Christian?

[ChristIsTheWay]

How does the Church decide when a group or an individual is a Christian, despite not being part of the Catholic Church? Are there some basic beliefs required, some specific beliefs that would automatically disqualify, etc? I know the Church accepts most baptisms done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but I don’t know anything beyond that.

 

[Atreyu]

How does the Church decide when a group or an individual is a Christian, despite not being part of the Catholic Church? Are there some basic beliefs required, some specific beliefs that would automatically disqualify, etc? I know the Church accepts most baptisms done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but I don’t know anything beyond that.

I think that the word “Christian” itself is a pretty indeterminate word. What it means depends on the person using it. I will usually use it to describe people who try to follow the teachings of Christ. Strangely enough, this includes Muslims and so perhaps my definition is not the best. Other people restrict it to only people who believe in the Trinity. This would mean that Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses (for example) are not Christian. Still others will restrict it to those they believe are “saved”. I think this a ridiculous use of the word since it is not up to us to decide who is saved and who is not. But, each to their own. There isn’t really a formal definition of the word.

 

[Madaglan]

As baptism is considered the beginning of the Christian life, it would seem fitting to me that anyone given a valid Trinitarian baptism would be Christian according to the standards of the Latin Church.

As Atreyu notes, Christian can be a broad word. Anyone who claims to follow Christ can be considered a Christian. This includes Mormons and JW’s, even though they do not have a Nicene faith.

 

[ralphinal]

It is my understanding that there are a few conditions for “Christian.”

1. An understanding of the Trinity as being Three Persons in One God with one devine substance
2. A water baptism in a Trinitarian Formula
3. Acceptance that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. That he came to earth, suffered, died, and rose again in order that whomever believes may have eternal life.

Now, there are some who are still thought of as Christians without these, but they are the acceptance. Muslims do not have any of these conditions. Mormons are missing part of the first, one Substance within the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals are missing the first two, but I think that they are considered Christian, but I may be wrong,.

 

[Madaglan]

It is my understanding that there are a few conditions for “Christian.”

1. An understanding of the Trinity as being Three Persons in One God with one devine substance
2. A water baptism in a Trinitarian Formula
3. Acceptance that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. That he came to earth, suffered, died, and rose again in order that whomever believes may have eternal life.

Now, there are some who are still thought of as Christians without these, but they are the acceptance. Muslims do not have any of these conditions. Mormons are missing part of the first, one Substance within the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals are missing the first two, but I think that they are considered Christian, but I may be wrong,.

Right: baptized according to the Trinitarian formula with the correct belief according to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. .

 

[ralphinal]

Right: baptized according to the Trinitarian formula with the correct belief according to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. .

It is not enought to follow the teachigns of Jesus or to think that he was a good,holy man.

 

[Madaglan]

It is not enought to follow the teachigns of Jesus or to think that he was a good,holy man.

huh?

 

[teancum79]

As baptism is considered the beginning of the Christian life, it would seem fitting to me that anyone given a valid Trinitarian baptism would be Christian according to the standards of the Latin Church.

As Atreyu notes, Christian can be a broad word. Anyone who claims to follow Christ can be considered a Christian. This includes Mormons and JW’s, even though they do not have a Nicene faith.

So who got the right to define the ideas of a post Christ era meeting as a qualification to for the term “Christian”

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by teancum79:

So who got the right to define the ideas of a post Christ era meeting as a qualification to for the term “Christian”

I don’t understand what you are asking. Please use correct grammar, and I will answer your question.

 

[teancum79]

Why is it that a creed that was created way after the Bible by non apostles is considered a needed belief to be a Christian?

 

[ibkc]

So who got the right to define the ideas of a post Christ era meeting as a qualification to for the term “Christian”

How the original Christians?

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Ignatius of Antioch, *Letter to the Smyrnaeans *6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110])

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Why is it that a creed that was created way after the Bible by non apostles is considered a needed belief to be a Christian?

