So what actually defines a Christian?

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,427
2,998
52
the Hague NL
✟69,862.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'm fairly certain the JW's and many other groups believe what that verse says. So do you consider them to be Christian?
Good point.
God will be the judge though.
I think what defines a Christian is that one has put their trust in God and believe He gave his unique (monogenese) Son to save us, as He died in our stead / paid for our sins.
The rest depends on access to sound or wrong teachings and is of less importance than John 3:16 i.m.o.
 
Upvote 0

indopanda

Active Member
Jun 28, 2019
61
11
36
Chicago
✟11,290.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Separated
Good point.
God will be the judge though.
I think what defines a Christian is that one has put their trust in God and believe He gave his unique (monogenese) Son to save us, as He died in our stead / paid for our sins.
The rest depends on access to sound or wrong teachings and is of less importance than John 3:16 i.m.o.

This is the crux of the question I posed in this thread. Should not something like this be the definition of Christianity broadly speaking? Using actual verses from the word of God to define what it means to be a Christian? If someone wants to define Christianity more narrowly for the sake of moderating this forum, that's fine. But, when it comes to understanding who our brothers and sisters in Christ are, should not we look to common belief in the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

Of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2018
571
445
Atlanta, Georgia
✟48,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is the crux of the question I posed in this thread. Should not something like this be the definition of Christianity broadly speaking? Using actual verses from the word of God to define what it means to be a Christian? If someone wants to define Christianity more narrowly for the sake of moderating this forum, that's fine. But, when it comes to understanding who our brothers and sisters in Christ are, should not we look to common belief in the Bible?

Ideally, we should consider everyone who is born again / born from above, and only them, to be Christians. Often people use the term "true Christians", and that's generally what they mean. Unfortunately we *cannot know* who is and isn't a true Christian by belief. According to James:

Jas 2:19 You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

So there is a type of belief that does not save. Also, Jesus said there will be tares in the church, and we are not to attempt to remove them.

Since I can never be sure who is saved, it makes sense to treat people according to what they claim, and to some extent based on external evidence. In most cases it is best to treat people with the same consideration, whether they appear to be mature Christians, doubters, or outright atheists.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
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.

The Creed summarises Scripture. The version we use here on CF backs up every line with a verse from Scripture.

And it really isn't for non-Christians to tell Christians how to define "Christian."
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
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 number of Christians who could accurately identify the deity of the Christ in the scripture would be very low.

Entry to heaven is based on that trust in the gospel of Jesus Christ, not so much on one's understanding of Christian doctrine.

The gospel is simple and easily accessible to all who call on the name of Jesus Christ. One simply needs to regard Jesus as Lord of heaven and earth, recognizing His authority over all. That Jesus sacrificed Himself to reconcile us to His Father and rose on the third day. Ascended to heaven, e.t.c.

It is very simple.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I'm fairly certain the JW's and many other groups believe what that verse says. So do you consider them to be Christian?
JWs, certainly. The UU church no, because it isn't exclusively Christian, though there are certainly individual UUs who are. Mormons are a gray area for me, partly because of their additional revelations.
 
Upvote 0

indopanda

Active Member
Jun 28, 2019
61
11
36
Chicago
✟11,290.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Separated
The Creed summarises Scripture. The version we use here on CF backs up every line with a verse from Scripture.

And it really isn't for non-Christians to tell Christians how to define "Christian."

True God of True God; (John 17:1-5) The verse used to backup this statement does not actually say what this statement from the Nicene Creed says. So I would disagree with you that the Creed accurately summaries Scripture. If you want to replace the line of the Creed with the verse CF cites, then I would have less of an issue with the Creed.

of one essence with the Father (John 10:30). Again if you replaced this line with the actual verse being cited, I would not dispute it.

If Christians wish to define a Christian as someone who believes the Nicene Creed, then I will ask again, what do you call someone who believes in the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

indopanda

Active Member
Jun 28, 2019
61
11
36
Chicago
✟11,290.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Separated
The number of Christians who could accurately identify the deity of the Christ in the scripture would be very low.

Entry to heaven is based on that trust in the gospel of Jesus Christ, not so much on one's understanding of Christian doctrine.

The gospel is simple and easily accessible to all who call on the name of Jesus Christ. One simply needs to regard Jesus as Lord of heaven and earth, recognizing His authority over all. That Jesus sacrificed Himself to reconcile us to His Father and rose on the third day. Ascended to heaven, e.t.c.

It is very simple.

So then you would have a broader view of the definition of Christianity than just defining a Christian as someone who believes in the Nicene Creed? In your opinion can someone be a Christian and not believe in the Nicene Creed?
 
Upvote 0

indopanda

Active Member
Jun 28, 2019
61
11
36
Chicago
✟11,290.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Separated
JWs, certainly. The UU church no, because it isn't exclusively Christian, though there are certainly individual UUs who are. Mormons are a gray area for me, partly because of their additional revelations.

