original disciples of Christ most definitely did not, perhaps it would be better to use the same terms those ones did when referring to themselves such as "in Christ".

[Volbrigade]

As a matter of definition, any of the accepted versions of "The Apostles' Creed" exposit the basic beliefs of the Christian Faith.

Of course, one may call themselves anything they like; and unfortunately, many have been referred (and self-referred) to as Christians who in no sense adhere to the doctrines and/or practices of the faith.

A "Christian" who accepts the beliefs of Bultmann is properly referred to as a "heretic."

[Slopeshoulder]

As a matter of definition, any of the accepted versions of "The Apostles' Creed" exposit the basic beliefs of the Christian Faith.

Of course, one may call themselves anything they like; and unfortunately, many have been referred (and self-referred) to as Christians who in no sense adhere to the doctrines and/or practices of the faith.

A "Christian" who accepts the beliefs of Bultmann is properly referred to as a "heretic."

I agree regarding the creed, although our understanding of it, and of affirmation isekf (affirmation, not adherence eh? It's 'we believe" not "we adhere to" or "we obey"), can both be and have been modernized. After all it was written by people who were using a Greek paradigm to interpret their Christian experience, so now that we have all sorts of post-Greek philosophical paradigms to bring to bear, we can do so. For example, I doubt whether even the Vatican's senior biblical scholars believe in a literal virgin birth, they just affirm it as a matter of faith and tradition. I know a member of clergy (not catholic) who when referring to himself, other leaders, and the congregation once said "I know we all recite the creed with our fingers crossed." And everyone nodded.

Re: Bultmann's alleged heresy, prove it, and please provide details and sources. Indeed, point me to his trail for heresy. Otherwise you are just spouting unsuported ultra-orthodox opinion. If not, make your case.

[McCulloch]

Re: Bultmann's alleged heresy, prove it, and please provide details and sources. Indeed, point me to his trail for heresy. Otherwise you are just spouting unsuported ultra-orthodox opinion. If not, make your case.

For Bultmann, the “real content� (sache) of the gospel proclamation about Jesus is closely bound to the pre-scientific cosmologies of the ancient Jewish and Greek world. For instance, Jesus is said to have ascended into heaven because it was thought to sit, literally, above the earth. Bultmann argues that the modern Christian cannot be expected to take this mythical world seriously, and so “there is nothing to do but to demythologize it� (Bultmann 1984, 9). [...]

Having examined Bultmann’s case for the need to demythologize, let us see how he actually goes about doing it. It is important to understand that demythologizing is not simply “updating� the cosmology of the New Testament so that it might align with modern physics. Bultmann is not interested in how any particular scientific theory relates to the New Testament, but rather in what science tells him about the world, namely, that supernatural powers cannot interrupt the laws of cause and effect. From this perspective, any reference to supernatural acts has mistakenly objectified the transcendent into the immanent (Bultmann 1984, 99). If one is to understand the “true intention of the myth,� one will have to translate the biblical accounts into language that reveals how human existence is “grounded in and limited by a transcendent, unworldly power� but that does not violate our scientific worldview. [...]

Consider a few examples of demythologization. Bultmann rejects any supernatural account of Adam’s original sin, and instead locates sin in the human refusal to accept the gift of authentic existence (Bultmann 1984, 29). Likewise, living life “according to the Spirit� does not refer to any supernatural influence, but describes “a genuine human life� that lives out “of what is invisible and nondisposable and, therefore, surrender[s] all self-contrived security� (Bultmann 1984, 17). The judgment of God to which Scripture refers, “is not a cosmic event that is still to happen but is the fact that Jesus has come into the world and issued the call to faith� (Bultmann 1984, 19). And the significance of Jesus is not to be found in his supposed placating of a wrathful God but in the fact that through him “our authentic life becomes a possibility in fact for us only when we are freed from ourselves� (Bultmann 1984, 30). Bultmann recognizes that not all of the New Testament can be translated in this way (Bultmann himself focuses mostly on John and Paul), but he thinks this is a necessary sacrifice if the kerygmatic message is to be clarified.

[...] He argues that the historical Jesus is of limited value; we can only say that Jesus was a historical person who died on the cross. Even this can be dangerous, for historical thinking can mislead one into presuming “that this historical presentation is the knowledge which reveals the object of faith� (Bultmann 1984, 122). For Bultmann, the Jesus of history is mute. Any attempt to base Christianity on him must fail.

Bultmann seems opposed to the kind of simplistic faith outlined in the Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
who was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
and on the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

[Volbrigade]

For example, I doubt whether even the Vatican's senior biblical scholars believe in a literal virgin birth, they just affirm it as a matter of faith and tradition. I know a member of clergy (not catholic) who when referring to himself, other leaders, and the congregation once said "I know we all recite the creed with our fingers crossed." And everyone nodded.

Which raises a question. Why be a clergyman if you disagree with what is proposed for belief?

Bultmann seems opposed to the kind of simplistic faith outlined in the Apostle's Creed...

That's fine. I'm very much in favor of same.

[Slopeshoulder]

Re: Bultmann's alleged heresy, prove it, and please provide details and sources. Indeed, point me to his trail for heresy. Otherwise you are just spouting unsuported ultra-orthodox opinion. If not, make your case.