When you think about the fact that all followers of Christ were Catholic for about the first 1600 years the term Christian makes more sense. There are exceptions of course like the Ebonites and Nestorians that denied the divinity of Christ (these groups were smaller and in places like Arabia), but they were never recognized by the Church. The Creed came about early in the Christian era to help unify the faithfull as they contined to expandinto other countries and cultures.

When Luther and others formally split with the Church the term Christian, like their theology began to reduce from the original theology. Mormons, JW, Muslims are not Christian. Personally I think the farther away a Christian faith gets from something such as the Creed the farther away they are to being Christian. Depending on the topic I tend to write ‘Catholic/Christian’ because I don’t think all who call themselves Christian agree with much of what I think it takes to call oneself that.

In today’s culture we are told that we cannot delve too deep in a persons faith (like political candidates) because we are admonished with ‘who are you to question what someone calls themself, or believes?’ type arguments. This bothers me because when a ‘Christian’ (and some Catholics) claim to be pro-abortion and pro offensive war it is against what I know to be the Christian ethic. If I can’t challenge them on their core Christian belief when they try and justify why they are pro-abortion for secular reasons then the term Christian becomes meaningless.

 

[teancum79]

When you think about the fact that all followers of Christ were Catholic for about the first 1600 years the term Christian makes more sense. There are exceptions of course like the Ebonites and Nestorians that denied the divinity of Christ (these groups were smaller and in places like Arabia), but they were never recognized by the Church. The Creed came about early in the Christian era to help unify the faithfull as they contined to expandinto other countries and cultures.

When Luther and others formally split with the Church the term Christian, like their theology began to reduce from the original theology. Mormons, JW, Muslims are not Christian. Personally I think the farther away a Christian faith gets from something such as the Creed the farther away they are to being Christian. Depending on the topic I tend to write ‘Catholic/Christian’ because I don’t think all who call themselves Christian agree with much of what I think it takes to call oneself that.

In today’s culture we are told that we cannot delve too deep in a persons faith (like political candidates) because we are admonished with ‘who are you to question what someone calls themself, or believes?’ type arguments. This bothers me because when a ‘Christian’ (and some Catholics) claim to be pro-abortion and pro offensive war it is against what I know to be the Christian ethic. If I can’t challenge them on their core Christian belief when they try and justify why they are pro-abortion for secular reasons then the term Christian becomes meaningless.

But why does a common (though wholly unbiblical belief) become the center point of a term?

Why does buying into the trinity matter more than if someone loves and seeks to follow the teachings of Christ?

 

[Verisimilitude]

But why does a common (though wholly unbiblical belief) become the center point of a term?

I don’t know why you think it unbiblical since it is derived wholly from the bible.

Why does buying into the trinity matter more than if someone loves and seeks to follow the teachings of Christ?

I think the concept of the Trinity is required because it is what gives authority to Jesus. Without it Jesus is no better or worse than Ghandi or Bhudda.

 

[teancum79]

I don’t know why you think it unbiblical since it is derived wholly from the bible.

I think the concept of the Trinity is required because it is what gives authority to Jesus. Without it Jesus is no better or worse than Ghandi or Bhudda.

Whatever. Christ is still the Son of God and the Savior. All not believing in the Trinity really does is not make God into a incomprehensible mushy thing. The Bible is clear in many places as to separation of the Father and the Son. The doctrine of the trinity does not accept this.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Whatever. Christ is still the Son of God and the Savior. All not believing in the Trinity really does is not make God into a incomprehensible mushy thing. The Bible is clear in many places as to separation of the Father and the Son. The doctrine of the trinity does not accept this.

Then your understanding of the Trinity is lacking.

 

[wisdomseeker]

So who got the right to define the ideas of a post Christ era meeting as a qualification to for the term “Christian”

good question. maybe if you do a true research you will come to a surprising truth.

let is see: Jesus said He would build a Church.

