Is the term "Christian" losing its meaning?

[Lenten_ashes]

In the beginning, there were His “Disciples”. These were those who saw Him and followed His mission with belief. Then there were those converted through the message of Peter and the Apostles.

And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.*For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”**And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”*So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.**And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
These first disciples and believers received Peter’s words as representing God’s Revelation. They devoted themselves to the Teachings of the Apostles. Not just certain disciples, but the Apostles.

Then, these followers were first called Christians in Antioch. These also, received direct Teaching from the Apostles (Paul and Barnabas) for at least a full year.

Now, Christian meant, those who followed what the Apostles Taught and had all things in common.

And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.*And all who believed were together and had all things in common;*and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.**And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,*praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Now days, there are Christians with many different teachings. Yes, they have some things in common! I’m not saying that they are not Christians. But that the name Christian has lost its identity over time. It no longer means a profoundly unified Body. There are many different groups to chose from. This is a departure from the beginning.

I know you already know this, but for the readers who may not, the CCC identifies Apostates as those who have departed from the Christian faith completely. Heretics are those who deny certain teachings, and Schismatics are those, like Eastern Orthodox, who deny Papal Authority.

So the readers can do the math and figure out who is who from the CC’s POV.

But I would be interested in various protestant opinions about who is who from their perspective, and how they came to such a conclusion.

 

[Padres1969]

I don’t think that’s quite true I mean generally when you said you were a Christian in the early days of the Church, people knew that you being a Christian also meant that you were a Catholic. I have seen no historical evidence of what you’re saying now there have been schisms early on but it’s not always been so.

But your ignoring that being a “Catholic” didn’t always mean that you were a Roman Catholic even in the early days. Christians have been divided since the first schisms even before the Great Schism. With the Oriental and Assyrian Churches being separate from the rest of Christianity. And then of course the Eastern Church and Western Church fracturing from each other. But both were both still Christian and still Catholic.

Ultimately it’s not the term Christian that has lost meaning, it’s that the groups that consider themselves Christian have continued to multiply so that the only thing that currently unifies all of them is a belief in Christ. If anything it’s narrowed the assumptions you can make about someone who calls themselves Christian, basically just down to that they believe in Christ. Beyond that you’ll need to ask for clarification.

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

That’s true. But Catholic conviction is good, right? We do wish that Catholics would allow the Spirit of the Church’s Teachings to convict and give direction, understanding and council.

I don’t disagree. Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes or you are reading more into what I said than what I actually said.

 

[rcwitness]

But your ignoring that being a “Catholic” didn’t always mean that you were a Roman Catholic even in the early days. Christians have been divided since the first schisms even before the Great Schism. With the Oriental and Assyrian Churches being separate from the rest of Christianity. And then of course the Eastern Church and Western Church fracturing from each other. But both were both still Christian and still Catholic.

Ultimately it’s not the term Christian that has lost meaning, it’s that the groups that consider themselves Christian have continued to multiply so that the only thing that currently unifies all of them is a belief in Christ. If anything it’s narrowed the assumptions you can make about someone who calls themselves Christian, basically just down to that they believe in Christ. Beyond that you’ll need to ask for clarification.

The Catholic Church, through and in communion with the See of Rome, acknowledges everyone who accepts the Creeds, makes an honest effort to receive Baptism, and seeks to obey His commands, as Christian. We believe in an “initiation” into the life of Jesus, and also a “continuous” walk with Him. The latter is a constant call to conversion and unity with God and brother.

 

[Padres1969]

The Catholic Church, through and in communion with the See of Rome, acknowledges everyone who accepts the Creeds, makes an honest effort to receive Baptism, and seeks to obey His commands, as Christian. We believe in an “initiation” into the life of Jesus, and also a “continuous” walk with Him. The latter is a constant call to conversion and unity with God and brother.

True, but again, you’re looking at it from the Catholic perspective. That’s what you, and many would define as what makes a Christian (and personally it’s generally speaking a definition I also agree with).

That said you can’t assume that everyone using the term Christian to define themselves would agree with that definition or that they are referring to it when they describe themselves as Christian. The only assumption you can make is that they’re a follower of Christ. That they accept the creeds or that they believe Baptism (in any form be it water or believers), etc… are required is not a given.

