Christian?

[ChristIsTheWay]

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

:yup:

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…).

I thought they would be called an apostate, or something with a similar meaning? Doesn’t being a heretic mean adhering to a belief that is in opposition to the Church’s teaching?

 

[guanophore]

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

Since the teaching of Christ creates the standard of what it means to be a Christian, it seems that those appointed by Him (the Apostles) to teach all that He commanded would be the ones authorized to make that determination.

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?

The Teaching of the Apostles was handed down to the bishops through Apostolic succession. The Apostles Creed is a summary of the Apostolic teachings.

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?

The Trinity is the teaching of Christ. A person can say “Lord, Lord” all day long, and be on the road to perdition.

 

[lak611]

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…).

This is correct. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

 

[brycelaliberte]

Anyone who believes everything in the Apostle’s Creed. That is about the best definition I think could be considered the ‘basics.’ (Of course assuming Protestants use little “c” in Catholic, going with their idea of an invisibly united church)

And actually (to answer teancum79), the Nicene Creed came around the time of the canonization of the Bible by the Catholic Church, so I should think the Nicene Creed would be a better Creed to use to define a Christian, even acceptable to Protestants. Maybe.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

This is correct. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Okay, but what would constitute apostasy rather than just heresy? There is a difference, or at least I was taught there was one. Am I in error in thinking that?

Anyone who believes everything in the Apostle’s Creed. That is about the best definition I think could be considered the ‘basics.’ (Of course assuming Protestants use little “c” in Catholic, going with their idea of an invisibly united church)

That’s what I was thinking but I haven’t been able to find any official sources that confirm it.

 

[Publisher]

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,.

Then there is the Society of Friends…who do not practice “outward signs” including baptism with water or the eucharist…but who very much believe that the Eternal is accessible to any who seek…they shall find.

I realize that many do not accept the people called Quakers as “christian”, and that’s ok as far as we’re concerned…we follow the Galliean…we sit in His Presence each First Day…we Listen to His Voice as he Speaks to us in Meeting. We seek to follow His Light and live as He called us to live…if I can’t be called a “Christian”, I’ll settle for the name “Friend”…“Till now I have called you servants…but now I call you Friends”…I’m ok with that.

 

[teancum79]

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.***

Well up to the point where you claim that church is the catholic cfhurch we more or less agree.

 

[teancum79]

Since the teaching of Christ creates the standard of what it means to be a Christian, it seems that those appointed by Him (the Apostles) to teach all that He commanded would be the ones authorized to make that determination.

The Teaching of the Apostles was handed down to the bishops through Apostolic succession. The Apostles Creed is a summary of the Apostolic teachings.

The Trinity is the teaching of Christ. A person can say “Lord, Lord” all day long, and be on the road to perdition.

Neither Christ nor his Apostles ever taught such nonsense
If a creed was a summary it would have the same information not vast changes.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

And whatever errors he believes, in the false assumption that these are Christian beliefs and faithful to Christ’s Gospel are not his own to be guilty of, but the guilt of these is added to the sufferings of Martin Luther and those who abetted him, whether they be in Purgatory or Hell, at the present moment.

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?

John Shelby Spong is a heretic. Only a Christian can be a heretic; non-Christians can be pagans, but they can’t be heretics. If John were believing the teachings of John Shelby Spong, but were under the sincere impression that he was following the Gospel as given by Christ, then the guilt of his false beliefs falls to John Shelby Spong, and the sufferings due to them will be added to John Shelby Spong’s experience of either Hell or Purgatory, whichever one he merits at the moment of his death; not to John’s.

If John is sincerely trying to follow Christ and obey the Gospel, he will go to Heaven, even if he becomes sincerely convinced to believe in the Easter Bunny. But his teachers will have to pay the penalty for teaching him wrongly.

Apostasy is the deliberate and conscious rejection of the Christian faith - a person cannot apostasize by accident.

 

[Madaglan]

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?

The Nicene Creed was based on baptismal symbols then used and quite possibly used since the time of the Apostles. The Creed wasn’t stating anything that the Church had not previously believed.

 

[Madaglan]

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.

The Father is his own hypostasis; The Son is his own hypostasis.

 

[teancum79]

The Nicene Creed was based on baptismal symbols then used and quite possibly used since the time of the Apostles. The Creed wasn’t stating anything that the Church had not previously believed.

I’ll confess that I’m a bit rusty on which creed says what, but at some point the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost ceased to be 3 different people (for lack a better term) and become one shapeless formless thing.

