Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I understand it, we’re prohibited from telling another poster who claims to be a Christian that he or she isn’t a Christian. This makes sense. There is a tremendous diversity of beliefs across the spectrum of Christianity, and only God can decide who is or isn’t a Christian.
And yet, "Christianity" can’t just mean whatever I want it to mean – can it?
Let’s shift to Islam just to make a point: Let’s say I claim to be a Muslim. But, oh, by the way, I don’t think Allah can possibly be that angry character described in surahs 12, 16, 29, 84, 94 and 111 of the Koran. And, based on my study, I do believe Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected. And while I admire Muhammad in many ways, much of what he is reported to have said just doesn’t sound like a prophet of God to me. There must be some serious errors in the texts.
Wouldn’t a Muslim be justified in saying “Sir, what you don’t believe is what Islam is. You can’t reject the core concepts and still call yourself a Muslim. You’re making a mockery of our faith.” Wouldn’t he?
Or let’s say I claim to be a Christian, but I don’t believe God exists or Jesus ever existed. I just kind of like the whole “Christian thing” and try to model my life on it. Can I really claim to be a Christian? Can an orthodox Christian not say to me pretty much what the Muslim said to me in the preceding paragraph?
It seems to me that unless we’re in Wonderland and words can mean whatever Humpty Dumpty says they mean, there has to be a recognition of at least some outer boundaries as to what “Christian” means.
Things like a belief in the existence of God and the historical reality of Jesus, the supremacy of God as the Creator, the fallen state of humans, the need for repentance and salvation, the atonement, a final judgment. These are core Christian concepts and have been for 2,000 years. Without at least some doctrine touching upon these, I don’t see how any belief system can reasonably claim to be Christian.
What I see throughout the threads here are ostensible Christians who do indeed jettison or drastically alter these core concepts. People claiming to be Christians feel free to pretty much reject the OT in its entirety, pick and choose the NT verses that make them happy, and posit a Jesus who bears only the most passing resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels. The net result is to render some of the core concepts unrecognizable.
All that we know about Jesus is found in the NT. There is no other Jesus. The OT and NT are at least in some sense the Word of God insofar as Christianity is concerned. Is it fair game to reject large swaths of the Bible, reinvent Jesus, and still call the resulting belief system Christianity? Why do we feel free to do this with Christianity but not Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism?
One thing that struck me many years ago and certainly strikes me here is how the “improvements” to Christianity are always - always - in the direction of watering down or gutting the core concepts: The sins condemned in the Bible aren’t really so bad or aren’t sins at all. God isn't that judgmental old fart described in the OT but more of a kindly old coot who chuckles good-naturedly at the foibles of his children. There will be no judgment – don’t even worry about it. All that Jesus wants is for us to play nice and get along, tolerating and even celebrating the quirks of our neighbors, even when those quirks are ones the Bible clearly condemns.
It occurred to me back then, as it does now, that if there really were supernaturally evil forces (as I believe there are), this is precisely the direction in which they would attempt to steer Christianity. The forces of evil aren’t going to recruit many people to the cartoonish Church of Satan. But an appealing counterfeit of Christianity – that’s a different story. Get people to think they actually are followers of Jesus while gutting the gospel message of its very core. Clever, eh?
It’s not even clear to me why so many people who promote what is really more of a New Age or quasi-Buddhist religion insist on attaching Jesus’ name and Christian terminology to it. Unless the intent actually is to mislead others, what is the point? Why not just admit that you admire some of what Jesus is reported to have said and include him in your pantheon of New Age role models? (There are New Age religions that recognize Jesus as an Ascended Master and don’t claim to be Christian in the slightest. At least they’re honest.)
I don’t question that most who do this are sincere and well-meaning. They genuinely believe they are promoting a more enlightened version of Christianity. In most cases, I believe the damage they are doing and the confusion they are causing is unintentional. I won’t say they “aren’t Christians” because only God can make this determination and I have no idea how much latitude is allowed before Jesus says “I never knew you.”
I only suggest that there have to be some outer boundaries. The term “Christian” has to have some recognizable meaning. I’m not talking about fine points of theology or even major doctrines like the Trinity that are still legitimately debated. I’m talking about the concepts that literally define what Christianity is – concepts so fundamental that if you alter them the entire Christian message and explanation of reality collapses. I suggest that when you gut Christianity of these core concepts that have defined it for 2,000 years, you're stretching the term “Christian” past the point of intelligibility. And I'm cautioning others to be vigilant and not to be misled. If you want to follow a New Age path that borrows the trappings of Christianity, at least be cognizant that this is what you are doing. Again, I won't say that you won't be a Christian. But I think it is fair to say that you will be applying the term to a set of beliefs very different from those the term "Christian" has always been understood to comprise.
