As a Wesleyan, how would you define a Christian?

[lucaspa]

Yes, well the Unitarians are a very weird group of people and I do not understand what they believe. I don't even think they know what they believe.

Despite the name, they are very diverse.

Yes my church does recite the Nicene and Apostles Creeds. I would imagine that my last couple of sentences were likely from my memory of those creeds.

I thought that might be the case.

Yes, as a Christian one should believe that God is the Creator of the universe. The only people I know who claim to be Christian and believe that god is not truly the creator are Mormons. They believe that mater has always existed independent of god.

God as Creator is the first belief in both creeds.

Where did you hear Mormons do not believe God is Creator? I've been doing a bit of research and it appears not to be the case:
Heavenly Father - God, the Heavenly Father
Doctrine

The idea that matter always existed originated with Aristotle and is the belief of many atheists.

 

[Maid Marie]

Or you could look at the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. Don't they recite those in your church services?

My denomination does not. Instead, we hear many, many sermons on salvation by way of repeating the sinner's prayer. So, at one time I would have said that one is a Christian if one has said the "Sinner's Prayer". But as I have pondered this, heard others' testimonies and thought about my own journey of faith, I am realizing that that doesn't fully describe the salvation process.

Through my theology classes, I have come to have a greater appreciation for the creeds, saying them as a congregation every Sunday, and the role of baptism in the life of the believer.

 

[lucaspa]

While that may be 'logical', it doesn't mean that it is taught unfortunately. I've had to learn this on my own through cds/dvds from the Teaching Co.

And you attended seminary? Hmmm. Maybe Greg teaches at an unusual seminary. There is not a course dedicated to logic, it seems, so maybe they teach it as part of Cos 111 or 112, where it would seem to fit: http://www.gbhem.org/atf/cf/%7B0BCEF929-BDBA-4AA0-968F-D1986A8EEF80%7D/LSCOSCourseDescriptions.pdf Or don't teach it, as the case may be.

OK, I guess I will be less shy about bringing up basic things in logic like "necessary and sufficient".

 

[lucaspa]

My denomination does not.

So the Nazarenes don't state the creeds anywhere in the service? I learned something new. I've never heard the "Sinner's Prayer" -- under that name -- in a UMC church. It may be the public prayer of forgiveness?

Through my theology classes, I have come to have a greater appreciation for the creeds, saying them as a congregation every Sunday, and the role of baptism in the life of the believer.

So are you going to have your congregation say the creeds?

 

[Mr Dave]

So the Nazarenes don't state the creeds anywhere in the service? I learned something new.

We don't over here either, that's a very high thing, I've only known it in RC Churches, not even in high Anglican churches (although some may). I've learned something new too, I didn't realise you guys did

 

[Qyöt27]

Yes, well the Unitarians are a very weird group of people and I do not understand what they believe. I don't even think they know what they believe.

At least from what I've read about Unitarianism, it posits itself as simply a faith-affirming community, not a distinct faith unto itself. In other words, it's not really about doctrine, but of people from different religious backgrounds being able to lay aside their differences, worship together, and essentially believe that each other's faiths are equal and true paths to God. Contradictory beliefs about other faiths within the source traditions are then glossed over or written out for the sake of unity.

I may in fact be conflating this with Unitarian Universalism, but the similarities are strong enough I think it's at least partially warranted. So the end answer of what they believe is - 'only they know'. Or 'a lot of different things'.

Yes, as a Christian one should believe that God is the Creator of the universe. The only people I know who claim to be Christian and believe that god is not truly the creator are Mormons. They believe that mater has always existed independent of god. Of course they have a whole number of additional beliefs that do not jive with what it means to be a Christian.

Similar (not necessarily what Mormons explicitly believe, but similar) points also existed in the Early Church, due to many of the Classical Heresies. Gnostics and other groups often would consider the God of the Old Testament to be a malevolent Demiurge and that Jesus was sent by a different, higher God. The Demiurge part is where the Gnostic justification that physical matter is inherently evil and to attain salvation one must gain the knowledge to escape those bonds comes from. Then things get real interesting, as there is commonly a perception that this manifested in a couple different ways - asceticism to kill the flesh, which is what many feel Paul was referring to in his cautions against that, or hedonism borne out of the futility that as physical beings we can only escape it by actually dying, but since suicide isn't a proper option, might as well enjoy it...