That was a major departure from the teachings of the Bible.

 

[teancum79]

The Father is his own hypostasis; The Son is his own hypostasis.

Can God and Christ walk up and shake each others hands?

 

[ralphinal]

Publisher,
I thought about you guys when I posted that. You are harder to nail down. Personally, I have no issue calling you Christian in the sense that you see the same GOd we do, but you pointed out the issues. I was willing not to for simplicity sake.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

And whatever errors he believes, in the false assumption that these are Christian beliefs and faithful to Christ’s Gospel are not his own to be guilty of, but the guilt of these is added to the sufferings of Martin Luther and those who abetted him, whether they be in Purgatory or Hell, at the present moment.

John Shelby Spong is a heretic. Only a Christian can be a heretic; non-Christians can be pagans, but they can’t be heretics. If John were believing the teachings of John Shelby Spong, but were under the sincere impression that he was following the Gospel as given by Christ, then the guilt of his false beliefs falls to John Shelby Spong, and the sufferings due to them will be added to John Shelby Spong’s experience of either Hell or Purgatory, whichever one he merits at the moment of his death; not to John’s.

If John is sincerely trying to follow Christ and obey the Gospel, he will go to Heaven, even if he becomes sincerely convinced to believe in the Easter Bunny. But his teachers will have to pay the penalty for teaching him wrongly.

Apostasy is the deliberate and conscious rejection of the Christian faith - a person cannot apostasize by accident.

That is interesting. I would have thought that rejecting Christ’s divinity or His saving sacrifice on the cross, even if they were sincere in their belief, would have been apostasy. Even those Christians who leave Christianity for another religion probably do so out of sincerity. It seems this issue was more complicated than I had originally thought. Thanks for your answers, they’ve been a big help.

 

[jmcrae]

That is interesting. I would have thought that rejecting Christ’s divinity or His saving sacrifice on the cross, even if they were sincere in their belief, would have been apostasy.

If they are sincerely convinced that they are believing what Christ taught and the Apostles believed, then no matter how insane their beliefs are, they don’t become non-Christians as a result.

Even those Christians who leave Christianity for another religion probably do so out of sincerity.

They are conscious of leaving Christianity and repudiating their former Christian beliefs at the time that they do this - this is the big difference. They’ve made a conscious and deliberate decision to stop following Christ and the teachings of the Apostles - that’s what apostasy is.

It seems this issue was more complicated than I had originally thought. Thanks for your answers, they’ve been a big help.

I’m glad to be of service.

 

[Madaglan]

I’ll confess that I’m a bit rusty on which creed says what, but at some point the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost ceased to be 3 different people (for lack a better term) and become one shapeless formless thing.

That was a major departure from the teachings of the Bible.

That’s what is called Modalism, or Sabellianism. It was condemned in the early Church and remains condemned today.

 

[Madaglan]

Can God and Christ walk up and shake each others hands?

The Father is incorporeal. He has no human hands as such.

(I presume you mean God the Father when you write God)

 

[teancum79]

The Father is incorporeal. He has no human hands as such.

(I presume you mean God the Father when you write God)

typically yes.

Here is a point on which we won’t be agreeing. I’ve found many statements in the Bible that indicate that we look like God. Our being made in his image bing one of them. Nowhere in the Bible is it written that God is shapeless formless or a bit mist thing. Such is common tradition, but not taught by the prophets. So to make acceptance of such a non biblical nor Christ teaching as a condition of the title Christian makes no sense. It is like demanding that a person buy into Freud’s theory to be a psychologist. While many people believe he was right a good many people disagree with his theories yet they are still followers and practitioners of the larger field.

 

[Madaglan]

typically yes.

Here is a point on which we won’t be agreeing. I’ve found many statements in the Bible that indicate that we look like God. Our being made in his image bing one of them. Nowhere in the Bible is it written that God is shapeless formless or a bit mist thing. Such is common tradition, but not taught by the prophets. So to make acceptance of such a non biblical nor Christ teaching as a condition of the title Christian makes no sense. It is like demanding that a person buy into Freud’s theory to be a psychologist. While many people believe he was right a good many people disagree with his theories yet they are still followers and practitioners of the larger field.

We are made in the image of God, yes, but this does not mean that God the Father has a human body. God the Father did not become incarnate; his only Son became Incarnate.

I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that God is shapeless/formless or a bit mist thing. This is not what is taught by traditional Christianity.