Why define "Christian" in Trinity-centeric way?

[Jane_Doe]

Hi everyone,

On CF and in RL, I've met many mainline Christian folks whom define a "Christian", first and foremost, as someone who believes in the Nicene-outlaid Trinity.

Why is this? Why not define "Christian" as "a Christ-follower", or "Someone whom believes in Christ as their savior?"

(Note: I'm honestly here trying to understand to different perspectives, and totally not interested in arguing)

 

[AvgJoe]

Hi everyone,

On CF and in RL, I've met many mainline Christian folks whom define a "Christian", first and foremost, as someone who believes in the Nicene-outlaid Trinity.

Why is this? Why not define "Christian" as "a Christ-follower", or "Someone whom believes in Christ as their savior?"

(Note: I'm honestly here trying to understand to different perspectives, and totally not interested in arguing)

It's not a creed that I follow, it's the Bible. The Trinity is laid out in the Bible. First, the Bible emphatically states that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 8, 45:5, 14, 18,21, 22, 46:9, 47:8, John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:5-6, Gal. 4:8-9). But we see the Bible speaking of God as; God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit, three persons of the Godhead that we call the Trinity.

The word, "person," is used to describe the three members of the Godhead because the word, "person," is appropriate. A person is self-aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three persons in the Trinity demonstrates these qualities. Following is a chart that shows many of the verses that form the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible.

The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at by looking at the whole of Scripture--not in a single verse. It is the doctrine that there is only one God and not three and that the one God exists in three persons: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[abysmul]

Hi everyone,

On CF and in RL, I've met many mainline Christian folks whom define a "Christian", first and foremost, as someone who believes in the Nicene-outlaid Trinity.

Why is this? Why not define "Christian" as "a Christ-follower", or "Someone whom believes in Christ as their savior?"

(Note: I'm honestly here trying to understand to different perspectives, and totally not interested in arguing)

Because that what many have been indoctrinated into. This is not a concept that they arrived at on their own, it is something they were spoon fed and told that if they did not believe it, then they were not Christian (and would subsequently be tortured for eternity in Hell-fire).

 

[paul1149]

Why not define "Christian" as "a Christ-follower", or "Someone whom believes in Christ as their savior?"

I think the reason for doctrinal emphasis is the amount of error out there. You get people claiming to be Christians who believe all kinds of things. Many may be for all I know, but there are some beliefs that are grossly contrary to the Bible, and destructive. And understanding the nature of the person of Christ is in particular extremely important.

Ideally we would hold up right doctrine, but allow for the Holy Spirit's work to convince men of truth. I know that it my particular case, I was a Christian for a good year or so before I was a Trinitarian, and I'm glad the church didn't exclude during that period. We need to emphasize the gracious saving work of Christ first, and then sort the doctrine out.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hi everyone,

On CF and in RL, I've met many mainline Christian folks whom define a "Christian", first and foremost, as someone who believes in the Nicene-outlaid Trinity.

Why is this? Why not define "Christian" as "a Christ-follower", or "Someone whom believes in Christ as their savior?"

(Note: I'm honestly here trying to understand to different perspectives, and totally not interested in arguing)

The Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed has been the defining confession of faith for the Christian Church in its rejection of the errors of Sabellianism, Arianism, and Macedonianism.

The point is to declare, with firmness, what is true faith (orthodoxy) against what is something else, that is, another faith (heterodoxy).

Without some measure of Christological confession there's really no belief at all.

By the loosest standard one who is a "Jesus follower" can extend to Muslims and Baha'is just as easily as to Christians.

There's something far more central to the Christian confession then simply acknowledging that there was a Jesus, that His teachings are valuable, or that He was a person of divine significance in some way.

That central issue of Christological confession is what was largely the place of theological debate and controversy for most of the first thousand years of Church history. With Docetists and Ebionites on the early end of the first millennium, and Iconoclasts at the late end of the first millennium. With Marcionism, Valentianism, other schools of Gnosticism, the Sabellians, the Adoptionists, Arianism, Apollonarianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, Monothelitism, all in the middle.

We are compelled by faith to say something. That something is, fundamentally, the Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed; that Jesus the Christ is indeed true God of true God, begotten not made, of one being with the Father. Through whom all things were made, and was made man in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[patrick jane]

good post

 

[hedrick]

ViaCrucis has given you are good starting point. Many people admire at least some of Jesus’ teachings. A Christian, however, is someone whose primary religious commitment is to Jesus.

The Nicene Creed is actually a fairly minimal standard. It says nothing about three persons, or one person with two natures. The critical section on Christ can reasonably be seen as a restatement of John 1: John says the Word was with God, the Word was God, and the Word became flesh.

