If we’re still talking about a sociological, or a more broad scholarly definition of religious groups, then I’d think those who actually study such things. The Catholic Church (and all other Christian churches for that matter) are more than free to come up with their own functional definitions of “Christian” and to use them in their own purposes.
Brandon, I understand what you are saying but the point is that for 1500 years no one had to wonder what one believed who called himself “Christian”. As you correctly point out elsewhere, the word “Christian” was first used in a derogatory manner. It was meant to disparage a group of people who held a common belief - there was no doubt or confusion as to who was Christian and who was not. The point is that the term “Christian” had already been defined even in the New Testament. Everyone knew who they were talking about when they were talking about Christians. No confusion.
No one has the right to redefine a word whose definition had been established since the most ancient of times. Christians were those who followed the faith given to them by the Apostles and no one else. The faith had been given to the Church and by the authority derived through succession it was to be preserved for all generations. It was not something that had to be invented over time. To be a Christian meant a very
specific thing, at least for about 1500 years (even with the schism in 1050 AD). If either Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witness doctrines were around in those early years they would not have been recognized by anyone as “Christian”. I see no reason why anyone should now accept their beliefs as representative of Christianity. This would apply to varying degrees with many Protestant beliefs as well.
Let’s remember that I’m arguing for a diversity of definitions and you’re insisting on a single, set in stone definition. Furthermore even the Catholic Church seems to play fast and loose with the word “Christian”. As I understand it, the Catholic Church considers “Christian initiation” to involve a valid Trinitarian baptism. I also understand the Catholic Church to consider individual people “Christians” who may or may not even be baptized! Let’s add to the confusion even more: The Catholic Church considered Arian baptisms valid despite their lack of trinitarian belief. Historically speaking the Church did in fact consider Arians Christians! Heretical ones howbeit.
Brandon, I think the Catholic Church opens her arms as wide as she possibly can. This should not be construed as playing "*fast and loose with the word “Christian”. *
The Catholic Church requires Baptism in the name of the one God, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Church makes this requirement because Christ made this requirement and it is the normal means of receiving sanctifying grace. In other words Jesus wanted us to do it this way.
This does not mean that God, in his mercy, cannot choose to save one who perhaps never had the opportunity for baptism but would have otherwise desired it had they known. The fact that the Church recognizes that God may save whom he chooses; that he is all merciful, all knowing and all just, does not mean that it is playing fast and loose with anything.
As far as the Arians are concerned, yes, in order to be a heretic one must first be a Christian. However, this does not (or should not) translate into “therefore Arian belief is Christian belief”.
In general, yes this is true. This doesn’t mean that all words must contain one and only one definition and that they all must be agreed to prior to fruitful conversation ensuing, however. In most cases in these discussions here on CAF who is and isn’t a “Christian” is quite irrelevant to the actual topic at hand, and too often quite interesting threads get bogged down by pages and pages of the same players arguing back and forth over a label.
Agreed.
I’m sympathetic to your position. I too believe that the very foundation of Mormonism is built on arrogance. This is quite irrelevant though when considering if Mormonism properly fits under a sociological definition of Christianity.
Brandon, I would be really amazed if, when referencing a “Christian”, one would ask whether or not we are using the
“sociological” definition or not. I am not even certain as to what a sociological definition of Christianity would be and who would be qualified to make the definition.
Yes. A made up word. It was a word made up by detractors of Christianity at Antioch which was eventually embraced by Christians themselves. All of Christendom could actually dispense with calling themselves Christian tomorrow and pick an entirely new word and it wouldn’t change a single tittle of the Gospel message, would it?
Well, when I really think about it, the fact that if asked my religion I would reply “Catholic” rather than “Christian” is a testament to how much faith I have in the word “Christian” being able to define my beliefs. The meaning of the word has already been destroyed by the scandalous divisions among us, to the point where it really has become meaningless. Sadly, if someone tells me they’re Christian they have really told me nothing about their beliefs. To allow LDS and JW doctrines to be included and accepted within the definition of “Christian”, however, just goes too far, IMO.
Peace, brother.
Steve