As I understand it, we’re prohibited from telling another poster who claims to be a Christian that he or she isn’t a Christian. This makes sense. There is a tremendous diversity of beliefs across the spectrum of Christianity, and only God can decide who is or isn’t a Christian.
And yet, "Christianity" can’t just mean whatever I want it to be?
You want to incorporate a plethora of "precepts and doctrines of men" many that are contradictory and inconsistent to define a Christian just because they have existed for thousands of years. Flat earthers existed for thousands of years (some even today). That isn't a reason to maintain it. A minimalist definition works best. Those who claim to believe and follow the revelations of Jesus Christ about God who IS agape love and follow His instructions to His disciples to love God and each other.
And yet, "Christianity" can’t just mean whatever I want it to mean – can it?
Or let’s say I claim to be a Christian, but I don’t believe God exists or Jesus ever existed. I just kind of like the whole “Christian thing” and try to model my life on it. Can I really claim to be a Christian?
As far as I know there hasn't been a revised definition of what a Christian is. (325 ad/ce)
Ya gotta believe in everything in Nicene Creed, correct?
If you don't believe in one thing ...you cannot call yourself a Christian.
Seems simple to me.
Basic black and white thinking.
I am not a Christian, cuz of this, and I say it all the time here.
Now, can a person think to himself he is a Christian, sure.
But to say he is, if not believing all of the Nicene Creed, others would be free to say he was not, imo.
Now if he wants to toss out that Nicene Council's decision...ok.
If there is another definition of a Christian that someone (The Vatican?) has come up with,
I dunno about it. Does being a Christian 'have to' have a definition? Well, in 325 with
all the civil unrest Constantine came up with forming a Council...and so we have one.
Oh, Added: *A religion holds the right to define itself*...seems it has and
has stuck to it, no? I abide by it's own definition. AND, I see no need for any labels...
like a Freelance writer, ha.
And I'm not a Hindu or Buddhist or anything...I am a lover of God extraordinaire...I will say that!!!!! And I know Him up-close and personal...no unseen, nebulous 'thing' to ME!
Here, the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven;
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen
Last edited by Miss Hepburn; 06-27-2019 at 01:52 AM..
Christian is people who are Christ like , or people like Jesus Christ ....... Jesus said His followers must be born into the spirit of God through Christ with repentance , as the spirit of Christ only know His own ........ Where being born of the Spirit of Christ is a very profound experience and people will know when God makes His dwelling place on a them through the spirit, as Holy Spirit or the spirit of God is the same character of the Spirit Jesus taught in the gospels , .............. And never the spirit which some murderers who blame God for telling them to kill is Nought the Holy Spirit , as there are many wicked spirits in the world which will live on people ....
As I understand it, we’re prohibited from telling another poster who claims to be a Christian that he or she isn’t a Christian. This makes sense. There is a tremendous diversity of beliefs across the spectrum of Christianity, and only God can decide who is or isn’t a Christian.
And yet, "Christianity" can’t just mean whatever I want it to mean – can it?
Let’s shift to Islam just to make a point: Let’s say I claim to be a Muslim. But, oh, by the way, I don’t think Allah can possibly be that angry character described in surahs 12, 16, 29, 84, 94 and 111 of the Koran. And, based on my study, I do believe Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected. And while I admire Muhammad in many ways, much of what he is reported to have said just doesn’t sound like a prophet of God to me. There must be some serious errors in the texts.
Wouldn’t a Muslim be justified in saying “Sir, what you don’t believe is what Islam is. You can’t reject the core concepts and still call yourself a Muslim. You’re making a mockery of our faith.” Wouldn’t he?
Or let’s say I claim to be a Christian, but I don’t believe God exists or Jesus ever existed. I just kind of like the whole “Christian thing” and try to model my life on it. Can I really claim to be a Christian? Can an orthodox Christian not say to me pretty much what the Muslim said to me in the preceding paragraph?
It seems to me that unless we’re in Wonderland and words can mean whatever Humpty Dumpty says they mean, there has to be a recognition of at least some outer boundaries as to what “Christian” means.
Things like a belief in the existence of God and the historical reality of Jesus, the supremacy of God as the Creator, the fallen state of humans, the need for repentance and salvation, the atonement, a final judgment. These are core Christian concepts and have been for 2,000 years. Without at least some doctrine touching upon these, I don’t see how any belief system can reasonably claim to be Christian.
What I see throughout the threads here are ostensible Christians who do indeed jettison or drastically alter these core concepts. People claiming to be Christians feel free to pretty much reject the OT in its entirety, pick and choose the NT verses that make them happy, and posit a Jesus who bears only the most passing resemblance to the Jesus of the gospels. The net result is to render some of the core concepts unrecognizable.
All that we know about Jesus is found in the NT. There is no other Jesus. The OT and NT are at least in some sense the Word of God insofar as Christianity is concerned. Is it fair game to reject large swaths of the Bible, reinvent Jesus, and still call the resulting belief system Christianity? Why do we feel free to do this with Christianity but not Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism?