This may have actually originated as hyperbole or propaganda rather than what ancient Gnostics actually practiced, but some modern Gnostic groups do hold more libertine beliefs than mainstream churches, with the use of 'Bride-Chamber' as a sacrament instead of Matrimony. The Ecclesia Gnostica, for example; not to be confused with the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica that is aligned with Ordo Templi Orientis and Thelema, and is heavily sexualized - the latter is descended from Crowley, the former claims Valentinian and/or Rosicrucian heritage, which does actually put it into the category of 'Christian heresy' (or 'Gnostic Christianity', one of many in the overarching topic of Esoteric Christianity, tangentially related to the religion as Kabbalah is to Judaism - in fact, many Gnostic or esoteric sources draw heavily from Kabbalah).

For anyone wondering, that mostly comes from me having had a passing interest with it during High School, although it only ever amounted to an academical or sociological interest (any theological intrigue faded pretty quickly because some of it is just bizarre). The stuff is dense, very very dense - it did, however, inform me enough to be able to ID certain Gnostic-like* trends in the Modern Church, and precipitated my hard swing into the anti-dualist camp.

*for such fallacies like 'secular music is evil and inherently un/non/anti-Christian', which is where a lot of that influence is actually seen. The bubble subculture is another good parallel. In both cases, it's not explicit or even implicitly Gnostic, but it's the same danger of dividing the world and your environment into far too separate boxes - something the Gnostics were guilty of.

 

[Chris81]

Where did you hear Mormons do not believe God is Creator? I've been doing a bit of research and it appears not to be the case:
Heavenly Father - God, the Heavenly Father
Doctrine

The idea that matter always existed originated with Aristotle and is the belief of many atheists.

I should have preference my statement by saying that under my opinion Mormons do not hold what I consider a traditional christian view of creation. If you look at some of Joseph Smiths Sermons he spoke of mater always existing independent from the existence of God. It would not surprise me if the Mormon Church no longer claims this as their doctrine or at least has hidden it from public view. The Mormon Church has been working to present themselves as being within the mainstream of Christianity and they will at times modify doctrine to appear more appealing to those outside of the Mormon faith.

I would like to clarify that I am in no way a fundamentalist. I am open to evolution as process by which god created life on Earth and I do not believe there is any conflict between the findings of science and teachings of scripture. I do however believe that there are some distinctive beliefs about Creation which Christians should believe. I believe that conception of matter as some form of eternal entity that has existed independent of God would be inconsistent with the God of the bible that I have read in the scriptures.

 

[Maid Marie]

And you attended seminary?

I am taking classes for ordination through Nazarene Bible College. There is no logic requirement, nor at Nazarene Seminary. Also, in my observation of the 7 Nazarene pastors that I have had in my church experience, none of them ever had a logic class either [and and did I notice the lack thereof!!!!]. I know that Olivet Nazarene University [my alma mater] taught it but don't think it was a religion degree requirement. And in my years of listening to Nazarene evangelists, I don't think they ever had a logic course either [heard some crazy sermons when I was a kid].

So the Nazarenes don't state the creeds anywhere in the service?

Nope. There are a few Nazarene pastors who are becoming more "Wesleyan" so will introduce more of these kinds of things but that is only a handful. So, basically, nope.

I've never heard the "Sinner's Prayer" -- under that name -- in a UMC church. It may be the public prayer of forgiveness?

Never heard the public prayer for forgiveness [at least not that I can recall]. I'll have to pay better attention the next time I am at the UM church.

The sinner's prayer was usually introduced by the preacher at the end of the sermon. Those who feel so moved to pray for salvation would go up front to the altar railing and pray this either alone or with assistance. The repentant would say this prayer at the leading of the preacher or other Christian and afterwards would be considered "saved" and a Christian. Baptism is usually not mentioned.

So are you going to have your congregation say the creeds?

If I am ordained in the CotN, I would like to have the congregation eventually become used to and see as a means of grace many aspects of historical Christianity that are currently neglected in the CotN in the USA. My first issue would be having communion be more than once a quarter and not seen as a memorial. Eventually, I will try to include a creed. And if I am ordained in the UMC, then yes, I will have them say the creeds.

We don't over here either, that's a very high thing, I've only known it in RC Churches, not even in high Anglican churches (although some may). I've learned something new too, I didn't realise you guys did

And I didn't realize y'all didn't. Quite the day for learning, isn't it?