 

[rcwitness]

True, but again, you’re looking at it from the Catholic perspective. That’s what you, and many would define as what makes a Christian (and personally it’s generally speaking a definition I also agree with).

Yes, but it’s not me. I’m just saying what Rome Teaches. Which Rome has a significant case for being a foundation of orthodox doctrine.

That said you can’t assume that everyone using the term Christian to define themselves would agree with that definition or that they are referring to it when they describe themselves as Christian. The only assumption you can make is that they’re a follower of Christ. That they accept the creeds or that they believe Baptism (in any form be it water or believers), etc… are required is not a given.

Right. And this is my point. The name Christian had a more definite meaning, Scripturally. Now, it has melted away from a name which its associates originally accepted teachings from a Teaching source (Peter and the Apostles). These were told to have all things in common, and called to one mind and judgement by the Scriptures.

 

[exnihilo]

Beyond the 10 Commandments, the admonishments to love one another and make disciples of all nations, the Golden Rule, we were not given a set of nit-picking rules from Jesus. I suppose one could add that we should receive the Sacraments instituted by Jesus. We are not Jewish, we do not have 600+ rules for our daily lives.

We should be led by our faith in Christ and God’s grace. Not fear that we might accidentally break some off-the-wall rule. We are not told to wring our hands and tremble in fear because we may or may not have said or done something inappropriate. We have faith. We are given Grace. And if we inadvertently flounder we have the means of reconciliation. Even if we purposely muck it all up, we have the way back!

Peace
B

Nit picking is a characterization based on your subjective judgement. But our own personal judgement isn’t God’s. We may not like a rule or find it overly burdensome on us, but that doesn’t make it so for God. Personally I don’t find any rule I’ve encountered in the Catholic Faith to be nit picking. What is a rule you find as such?

 

[Bridgit_Andrews]

Nit picking is a characterization based on your subjective judgement. But our own personal judgement isn’t God’s. We may not like a rule or find it overly burdensome on us, but that doesn’t make it so for God. Personally I don’t find any rule I’ve encountered in the Catholic Faith to be nit picking. What is a rule you find as such?

You are taking what I’ve said out of context. I refuse to be drawn into an argument. I’m sorry, that just isn’t for me.

As I’ve stated we do not, as Catholics have a giant list of rules to follow. In doing so I was referring to the many comments and much angst on the forum that wonder, “is this a sin?” We do not do our brothers and sisters in Christ any favors by not remembering that mortal sin must have intent behind it. We shouldn’t pick apart our lives in desperate anxiety looking for that one single moment that maybe we might have broken a rule.

There isn’t any way I can say that any plainer and if you don’t agree, so be it. If you want the last word, here’s your chance.

Peace,
B

 

[rcwitness]

You are taking what I’ve said out of context. I refuse to be drawn into an argument. I’m sorry, that just isn’t for me.

As I’ve stated we do not, as Catholics have a giant list of rules to follow. In doing so I was referring to the many comments and much angst on the forum that wonder, “is this a sin?” We do not do our brothers and sisters in Christ any favors by not remembering that mortal sin must have intent behind it. We shouldn’t pick apart our lives in desperate anxiety looking for that one single moment that maybe we might have broken a rule.

There isn’t any way I can say that any plainer and if you don’t agree, so be it. If you want the last word, here’s your chance.

Peace,
B

I don’t understand why you have chosen to attack a “giant list of rules”?

I agree with your point, but how is it related to my question?

 

[Peter_J]

But your ignoring that being a “Catholic” didn’t always mean that you were a Roman Catholic even in the early days. Christians have been divided since the first schisms even before the Great Schism. With the Oriental and Assyrian Churches being separate from the rest of Christianity. And then of course the Eastern Church and Western Church fracturing from each other. But both were both still Christian and still Catholic.

No question, the usage of the word Catholic changed somewhat over the centuries. But if I might make a personal observation, I spent a lot of time talking with Orthodox on their own turf, and one thing I definitely noticed is that they were not big on calling themselves “Catholic” – that is, to them “Catholic” meant ICWR.

 

[Peter_J]

In doing so I was referring to the many comments and much angst on the forum that wonder, “is this a sin?”

I think I know the sorts of threads you’re referring to, but it also think that has less to do with the fact that CAF is Catholic and more to do with the fact that it is on the internet. I’ve been in quite a lot of Catholic parishes and other IRL Catholic venues, and the talk was not like that. (Just assuming we’re talking about the same thing.)

