"Mere Christianity" - 2010 Edition

[clmowry]

What catholic (small c) dogma, if any, would we say one must believe to be considered “Christian” in the world of 2010?

At one point it time we could have, I think, fairly claimed that a Christian was one who believed everything taught as Dogma by the Catholic Church. After centuries of schism is there anything left that we all agree on? (When I say “all” here I don’t really mean every single individual person, but instead every articulated “Christian” belief system that has some body of followers.)

We get to see a rather wide variety of Christian belief systems on these forums, from some of the posts I read here, it would appear that society cedes the title of Christian to any one who lays claim to it.

From dictionary.com we have the following definition of “Christian:”
**1.**One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
**2.**One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus

For “Christianity” we have the following:
**1.**the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.
**2.**Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: *Christianity mixed with pagan elements; the Christianity of Augustine’s thought. *
**3.**a particular Christian religious system: *She followed fundamentalist Christianity. *
**4.**the state of being a Christian.
5.Christendom.
**6.**conformity to the Christian religion or to its beliefs or practices.

Based on these secular definitions a Christian could believe practically anything.

It is probably a practical impossibility, but could we push for a definition that actually points to some basic “required” belief. i.e. Christian: One who follows a religion that teaches: Christ is the 2nd person of a triune God.

(I’m guessing not even this one “dogma” definition would get through the approval check of all those who call themselves “Christians”."

Is there some short list that we can still all agree on or is the destruction of the name “Christian” complete?

Chuck

 

[DavidFilmer]

Is there some short list that we can still all agree on or is the destruction of the name “Christian” complete?

The Church has always defined what it means to be “Christian” with a very short list:

1. 
   *]Valid Baptism
   
   If a person is baptized, s/he is a Christian.
   
   Conduct is not a factor. A baptized infant is a Christian. A baptized serial killer is a Christian.
   
   Belief is not a factor. A baptized person who turns away from his religious beliefs is a Christian.
   
   There are not “degrees” of Christianity. One cannot be “more” or “less” Christian than another. You are either Christian, or you are not Christian.
   
   There is only one way to become a Christian, and once done, it cannot be undone.

 

[clmowry]

The Church has always defined what it means to be “Christian” with a very short list:

1. 
   *]Valid Baptism
   
   If a person is baptized, s/he is a Christian.
   
   Conduct is not a factor. A baptized infant is a Christian. A baptized serial killer is a Christian.
   
   Belief is not a factor. A baptized person who turns away from his religious beliefs is a Christian.
   
   There are not “degrees” of Christianity. One cannot be “more” or “less” Christian than another. You are either Christian, or you are not Christian.
   
   There is only one way to become a Christian, and once done, it cannot be undone.

1. 
   Yes, this is true.
   
   That said, I think the Catholic Church requires 3 things for it to consider a baptism valid.
   
   1.) Water (pouring over the head or immersion I think?)
   2.) Use of the Trinitarian Formula: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
   3.) Intent to bring the person into the fullness of the universal Trinitarian Christian church.
   
   I’m guessing it’s a relatively small subset of “Christians” that do not baptize at all (whether they believe it is efficacious or not) or do not do so with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
   
   That said, I think there are some baptisms that the Catholic Church does not recognize as valid even though they might appear to be of the proper form because they refer back to a fundamentally different definition of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Mormons?)
   
   Has anyone seen a list of Christian denominations whose baptisms are not formally recognized by the Catholic Church?
   
   I wonder what % of the “Christian” population this group would make up.
   
   It seems like I remember that Quakers, One God Pentecostals, Jehovah Witness and Mormons would be on that list? But I don’t think I’ve ever seen an official list, maybe one doesn’t exist.
   
   Chuck

 

[DavidFilmer]

I think the Catholic Church requires 3 things for it to consider a baptism valid.

There are five required elements for every Sacrament. You named matter, form, and intent. The other two are hard to miss out on in the case of baptism - you must have a valid minister (which, in this case, is anybody capable of having intent) and subject (in this case, any non-baptized person).

I’m guessing it’s a relatively small subset of “Christians” that do not baptize at all (whether they believe it is efficacious or not) or do not do so with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I know of at least one non-denominational church that baptizes “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” which is a defective form (and, thus, not a sacramental baptism).