Peter is the leader of that visible Church. the Church has to be visible since we are humans and need to see.

Jesus promise the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

the Church was named Catholic from the beginning. the saints testify to that.

Jesus gave this Church all authority.

the Church is called the Pillar and Ballwark of hte Truth.

the Church is to be here until Jesus comes back.

the Church is also referred to as the Kingdom of God.

the Church is to reign into all nations.

***St Augustine was surrounded by heretics, schismatics, separatists, sectarians. He was surrounded by sincere people who had separated from the one family of God and he said, “none of them; none of them is truly Catholic and being Catholic is the chief family trait by which I’m identified. The Church,” he goes on to say, “the Church of the Christian religion is called Catholic, not only by her own members but even by our enemies; for when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, they willy-nilly call her nothing else but Catholic for they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard.”

Now i only know One Church that the whole world refers to as the Catholic Church. our Church. Amen.***

 

[jmcrae]

How does the Church decide when a group or an individual is a Christian, despite not being part of the Catholic Church? Are there some basic beliefs required, some specific beliefs that would automatically disqualify, etc? I know the Church accepts most baptisms done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but I don’t know anything beyond that.

Trinitarian Baptism according to the formula "[Name], I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit while in some way getting the person wet who is being baptized, is the criteria for becoming a Christian.

Beyond this point, one is a Christian with adjectives, such as “good,” “bad,” “catechized,” “uncatechized,” “knowledgeable,” “badly taught,” “heretical,” and so on.

I hope this helps you.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Trinitarian Baptism according to the formula "[Name], I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit while in some way getting the person wet who is being baptized, is the criteria for becoming a Christian.

Beyond this point, one is a Christian with adjectives, such as “good,” “bad,” “catechized,” “uncatechized,” “knowledgeable,” “badly taught,” “heretical,” and so on.

I hope this helps you.

Good points. Okay, so what then are the basic beliefs required after a valid baptism to remain Christian? For example, John is baptized as a Lutheran and accepts all the traditional Lutheran beliefs. As I understand that, John would be considered a Christian by the Church but one that believes in heresies and the like. Now, say John later becomes “liberal” in his beliefs, along the lines of John Shelby Spong? Basically, how far is too far from what the Church teaches before one becomes a non-Christian?

 

[Zooey]

It is my understanding that there are a few conditions for “Christian.”

1. An understanding of the Trinity as being Three Persons in One God with one devine substance
2. A water baptism in a Trinitarian Formula
3. Acceptance that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. That he came to earth, suffered, died, and rose again in order that whomever believes may have eternal life.

Now, there are some who are still thought of as Christians without these, but they are the acceptance. Muslims do not have any of these conditions. Mormons are missing part of the first, one Substance within the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals are missing the first two, but I think that they are considered Christian, but I may be wrong,.

:yup: …except I am not sure about Oneness Pentecostals, either…

Trinitarian Baptism according to the formula "[Name], I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit while in some way getting the person wet who is being baptized, is the criteria for becoming a Christian.

Beyond this point, one is a Christian with adjectives, such as “good,” “bad,” “catechized,” “uncatechized,” “knowledgeable,” “badly taught,” “heretical,” and so on.

:yup:

ChristIsTheWay:

Good points. Okay, so what then are the basic beliefs required after a valid baptism to remain Christian? For example, John is baptized as a Lutheran and accepts all the traditional Lutheran beliefs. As I understand that, John would be considered a Christian by the Church but one that believes in heresies and the like. Now, say John later becomes “liberal” in his beliefs, along the lines of John Shelby Spong? Basically, how far is too far from what the Church teaches before one becomes a non-Christian?

You don’t become non-Christian. You would became a bad Christian, or a Christian who is confused and/or deceived/ You can become a Christian who is not in a state of grace.
But once you are validly baptized, you are a Christian. (I’m not sure what happens if someone joins a non-Christian religion. I think that they have become heretics, but are still considered Christian…).