I'm fine with this personally. I actually admire the faith of the JWs I have met, I just find their faith in the Watchtower to be too dogmatic.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

indopanda

Active Member
Jun 28, 2019
61
11
36
Chicago
✟11,290.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Separated
Ideally, we should consider everyone who is born again / born from above, and only them, to be Christians. Often people use the term "true Christians", and that's generally what they mean. Unfortunately we *cannot know* who is and isn't a true Christian by belief. According to James:

Jas 2:19 You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

So there is a type of belief that does not save. Also, Jesus said there will be tares in the church, and we are not to attempt to remove them.

Since I can never be sure who is saved, it makes sense to treat people according to what they claim, and to some extent based on external evidence. In most cases it is best to treat people with the same consideration, whether they appear to be mature Christians, doubters, or outright atheists.

I am in agreement with you. So then do you agree or disagree that the definition of Christianity broadly speaking needs to be based upon belief in a creed?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5) The verse used to backup this statement does not actually say what this statement from the Nicene Creed says.
Right. Several of their proof texts are misleading. I do think that the key Christological parts of Nicea can be seen as based on John 1.

In the two passages you mentioned:
"God from God" and "of one essence with the Father" are surely based on the Logos who was with God and was God.

The whole approach of which the Nicene Creed was a part, of course, depends upon trying to make sense of Christ within a particular ontological framework.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I'm fine with this personally. I actually admire the faith of the JWs I have met, I just find their faith in the Watchtower to be too dogmatic.
Of course. I think the JW faith is dangerous to its members. But I think it's a type of Christianity.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So then you would have a broader view of the definition of Christianity than just defining a Christian as someone who believes in the Nicene Creed? In your opinion can someone be a Christian and not believe in the Nicene Creed?
The core of the Nicene Creed is correct but lacks some accuracy as far as doctrinal Christianity is concerned. The Nicene Creed also omits a critical doctrine that underpins Christianity and is ultimately the very core of Christianity itself.

I would agree that one could not be a Christian if they did not believe at a minimum the Nicene Creed.
 
Upvote 0

Of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2018
571
445
Atlanta, Georgia
✟48,162.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am in agreement with you. So then do you agree or disagree that the definition of Christianity broadly speaking needs to be based upon belief in a creed?

Belief in a creed is not a very good predictor of who is actually a born-again Christian. It may be a reasonable approximation for selecting a group of people who "probably won't be trying to get people to believe some weird doctrines". A more effective way to protect a forum might be to get new users to agree not to discuss certain topics that are very controversial, but that would be more difficult both for the new users and the staff here. A Mormon or a JW, for example, is likely to sneak in their unique doctrines. Essentially, you are handicapped in posting here in order to protect the forum from them and others with perhaps worse beliefs.

I hope you can understand that agreement with the creed is only a crude tool for protecting the forum while not taking the time to observe your Christian Spirit or the details of your actual beliefs.

I see it as a handicap imposed upon your posting here, but certainly not a claim that you are more or less Christ-centered than the person who thinks less independently and therefore has no problem agreeing with the creed.

I think you mentioned somewhere that you couldn't be a member of the church you attended for similar reasons. Hopefully you can worship freely there whether a member or not, but if you had membership you could vote to change the official doctrine of the congregation, so I see it as perhaps of greater importance there.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

indopanda

Active Member
Jun 28, 2019
61
11
36
Chicago
✟11,290.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Separated
Belief in a creed is not a very good predictor of who is actually a born-again Christian. It may be a reasonable approximation for selecting a group of people who "probably won't be trying to get people to believe some weird doctrines". A more effective way to protect a forum might be to get new users to agree not to discuss certain topics that are very controversial, but that would be more difficult both for the new users and the staff here. A Mormon or a JW, for example, is likely to sneak in their unique doctrines. Essentially, you are handicapped in posting here in order to protect the forum from them and others with perhaps worse beliefs.

I hope you can understand that agreement with the creed is only a crude tool for protecting the forum while not taking the time to observe your Christian Spirit or the details of your actual beliefs.

I see it as a handicap imposed upon your posting here, but certainly not a claim that you are more or less Christ-centered than the person who thinks less independently and therefore has no problem agreeing with the creed.

I think you mentioned somewhere that you couldn't be a member of the church you attended for similar reasons. Hopefully you can worship freely there whether a member or not, but if you had membership you could vote to change the official doctrine of the congregation, so I see it as perhaps of greater importance there.

I think I'm just suspicious when someone says I need to believe in something other than the bible to be defined as a Christian. Certainly I am not interested in derailing conversations on this forum and I can understand why my stances on certain aspects of the Christian faith might cause tangentially related topics to potentially become derailed.

Again, the OP question was more to create a dialogue regarding what defines a Christian broadly speaking and not just on this forum. Some of the answers in this thread have been open minded and thoughtful whereas others have come off as dogmatic and of the mentality of "that's just how it is." People are certainly entitled to their opinions and certainly belief in the Creed and the Trinity are sensitive areas for some Christians. Honestly I take issue with probably three or four lines of the Creed due to ambiguous wording and a lack of solid Scriptural support, but I agree with most of it.

I'm sure the church I attend doesn't care if I show up for service, listen to some songs and the sermon and go home. But if I tried to actually have Christian fellowship there might be an issue. Honestly, I'm not aggressive about my beliefs. It doesn't bother me if people believe in the Trinity. People believe lots of things I don't. My concern is more about being loving towards others and spreading the good news through our words and deeds.

But, if someone truly believes that a Christian is defined by belief the Nicene Creed, then that person probably would not have fellowship with someone who does not believe in the Creed even if they lived out what the bible teaches. However, if you believe a Christian is defined by belief in the bible and following after Jesus, then you could have Christian fellowship with someone who does not believe the Creed, but believes the bible and follows after Jesus. The question is, what is more important, the Creed or the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

indopanda

Active Member
Jun 28, 2019
61
11
36
Chicago
✟11,290.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Separated
Right. Several of their proof texts are misleading. I do think that the key Christological parts of Nicea can be seen as based on John 1.

In the two passages you mentioned:
"God from God" and "of one essence with the Father" are surely based on the Logos who was with God and was God.

The whole approach of which the Nicene Creed was a part, of course, depends upon trying to make sense of Christ within a particular ontological framework.

You can point to John 1:1, but the issue is that that verse is speaking of the Logos. Now I believe John1:1. I believe that the Logos was with God and is God. I don't 100% know what John is saying, but I believe it to be true since it is from the word of God. However, Jesus is not mentioned in John 1:1. Sure you can reason that the Logos has 1:1 equivalence with Jesus and that John is trying to tell us that the Logos is YHWH, but John does not explicitly say so.

I agree, the Creed seeks to impose a certain metaphysical framework on scripture due to disputes from around that time about how Scripture should be interpreted. A majority decided on a certain metaphysical framework, crushed dissent elements through persecution, and thus we have the modern consensus Christian metaphysical framework that the bible is viewed through. Is it the correct framework? I don't believe so, but I fail to see why it should be the definition of Christianity. I guess might/majority makes right?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
You can point to John 1:1, but the issue is that that verse is speaking of the Logos. Now I believe John1:1. I believe that the Logos was with God and is God. I don't 100% know what John is saying, but I believe it to be true since it is from the word of God. However, Jesus is not mentioned in John 1:1.
I think the same thing is true of the Nicene Creed. When he speaks of the Son as being begotten before all worlds, this can only be a reference to the Logos. No one that I know of thinks that the human was begotten before all worlds. To make that point Christ is sometimes said to be twice begotten.

When it wants to talk about the human being Jesus the creed says "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;" which I believe is an expansion of "the Word became flesh," except that "man" is a bit more explicit than "flesh" in rejecting some odd theologies that claimed Christ had human flesh but wasn't a full man.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

indopanda

Active Member
Jun 28, 2019
61
11
36
Chicago
✟11,290.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Separated
I think the same thing is true of the Nicene Creed. When he speaks of the Son as being begotten before all worlds, this can only be a reference to the Logos. No one that I know of thinks that the human was begotten before all worlds. To make that point Christ is sometimes said to be twice begotten.

When it wants to talk about the human being Jesus the creed says "who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;" which I believe is an expansion of "the Word became flesh," except that "man" is a bit more explicit than "flesh" in rejecting some odd theologies that claimed Christ had human flesh but wasn't a full man.

I'm fine with John 1 and I'm fine with the line of the creed you mentioned. I take issue with the lines "True God of True God" and "of one essence with the Father." Perhaps you could come to these conclusions based on a certain interpretation of John 1, but it's certainly not the only interpretation of John 1. If you get rid of "True God of True God" which can't be directly demonstrated in scripture (though maybe indirectly from John 1 depending on your interpretation) and change "of one essence with the Father" to "One with the Father" then I would have have far less issue with the Nicene Creed and may even affirm it after thoughtful reflection.

Again, why is the Creed not just quotations from the Bible? You know, the actual WORD OF GOD? I'm convinced it is because the Creed what established to move towards a consensus metaphysical interpretation of Scripture in order to curtail debate and discussion. And it was established within the church by force and persecution not love. Calvin had Michael Servetus burnt at the state due to disbelief in the Trinity and infant baptist and that's probably not the exception do how people who rejected the Creed were treated throughout Church history.

Since we don't kill people within the church over religious issues in modern times, it's mainly just ostracism, being labeled as a cult, or dis-fellowship today. Anyway, I still am waiting for someone to give me a definition of a person who believes the Bible.
 
Upvote 0