A convert to the Catholic Church will be asked to show his certificate of baptism. Most certificates (including protestant ones) have the stipulation “was baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (or Holy Ghost). This would usually be sufficient. The Church does not maintain a list of protestant denominations that do (or don’t) usually practice valid baptism (the “usually” is important - Baptists, for example, usually “do it right,” but any Baptist minister is free to baptize any way he pleases, so (ironically) you don’t know for sure if any given Baptist has a valid baptism).

Any baptisms in non-Christian churches are obviously invalid (there can surely be no valid intent).

If there is any question, the candidate can be “conditionally baptized” (which is the same as a regular baptism, but the intent is clarified that nothing is happening if the person is validly baptized already).

 

[diggerdomer]

What catholic (small c) dogma, if any, would we say one must believe to be considered “Christian” in the world of 2010?

At one point it time we could have, I think, fairly claimed that a Christian was one who believed everything taught as Dogma by the Catholic Church. After centuries of schism is there anything left that we all agree on? (When I say “all” here I don’t really mean every single individual person, but instead every articulated “Christian” belief system that has some body of followers.)

We get to see a rather wide variety of Christian belief systems on these forums, from some of the posts I read here, it would appear that society cedes the title of Christian to any one who lays claim to it.

From dictionary.com we have the following definition of “Christian:”
**1.**One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
**2.**One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus

For “Christianity” we have the following:
**1.**the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.
**2.**Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: *Christianity mixed with pagan elements; the Christianity of Augustine’s thought. *
**3.**a particular Christian religious system: *She followed fundamentalist Christianity. *
**4.**the state of being a Christian.
5.Christendom.
**6.**conformity to the Christian religion or to its beliefs or practices.

Based on these secular definitions a Christian could believe practically anything.

It is probably a practical impossibility, but could we push for a definition that actually points to some basic “required” belief. i.e. Christian: One who follows a religion that teaches: Christ is the 2nd person of a triune God.

(I’m guessing not even this one “dogma” definition would get through the approval check of all those who call themselves “Christians”."

Is there some short list that we can still all agree on or is the destruction of the name “Christian” complete?

Chuck

Being Christian in one fundamental sense means believing in what Christians profess to believe. Most commonly, such belief is articulate/prayed in the Creed.

 

[diggerdomer]

What catholic (small c) dogma, if any, would we say one must believe to be considered “Christian” in the world of 2010?

Same as always, the teaching of the Church, the deposit of faith, etc. That is, what the Creed professes.

 

[Matorin]

Just out of curiosity, could you show me Scriptural evidence that belief is not required to be a Christian? Or is being saved (and before you get all up-in-arms over the term saved see Romans 10) different from being a Christian?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Just out of curiosity, could you show me Scriptural evidence that belief is not required to be a Christian?

No, of course not. The term “Christian(s)” only occurs three times in Scripture, and it is never defined. No requirements whatsoever are listed, so it is quite impossible to say one way or another. I did not state what the Bible teaches, but what the Church teaches (and what She has always taught, long before there was such a thing as a “Bible” that we would recognize as such).

Or is being saved (and before you get all up-in-arms over the term saved see Romans 10) different from being a Christian?

You cannot “normally” be “saved” without being Christian, but you can be Christian and not be “saved.” It is quite possible to be Christian and yet go to hell.

For example, in Acts 5:1-11, we read of a group of people living in community with Peter himself. The term “Christian” was not yet in use, but it’s easy to apply the term to this group. Yet, Ananias and Sapphira conspired to deceive the community and the Lord about the magnitude of their gift from the proceeds of the sale of a piece of property. They were both struck dead by the power of God for this offense. We cannot know their ultimate fate, but I would not want to be in their place.

I put “saved” in quotes (above) because nobody can ever know if he is saved. We are all redeemed, and we may be confident of that fact, but we never know if we are saved, from one moment to the next. We might have a pretty good idea, but we can never know for sure, one way or another. This is related to the topic of “assurance of salvation” which is OT to this thread (do a search if you’re interested).

I put “normally” in quotes (above) because it is possible for a person to be saved who never had a reasonable opportunity to know Jesus during his earthly life. This is related to the the doctrine of “invincible ignorance,” which is OT to this thread (do a search if you’re interested).

 

[EricFilmer]

Clmowry, thank you for posting such an interesting question. I have been keeping an eye on this thread and pondering it over the past few days.

