So what actually defines a Christian?

[indopanda]

So I always assumed the definition of a Christian was someone who believes in the God described in the Old and New Testament, believes in Jesus, is baptized and desires to follow Jesus' teaching through the power of the Holy Spirit. When I signed up for this site today and read through the terms of service, I realized I could not actually list myself as a Christian on this site since I do not believe that God is a Trinity and I am unclear what is actually meant by "the full, eternal deity of Christ." I ended up choosing the Unitarian designation since, from what I understand, Unitarian doesn't imply a specific doctrine aside from believing that God is One and not part of a Trinity.

The reason I'm starting this tread is that I am curious if this site just holds to a narrow definition of Christianity or if the actual definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity. If the definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity, by what rationale is that determination made? Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

 

[Monk Brendan]

So I always assumed the definition of a Christian was someone who believes in the God described in the Old and New Testament, believes in Jesus, is baptized and desires to follow Jesus' teaching through the power of the Holy Spirit. When I signed up for this site today and read through the terms of service, I realized I could not actually list myself as a Christian on this site since I do not believe that God is a Trinity and I am unclear what is actually meant by "the full, eternal deity of Christ." I ended up choosing the Unitarian designation since, from what I understand, Unitarian doesn't imply a specific doctrine aside from believing that God is One and not part of a Trinity.

The reason I'm starting this tread is that I am curious if this site just holds to a narrow definition of Christianity or if the actual definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity. If the definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity, by what rationale is that determination made? Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

The Christian Forums uses the Nicene Creed without Filioque as it's basic standard of faith.

 

[Neostarwcc]

When I first became a Christian I didn't believe in the trinity either. Then God showed me the truth when I asked him for it.

Anyway the reason why CF requires a belief in the trinity to post is because most Christian churches out there do believe in the trinity. It's a very common belief in Christianity and most people who don't believe in the trinity aren't really called Christians. Like the Mormons and JW's.

 

[Albion]

So I always assumed the definition of a Christian was someone who believes in the God described in the Old and New Testament, believes in Jesus, is baptized and desires to follow Jesus' teaching through the power of the Holy Spirit. When I signed up for this site today and read through the terms of service, I realized I could not actually list myself as a Christian on this site since I do not believe that God is a Trinity and I am unclear what is actually meant by "the full, eternal deity of Christ." I ended up choosing the Unitarian designation since, from what I understand, Unitarian doesn't imply a specific doctrine aside from believing that God is One and not part of a Trinity.

The reason I'm starting this tread is that I am curious if this site just holds to a narrow definition of Christianity or if the actual definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity. If the definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity, by what rationale is that determination made? Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

It depends on who is making the determination. In ordinary life, we classify a person as an adherent of any religion simply according to his say-so. We do not quiz him or her in order to know what's in his or her heart or how well they comprehend the essential tenets of the specified religion. No, if he says he is a Buddhist, society accepts that as his choice. So also with Christianity.

However, within the religion, there are standards which must be met in order to be accepted as an orthodox adherent as opposed to a nominal one, The Nicene Creed is the most authoritative and widely-accepted measurement there is when it comes to the Christian religion.

 

[indopanda]

It depends on who is making the determination. In ordinary life, we classify a person as an adherent of any religion simply according to his say-so. We do not quiz him or her in order to know what's in his or her heart or how well they comprehend the essential tenets of the specified religion. No, if he says he is a Buddhist, society accepts that as his choice. So also with Christianity.

However, within the religion, there are standards which must be met in order to be accepted as an orthodox adherent as opposed to a nominal one, The Nicene Creed is the most authoritative and widely-accepted measurement there is when it comes to the Christian religion.

So if I were to summarize your answer and those above, the rationale behind choosing to define Christianity based on the Nicene creed or belief in the Trinity is because it is what a majority of Christians believe and the standard that the majority of people who identify as Christian have chosen to set for general acceptance as a member of the Christian religion.

I do find it interesting that the standard of Christianity is set based on agreement with a document written at least 300 years after the actual document that forms the basis of Christianity. I understand that this forum has chosen to define Christianity based on the former document, but I am curious as to why that should be the case broadly speaking. I suppose a group is within it's rights to define itself based on whatever criteria it chooses, but it still strikes me as odd.