 

[Mr Dave]

And I didn't realize y'all didn't. Quite the day for learning, isn't it?

It really is. I guess that's part the reason why we're on here though

As for the public prayers of forgiveness, all of our services have a prayer of confession led by the preacher, and if we're using the liturgy (usually only in Holy Communion services) the congregation will say the Prayer of Confession together, something along the lines of the collect fro purity then the confessional prayer

"Let us pray

Almighty God
To whom all hearts are open
All desires known
And from whom no secrets are hidden
Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts
By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
That we may perfectly love you
And worthily magnify your holy name
Through Christ our Lord. Amen

Let us confess our sins to God

Most merciful God
We confess that we have sinned against you
In thought and word and deed.
We have not loved you with our whole heart.
We have not loved our neighbours as ourselves.

In your mercy

Forgive what we have been
Help us to amend what we are
And direct what we shall be
That we may delight in your will
And walk in your ways
through Christ our Lord. Amen

If we confess our sins
God is faithful and just
And will forgive our sins
And cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Amen. Thanks be to God."

Baptism is mentioned after the Lord's prayer in Holy Communion.

 

[Maid Marie]

For anyone wondering...

While I am usually impressed with your knowledge and communication skills, this post did have me blinking in amazement at the breadth of knowledge Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Maid Marie]

It really is. I guess that's part the reason why we're on here though

As for the public prayers of forgiveness, all of our services have a prayer of confession led by the preacher, and if we're using the liturgy (usually only in Holy Communion services) the congregation will say the Prayer of Confession together, something along the lines of the collect fro purity then the confessional prayer

"Let us pray

Almighty God
To whom all hearts are open
All desires known
And from whom no secrets are hidden
Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts
By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
That we may perfectly love you
And worthily magnify your holy name
Through Christ our Lord. Amen

Let us confess our sins to God

Most merciful God
We confess that we have sinned against you
In thought and word and deed.
We have not loved you with our whole heart.
We have not loved our neighbours as ourselves.

In your mercy

Forgive what we have been
Help us to amend what we are
And direct what we shall be
That we may delight in your will
And walk in your ways
through Christ our Lord. Amen

If we confess our sins
God is faithful and just
And will forgive our sins
And cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Amen. Thanks be to God."

Baptism is mentioned after the Lord's prayer in Holy Communion.

Thanks That looks interesting and good.

The difference between this and the typical Nazarene emphasis is that, due to our American Holiness Movement background, we tend to make this an emotional moment and the highlight of many services. Personally, I am seeing the value in having the prayer be a regular, non-emotional part of the service similar to how you've presented it. I mean, emotional appeals for salvation and sanctification could be quite strong in Naz services so much so that when I was a teenager I thought one wasn't properly saved unless one included sobbing at the altar rail as a part of the prayer.

 

[Mr Dave]

Thanks That looks interesting and good.

The difference between this and the typical Nazarene emphasis is that, due to our American Holiness Movement background, we tend to make this an emotional moment and the highlight of many services. Personally, I am seeing the value in having the prayer be a regular, non-emotional part of the service similar to how you've presented it. I mean, emotional appeals for salvation and sanctification could be quite strong in Naz services so much so that when I was a teenager I thought one wasn't properly saved unless one included sobbing at the altar rail as a part of the prayer.

That sounds much more like my experience of independent pentecostal churches/ neo-charismatic churches (my ex-girlfriend went to one, so I went every now and again, quite an eye-opener!). I don't know about the UMC, but we never have 'emotional prayers' (in that sense), maybe it's a part of the Wesleyan/Evangelical Revival heritage that we've lost

 

[Maid Marie]

That sounds much more like my experience of independent pentecostal churches/ neo-charismatic churches (my ex-girlfriend went to one, so I went every now and again, quite an eye-opener!). I don't know about the UMC, but we never have 'emotional prayers' (in that sense), maybe it's a part of the Wesleyan/Evangelical Revival heritage that we've lost

Yes, it would be similar to a P/C church service except without the speaking in tongues.

 

[Maid Marie]

I am taking classes for ordination through Nazarene Bible College. There is no logic requirement, nor at Nazarene Seminary. Also, in my observation of the 7 Nazarene pastors that I have had in my church experience, none of them ever had a logic class either [and and did I notice the lack thereof!!!!]. I know that Olivet Nazarene University [my alma mater] taught it but don't think it was a religion degree requirement. And in my years of listening to Nazarene evangelists, I don't think they ever had a logic course either [heard some crazy sermons when I was a kid].