I think the first thing to address is whether or not our quest for defining the basic doctrines/dogmas shared by all Christians should include the various groups that the Catholic Church deems as “Christian cults.” In other words, the religions that profess some sort of belief in Christ (and some sort of adherence to his teachings) but are not Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. This category would include the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Science. The Catholic Church calls them cults because they profess radically different ideas about who Jesus is and what he does for us in terms of our salvation. In these cases, Jesus is usually deemed as “godlike” but still a created being, and therefore not the Eternal Living God. Likewise, there is usually a denial of God existing as a Trinity (and the Holy Spirit is not accepted as a distinct divine person). Any baptisms that take place in such churches are not considered valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church because the Trinitarian formula is not used.

The way I see it, if our discussion is to include the cults as well as “mainstream” Christianity (i.e., the Catholic & Orthodox Churches and Protestantism), then it seems to me that the only thing that is common to all Christians is the use of the term “Christian” itself. In other words, a Christian is anybody who calls himself a Christian. I say this because the range of radically different doctrines is so great that there is probably nothing else that is held in common. For example, if you ask a Catholic, an Orthodox and a Protestant, “Who is Jesus Christ?”, you will get basically the same answer. If we throw in members from the above mentioned cults, then you will get (in my opinion) some really “far out” notions (which don’t mesh with one another let alone those of mainstream Christianity). Use wikipedia to read a basic overview of their particular doctrines concerning the nature of Christ and you’ll see what I mean.

But the phrase “A Christian is anybody who calls himself a Christian” is hardly a satisfactory answer for the discussion at hand. Therefore, in my opinion, I think we should focus our search on finding the basic doctrines held in common specifically by “mainstream” Christianity and leave the cults out of the picture. I intend to do this in another post in the near future.

 

[clmowry]

Clmowry, thank you for posting such an interesting question. I have been keeping an eye on this thread and pondering it over the past few days.

I think the first thing to address is whether or not our quest for defining the basic doctrines/dogmas shared by all Christians should include the various groups that the Catholic Church deems as “Christian cults.” In other words, the religions that profess some sort of belief in Christ (and some sort of adherence to his teachings) but are not Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. This category would include the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Science. The Catholic Church calls them cults because they profess radically different ideas about who Jesus is and what he does for us in terms of our salvation. In these cases, Jesus is usually deemed as “godlike” but still a created being, and therefore not the Eternal Living God. Likewise, there is usually a denial of God existing as a Trinity (and the Holy Spirit is not accepted as a distinct divine person). Any baptisms that take place in such churches are not considered valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church because the Trinitarian formula is not used.

The way I see it, if our discussion is to include the cults as well as “mainstream” Christianity (i.e., the Catholic & Orthodox Churches and Protestantism), then it seems to me that the only thing that is common to all Christians is the use of the term “Christian” itself. In other words, a Christian is anybody who calls himself a Christian. I say this because the range of radically different doctrines is so great that there is probably nothing else that is held in common. For example, if you ask a Catholic, an Orthodox and a Protestant, “Who is Jesus Christ?”, you will get basically the same answer. If we throw in members from the above mentioned cults, then you will get (in my opinion) some really “far out” notions (which don’t mesh with one another let alone those of mainstream Christianity). Use wikipedia to read a basic overview of their particular doctrines concerning the nature of Christ and you’ll see what I mean.

But the phrase “A Christian is anybody who calls himself a Christian” is hardly a satisfactory answer for the discussion at hand. Therefore, in my opinion, I think we should focus our search on finding the basic doctrines held in common specifically by “mainstream” Christianity and leave the cults out of the picture. I intend to do this in another post in the near future.

To be a meainingful disussion, I think you are correct, we should probably look for common ground among Trinitarian Christian Denominations.

Chuck

 

[EricFilmer]

What catholic (small c) dogma, if any, would we say one must believe to be considered “Christian” in the world of 2010?

Here are my thoughts on this question. And (for reasons I explained in my last post) I will limit my ponderings to common ground within Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism (and exclude the teachings from the various Christian cults).

DavidFilmer started the ball rolling with the sacrament of Baptism. It should be noted that the Catholic Church does, indeed, state that it is through valid Baptism that a person becomes a member of the universal Church in a sacramental sense. Even though there are two additional sacraments to be fully initiated (Confirmation and the Eucharist) a person is considered an actual member of the Church upon Baptism. Now, it seems to me that we have to tweak this idea for the sake of the initial question. Therefore, for the discussion at hand, we should not talk about the reception of Baptism but rather what we collectively believe about the reception of Baptism. And with this slight distinction in mind, I don’t think (IMO) that we can use this idea, and I will clarify my position in a moment.