So then it is not just this forum using a narrow definition. The general consensus is that Christianity is defined by belief in the Nicene Creed because the majority of Christians have decided that belief in the text of that document constitutes what it means to be a Christian. I suppose that's fair considering, as far as I know, the bible doesn't actually use the term Christian and even if it does, I don't believe it gives a definition of "Christian."

So then Christianity could be considered a group defined by shared belief in the Nicene creed. Is there a term for a group with shared belief in the Bible? I think I would belong in that group.

 

[hedrick]

There are disagreements among Christians. A lot of conservative Christians don't consider mainline Christians Christian. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and even Oneness Pentecostals are often considered non-Christian. It used to be that many Protestants didn't consider Catholics Christian, though I haven't heard that recently. My definition would be much like yours. CF has its own definitions.

I think the question you should be asking is whether Jesus considers you a Christian.

-- PS

You should also ask yourself how you should treat other Christians. We can't control other people's actions, but we can represent Christ to each other by how we treat each other.

 

[redleghunter]

Have you asked your pastor the same questions?

 

[redleghunter]

Folks this is exploring Christianity and we should be only responding to the OP and not debating each other.

Also other than the OP posing questions, those who don’t hold to the site statement of faith should not be debating as well.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So I always assumed the definition of a Christian was someone who believes in the God described in the Old and New Testament, believes in Jesus, is baptized and desires to follow Jesus' teaching through the power of the Holy Spirit. When I signed up for this site today and read through the terms of service, I realized I could not actually list myself as a Christian on this site since I do not believe that God is a Trinity and I am unclear what is actually meant by "the full, eternal deity of Christ." I ended up choosing the Unitarian designation since, from what I understand, Unitarian doesn't imply a specific doctrine aside from believing that God is One and not part of a Trinity.

The reason I'm starting this tread is that I am curious if this site just holds to a narrow definition of Christianity or if the actual definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity. If the definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity, by what rationale is that determination made? Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

The alternative to not being a Trinitarian is called a modalist. "The doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature." (defined) There are very few that go this route and it is my suspicion that you did not know. It is OK to not understand the Trinity. The doctrine of the eternal co-existent union of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is difficult to understand, after all, there is no real explanation of the Triune Divine Body of One in scripture.
So don't take it personally, it is something no one really understands but accepts. Find your own path as God wants you to know the truth so that He can be revealed to you more clearly.
Blessings

 

[Radagast]

or if the actual definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity

Belief in the Trinity has been part of the definition of Christianity for almost 2000 years. That's why we recite the Creed in church.

 

[Of the Kingdom]

So I always assumed the definition of a Christian was someone who believes in the God described in the Old and New Testament, believes in Jesus, is baptized and desires to follow Jesus' teaching through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Welcome to the forum. There are multiple ways of estimating who is a Christian. The important thing is your personal relationship with God, which no one but you can really know. That relationship can (in my personal opinion) exist even if you follow a group with many false teachings or know little about the nature of God.

The Bible says that Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness". At the time, Abraham clearly knew and believed in God, but presumably did not know that his salvation depended on Jesus' later death and resurrection. When Abraham later prepared to sacrifice Isaac, he came to understand the gospel message much better, but (in my opinion) his salvation was fully complete already when he first believed.

We never know for sure who has really been saved. If we did, we would probably say that they and no others were Christians. So we usually look at the person's beliefs and actions, and try to estimate who is likely to be saved. If you meet your own definitions, then you "[believe] in the God described in the Old and New Testament" and in Jesus. In addition you suggest that you have a desire to follow Jesus' teachings and depend on the Holy Spirit to guide you in life decisions. Based on that, I consider you likely to be a Christian in the sense of a personal relationship with God. Being baptized and demonstrating Christ-like behavior do not (in my opinion) affect your salvation status, but are evidence that you are sincere in your belief.

Since many groups encourage "nice" behavior and claim to follow Jesus, but do not seem to agree with total dependence on Jesus for our righteousness, it seems necessary to put some limits on what ideas about God are necessary to call someone Christian. At this site, they choose acceptance of the Nicene creed as one condition to be entitled to the title of Christian, because it is an easy way to eliminate many deviant groups from consideration.