 

[cyriljw]

‘Christian’ has lost its meaning, if we don’t accept that Jesus’ blood sacrifice is the basis of our salvation. Nothing else. Why the cross? 1John. 1:7.

 

[rcwitness]

‘Christian’ has lost its meaning, if we don’t accept that Jesus’ blood sacrifice is the basis of our salvation. Nothing else. Why the cross? 1John. 1:7.

That’s definitely a foundation of believing in Jesus. Is that what “following Christ” means?

Do Mormons, Jehovah Witness, LDS also believe this? Are they Christians too?

 

[rcwitness]

‘Christian’ has lost its meaning, if we don’t accept that Jesus’ blood sacrifice is the basis of our salvation. Nothing else. Why the cross? 1John. 1:7.

What about individuals who agree to that, but believe that we don’t need to go to church? What about individuals, or groups, who believe that but profess St. Paul to be a false Apostle?

 

[adamhovey1988]

What about individuals who agree to that, but believe that we don’t need to go to church? What about individuals, or groups, who believe that but profess St. Paul to be a false Apostle?

I think there’s the other end of that too there are some preachers out there that will talk more about Saint Paul than Jesus! I mean are these people really Christian? I mean a Christian is a follower of Christ right? I have nothing wrong with St. Paul and in fact some of his writings are my favourite verses in the Bible but I don’t see how you can have Paul in the Bible without having Christ first. Jesus Christ rose from the dead before Paul came on the scene. I mean it’s kind of pointless for Paul to even write those letters if it was not for Jesus to begin with.

 

[Peter_J]

‘Christian’ has lost its meaning, if we don’t accept that Jesus’ blood sacrifice is the basis of our salvation. Nothing else. Why the cross? 1John. 1:7.

That’s a big if.

 

[Fiasco]

Early on, i wondered whether the Fundamentals of the Fundamentalists could be*** a starting point*** to define a Christian. No one bit.
Any takers this time?

Our Lord’s Blood Sacrifice (on its own) is insufficient. Plenty of denominations and sects accept that, but deny the Blessed Trinity, eg Christadelphians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists (They pay lip service to the Trinity, but they’re wrong with the details.) etc.

The Fundamentalists at least have true core beliefs.

 

[Bran_Stark]

I wouldn’t say the term “Christian” is losing its meaning so much as the term “Christian” was never very precise to begin with. Ever since the time of the Apostles, the title has been shared by groups who differed greatly from each other in theology.

Scripturally, it means to follow Christ.

I’m not sure if I agree. The word only appears three times in the New Testament, and none of those three appearances give an authoritative definition of what a Christian is.

The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Acts 11:26.)

This verse offers a historical record, that the name “Christian” was first used in this particular city. But it offers no information at all about how and why the disciples “were called Christians.” We don’t even know if “Christian” what the disciples called themselves or if it was a word thought up by the local Jews or pagans, whether mockingly or neutrally, to describe this curious new phenomenon.

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. (Acts 26:28.)

This verse gives us a little more information, as it says clearly that “Christian” is coming from the mouth of a pagan ruler. In the next verse Paul’s response to Agrippa, “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds,” shows that he recognizes “Christian” as a valid description of his beliefs, but neither does he specifically latch on to the word or expound it in any way.

Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. (I St. Peter 4:15-16.)

This is the one unambiguous example we have of NT Christians using “Christian” as a self-descriptor. But we still don’t see the text explaining what a Christian is, and how exactly one goes about differentiating Christians from non-Christians. There are certainly many people in the world who are neither murderers nor thieves nor (notorious) evildoers nor busybodies, but who are not believers in the Gospel.

 

[Thorolfr]

I don’t think that’s quite true I mean generally when you said you were a Christian in the early days of the Church, people knew that you being a Christian also meant that you were a Catholic. I have seen no historical evidence of what you’re saying now there have been schisms early on but it’s not always been so.

What about Greek Orthodox Christians and the various Gnostic sects of Christianity? These were never “Catholic” with a capital “C”. Christianity has almost certainly been divided since the beginning.

 

[fbl9]

What about Greek Orthodox Christians and the various Gnostic sects of Christianity? These were never “Catholic” with a capital “C”. Christianity has almost certainly been divided since the beginning.

What did these sects believe that made them Christians.