Is the term "Christian" losing its meaning?

[SuperLuigi]

I would prefer not to label individuals myself.

It does need to be noted that the needle of the general culture is moving away from the teachings of Christ and Christians in general need to discern their faith more without using popular culture as a litmus test.

 

[adamhovey1988]

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.

I suggest you read the minutes from the first seven ecumenical councils and you will learn that the Eastern Orthodox very much considered themselves Catholic until the great schism and yes in the capital C Sense

 

[Thorolfr]

I suggest you read the minutes from the first seven ecumenical councils and you will learn that the Eastern Orthodox very much considered themselves Catholic until the great schism and yes in the capital C Sense

Roman Catholics assert that the idea of Christ’s deity was ultimately confirmed by the Bishop of Rome [at the First Council of Nicaea], and that it was this confirmation that gave the council its influence and authority. In support of this, they cite the position of early fathers and their expression of the need for all churches to agree with Rome (see Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses III:3:2).

**However, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox do not believe the Council viewed the Bishop of Rome as the jurisdictional head of Christendom, or someone having authority over other bishops attending the Council. **In support of this, they cite Canon 6, where the Roman Bishop could be seen as simply one of several influential leaders, but not one who had jurisdiction over other bishops in other regions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

 

[Peter_J]

Roman Catholics assert that the idea of Christ’s deity was ultimately confirmed by the Bishop of Rome [at the First Council of Nicaea], and that it was this confirmation that gave the council its influence and authority. In support of this, they cite the position of early fathers and their expression of the need for all churches to agree with Rome (see Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses III:3:2).

The RCC most definitely teaches that confirmation by the Pope is a necessary condition for a council to be ecumenical. Are you claiming that she also teaches that confirmation by the Pope is a sufficient condition for a council to be ecumenical? If so, what is your source?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

This is just my idea on the subject but I think it lost it’s meaning since the reformation. Christian began to not only mean those who profess correctly who Christ is but how Christ saved us. Since then others have sought to make the emphasis of Christianity less on who Christ is and what he did and instead place the firmness of our idea of what the Christian is in lesser doctrines and ideas.

Before the reformation schisms usually occurred over Christological or theistic differences (Nestorianism: Who is Christ? Oriental Orthodox: Who is Christ? The East/West Schism: The filioque?). Since then it has occurred over soteriological differences, Pastoral/practical differences, ethical differences and I think the democratisation of faith had a helping hand in that.

Liberals now consider our actions and what we do, our inclusiveness to be what defines Christianity. Super Reformed individuals consider Christianity to be marked by accepting TULIP and the five solas, anything less is non Christian to them. There are the Joel Osteen types who seemingly have no doctrines but simply promises of God’s ability to reward you materially. Then there are of course Mormons, JW and others who claim exclusively to be the “true” Christians who depart radically and cast aside 2000 years of historic orthodoxy for their own brand. That’s why I appreciate Messianics who openly deny themselves as Christian and refuse any connection to historic Christianity, at least they aren’t muddying the water (though they do at their own detriment).

This is why I think the Nicene confession is central to whom we are as Christians. It doesn’t matter who we are, what matters is who Christ is and what he has done that makes us actually Christians.

 

[BornInMarch]

Is there such a wide, and loose connection with those who call themselves Christian, that it has lost some meaning? Scripturally, it means to follow Christ. But if so many Christians do not agree what is following Him in many different matters, does it lessen the meaning of the name?

If anything, the term Christian has MORE meaning because of the disunity within Christianity.

The different denominations may disagree and argue on things, but shared belief in Jesus Christ as our lord and savior is what binds us together.

 

[po18guy]

Since 1500s Europe, term has gradually become undefinable. Today it is essentially meaningless. Standing in stark contrast, the practice of the ancient faith is as potent as it ever was.

 

[Wannano]

Since 1500s Europe, term has gradually become undefinable. Today it is essentially meaningless. Standing in stark contrast, the practice of the ancient faith is as potent as it ever was.

The first 400+ years of Christianity meant a willingness to accept martyrdom. To say the practice of the ancient faith is as potent as it ever was is certainly food for thought.