One thing that struck me many years ago and certainly strikes me here is how the “improvements” to Christianity are always - always - in the direction of watering down or gutting the core concepts: The sins condemned in the Bible aren’t really so bad or aren’t sins at all. God isn't that judgmental old fart described in the OT but more of a kindly old coot who chuckles good-naturedly at the foibles of his children. There will be no judgment – don’t even worry about it. All that Jesus wants is for us to play nice and get along, tolerating and even celebrating the quirks of our neighbors, even when those quirks are ones the Bible clearly condemns.
It occurred to me back then, as it does now, that if there really were supernaturally evil forces (as I believe there are), this is precisely the direction in which they would attempt to steer Christianity. The forces of evil aren’t going to recruit many people to the cartoonish Church of Satan. But an appealing counterfeit of Christianity – that’s a different story. Get people to think they actually are followers of Jesus while gutting the gospel message of its very core. Clever, eh?
It’s not even clear to me why so many people who promote what is really more of a New Age or quasi-Buddhist religion insist on attaching Jesus’ name and Christian terminology to it. Unless the intent actually is to mislead others, what is the point? Why not just admit that you admire some of what Jesus is reported to have said and include him in your pantheon of New Age role models? (There are New Age religions that recognize Jesus as an Ascended Master and don’t claim to be Christian in the slightest. At least they’re honest.)
I don’t question that most who do this are sincere and well-meaning. They genuinely believe they are promoting a more enlightened version of Christianity. In most cases, I believe the damage they are doing and the confusion they are causing is unintentional. I won’t say they “aren’t Christians” because only God can make this determination and I have no idea how much latitude is allowed before Jesus says “I never knew you.”
I only suggest that there have to be some outer boundaries. The term “Christian” has to have some recognizable meaning. I’m not talking about fine points of theology or even major doctrines like the Trinity that are still legitimately debated. I’m talking about the concepts that literally define what Christianity is – concepts so fundamental that if you alter them the entire Christian message and explanation of reality collapses. I suggest that when you gut Christianity of these core concepts that have defined it for 2,000 years, you're stretching the term “Christian” past the point of intelligibility. And I'm cautioning others to be vigilant and not to be misled. If you want to follow a New Age path that borrows the trappings of Christianity, at least be cognizant that this is what you are doing. Again, I won't say that you won't be a Christian. But I think it is fair to say that you will be applying the term to a set of beliefs very different from those the term "Christian" has always been understood to comprise.
This is a good topic. Biblically speaking, there is one foundational belief that a person must hold in order to be born again and have eternal life, and that is to believe that Jesus died for your sins and that he rose again with the result that you have placed your trust in Jesus, and in Him alone for eternal life. If a person has not believed that Jesus died for his sins then that person is not in reality a 'Christian.' That is, he has not been born again and remains under condemnation . . . under judgment.
Last edited by Michael Way; 06-27-2019 at 06:51 AM..
You want to incorporate a plethora of "precepts and doctrines of men" many that are contradictory and inconsistent to define a Christian just because they have existed for thousands of years. Flat earthers existed for thousands of years (some even today). That isn't a reason to maintain it. A minimalist definition works best. Those who claim to believe and follow the revelations of Jesus Christ about God who IS agape love and follow His instructions to His disciples to love God and each other.
Ah, so in your view the Bible and orthodox Christianity are the "doctrines and precepts of men." There is no reason for we enlightened non-flat-earthers to "maintain" them. A "minimalist definition" works best. And whose minimalist definition would that be? Yours, of course.
You are simply making my point. A "minimalist definition" is precisely what I am suggesting with my suggestion that there are outer boundaries, beyond which a belief system cannot reasonably be characterized as Christian. Those minimalist boundaries are the ones set forth in the Bible, espoused by Jesus, and believed and taught by billions of Christians of all stripes over the past 2,000 years.
If one believes the Bible and orthodox Christianity are the "doctrines and precepts of men," where then is Christianity? There is no Christianity. All we know about Jesus is in the NT. If we reject the harsh, not-so-warm-and-fuzzy Jesus of the NT, what basis do we have for believing the warm-and-fuzzy verses? What reason do we have to believe that the warm and fuzzy Jesus is the "real" Jesus and the other one is a fabrication? Perhaps it's the precise opposite. The not-so-warm-and-fuzzy Jesus is certainly the predominant one in the NT.
The Jesus you posit is simply not an accurate portrayal. The Bible verses that make you happy, that resonate with you, that square with the way you think things ought to be, are what is true; the rest are false. You are substituting your own judgment for the Bible and 2,000 years of Christian believers, leaders and theologians - including the eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. They have all been wrong, but you have discovered the real Jesus.
