Who's A Real Christian, And Who Isn't?

[Minnesota]

Last night I was reading about the multitude of different forms of Christianity:Roman Catholicism, Lutheran, Seventh-Day Adventist, Mormon, Children of God, Unification Church, etc, etc. It was pointed out they are all united by a belief and acceptance that Jesus was crucified for our sins, and was resurrected. I bring this up because more than a few times on TWEB I've seen others claim or intimate that their particular belief was the only true belief, and that anyone who did not subscribe to its particular tenets had no right to the label, "Christian."

Q: What do you see the label, "Christian" encompassing?

Q: Is it enough that one simply believe in the crucification and resurrection to qualify as a Christian? If not, what's missing?

Q: Do Christian cults qualify? If not, why not?

Q. If there are "Christians," who, because of their particular beliefs, you do not feel are "real" Christians, which are these (name of organization)?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Last night I was reading about the multitude of different forms of Christianity:Roman Catholicism, Lutheran, Seventh-Day Adventist, Mormon, Children of God, Unification Church, etc, etc. It was pointed out they are all united by a belief and acceptance that Jesus was crucified for our sins, and was resurrected. I bring this up because more than a few times on TWEB I've seen others claim or intimate that their particular belief was the only true belief, and that anyone who did not subscribe to its particular tenets had no right to the label, "Christian."

Q: What do you see the label, "Christian" encompassing?

I consider the label Christian as encompassing an affirmation of certain historical claims regarding Yeshua of Nazareth his life and death and ressurrection(though, I'm willing to break bread with those that can only bring themselves to affirm the resurrection as metaphorical, but I'm pretty ecumenical.) and that holds the accounts of his ministry and the deliberations based on them found in the NT in the highest esteem and worthy of our own deliberations for how we can be more Christlike in our conduct with others. To be Christian means to be Christ-like.


Q: Is it enough that one simply believe in the crucification and resurrection to qualify as a Christian? If not, what's missing?

The issue includes issues like the Trinity. It isn't set out in the Bible in its entirety but was affirmed relatively soon by the early church. Gnosticism was considered a heresy because it denied the goodness of our material existence in contradiction to the OT and it set Jesus out as a good person, more or less, leaving the door for yet another Christ to return, just like Matrix Revolutions left open the door for the One to be reincarnated again.

And so it comes down to an affirmation of a Christian orthodoxy. What has been orthodoxy has been a source of much division among Christians historically. I think there is substantial agreement about what are essentials among most Christians. However, given that doxy and praxy are interconnected, the essentials aren't sufficient for Christians to make decisions about how best we ought to let our lights shine in this world. Many think that human sinfulness is so pervasive and immutable that the best we can do is try to save as many souls as possible before the rapture/second-coming. Others thought that Christians could bring on the millenium that was to precede the second coming by our social activism. Others like me just believe that experience has shown that how Church and State relate is an important part of our collective witness, bearing on our ability to share the Gospel with others and so following/deliberating/participating, relatively non-selfishly, in Politics should be part of our lives as being Christ-like in a democracy, which wasn't present in Biblical times.


Q: Do Christian cults qualify? If not, why not?

Many cults claim they have extra-biblical texts that trump the Bible or they have adopted past heresies as truth. Mormonism's historical claims about itself haven't born the archaeological support that is given for the OT. Most of these cults survive in part by preying on the spiritually weak who have a poor understanding of scripture and theology.

Some would argue that the word-cult reflects more the normative disposition of those who use it than anything objectively setting them apart from other religions. It is true that how Christianity has manifested itself has varied from time and place. Certain aspects of Roman Catholicism such as the veneration of Mary as having remained a virgin her entire life and been born of a virgin birth herself, could be termed as cultic. It is true that Jesus' brothers in the Bible are literally translated as step-brothers, but that could just reflect that he had a different father than them, rather than them being adopted or what-not.

Anyways, I wouldn't deny that members of said cults could have a genuine relationship with God but that's because I don't claim that having "right" theology is essential for such a relationship. It ultimately is a decision of the heart.


Q. If there are "Christians," who, because of their particular beliefs, you do not feel are "real" Christians, which are these (name of organization)?

There are people who claim to be Christians that may not truly have a relationship with God or who have walked away from such a relationship, but one can't determine such based on their theological beliefs. One should not judge lest one be judged. But such does have implications for how Church's should organize themselves in a less hierarchical organization with more responsibility spread more evenly. Unlike the RCChurch, I don't trust the mandates of the priesthood to weed out "false" Christians. As a Baptist, I believe in the priesthood of the believers, though I allow that some may be closer to God through their commitments and discipline and merit veneration as "saints".

dlw

[mickiel]

and spiritual under-achivers. The name christian has out grown the true characther of its personal claimers. The people claiming themselves christians now, have distorted what the name was meant to represent. The label of christian is a shadow of an illflated balloon that men are trying to gain from its reputation without having the inner substance of what it supposely stands for. christians are trojan horses that are not what they really seem. In my view, the vast majority of them are worse than sinners who don't attend church. Because they are plastic, hyppocrites, and selfish.