The Nicene Creed says that the Word is God from God, light from Light, of the same substance with the Father. This is the same thing as saying that the Word was God. The extra wording is because some people were saying that the Word was a supernatural entity that was less than God. “Begotten, not made” is because those people were claiming that the Word was a created being, who was created ("made") at a specific time, which contradicts John 1 and several other passages. The Nicene language is chosen to make it clear that the Word wasn’t an inferior creature. Came down from heaven and was incarnate is just a more explicit way of saying the Word was made flesh. I really don’t think there’s any problem with that language, even from my fairly liberal perspective.

My church, the Presbyterian Church (USA) asks prospective members to agree that they accept Christ as Lord and Savior, and that they trust him. I’d prefer to use that to define Christian. But the Nicene Creed isn’t so unreasonable.

 

[JackRT]

We must remember that our New Testament was written almost entirely for Jews, by Jews and about Jews in a first century environment whereas our Christian doctrines emerged in the fourth and fifth centuries in a thoroughly Greco-Roman environment. I know that modalism is considered a heresy but at least it has the virtue of being my heresy.

Among others.

 

[ewq1938]

Hi everyone,

On CF and in RL, I've met many mainline Christian folks whom define a "Christian", first and foremost, as someone who believes in the Nicene-outlaid Trinity.

Why is this? Why not define "Christian" as "a Christ-follower", or "Someone whom believes in Christ as their savior?"

(Note: I'm honestly here trying to understand to different perspectives, and totally not interested in arguing)

A Christian is one who has accepted Jesus Christ as Messiah/Savior. No creed determines one's Christianity but would more likely show one's denominational affiliation or leanings.

 

[aiki]

Here's an interesting article and very germaine to this thread.

http://www.str.org/publications/sol...-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1#.Vkp-pPlJbct

Selah.

 

[hedrick]

Here's an interesting article and very germaine to this thread.

http://www.str.org/publications/sol...-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1#.Vkp-pPlJbct

Selah.

I have some concerns about this article. It ends up saying that the Trinity has three consciousnesses. As far as I can tell from my reading, this is true primarily for certain theologians writing since Karl Barth. Classically I believe the Trinity would be seen as having a single consciousness. It is certainly clear that the Trinity has a single will. That was decided in the debate over the monothelites, as I noted before. However consciousness in the modern sense was not an issue during the early Church. Nevertheless, the idea of three consciousnesses seems to be recent and controversial. I’m sympathetic with the motivation, but I’m not convinced.

For a summary of the situation, see http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/metzlerquestioningthesocialtrinity.pdf.

 

[aiki]

Well, I think the article does a very good job laying out why the Trinity, at least in the aspects it covers, is an important doctrine. I'm not sure why your being not convinced of the thinking in the article is important to note. I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't offer the article in the hopes you would give it your stamp of approval.

Selah.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Wow, thanks everyone for the outpouring of responses. I have to work late tonight, but will go through them thoroughly tomorrow. After a brief skim though, I did want to clarify my question--

My question is WHY use the Trinity as the primary metric of whom is a Christian vs not. I'm not asking what the Trinity is (though I appreciate the info).

Edit: reading through here, it seems that many posters do not use the Nicean Creed as their definition of who and who isn't a Christian. So, I'll ask a second question: if not the Nicean creed, what do you use to define who is a Christian, and why?

 

[ewq1938]

Wow, thanks everyone for the outpouring of responses. I have to work late tonight, but will go through them thoroughly tomorrow. After a brief skim though, I did want to clarify my question--

My question is WHY use the Trinity as the primary metric of whom is a Christian vs not. I'm not asking what the Trinity is (though I appreciate the info).

It varies from person to person but IMO most Trin Christians still consider non-trins as Christians but believe they are confused about the nature of God. I searched a long time for scripture that could possibly show non-trins aren't Christians but I couldn't find any so had to conclude belief in the Trinity isn't what makes a person a Christian nor what saves someone.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Wow, thanks everyone for the outpouring of responses. I have to work late tonight, but will go through them thoroughly tomorrow. After a brief skim though, I did want to clarify my question--

My question is WHY use the Trinity as the primary metric of whom is a Christian vs not. I'm not asking what the Trinity is (though I appreciate the info).

Edit: reading through here, it seems that many posters do not use the Nicean Creed as their definition of who and who isn't a Christian. So, I'll ask a second question: if not the Nicean creed, what do you use to define who is a Christian, and why?