I hope you will accept my apologies that you cannot formally be called a Christian here, and that you will nevertheless find helpful fellowship here.

 

[Sanoy]

This site use well defined titles to restrict certain titles from certain sections so that they can discuss things with like minded people. For example I can't post in the Catholic site because I don't have a catholic designation. But it also has sections for diverse discussion.

 

[Albion]

So if I were to summarize your answer and those above, the rationale behind choosing to define Christianity based on the Nicene creed or belief in the Trinity is because it is what a majority of Christians believe and the standard that the majority of people who identify as Christian have chosen to set for general acceptance as a member of the Christian religion.

No, I wouldn't say that, but offering you a hard and fast definition for such a term as Christian, which has many levels of meaning, is a bit tricky.

Obviously, I would say, there has to be something about the Nicene Creed or any other such standard that recommends it, not just that a majority of Christians agree with it.

I do find it interesting that the standard of Christianity is set based on agreement with a document written at least 300 years after the actual document that forms the basis of Christianity.

Well, it wasn't. The two come from approximately the same time in history.

I understand that this forum has chosen to define Christianity based on the former document, but I am curious as to why that should be the case broadly speaking. I suppose a group is within it's rights to define itself based on whatever criteria it chooses, but it still strikes me as odd.

The question is reasonable IMHO, but I don't see any reason to think that it's odd.

By the way, there are other forums which use the Apostles Creed. So, that may illustrate for you the reasoning behind making some such selection or other. If there were no guidepost, just about anyone could be joining and posting, even if they were defining Christian for themselves, possibly in some bizarre way, which in turn could make a Christian forum into something else.

So then it is not just this forum using a narrow definition.

That's true.

The general consensus is that Christianity is defined by belief in the Nicene Creed because the majority of Christians have decided that belief in the text of that document constitutes what it means to be a Christian.

No, it is that the Nicene Creed, most clearly of all such documents, reflects the essentials of the faith as determined by the churches themselves and is the most widely accepted in this capacity by the churches. To make it sound like the phone book would do just as well--or something written by the owners of the forum--so long as the majority of Christians say yes to it is quite wrong.

I suppose that's fair considering, as far as I know, the bible doesn't actually use the term Christian

Yes, it does. It is used three times: Acts of the Apostles 11:26, Acts of the Apostles 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16.

 

[indopanda]

There are disagreements among Christians. A lot of conservative Christians don't consider mainline Christians Christian. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and even Oneness Pentecostals are often considered non-Christian. It used to be that many Protestants didn't consider Catholics Christian, though I haven't heard that recently. My definition would be much like yours. CF has its own definitions.

I think the question you should be asking is whether Jesus considers you a Christian.

-- PS

You should also ask yourself how you should treat other Christians. We can't control other people's actions, but we can represent Christ to each other by how we treat each other.

Interestingly enough, I imagine there are plenty of people who believe in the Nicene Creed who Jesus would not consider a Christian and there are likewise probably plenty of people who don't believe in the Nicene creed who Jesus would consider a Christian. Again, Christians can define themselves based on whatever criteria the majority deems fit, but I worry that defining a Christian based on belief in a creed or in a metaphysical construct restricts Christianity needlessly. I understand limiting the definition to regulate discussion on these forums, but broadly defining Christianity in such a way seems problematic to me. That was the main point of this thread. I'm fairly secure in my belief in the Bible, God and Jesus.

 

[Hieronymus]

John 3:16 defines a Christian.

 

[indopanda]

Have you asked your pastor the same questions?

I can't say I have a personal pastor since I stopped attending church when I went to college and have attended church sporadically since then. I did recently met with the pastor of a church I have been attending. He informed me I could not be a member of the church if I did not believe in the Trinity, though he did offer to continue meeting to discuss the matter further.

 

[indopanda]

The alternative to not being a Trinitarian is called a modalist. "The doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature." (defined) There are very few that go this route and it is my suspicion that you did not know. It is OK to not understand the Trinity. The doctrine of the eternal co-existent union of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is difficult to understand, after all, there is no real explanation of the Triune Divine Body of One in scripture.
So don't take it personally, it is something no one really understands but accepts. Find your own path as God wants you to know the truth so that He can be revealed to you more clearly.
Blessings

I do know what modalism is and I don't believe in it. I believe that God and Jesus are distinct entities. God/the Father/YHWH and his son Jesus. I don't think it's okay to not understand the Trinity. It is okay to not understand verses in the bible, but it is not okay to believe in but not understand a metaphysical concept that was devised by men who came after the Apostles to explain concepts in the bible.