[Jude3b]

REAL CHRISTIANS
First- being religious or a member of a denomination does not make anyone a Christian. It might make them religious or a Roman Catholic or a Baptist or a Methodist, but it does not make them a Christian. So what makes one a real question, you ask? Faith in Christ and his finished work!
Real Christians are those who have received the Lord Jesus Christ as their very own personal Lord and Savior (John 1:12,13) - meaning they have been "born-again" - born from above, regenerated by the Holy Spirit. They are "saved by Grace" because of the finished work of Christ on the cross, which they have accepted when they 'BELIEVED ON" - THAT IS FULLY TRUSTED IN, the all sufficient Savior. They now live the Christian Life as a new man, desiring to obey and do what pleases God, because now they Love God with all their heart. The reason they love God with all their heart is because God loved them first and gave them a new heart. God loved them so much that "He gave His only begotten son (Jesus Christ) so that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everylasting life."
God is so good, He loves, us, paid the price for us and even gives us a heart of love for Him. Praise God! I LOVE HIM!
Sincerely, Jude 3b

[rocketman]

I will answer as the Catholic Church sees it. Take it as you want.


Q: What do you see the label, "Christian" encompassing?

CCC 782: One becomes a member [of the people of God, i.e. Christian] not by a physical birth, but by being "born anew", a birth "of water and the Spirit," this is, by faith in Christ, and Baptism.


Q: Is it enough that one simply believe in the crucification and resurrection to qualify as a Christian? If not, what's missing?

I would say that one must agree with the teachings in the statement of the Nicene Creed. This covers all the early heresies, and most of the later heresies, at least those post-1000 AD, do not directly attempt to undermine the Creed. This of course is using the term "Christian", which in this day and age can encompass alot. I personally would argue for a stricter definition.


Q: Do Christian cults qualify? If not, why not?

I think cult is a strange term for this. If you are referring to "pseudo-Christians" or "New Age Christians", I would say no. If you are referring to Mormons, I would probably say yes, if they are baptized. JWs do not because they deny the divinity of Jesus, explicitly stated in the Nicene Creed. This also makes Binarians and Unitarians outside the circle.



Q. If there are "Christians," who, because of their particular beliefs, you do not feel are "real" Christians, which are these (name of organization)?

I guess I covered this above.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I should also add that "genuine" Christians can also tragically entwine themselves in very fallen situations and fall short.

For a good history of 20th Ctry Theology, I recommend Olson and Grenz's book, "20th Century Theology:God & the World in a Transitional Age". Grenz also has a book titled, "Renewing the Center", that gets at what it means to be a Christian. My thoughts are influenced from having read it.
dlw

[Dave G]

As regards the Mormons, here is a link comparing their doctrine to historic Christianity, since it's been affirmed as Christian in this thread.
http://www.biblefacts.org/ecf/indexv8.html

The things outstanding in my mind that contradict basic Christian theology is the idea that we will all be gods (equal to God himself) and that Christ was spiritually birthed from a Father god and a Mother goddess. There are others, of course.

Also, since the Mormons have their ultimate authority in the Prophet, he is able to change doctrine and I assume scriptural authority as he receives his revelations. On another thread on this site it was stated that "the living prophet is greater than a dead one," meaning that contradictory declarations are to be ignored because the head of the church has said it to be so.

Because of the unorthodox teachings of the LDS church, I would have to say that they are not Christian.

[Nimrod]

Quite a few opinions, so far.

Here's my favorite, though:

"Most of these cults survive in part by preying on the spiritually weak who have a poor understanding of scripture and theology."

Of, course all "real Christians" are "spiritually strong", have an "excellent understanding of scripture and theology", and cannot possibly be preyed upon by any religious organization. :innocent:

Who's a real Christian, and who isn't?

God knows.

[Dave G]

Quite a few opinions, so far.

Here's my favorite, though:

"Most of these cults survive in part by preying on the spiritually weak who have a poor understanding of scripture and theology."

Of, course all "real Christians" are "spiritually strong", have an "excellent understanding of scripture and theology", and cannot possibly be preyed upon by any religious organization. :innocent:

Who's a real Christian, and who isn't?

God knows.
If you had read more carefully before you resorted to sarcasm, you would see that Love-Warrior said nothing about the people in question being "real Christians" or not, nor did he say that "real Christians" cannot possibly be preyed upon by any religious organization.

