[open]What Makes a Christian a Christian?

[Im_A]

sometimes this pops in and out of my head. not really a definition anymore, but what really seperates us from non-Christians?

on one hand, it is our beliefs. that which we believe. creeds, theological beliefs.

some say it is a lifestyle. the way Christ lived. yet on a mere internet message board, i can read a Buddhist getting the point behind the Gospel without the creedal affirmations.

so what really seperates Christians from non-Christians?

sometimes it's really hard to see. i'm not talking about how people sin as compared to non-Christians sinning. that argument is old in my opinion. just because one believes they are saved, they still sin just as everyone else. so i don't bother in defining how one fails as the definition that seperates us from non-believers because if that was the true case, all that seperates us is emotional good tidings that we convince ourselves of.

if it creeds, i find that hard to buy into. the creeds have changed. we have Protestants requiring creeds to be accepted from the establishment that back in the old times that group of people rebelled from. then we the battle between the West and East. point being, no matter if it is from the church, there seems no Divine Mandate in this definition. the history of the church is horrible in my opinion (i'm not talking about crusades and killings and such. that point is moot because both sides can justify their autrocities.)

i honestly do not have an answer. what are all of your opinions?

 

[DailyBlessings]

A Christian follows Christ- the only definition I need- and through him blessings are bestowed on those around them.

 

[Im_A]

A Christian follows Christ- the only definition I need- and through him blessings are bestowed on those around them.

agreed. i mean as much as i dislike labels anymore (including "Christian") i just wonder...if i see a Buddhist/Muslim/whatever else out there, living a life that seems to be comparable to the teaching of Christ, maybe on accident, or the Divine Truth of Christ is actually realistic and something more than Christians can actually follow, should they be defined as "Christians"?

 

[DailyBlessings]

agreed. i mean as much as i dislike labels anymore (including "Christian") i just wonder...if i see a Buddhist/Muslim/whatever else out there, living a life that seems to be comparable to the teaching of Christ, maybe on accident, or the Divine Truth of Christ is actually realistic and something more than Christians can actually follow, should they be defined as "Christians"?

Well, if the love of Christ is found in a non-Christian, I see little reason to be picky. If a Buddhist meets and understands Christ through the paradigm of the Buddha, which is a reflection of our Lord in a way, I find no reason to draw a distinction between us. Christian, after all, is a human term whatever definition you put to it. I don't think that Jesus, who "all nations will praise" and before whom "every knee shall bow", finds labels as important as we do.

 

[Mling]

This is why I have stopped calling myself Christian. I think it requires little more than just claiming membership to the club and finding a branch that will accept you (and no matter who you are or what you believe, there will be a branch, somewhere that accepts you.)

 

[Abiel]

If I knew the answer to this question, I would be coining it in, even as we speak!

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

For me, Christ himself has mooted such distinctions... slave/free, black/white, gay/straight, christian/atheist... whatever.

I believe that it is because Jesus is the Narrow Path that we are ALL free of the consequences of sin and ALL can know God. Be that implicitly or explicitly.

As with many things in life, the more explicitly our faith is stated or seen or understood, the farther from truth we go. That is not to say that the reverse is true, but I think implicit intimacy is more credible than explict intensity.

In other words, Jesus is in the world, the world arent so wrong. Often, we are more wrong. The truth is that unless the one person on the planet that needs Christ and Grace the most is ME then I'm never gonna help or "bless" anyone.

God honours all, I will do no different.

 

[holo]

"Christian" is just a term, a definition. What really matters is being new creature.

 

[Catherineanne]

i honestly do not have an answer. what are all of your opinions?

A Christian is a disciple of Christ. And a disciple of Christ can be identified by their love for those around them.

Creeds and liturgy come afterwards, but in any denomination, if the above is not part of our faith, then the rest is meaningless. And if it is, then the rest is beautiful, and honours God, whatever form it takes.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

agreed. i mean as much as i dislike labels anymore (including "Christian") i just wonder...if i see a Buddhist/Muslim/whatever else out there, living a life that seems to be comparable to the teaching of Christ, maybe on accident, or the Divine Truth of Christ is actually realistic and something more than Christians can actually follow, should they be defined as "Christians"?

Absolutely not! There are indeed followers of other religions, certainly some Buddhist monks, that I would say live saintly lives and have a fair degree of enlightenment. In that sense, they may be better "Christians" than most real Christians... but to use language in that way is an abuse, which if followed will debase the language, and make precision in discussions impossible.

C.S. Lewis on that, from the preface to Mere Christianity:

Far deeper objections may be felt - and have been expressed - against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: 'Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?': or 'May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?' Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.

The word gentleman 'originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone 'a gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said - so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully - 'Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man 'a gentleman' in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is 'a gentleman' becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes. (A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.

Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We' cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to he a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.