For Bultmann, the “real content� (sache) of the gospel proclamation about Jesus is closely bound to the pre-scientific cosmologies of the ancient Jewish and Greek world. For instance, Jesus is said to have ascended into heaven because it was thought to sit, literally, above the earth. Bultmann argues that the modern Christian cannot be expected to take this mythical world seriously, and so “there is nothing to do but to demythologize it� (Bultmann 1984, 9). [...]

Having examined Bultmann’s case for the need to demythologize, let us see how he actually goes about doing it. It is important to understand that demythologizing is not simply “updating� the cosmology of the New Testament so that it might align with modern physics. Bultmann is not interested in how any particular scientific theory relates to the New Testament, but rather in what science tells him about the world, namely, that supernatural powers cannot interrupt the laws of cause and effect. From this perspective, any reference to supernatural acts has mistakenly objectified the transcendent into the immanent (Bultmann 1984, 99). If one is to understand the “true intention of the myth,� one will have to translate the biblical accounts into language that reveals how human existence is “grounded in and limited by a transcendent, unworldly power� but that does not violate our scientific worldview. [...]

Consider a few examples of demythologization. Bultmann rejects any supernatural account of Adam’s original sin, and instead locates sin in the human refusal to accept the gift of authentic existence (Bultmann 1984, 29). Likewise, living life “according to the Spirit� does not refer to any supernatural influence, but describes “a genuine human life� that lives out “of what is invisible and nondisposable and, therefore, surrender[s] all self-contrived security� (Bultmann 1984, 17). The judgment of God to which Scripture refers, “is not a cosmic event that is still to happen but is the fact that Jesus has come into the world and issued the call to faith� (Bultmann 1984, 19). And the significance of Jesus is not to be found in his supposed placating of a wrathful God but in the fact that through him “our authentic life becomes a possibility in fact for us only when we are freed from ourselves� (Bultmann 1984, 30). Bultmann recognizes that not all of the New Testament can be translated in this way (Bultmann himself focuses mostly on John and Paul), but he thinks this is a necessary sacrifice if the kerygmatic message is to be clarified.

[...] He argues that the historical Jesus is of limited value; we can only say that Jesus was a historical person who died on the cross. Even this can be dangerous, for historical thinking can mislead one into presuming “that this historical presentation is the knowledge which reveals the object of faith� (Bultmann 1984, 122). For Bultmann, the Jesus of history is mute. Any attempt to base Christianity on him must fail.

Bultmann seems opposed to the kind of simplistic faith outlined in the Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
and born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
who was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
and on the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of the Father.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

That's opinion, not proof, and doesn't adress any of my points. The quote is not sourced, and only outlines what we all know about Bultmann: he demythologizied and emphasized the Christ of Faith over the Jesus of History (I learned about that in seminary); he also didn't look to the creed as a litmus test but more like an artifact of an important moment in Christian development. So I'm not seeng what you're adding or saying. I see no argument, case, evidence, or proof. Just repitition of a belief commitment and how it allegedly differs from Bultmann's.

Bultmann was disagreed with by some, and he's only one guy in an enormous movement, but his lifetime of christian faith and service were never condemned, except of course my fundamentalists who still do so. To those people, all disagreement or anything above the simplistic or anything modern is grounds for dismissal and the charge of heresy. To them Bultmann is the devil.

But in mainstream and mainline scholarly circles he is on the short list of most distinguished and important (and devout and tireless) Christians on the last few hundred years.
Yup, still Christan, sorry.

[McCulloch]

Why be a clergyman if you disagree with what is proposed for belief?

I can think of two reasons:

One is that many clerics believe that the average members of their congregations are not spiritually mature enough for certain teachings. In the same way as you really have to be well grounded in Newtonian physics before you are able to attack the confusing world of quantum and relativistic physics.

The second is that they know where there bread is buttered. If you stray too far from what the congregation feels is orthodox, you will lose support, perhaps your job and your livelihood. Smart ones know just how far they can go without risking their pension.

[Slopeshoulder]

Why be a clergyman if you disagree with what is proposed for belief?

I can think of two reasons:

One is that many clerics believe that the average members of their congregations are not spiritually mature enough for certain teachings. In the same way as you really have to be well grounded in Newtonian physics before you are able to attack the confusing world of quantum and relativistic physics.

The second is that they know where there bread is buttered. If you stray too far from what the congregation feels is orthodox, you will lose support, perhaps your job and your livelihood. Smart ones know just how far they can go without risking their pension.

Bingo.

But I'd add a third: you yourself (clergy) are working through the issues, on an endless journey toward how to be Christian in a way that makes some sense in the modern world, the only world you know, of here and now, and because this journey is not finalized you do the best you can. So you affirm and tradition while rejecting pre-modern literalisms and over-reliance upon outdated Greek thought structures like those that informed the creed. You cross your fingers and think of the whole.

I think this is probably very common combined with the two reasons you mention.

Indeed, I wouldn't go near a clergy person who wasn't dealing with this issue head on, struggling with it. The small-minded and addle-brained certainty that the alternative implies would invalidate them to me as someone up the task of adequately posing the questions that "faith" poses. (Mature faith always refines unanswerable questions, while immature belief demands and invests in answers.)