[Sheepdog]

I think Love Warrior isn't too far off, as well as rocketman. i'd emphasize whether or not the self-professed "Christian" actually has a relationship with God, given that He exists. unfortunately i am guessing that disqualifies 50-80% of Americans to claim to be Christians, but the way our society defines "Christian" is too broad. (most would know what i mean if i were to say "I am an atheist," yet not necessarily if i said "i am a Christiain").

i would also emphasize good theology, though not that one has to have good theology, but one must not be entrenched into an flawed view of God. the reasoning, of course, is that if you don't know about God, can you really know Him? i would fault JW's and Mormons on this, since the former reject Christ's divinity, and the latter the Godhead's unity. also important are sound views on the death and Resurrection of Christ and Salvation by grace through faith (though, believing the sacriments are salvific isn't damnable in my view, if and only if the person holds that it isn't the sacriments themselves that save, but the grace behind them).

[The Laughing Man]

Atheists tend to think that anyone who claims to be a Christian is one.







Except for Thomas Jefferson, of course... :nsm:

[Nimrod]

If you had read more carefully before you resorted to sarcasm, you would see that Love-Warrior said nothing about the people in question being "real Christians" or not, nor did he say that "real Christians" cannot possibly be preyed upon by any religious organization.This thread is about "real Christians".


Most of these cults survive in part by preying on the spiritually weak who have a poor understanding of scripture and theology."Spiritually weak" compared to what?
"Poor understanding" compared to what?
"Preying" according to whom?

Love-Warrior says: "One should not judge lest one be judged." This suggestion (especially when expressed passively) is often paired with a judgement. It's like "y'know, I really shouldn't judge anyone, but boy, didja notice that he doesn't have a clue?

I think that we all "judge" in some ways. It's not whether we judge; it's how we judge. Do we do it arbitrarily, superficially and dismissively? Or do we examine thoroughly, and use well-reasoned judgement that takes into account the diversity of ideas and viewpoints?

It seems very easy to dismiss millions (billions?) of intelligent, sincere truth-seekers.

Love-Warrior said: "It ultimately is a decision of the heart."

How about leaving it at that?

[Dave G]

This thread is about "real Christians".

And Love-Warrior was giving an example of what "real Christians" would be, cult members preying on the spiritually weak being examples of pseudo-Christians. You acted as though the people being preyed upon were who he was talking about. In my mind he is talking about cult leadership, but you can ask him to clarify that.
So your sarcasm is still misplaced.

[rocketman]

Okay, I didn't know much about Mormon theology...they are a bit off...exclude them from my list.

[Twilly Spree]

Mormons lost me at the golden tablets thing.

Rocket did a good job of answering as a Catholic. I'd just be repeating what he said. But not as articulately

[Da Lone-Warrior]

i would also emphasize good theology, though not that one has to have good theology, but one must not be entrenched into an flawed view of God. the reasoning, of course, is that if you don't know about God, can you really know Him? i would fault JW's and Mormons on this, since the former reject Christ's divinity, and the latter the Godhead's unity. also important are sound views on the death and Resurrection of Christ and Salvation by grace through faith (though, believing the sacriments are salvific isn't damnable in my view, if and only if the person holds that it isn't the sacriments themselves that save, but the grace behind them).

I disagree that having good theology is necessary for having a relationship with God, but I do believe that we believe and how we act are related and that being entrenched into a flawed view of God, therefore, will impact our witness to others.

Hence, doing apologetics is important, but getting others to have the "right theology" isn't all important or more important than showing God's love to others through how we live our lives. But then again, I'm from a Pietistic tradition.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

"Spiritually weak" compared to what?
"Poor understanding" compared to what?
"Preying" according to whom?

To be a spiritually strong Christian requires an understanding of Christian Theology, background in scriptures and an understanding of the context so as to better understand what scriptures meant for their original audience and how they can be exegeted to deal with today's issues. It also requires a solid prayer-life and people to hold you accountable as well as good role-models for when one is growing in one's faith.

Needless to say, many don't have that background. They don't know their scriptures and have a weak understanding of Christian Theology. I'm saying that such individuals are more likely to join cults like the JW or the Mormons.
There are some important reasons that set Christianity apart from these religions and that help merit their label as a cult or non-Christian.


Love-Warrior says: "One should not judge lest one be judged." This suggestion (especially when expressed passively) is often paired with a judgement. It's like "y'know, I really shouldn't judge anyone, but boy, didja notice that he doesn't have a clue?

The judge not lest one be judged referred mostly to a person's relationship with God. Judging the correctness of their actions or the extent to which they should have responsibilities within a Church organization is a very different thing.


I think that we all "judge" in some ways. It's not whether we judge; it's how we judge. Do we do it arbitrarily, superficially and dismissively? Or do we examine thoroughly, and use well-reasoned judgement that takes into account the diversity of ideas and viewpoints?

It is one thing to take into account the diversity of ideas and viewpoints, another to apply different critical standards to different religions. One can judge the richness of different faith's intellectual histories in comparison with its present manifestations. I would say it is very important to do so. However, within an organization there is a need for a common referent and that includes judging when some may seek to lead us in the wrong way.