Jesus was a Jew. He believed and taught the OT Scriptures without exception or reservation. He wasn't a Good Fairy who appeared on the scene to usher in the New Age. Unless we regard it as acceptable Bible scholarship to simply pick and choose the handful of verses that make us happy and ignore the vastly greater number that don't, we cannot assemble a portrait of Jesus in this way. The portrait that you have assembled is really more a portrait of you. Jesus is incidental - a convenient appeal to authority only to the extent He meshes with your philosophy.
I realize Bible verses carry no weight in this version of Christianity, but verses such as these would certainly give me pause if I were inclined to adopt it (all verses NIV):
2 Timothy 4:3-4 - For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
1 John 1:22 - Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist--denying the Father and the Son.
2 Corinthians 13-15 - For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.
Galatians 1:7-8 - Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
2 Peter 2:1-2 - But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
As far as I know there hasn't been a revised definition of what a Christian is. (325 ad/ce)
Ya gotta believe in everything in Nicene Creed, correct?
If you don't believe in one thing ...you cannot call yourself a Christian.
Seems simple to me.
Basic black and white thinking.
I am not a Christian, cuz of this, and I say it all the time here.
The outer boundaries of Christianity that I am talking about are not set forth in any creed. They are more fundamental than that. They don't establish what Christians (or Catholics or Baptists or Whatever) must "believe." They establish what Christianity is.
Christianity of every stripe posits a certain version of reality: The very physical and moral nature of the Universe, who God is, what humans are, what the nature of the relationship between God and humans is, what purpose Jesus serves in God's plan. When you jettison some or all of those core precepts and reduce Christianity to "just be a good person who models himself or herself on the warm-and-fuzzy Jesus verses in the NT," you stand Christianity on its ear and reduce it to a caricature of what it has always been understood to be.
If all that is required for salvation is "just be a good person who models himself or herself on the warm-and-fuzzy Jesus verses in the NT," then literally every understanding of Christianity for the past 2,000 years - eyewitnesses to Jesus' own ministry, the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, thousands of Protestant denominations, thousands of Bible scholars and theologians - have been dead wrong. That may seem plausible to some, but not to me.
I have no problem with an honest atheist or someone who honestly says "I admire some of what Jesus taught, but I'm not a Christian" (kudos to you). What I am troubled by are those who posit a Christianity that bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Christianity has always been understood to be. These versions of Christianity sound to me disturbingly like what the Bible tells us will arise in the end times.
I'm a subscriber to the Nicene Creed. I consider that a pretty good foundation. But, as Paul warns us, it's important to not worry about what other Christians are doing and to instead focus on ourselves. I think pointing an accusing finger at some other denomination and say, "Why, they are not true Christians because...." is nothing more than a transparent attempt to elevate oneself at the expense of others.
Not too long ago, I was witness to an event that managed to capture that: A baptism at our church. Yes, Christians disagree on what constitutes baptism. Some say that infant baptism is appropriate. Some say that full immersion of an adult is required. I'm not here to debate that. And if you choose to do so, you've already completely missed my point.
In my church, we practice infant baptism. A beautiful, faithful young couple brought their daughter to be baptized. The wife was a lifelong member of our denomination, while the husband came from a different, deeply fundamentalist Christian tradition.
Both families attended. When it came time for the act of baptism, the husband's family rose as one and stormed out of the church in protest. In this premeditated act on their part, they took a beautiful moment in this couple's life and marred it forever to score their little doctrinal point. Yet it never occurred to them that, by doing so, they did something so deeply unchristian. They chose the demands of overweening piety and self-righteousness over those of Christian love, and likely sundered their family forever as a result. If we seek to be Christlike in all that we do, I can't imagine Christ behaving in such a vicious and destructive way. Could you?
If my family had behaved like that, I'd be hard-pressed to live up to my Christian duty to forgive. At least for a very long time.
Interesting post Minivan Driver; About the family ties to doctrinal traditions that can break or bind, I myself, was first baptized using a Church dog's cracked drinking bowl because it was such a spur of the moment's notice. My mother's family wanted to baptize me Congregational Protestant, instead of having the in-laws baptize me Roman Catholic. They did not speak to each other since. There is a Christian message we could learn from this.
Last edited by glenninindy; 06-27-2019 at 09:49 AM..
The outer boundaries of Christianity that I am talking about are
not set forth in any creed.
They are more fundamental than that.
They don't establish what Christians..... must "believe."
They establish what Christianity is.
Ah, so we toss that Creed?
What is more fundamental that that Creed?
What outer boundaries are "They" establishing then?
Just trying to understand what ur getting at.
Now, are you going to be telling us ''what Christianity is?"?
Tricky road...then, we each can do the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I know Him up-close and personal...no unseen, nebulous 'thing' to ME!
Here, the Nicene Creed:
