- Jun 28, 2019
- 61
- 11
- 37
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Unitarian
- Marital Status
- Separated
I'm fairly certain the JW's and many other groups believe what that verse says. So do you consider them to be Christian?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
John 3:16 defines a Christian.
Good point.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.
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?
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 number of Christians who could accurately identify the deity of the Christ in the scripture would be very low.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.
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 fairly certain the JW's and many other groups believe what that verse says. So do you consider them to be 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."
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Of course. I think the JW faith is dangerous to its members. But I think it's a type of Christianity.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.
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.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?
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.
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.
Of course. I think the JW faith is dangerous to its members. But I think it's a type of Christianity.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?