It seems very easy to dismiss millions (billions?) of intelligent, sincere truth-seekers.
Love-Warrior said: "It ultimately is a decision of the heart."

How about leaving it at that?

I didn't dismiss "sincere truth-seekers". I held to a Christian ontological stance regarding ultimate truth.

dlw

[Sheepdog]

Okay, I didn't know much about Mormon theology...they are a bit off...exclude them from my list.
yeah, they believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate entities. they often get away with this by equivocating on the term "God" (although the term itself is somewhat ambiguous. it is usually more fruitful to challenge their views directly).

[Sheepdog]

I disagree that having good theology is necessary for having a relationship with God, ...
i was intentionally careful on this point, though i can see how it could be infered. i also to not agree that good theology is necessary for a relationship with God. holding to bad theology when you've been exposed to good theology, however, is going to get people in trouble, some even in danger of hell in my view, depending on the nature of the "heresy."*

*(i'm using the old definition of the term "heresy," which meant any major deviation from orthodoxy. heresy not necessarily damnable in this sense of the term.)

[Mujibur]

To be a spiritually strong Christian requires an understanding of Christian Theology, background in scriptures and an understanding of the context so as to better understand what scriptures meant for their original audience and how they can be exegeted to deal with today's issues. It also requires a solid prayer-life and people to hold you accountable as well as good role-models for when one is growing in one's faith.

Needless to say, many don't have that background. They don't know their scriptures and have a weak understanding of Christian Theology. I'm saying that such individuals are more likely to join cults like the JW or the Mormons.
There are some important reasons that set Christianity apart from these religions and that help merit their label as a cult or non-Christian.

Agreed. Although a strong understanding of theology is not necessary to have a relationship with Christ, it is important to have more than a sunday school understanding of Christianity so that you won't be deceived by false prophets who twist the bible's words to say something that it doesn't.

"10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people." Matthew 24:10-11.

You also have to look at the meaning behind the words that particular groups use to decide as to whether they are Christian or not. For example, Mormons will say they believe in the Resurrection, atonement, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Eternal Life, but when you actually look at what those words mean to them, they are quite different from the biblical position.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

i was intentionally careful on this point, though i can see how it could be infered. i also to not agree that good theology is necessary for a relationship with God. holding to bad theology when you've been exposed to good theology, however, is going to get people in trouble, some even in danger of hell in my view, depending on the nature of the "heresy."*

*(i'm using the old definition of the term "heresy," which meant any major deviation from orthodoxy. heresy not necessarily damnable in this sense of the term.)

I think we agree more than we disagree, but doxy and praxy are intertwined and so "bad" theology's main result will be that the person's conduct will fall short.

An example of this I would think would be how in Judaism, they don't have any problem with the faith of Christians, they don't have any problem with anyone's faith. Different faiths will find their way to G-d on their own, in what I call a "laissez-faire approach to comparative spiritual development". The problem is that many people's spiritual development does stagnate and this approach leads people to fail to share what they have with others to the extent that should be done. Just like Laissez-faire economics rationalizes the status quo and can hinder the making of needed changes in the economic system.

Now, I'm not going to say that Jews who believe this and are devout and strive to grow in their relationship with G-d, do not have a relationship with the same God Christians worship. I understand the tragic history of Christian-Jewish relations has helped foster this view and made it so that Gentile-Christians are best to not seek to convert Jews, since that is ladened with so much baggage. For me, I just seek to promote reconciliation, knowing that with time the original Christianity of Yeshua of Nazareth will overcome the perversion of it that advocated the persecution of the Jews on the theologically incorrect premise that they were responsible for the death of Jesus.

dlw

[Nimrod]

To be a spiritually strong Christian requires an understanding of Christian Theology, background in scriptures and an understanding of the context so as to better understand what scriptures meant for their original audience and how they can be exegeted to deal with today's issues. It also requires a solid prayer-life and people to hold you accountable as well as good role-models for when one is growing in one's faith.
How did you deterime these requirements?



Needless to say, many don't have that background. They don't know their scriptures and have a weak understanding of Christian Theology. I'm saying that such individuals are more likely to join cults like the JW or the Mormons.
There are some important reasons that set Christianity apart from these religions and that help merit their label as a cult or non-Christian.
Again you are comparing weak understanding with some arbitrary standard of "strong" understanding that you feel sets "real Christianity" apart from "cults". Aren't you implying that members of these cults are misguided idiots who deliberately close their eyes to the "obvious" reality of your interpretation of the Bible?


The judge not lest one be judged referred mostly to a person's relationship with God.
Is this mostly about a person's relationship with God? "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

How about letting God decide who's "a real Christian"?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

How did you deterime these requirements?

I'm just saying what has shown up through my experiences and reflection on the issue. They aren't part of any hand-book, but I doubt many other Christians would disagree with me regarding them.


Again you are comparing weak understanding with some arbitrary standard of "strong" understanding that you feel sets "real Christianity" apart from "cults". Aren't you implying that members of these cults are misguided idiots who deliberately close their eyes to the "obvious" reality of your interpretation of the Bible?

It isn't set in stone the exact meaning of all the terms I used above. I am sure Sheep-dog and I could disagree a bit about some aspects, but that doesn't mean it is completely arbitrary. Honestly, members of these cults are misguided, but that doesn't mean they are idiots. It isn't a matter of intellect, but has a lot to do with how one was nurtured as a spiritual infant. What sort of role-models one had in growing up and maturing and it isn't about my interpretation of the Bible. Yes, we interpret the Bible, but there also is a thing such as tradition and there are good and bad ways to go about interpreting the Bible.


Is this mostly about a person's relationship with God? "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

How about letting God decide who's "a real Christian"?

I said that already wrt the individual and their relationship with God, which I took as being most important and superceding their understanding of "right" theology. However, allowing that people can have a relationship with God and be a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness is not the same thing as saying that all these are just equally valid interpolations of the Bible.

dlw

[Dano]

I love the way you ask a question, and then set back and watch, It is good, it gets everyone to think, although the answer is simple, and we can leave the judging to others too,

The question is Who's a Real Chrsitian and who Isn't?

The answer comes from
Acts 11:26 "And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."

I do not think it was christians bragging about them selves and how they were following God's Plan etc. or bragging on their theology and doctrines.

No, they were called Christians just like you will be called a religious fanatic if you tell everyone you know how good God is to ya, and if you live a life of love and sacrifice so others will understand, That you belong to Him, and love it.

Those in the world without Christ are the ones that are to call us Christians, because they see that we FOLLOW CHRIST, AND ACT LIKE HIM. and they to are qualified to tell you who isn't a christian.

[Daawud3rd]

All true follower of Yashua the Son Of Yahweh follow the laws of Mose . As did Yashua

[Hanna222]

All true follower of Yashua the Son Of Yahweh follow the laws of Mose . As did Yashua:tongue: A real Christian??? Hummmm, to me, that would be totally Christ like. How many people do you know that are compassionate, love everyone, full of mercy and grace? One who loves the Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ. One who puts the needs of others before giving a tought to themselves. I have to agree with the person who said that the church is filled with plastic people.The modern church is full of them sadly enough. Bring yourelves OUT from amounge them!!!!!!:smile:

[anotherjarvi]

All true follower of Yashua the Son Of Yahweh follow the laws of Mose . As did Yashua

I disagree. The standard of the laws of Moses is too high for any mere man to follow. However, Jesus (Yashua) not only followed the laws of Moses, but was the fulfillment of the laws so that any who believe in (know and trust) Him and (know and trust in) the redemptive work He accomplished would be freed from the rigors of the Law (of Moses) and the Death-sentence of sin that was made known through the Law. The Law is all about sacrifice to God. It tells us that sacrifice is necessary, but Jesus was the only sacrifice that was sufficient for us. This is the righteousness of God and the gift of eternal life imparted to every real Christian.

I don't think there's any way to know 100% who's a real Christian and who isn't until it is revealed to all at the end. Matthew 10:22 "...but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved."

[Fundamental]

Love the Lord thy God with all your heart soul and mind, And confess Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

that by friends is what a christian is

[Anitra]

Q: What do you see the label, "Christian" encompassing?

I think that the whole idea of labeling a person with "this is your identity" is flawed.

An "atheist" is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, and to whom this belief is important enough to call himself an atheist. That describes one thing about an atheist. In order to find out what else that person believes, and what they are like, and how they act, you will have to get to know that person directly.

A "Christian" is someone to whom some portion or aspect of Christian scripture or tradition is important enough that they identify themselves with it. Unlike atheism, which is one claim and only one -- that the existence of a god has not been proven to them -- Christianity is a long, long dialogue with a whole lot of different ideas in it. Any one of those ideas may appeal to a particular person so strongly that she identifies as a Christian, and yet she could still differ with millions of other persons who strongly identify wih different ideas that are still within the compass of Christian history.

In order to find out what-all that person believes, and what they are like, and how they act, you will have to get to know that person directly.

It is a misuse of either term to try to correlate it with some moral judgment. There are atheists who think clearly and critically and develop a coherent and consistent worldview, and atheists who do not; there are Christians who think clearly and critically and develop a coherent and consistent worldview, and Christians who do not. There are atheists who are compassionate and ethical, and atheists who are not; there are Christians who are compassionate and ethical, and Christians who are not.

It is a misuse of either term to try to correlate it with an entire ideology, a whole set of beliefs. It is a misuse of either term to try to correlate it with a given type of character.

Whatever a person identifies themselves as gives you a general template on which to build an understanding of that particualr person, but you are always going to have to modify the template somewhat for each individual. It is no more sensible to complain that a particular Christian doesn't fit your "Christian" template than it is to complain that a particular woman doesn't fit your "woman" template or a particular Belgian doesn't fit your "Belgian" template.

So, Christians vary among themselves -- in belief, in character, in what they believe good character is. Get used to it, kids, that ain't changing any time soon. :nice: If Americans can differ among themselves, if humans can differ among themselves, if atheists can differ among themselves, if physicists can differ among themselves, why is it surprising that Christians can differ among themselves?

Monolithic societies stagnate and die. One of the reasons European culture bloomed was because it was at the geographical crossroads of many cultures. When any part of it isolated, it stopped developing until it was exposed to other cultures again.

It is extremely frustrating to any one of us who think that we know the truth, that so many people disagree with us. And every one of us believes that what we think is the truth, cause if we didn't, we wouldn't be thinking it. But like it, lump it, or dip it in chocolate, every one of us benefits from having other viewpoints around to interact with. That includes other viewpoints within "our own" tradition.

Q: Is it enough that one simply believe in the crucification and resurrection to qualify as a Christian? If not, what's missing?

There are Christians who do not believe in the crucifixion or the resurrection.

One theologian -- whose name, regretfully, I cannot remember -- said that the only rock-bottom that all Christians could agree on was "In Christ God reconciled Himself to Man." However, I have had conservative Christians disagree with me on that. :lol:

Most Christians and nonchristians will agree that "emulating Christ" -- or, at least, striving to --is a definition of a Christian, but many disagree over what that means, and conservatives aren't content with it because it emcompasses many nonchristians while eliminating some conservative Christians.

I myself am fond of the definition, "A Christian is a person who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ," with the emphasis on personal. :nice: There are many conservatives who are not content with that definition because it is subjective, it is wholly defined by the person themselves; and if an individual has, as I do, a non-orthodox definition of Jesus, the conservative considers it impossible for that person to have a realtionship with the 'real' Jesus, therefore it is impossible for them to be a 'real' Christian. Therefore not even this provides a universal definition that all can agree on.

I keep going back to: a Christian is someone who identifies with some elemetn in the long, wide dialogue of Christian tradition strongly enough to identify themselves as a Christian. In order to find out what, specifically, they are identifying with, what else they believe, and how they act, you are going to have to get to know that person.

Q: Do Christian cults qualify? If not, why not?
Q. If there are "Christians," who, because of their particular beliefs, you do not feel are "real" Christians, which are these (name of organization)?

I'll lump these together.

I do not see any value, whatsodamnever, in declaring anyone "not a real Christian," any more than I would in declaring anyone "not a real woman" or "not a real American" or "not a real human being." People are as they are; they believe as they believe; they act as they act; they identify themselves as they identify themselves. I take people as they are, as they believe, as they act, as they identify themselves. I may or may not agree with specific ideas, actions, or character values, and I will argue with any of them, but I will not argue with a person's self-identification. Neither will I disown any person as "not of my tribe" or "not like me."

I have seen someone who posted to "Christian" forum and identified themselves as Mormon savaged in a most vicious manner, usually characterized as "unchristian." That behavior is just plain wrong, in Christian or nonchristian. Within Christian context, I say that brutal behavior is fruit of the flesh, not fruit of the spirit.

One of the most basic behaviors of the flesh -- of human biology -- is to divide into in-group and out-group; to share all the bananas generously with one's in-group, but to try to take all the bananas away from the out-group. "Creeds" almost universally get used by the flesh to divide in-group from out-group and justify mistreating the out-group.

I think it is useful to study, critique, and discuss creeds. It seems to me that the people who get locked into ideologies most easily are those who grew up without any real exposure to critical thought and passionate values. Whether one grew up Christian, or humanist, or Hindu, if one grew up in an atmosphere that discussed ideas and values critically, encouraged independent thinking, developed a broad background knowledge of human thought, developed deep consideration of values, one is least likely to get sucked into gnosticism or communism or Scientology or other metaphysical pitfalls.

One of the paradoxes of human life is that the more universalist one is, the more uniquely individual and independent one is also. People who identify with small splinter groups are also most rigid and unvarying in their allegiance to an ideology.

Personally, it seems to me that allegiance to one holy universal living God Who loves all equally makes it impossible to ascribe value to anything which divides people into in-group and out-group, including creeds. It also seems to me that having a personal relationship with one holy universal living God whom one experiences as real makes it unecessary and undesirable to quarrel with others over how that God is to be described. If I desire that others have their own relationship with God, then I desire that others have their own relationship -- not one that I define for them. If I love God, then I must love all people, and if I love all people, I love them as they are, regardless of how they regard my God.