At an ecclesial level the Nicene Creed is more-or-less what all mainstream Christian denominations and groups are going to use as the litmus test of bare bones orthodoxy. Individual opinions, and some what I'd call neo-Protestant groups will vary. I often hear belief that "Jesus is God" as the litmust test of who is and isn't a Christian, of course from an orthodox stand point that is itself fraught with problems (plenty of heretics, past and present, believe[d] Jesus is God). A common neo-Protestant "Bible only" mantra is that there is no creed but the Bible and so the Bible is the litmus test--the problem with this approach is that what is really being said is "what we believe about the Bible" rather than the Bible itself, but it needs to be improperly framed as the Bible itself in order to avoid the complexity and hard work of actually reading and studying the Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

ViaCrucis has answered that the Nicene Creed is used to define orthodox Christian. But the OP has asked about Christian, not orthodoxy.

My church requires members to accepts Christ as Lord and Savior.

I would say that this is anyone whose primary religious commitment is to Christ.

Let’s look at some boundary cases. JWs and Mormons both meet that definition, but have unorthodox concepts of God. I would consider them unorthodox Christians.

The current Unitarian-Universalist Church is part of a tradition that sees God as accessible through Christ, Buddha, and many other ways. Even though they admire Jesus and follow his teachings, I don’t see someone as Christian who sees Jesus as one of many ways to approach God.

How about Marcus Borg? He believed that Jesus was one of many ways to God, but as a matter of personal commitment had chosen to follow Jesus specifically. I consider him a Christian, although an unorthodox one.

Are any beliefs essential? What about someone who followed Jesus, but didn’t believe in God? We have had a couple of cases like that in my church. Since Jesus founded his message on love of God and neighbor, and much of his message was about the Father's love for us, someone who doesn’t believe in God seems to reject Jesus’ message in a fundamental way. Our General Assembly ruled that atheists can’t join our church.

The Gospels also portray Jesus as Son of God. It does this in several different ways, ranging from John’s explicit statements (“whoever has seen me has seen the Father”) to Jesus acting for and as God. Borg’s own definition of Christian includes this: “To be Christian is to affirm that Jesus is the Son of God and Lord, and that the would-be lords of this world are not.” I would agree.

But I wouldn’t go beyond this to define Christian, though not everyone who meets these requirements is an orthodox Christian.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Wow, thanks everyone for the outpouring of responses. I have to work late tonight, but will go through them thoroughly tomorrow. After a brief skim though, I did want to clarify my question--

My question is WHY use the Trinity as the primary metric of whom is a Christian vs not. I'm not asking what the Trinity is (though I appreciate the info).

Edit: reading through here, it seems that many posters do not use the Nicean Creed as their definition of who and who isn't a Christian. So, I'll ask a second question: if not the Nicean creed, what do you use to define who is a Christian, and why?

I do not really judge who is a Christian and who is not. I usually leave that between the person and God. If someone believes they are a Christian there is something there tying them to Jesus Christ so I may try to teach them something, but I would never say they are not a Christian because that is for God only to decide. I know that there are judgemental people in Christianity, so I try really hard not to be one of those but to give it to God since He knows the person's heart and I do not.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Wow, thanks everyone for the outpouring of responses. I have to work late tonight, but will go through them thoroughly tomorrow. After a brief skim though, I did want to clarify my question--

My question is WHY use the Trinity as the primary metric of whom is a Christian vs not. I'm not asking what the Trinity is (though I appreciate the info).

Edit: reading through here, it seems that many posters do not use the Nicean Creed as their definition of who and who isn't a Christian. So, I'll ask a second question: if not the Nicean creed, what do you use to define who is a Christian, and why?

Jesus said He who believes (trusts) me will have everlasting life, he also said that to know him was to know the Father, and that the Holy Spirit (the comforter) would come after his ascension.

The defining characteristic of a Christian is belief (trust) in Christ. If one doesn't rely on the things Christ said and showed, it's hard to see where the trust is. That trust implies an understanding of three persons He called Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's clear that they are spoken of by Jesus as of the same mind, but yet distinct. The orthodox formulation may not reflect its full nature, but it's a solid articulation that rests firmly on Christ's own words about the subject.

Can a person believe in/follow Jesus and not be a trinitarian? Yes, when we first know someone, even someone we love, and would trust with our lives, we don't know everything about them. Knowing in full takes time. Those who trust Christ (know him) are likewise known by him and he knows them fully--and loves them anyway and will not lose them. This is the essence of the Gospel.

 

[Light of the East]

Because that what many have been indoctrinated into. This is not a concept that they arrived at on their own, it is something they were spoon fed and told that if they did not believe it, then they were not Christian (and would subsequently be tortured for eternity in Hell-fire).

Wow!

So the writings and philosophical musings, prayers and councils of the first Christians had nothing to do with establishing the trinitarian nature of God over the Arian heresy?

Amazing!

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think it is very clear from reading the Word that there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

All three are spoken of often, so of course there is a Trinity.