I certainly don't take it personally. I just worry about defining Christianity based on it. For the purposes of this site, fine. Broadly speaking, not so much.

 

[indopanda]

Belief in the Trinity has been part of the definition of Christianity for almost 2000 years. That's why we recite the Creed in church.

The key word there is almost. Again, I just don't understand why the definition is not directly based on the bible and not indirectly based on a creed that came later.

 

[indopanda]

Welcome to the forum. There are multiple ways of estimating who is a Christian. The important thing is your personal relationship with God, which no one but you can really know. That relationship can (in my personal opinion) exist even if you follow a group with many false teachings or know little about the nature of God.

The Bible says that Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness". At the time, Abraham clearly knew and believed in God, but presumably did not know that his salvation depended on Jesus' later death and resurrection. When Abraham later prepared to sacrifice Isaac, he came to understand the gospel message much better, but (in my opinion) his salvation was fully complete already when he first believed.

We never know for sure who has really been saved. If we did, we would probably say that they and no others were Christians. So we usually look at the person's beliefs and actions, and try to estimate who is likely to be saved. If you meet your own definitions, then you "[believe] in the God described in the Old and New Testament" and in Jesus. In addition you suggest that you have a desire to follow Jesus' teachings and depend on the Holy Spirit to guide you in life decisions. Based on that, I consider you likely to be a Christian in the sense of a personal relationship with God. Being baptized and demonstrating Christ-like behavior do not (in my opinion) affect your salvation status, but are evidence that you are sincere in your belief.

Since many groups encourage "nice" behavior and claim to follow Jesus, but do not seem to agree with total dependence on Jesus for our righteousness, it seems necessary to put some limits on what ideas about God are necessary to call someone Christian. At this site, they choose acceptance of the Nicene creed as one condition to be entitled to the title of Christian, because it is an easy way to eliminate many deviant groups from consideration.

I hope you will accept my apologies that you cannot formally be called a Christian here, and that you will nevertheless find helpful fellowship here.

Thanks for the welcome. I'm not bothered much about not being able to identify as a Christian on this site, though it does limit my ability to fully discuss the vast majority of beliefs I likely hold in common with the majority of the sites members. Which to me is the issue more broadly speaking. By defining Christianity based on things beyond the bible, Christianity becomes closed off by placing unnecessary yokes on people. It's difficult enough for people to believe in God period. You further ask them to believe in a metaphysical construct not articulated by the inspired authors of the word of God?

 

[indopanda]

Well, it wasn't. The two come from approximately the same time in history.

The question is reasonable IMHO, but I don't see any reason to think that it's odd.

No, it is that the Nicene Creed, most clearly of all such documents, reflects the essentials of the faith as determined by the churches themselves and is the most widely accepted in this capacity by the churches. To make it sound like the phone book would do just as well--or something written by the owners of the forum--so long as the majority of Christians say yes to it is quite wrong.

Yes, it does. It is used three times: Acts of the Apostles 11:26, Acts of the Apostles 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16.

Thanks for the verses. I was suspicious that the term might have been used on a few occasions in Acts, but I was not sure. Regardless, the term is used but not explicitly defined when it is used.

With regard to the Creed itself, the fact that it came after the Bible is important. The Bible is the word of God written by men under the direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The creed was written by a group of men who may or may not have been led by the Holy Spirit. If the creed consisted of a series of direct quotations from Scripture, I would believe the Creed and accept it as a basis for defining a Christian. But that is not what the Creed is. It consists of paraphrases and metaphysical conjectures, some of which I don't even understand. Admittedly I don't understand large portions of the bible, but I take them on faith as the Word of God. Since the Creed is not the Word of God, why should I take it by faith if portions of it make no sense to me? Certainly the Creed is not on the level of a phone book, but why use it as a definition of Christianity instead of the bible aside from popular consensus?