For me, personally, salvation is not the purpose of life; life is the purpose of salvation. We are saved so that we may have life, and have it more abundantly; so that we can love, and live, more creatively and fully and in more communion with God. The objective of ministry to others is not to turn them into Christians; it is not to save them: it is to increase their experience of life and love. If there is one real God, and if there is a living spirit of Christ, then loving others and assisting them in life is going to lead them closer to God and Christ more surely than leading them closer to God and Christ could lead them to more love and more life -- because when discussing God and Christ as ideas, we can easily be deluding ourselves and others with fantasies, but when we are acting in love and in the spirit of God, that is direct experience, and not intellectual fantasy.

Doxy and praxy may be interrelated -- but praxy should take the lead, in my opinion. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

[reasonabledoubt]

I agree for the most part with Anitra. It seems a distinction could be made between identifying oneself as "Christian", and who is "saved." If someone identifies themselves as Christian, I would think that should be respected. That reminds me of Episcopal Bishop Spong- who says he is a Christian because he tries to live as CHrist did. HOwever most of his intellectual beliefs are pantheist, if not borderline atheist. However, he prefers not to identify himself with those groups.

Now I realize most evangelical Christians would say that Bishop Spong is not really a Christian - and the reason they say that has nothing to do with the way he lives his life - indeed, he most likely does live like Christ did. The evangelicals would state that in order to be a real Christian, ie, saved, one must both intellectually assent to a group of statements such as found in one or all of the Creeds - and additionally have invited Christ to be their personal savior, AND ADDITIONALLY live a life that is Christlike.

However, not even evangelicals can agree on all statements of belief that should be adhered to to be saved. I would say that only God judges who is saved. That may include Jews, and others of non-Christian persuasions, we can't know.

But if someone identifies with the term "Christian"- whether intellectually, whether personally - whether it's because they were raised that way, how can anyone say to them, No you're not really a Christian?

[barryrob]

Last night I was reading about the multitude of different forms of Christianity:Roman Catholicism, Lutheran, Seventh-Day Adventist, Mormon, Children of God, Unification Church, etc, etc. It was pointed out they are all united by a belief and acceptance that Jesus was crucified for our sins, and was resurrected. I bring this up because more than a few times on TWEB I've seen others claim or intimate that their particular belief was the only true belief, and that anyone who did not subscribe to its particular tenets had no right to the label, "Christian."

Q: What do you see the label, "Christian" encompassing?

Q: Is it enough that one simply believe in the crucification and resurrection to qualify as a Christian? If not, what's missing?

Q: Do Christian cults qualify? If not, why not?

Q. If there are "Christians," who, because of their particular beliefs, you do not feel are "real" Christians, which are these (name of organization)?