 

[rcwitness]

The first 400+ years of Christianity meant a willingness to accept martyrdom. To say the practice of the ancient faith is as potent as it ever was is certainly food for thought.

Yes is was! And this persecution diminished with the conversion of the emperor. Still, we know from the Scripture of Revelations (and other Scriptures) that serious and destructive division existed already.

So the Church existed and was sustained before Constantine even with division, and the Church existed even with division after Constantine. However, the liberty from legal persecution allowed a positive growth by communication through the legalization of Christianity by Constantine.

Constantine gathered the Christian leaders to allow universal teachings and Church law to be established, made known, and convict believers.

Constantine had a certain authority which Christians are called to submit to (as Peter Taught us). Even as Herod had authority to assemble all the priests and demand an answer.

Matthew 2
When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him;*and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.*They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:

*‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who will govern my people Israel.’”

It begs the question: What if all Christian leaders were assembled today. Who would come, what would be decreed, and how would all consent?

 

[Wannano]

Yes is was! And this persecution diminished with the conversion of the emperor. Still, we know from the Scripture of Revelations (and other Scriptures) that serious and destructive division existed already.

So the Church existed and was sustained before Constantine even with division, and the Church existed even with division after Constantine. However, the liberty from legal persecution allowed a positive growth by communication through the legalization of Christianity by Constantine.

Constantine gathered the Christian leaders to allow universal teachings and Church law to be established, made known, and convict believers.

Constantine had a certain authority which Christians are called to submit to (as Peter Taught us). Even as Herod had authority to assemble all the priests and demand an answer.

Matthew 2
When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him;*and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born.*They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet:

*‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who will govern my people Israel.’”

It begs the question: What if all Christian leaders were assembled today. Who would come, what would be decreed, and how would all consent?

Hi rc, I don’t know if I understand exactly what you are driving at…my thoughts were more about how Christianity in the early church meant an almost expectancy of martyrdom. Constantine changed that for sure and that resulted in a change of defining what all it meant to be a Christian. The is the thrust of the OP.

I am almost positive I am right in saying that the defining parameters of the term “Christian” in the early church (which has been abundantly explained meant Catholic) is quite different than today.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc, I don’t know if I understand exactly what you are driving at…my thoughts were more about how Christianity in the early church meant an almost expectancy of martyrdom. Constantine changed that for sure and that resulted in a change of defining what all it meant to be a Christian. The is the thrust of the OP.

I am not following this at all. Just because persecution was lifted, that doesn’t mean the definition of what being a Christian changed. It just meant that it was not legal to kill a Christian.

I am almost positive I am right in saying that the defining parameters of the term “Christian” in the early church (which has been abundantly explained meant Catholic) is quite different than today.

Not exactly. The term Christian already became less and less meaningful, because it included a wider and wider amount of oppositionalism. The term Catholic provided an orthodoxy to Christianity. It meant that those who considered themselves Christian, were held to an accountability that was visible and lawful through leadership. The meaning of Christian didn’t change, it became more defined through Catholicism (or the meaning of “Catholic”).

 

[Wannano]

I am not following this at all. Just because persecution was lifted, that doesn’t mean the definition of what being a Christian changed. It just meant that it was not legal to kill a Christian.

Not exactly. The term Christian already became less and less meaningful, because it included a wider and wider amount of oppositionalism. The term Catholic provided an orthodoxy to Christianity. It meant that those who considered themselves Christian, were held to an accountability that was visible and lawful through leadership. The meaning of Christian didn’t change, it became more defined through Catholicism (or the meaning of “Catholic”).

The term Catholic provided an orthodoxy to Christianity. If the meaning didn’t change how did it become more defined within the meaning of “Catholic.”

 

[rcwitness]

The term Catholic provided an orthodoxy to Christianity. If the meaning didn’t change how did it become more defined within the meaning of “Catholic.”

because those claiming the term Christian were not held to a universal church authority, while Catholic became associated with that.

 

[a_priori]

The term “Christian” is highly subjective in 2017 America.