After I got off of here, I remembered that my Bib Lit major roommate did have a lot of logic taught to her in by one of her intructors. He felt that that was a priority. So maybe there is some training in logic done, just not in a "logic" class. And in my research of NTS, I think for the Master's in Evangelism or in Church planting, there might be some of that done.

 

[Historicus]

Thanks That looks interesting and good.

The difference between this and the typical Nazarene emphasis is that, due to our American Holiness Movement background, we tend to make this an emotional moment and the highlight of many services. Personally, I am seeing the value in having the prayer be a regular, non-emotional part of the service similar to how you've presented it. I mean, emotional appeals for salvation and sanctification could be quite strong in Naz services so much so that when I was a teenager I thought one wasn't properly saved unless one included sobbing at the altar rail as a part of the prayer.

I can relate to this having grown up Free Will Baptist. That was generally what they considered to be the moment one was "saved/born-again". The more emotional, the more genuine it was evidently thought to be. There was never an appeal for sanctification though since they thought it to be a secondary part of justification, and not another work of grace. In fact, every sermon I've ever heard even to a group where the Pastor had baptized everyone was still directed directly at the salvation message and "getting people saved" and to "come to the altar" (which was a large bench ). I never understood this even though that is where my Christian profession began.

I think that is why I found the Methodists (among others) so refreshing. The emphasis was placed on God, instead on oneself, and how God would be working throughout our lives, instead of a single moment that was supposed to define everything. I see salvation now more as a lifelong process of responding to God's grace...previenent, justifying, and sanctifying. I do believe we are "saved" (and can have that assurance), but we are also being saved, and by God's grace will be saved in the end.

I would define a Christian as someone who professes and believes in their heart that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for our sins, rose on the third day, and is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

I would define a Christian as someone who professes and believes in their heart that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for our sins, rose on the third day, and is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

^^This

 

[Maid Marie]

I can relate to this having grown up Free Will Baptist. That was generally what they considered to be the moment one was "saved/born-again". The more emotional, the more genuine it was evidently thought to be. ... In fact, every sermon I've ever heard even to a group where the Pastor had baptized everyone was still directed directly at the salvation message and "getting people saved" and to "come to the altar" (which was a large bench ). I never understood this even though that is where my Christian profession began.

Yes, Nazarenes consider this as the moment in which one is 'saved' although we don't believe in OSAS.

What was interesting to me was at the EC baptismal service this past spring was hearing a sermon on the importance of baptism [instead of the usual 'salvation' message found at the CotN or in your case Free Will Baptist]. It was just utterly fascinating how a different group of Christians viewed this moment than others would.

I think that is why I found the Methodists (among others) so refreshing. The emphasis was placed on God, instead on oneself, and how God would be working throughout our lives, instead of a single moment that was supposed to define everything. I see salvation now more as a lifelong process of responding to God's grace...previenent, justifying, and sanctifying. I do believe we are "saved" (and can have that assurance), but we are also being saved, and by God's grace will be saved in the end.

After being delivered from 13 forms of religious guilt this past spring, I am super sensitive to even a hint of emotional manipulation. While so many have come to salvation through this method, I just can't bear it anymore. The non-emotional forms of church found in the EC and UMC are meeting my needs and providing some healing.

Although, when it comes to salvation, I am kind of torn. I was baptized as a baby and can't recall when I was "saved" [in CotN eyes] so one would think I'd be happy in the UMC or EC. But, there is a part of me that has been trained to think the above is the "real" way to know if one is saved or not, that feels uneasy being in churches that don't preach/teach that way. I sat in the UM church last Sunday having this internal debate for most of the service. I wondered if I could be a part of a church that doesn't teach that...yet knowing that I can no longer be a part of a church that DOES teach that.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I'm finding it interesting that this question prompted more discussion in the WP than in any of the other places I posted it.

 

[Maid Marie]

I'm finding it interesting that this question prompted more discussion in the WP than in any of the other places I posted it.

I noticed that. It has me curious as to the reason. Do we just trust you more and thus feel safer discussing it? Or are we in WP just more curious about the subject of salvation? Or do we have a broader view of salvation and thus need to discuss it more?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Or, given that we are familiar with each other, do we just have a greater tolerance for tangents?