We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

And so I will have to say, with Lewis, that a Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. If you do, and don't live worthily of it, than you're a bad Christian, not a non-Christian. And if you don't, you're not a Christian, though you may be a very good, even saintly person.

 

[annaapple]

I think there's a basic theology which comes before doctrinal differences and the niceties of different practices whcih makes someone a Chrisitan. If you think Jesus was both fully man and fully God you're a Christian, in my book. In other circumstances you may live a Chrisitian type lifestyle, or whatever, but you are not a Christian as such. And I know the Muslims in my family would agree.

 

[Adammi]

I consider myself to be a creedal Christian so my first answer is the narrow "Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian Creeds" answer, but I also have a broad answer that includes all who follow examples of Christ. That broad definition would include John Paul II, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, and Bishop Spong.
I think that we need different definitions for the word "Christian" depending on the context.

 

[Abiel]

We use so many phrases that can be interpretted in different ways- that's when it starts to get hard to grasp a definition, 'fully God and fully man'


I don't think that's a phrase the apostles would have understood. Yet they followed the one who is himself.

 

[Adammi]

We use so many phrases that can be interpretted in different ways- that's when it starts to get hard to grasp a definition, 'fully God and fully man'


I don't think that's a phrase the apostles would have understood. Yet they followed the one who is himself.

True, however those alive when those words were written all knew fully well what they meant.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I consider myself to be a creedal Christian so my first answer is the narrow "Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian Creeds" answer, but I also have a broad answer that includes all who follow examples of Christ. That broad definition would include John Paul II, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Billy Graham, and Bishop Spong.
I think that we need different definitions for the word "Christian" depending on the context.

Note that four out of the six individuals named in your broader definition are also Christians in the narrower sense. Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are not, though they are of outstanding moral character. I would call them great men, holy men even, but not Christians.

Because, as Lewis observed, to use Christian to mean a "good person" really adds nothing new to the language since we already had the word "good"; and it makes precise description more difficult, just as in the case of the debasement of the word "gentleman", which used to mean someone with a coat of arms, and now just means "a nice man". I hate to see that happen to our language.

 

[Adammi]

Note that four out of the six individuals named in your broader definition are also Christians in the narrower sense. Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are not, though they are of outstanding moral character. I would call them great men, holy men even, but not Christians.

Because, as Lewis observed, to use Christian to mean a "good person" really adds nothing new to the language since we already had the word "good"; and it makes precise description more difficult, just as in the case of the debasement of the word "gentleman", which used to mean someone with a coat of arms, and now just means "a nice man". I hate to see that happen to our language.

Yes, I agree with you on the word "Christian" versus the word "good" however if we define Christian as those who follow examples of Christ then Gandhi and the Dalai Lama must be included as they follow many of the examples of Christ.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Yes, I agree with you on the word "Christian" versus the word "good" however if we define Christian as those who follow examples of Christ then Gandhi and the Dalai Lama must be included as they follow many of the examples of Christ.

Very true, IF we define Christian in that way. My point is that I am against doing that.

It isn't that I don't think Gandhi and the Dalai Lama don't deserve the highest accolades. They do. I'll call them great men, holy men, even saintly men all day long. But I won't call them Christians, even though they did follow many of the examples of Christ, because to do so would debase the language in the way C.S. Lewis described.

 

[Adammi]

Very true, IF we define Christian in that way. My point is that I am against doing that.

It isn't that I don't think Gandhi and the Dalai Lama don't deserve the highest accolades. They do. I'll call them great men, holy men, even saintly men all day long. But I won't call them Christians, even though they did follow many of the examples of Christ, because to do so would debase the language in the way C.S. Lewis described.

Very good points which lead us right back to the original question.

 

[Im_A]

i'm starting to think that the definition of Christian is based on person to person, and that there is no real ultimate definition.

many will say beliefs, or mental thoughts that we agree with on the nature of God, Jesus, the church and such, and that since we can never be without sin, thus good works, or for the sake of the threads, actions that are lived like Christ's examples are not merely defined as Christian.

then many will say that actions are the way we know what a Christian is. that the mental thoughts only go so far because works with faith is dead, so can someone be defined as a dead Christian? that's kind of nullifys itself out.

the easy answer is the ones that are the mix of it all. but i suppose it is the reality one sees it from.

i see it in action form, only coming from my own opinion. only because i could careless what people believe, if there actions aren't proving the mental thoughts/theological views worthy of something providing good fruit, what is the use of all the theologies like the Trinity, Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, Jesus saving everyone, only the believers, or even the sheer no knowledge of how God will judge everyone, and all the other theological standpoints become useless thoughts in our head that do no good to actually being "holy".

but i suppose one can find flaws in that, and there very well be, leading me to believe that the word Christian is very relative and it's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[tulc]

uhmmm their bumpersickers?
tulc(it's ok everyone, I'm taking his keyboard away from him now, Mrs.tulc)