But don’t get me wrong, as a Catholic I fully embrace the truth of what DavidFilmer posted, but I simply question how well it serves to address the idea presented in this thread’s initial post. In other words, when the question asks what “we” would agree on, I think DavidFilmer was stating what “we as Catholics” would agree on (as to what unites us as Christians with the Orthodox Churches and Protestantism). And if that is the case then DavidFilmer’s response is mine as well.

But I see the OP’s initial question to mean something that “we as Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants” can all agree on. Many Protestants see Baptism as a visible ritual which symbolizes an interior conversion (i.e., the person is “born again” or “saved”). Furthermore, according to their understanding, people wait until the Holy Spirit calls them to be born again. Therefore, a people can go to church, read the Bible and profess their love for Jesus for years before finally being “born again” and receiving Baptism. Putting myself into the shoes of a member of one of these Protestant denominations for a moment, I think that even though a church-going person may not be born again, he could (and would) still claim to be a Christian. In other words, if you ask him, “Are you born again?” he would say, “Not yet.” But if you ask him, “Are you a Christian?” he would say “Yes.”

Belief in the Ancient Christian Creeds

At this time, I think that my answer to the OP’s question would be belief in the statements of the ancient Christian creeds (the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed). To my knowledge, all the Protestant denominations embrace the Creeds and, of course, so do members of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Plus, for those who are insistent upon an answer involving Baptism, let me point out that the Catholic Rite of Baptism expresses that a person is being baptized “into” a faith, a faith that is expressed in the Nicene Creed. For example, before adults are baptized, they have to acknowledge belief in the creedal statements. At infant Baptism, parents and godparents act as the child’s representatives. The parents and godparents are the ones who acknowledge the creedal statements, and just before the priest or deacon baptizes the child, he asks the parents and godparents if it is their desire that the child be baptized “into the Faith” which was just professed (in the Nicene Creed).

Belief in the Holy Bible

To my answer, I would add that belief in the Holy Bible is something that we all hold in common. And here I am speaking in general terms, because obviously there is disagreement as to exactly what books belong in the Bible, and over its interpretation. But at least we all agree that the Holy Bible contains revelation from God, and was written by people under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[clmowry]

To my knowledge, all the Protestant denominations embrace the Creeds and, of course, so do members of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Interesting, I’ve seen the Nicene Creed in a Methodists hymnal (albeit with an asterisk next to *Catholic and a foot note that said “*Catholic means Universal.” [Which I don’t disagree with by the way I just thought it was interesting that they felt the need to point this out.]

I wonder what percentage of non-Catholic denominations reject some portion of this creed?

EricFilmer:
But at least we all agree that the Holy Bible contains revelation from God, and was written by people under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

My fear is that this is about the only one we might “all” still have in common.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

Though we might argue about what each of these phrases mean in precise theological terms, is there any non-Catholic Christian on the forums that flat out deny any of the following?

Chuck

"From the The Lutheran Book of Worship
and The Book of Common Prayer (Episcopal)

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen."

 

[Ahimsa]

If you believe Jesus is Divine, and if you try to follow his teachings, then you are Christian.

 

[EricFilmer]

My fear is that this is about the only one we might “all” still have in common.

I know what you mean. I’m hoping more doctrinal details can be added to demonstrate more areas of agreement, and maybe we will see that in this thread. At the moment, all I can possibly add to what I stated earlier is that we all seem to really like “Amazing Grace” (lol). Of course, we perhaps want something a bit more substantive for the discussion, so I will keep pondering the topic.

 

[clmowry]

I know what you mean. I’m hoping more doctrinal details can be added to demonstrate more areas of agreement, and maybe we will see that in this thread. At the moment, all I can possibly add to what I stated earlier is that we all seem to really like “Amazing Grace” (lol). Of course, we perhaps want something a bit more substantive for the discussion, so I will keep pondering the topic.

Eh maybe I’m just in the wrong forum for this kind of question.

What’s the fun in looking at what we have in common? It’s much more fun to argue about what we disagree on.

I should know I’m an arguer from way back.

Chuck