This might raise a few commets but here goes:-
Insight on the scripturers Vol. 1 pp. 440-441
What It Means to Be a Christian. Jesus extended the invitation to be his follower, saying: "If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and continually follow me." (Mt 16:24) Those who are true Christians have full faith that Jesus Christ is God’s specially Anointed One and only-begotten Son, the Promised Seed who sacrificed his human life as a ransom, was resurrected and exalted to the right hand of Jehovah, and received authority to subdue his enemies and vindicate Jehovah’s name. (Mt 20:28; Lu 24:46; Joh 3:16; Ga 3:16; Php 2:9-11; Heb 10:12, 13) Christians view the Bible as the inspired Word of God, absolute truth, beneficial for teaching and disciplining mankind.—Joh 17:17; 2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 1:21.
More is required of true Christians than a mere confession of faith. It is necessary that belief be demonstrated by works. (Ro 10:10; Jas 2:17, 26) Born as sinners, those who become Christians repent, turn around, dedicate their lives to Jehovah, to worship and serve him, and then submit to water baptism. (Mt 28:19; Ac 2:38; 3:19) They must keep themselves clean from fornication, from idolatry, and from eating blood. (Ac 15:20, 29) They strip off old personalities with their fits of anger, obscene talk, lying, stealing, drunkenness, and "things like these," and they bring their lives into accord with Bible principles. (Ga 5:19-21; 1Co 6:9-11; Eph 4:17-24; Col 3:5-10) "Let none of you," wrote Peter to Christians, "suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a busybody in other people’s matters." (1Pe 4:15) Christians are to be kind and considerate, mild-tempered and long-suffering, lovingly exercising self-control. (Ga 5:22, 23; Col 3:12-14) They provide and care for their own and love their neighbors as themselves. (1Ti 5:8; Ga 6:10; Mt 22:36-40; Ro 13:8-10) The main identifying quality by which true Christians are recognized is the outstanding love they have toward one another. "By this," Jesus said, "all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves."—Joh 13:34, 35; 15:12, 13.
True Christians imitate Jesus’ example as the Great Teacher and Faithful Witness of Jehovah. (Joh 18:37; Re 1:5; 3:14) "Go . . . make disciples of people of all the nations" is their Leader’s command. (Mt 28:19, 20) In carrying it out, Christians ‘witness publicly and from house to house,’ urging people everywhere to flee out of Babylon the Great and put their hope and confidence in God’s Kingdom. (Ac 5:42; 20:20, 21; Re 18:2-4) This is really good news, but proclaiming such a message brings upon Christians great persecution and suffering, even as was experienced by Jesus Christ. His followers are not above him; it is enough if they are like him. (Mt 10:24, 25; 16:21; 24:9; Joh 15:20; 2Ti 3:12; 1Pe 2:21) If one "suffers as a Christian, let him not feel shame, but let him keep on glorifying God in this name," counseled Peter. (1Pe 4:16) Christians render to "Caesar" what belongs to the superior authorities of this world—honor, respect, tax—but at the same time they remain separate from this world’s affairs (Mt 22:21; Joh 17:16; Ro 13:1-7), and for this the world hates them.—Joh 15:19; 18:36; 1Pe 4:3, 4; Jas 4:4; 1Jo 2:15-17.
It is understandable why people with such high principles of morality and integrity, accompanied by an electrifying message delivered with fiery zeal and outspokenness, quickly gained attention in the first century. Paul’s missionary travels, for example, were like a spreading prairie fire that set city after city ablaze—Antioch in Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and Perga on one trip; Philippi, Thessalonica, Beroea, Athens, and Corinth on another—causing people to stop, think, and take their stand, either accepting or rejecting the good news of God’s Kingdom. (Ac 13:14–14:26; 16:11–18:17) Many thousands abandoned their false religious organizations, wholeheartedly embraced Christianity, and zealously took up the preaching activity in imitation of Christ Jesus and the apostles. This, in turn, made them objects of hatred and persecution, which was instigated chiefly by the false religious leaders and misinformed political rulers. Their leader Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, had been put to death on the charge of sedition; now peace-loving Christians were accused of "disturbing our city," ‘overturning the inhabited earth,’ and being a people ‘that everywhere is spoken against.’ (Ac 16:20; 17:6; 28:22) By the time Peter wrote his first letter (c. 62-64 C.E.) it seems that the activity of Christians was well known in places such as "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia."—1Pe 1:1.
Barryrob

[shunyadragon]

Most took a very egocentric view towards who is saved and gave a corresponding rationalization for their belief.

Regardless of where one is in time or place in the history of existence it will be the sincere ones in the judgement of what we call God who will be saved. I sincerely trust his compassion and judgement better than what I have seen on this thread.

God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we are the fishes.

[Mikeb]

Let's drag this dead horse out and beat it again.

If you have to ask who is a Christian, who gets into your club, then IT AINT YOU. How brain dead do you have to be to NOT figure that out. Did anybody READ that story?

[GospeLance]

Christians actuaaly do have the right to judge.

[Mikeb]

Christians actuaaly do have the right to judge.


Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37 37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:


You reading the Koran?

[shunyadragon]

Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37 37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

You reading the Koran?
Have you read the Koran?

[Mikeb]

Have you read the Koran?

Of course.

[shunyadragon]

Of course.Then you would know that the Moslem cannot judge another and that God is the sole judge in the Koran also.

[learning]

Yes, God is the sole judge. When I think of who or what is a Christian, I think that they are one who is born of the Spirit, John 3:5 "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'

I also think of the passage where Jesus speaks of the sheep and the goats.
I think this is HIS judgement of who is HIS and who is not. Matthew 25:31-40
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on the throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in. I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

I have also heard that John 13-17, Jesus shows His vision of what He wants the church or Christians to be, and some of that is abiding in Him and He will therefore cause us to bear good fruit (the good fruit being good works and good character) and also unity, as in John 17:20-25
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one. Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you gave me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

Since this was the last words before His death, I think we can say this was Jesus' vision for His church, His believers. And so, these and the Romans passage I believe helps to define what a Christian is. That we are born anew by His Spirit, that we love each other and others in the world, and that we have unity. This will show that we are Christians.
Romans 10:9
"That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

By Jesus' death and resurrection, He showed that He has power over our sins (death was that power, for sin leads to death, death of love, death of life) and so, sin no longer has a hold on us. When that voice says 'You'll never change, you'll always be this way' we can go to Jesus who gives us the power to change. He is our advocate in heaven, against the accuser, He has the power and authority to give us the power to get beyond ourselves to be what we and He wants us to be.

[GospeLance]

Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37 37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:


You reading the Koran? I get this from the Bible. Many Christians take that Matt. 7 verse out of context. I used to as well. the Matt. 7 section is talking about being a hypocritical judge, not judging in general. Christians make judgments everyday, about people, and other things. The heathen love to quote this verse, so that they can shut your mouth when you mention their sin.:eh: