What exactly makes one Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So where are we now? Christians are people who “believe in Jesus” regardless of how they would define or characterize Him? But in that case are they necessarily even believing in the same thing?
 
englishredrose said:
Hey - I agree. I can’t help it if people want to unpick words. I am glad you now agree with what I actually said at beginning with that Christians are people who believe in Jesus Christ. I haven’t come up with any more definition or solid criteria, just patiently replied to other posts that questioned what I had said. Which is part of the discussion of what makes a Christian. It is all relevent, far more so than other threads have gone on these boards I might add… I did add about 23 denominations but haven’t said what the criteria is to be considered a christian - denomination.

Some times people interact with each other on these threads and sometimes we have to let that happen. Sometimes others may learn from the interaction and somtimes other may cry with embarrassing shame of what is being said. It is all a part of discussion and learning of which is the point of discussion isn’t it - not just going where you would like it to go. Sorry if you thought it not on track. I didn’t really want to reply but it is within the realm of the discussion and I had nothing to hide so gave my replies. So sorry therefore if by if me joining in and replying to other questions has offended you, it may have been more rude not to have answered the questions when I had answers and wasn’t wanting to avoid and not wanting conflict either. Sorry if this upset you 👍
Click to expand...
Everyone here agrees that in order to be a Christian you must “believe in Jesus Christ”. I have always agreed with that, however it needs to be qualified. We are now at the point of finding that qualification.

What does “believe in Jesus Christ” have to mean in order to be properly and rightly called a Christian? Does one need to believe Jesus is God, which I see as necessary? I would also number the Trinity among the essential beliefs to be called Christian. That’s the question: In what way must a belief differ from Catholicism (and its commonalities with other mainline groups) in order to no longer qualify as Christian?
 
englishredrose said:
I am not the judge. God is. It is him who decides what we are if anyone does, not us. I don’t have a problem with that in that I did state not how we believe how as it what set of rules one follows to believes. If a Muslim want to say they are Christian because they believe in Jesus Christ or Mormoms then I really and truelly don’t have a problem with that. Further more I don’t have a problem how people want to define themselves at all. It is how others want to define others I might have a problem with but at the end of it all. The only judge is God. Christianity is just a title that we use to help ourselves. God don’t need that title. He sees our hearts rather than our titles.So for me I really am not worried and keep it simple in that a Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ and will add - if that is how they want to be known to others because that is all what the label is for - is for others, not for God, because he knows our hearts and minds and not interested in the title apart from what it does to us…👍
Click to expand...
Ahh, that’s better.
 
Finally, another idea proposed. The additional criteria of “belief in the Trinity”.

This is problematic in that the Trinity is a difficult concept that was developed over time while many denominations have spit and have only slightly different definitions of Trinity or reject the word as many have defined, but conceptually are very similar.

I conclude that if your concentrating on “Christian” and finding that fuzzy then “Trinity” is quite a bigger hair ball. Then with all the side tracking already undergone opening up a “Trinity” discussion is not a good idea.

Limiting it to use in defining a valid Baptism being one given “in the name of the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit” makes a lot of sense.

Can we agree to leave “Trinity” at that and having such a Catholic acceptable form of Baptism is also enough to indicate a passing grade in “belief in the Trinity”?
 
wmw said:
Finally, another idea proposed. The additional criteria of “belief in the Trinity”.

This is problematic in that the Trinity is a difficult concept that was developed over time while many denominations have spit and have only slightly different definitions of Trinity or reject the word as many have defined, but conceptually are very similar.

I conclude that if your concentrating on “Christian” and finding that fuzzy then “Trinity” is quite a bigger hair ball. Then with all the side tracking already undergone opening up a “Trinity” discussion is not a good idea.

Limiting it to use in defining a valid Baptism being one given “in the name of the Father, Son, And Holy Spirit” makes a lot of sense.

Can we agree to leave “Trinity” at that and having such a Catholic acceptable form of Baptism is also enough to indicate a passing grade in “belief in the Trinity”?
Click to expand...
The Trinity is three Divine Persons in One, made up of the Father, the Son who is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
 
seeker_of_God said:
The Trinity is three Divine Persons in One, made up of the Father, the Son who is begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Click to expand...
Before you get me confused, I believe that too. But am wondering if there are any Christians who dont do the Trinity? Lutherans and Methodists are Christian but I do not know their outlook of the Trinity. Though I am not sure what you mean by proceeds because that suggests to me one follows where as I am given to understand it as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit three in one and one in three rather than one proceeds. I am not sure what you mean by proceeds therefore. But back to the topic in question, certainly methodists are accepted as Christian by the 23 denominations but do they do the Trinity?

In my own opinion I will stick with what someone has kindly highlighted in blue as my stance and remain with that, but for the purpose of this discussion I want to know whether Methodists do the Trinity and if not would you consider them therefore not Christian even though they are listed as a Chrisitian Denomination.
 
englishredrose said:
Before you get me confused, I believe that too. But am wondering if there are any Christians who dont do the Trinity? Lutherans and Methodists are Christian but I do not know their outlook of the Trinity. Though I am not sure what you mean by proceeds because that suggests to me one follows where as I am given to understand it as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit three in one and one in three rather than one proceeds. I am not sure what you mean by proceeds therefore. But back to the topic in question, certainly methodists are accepted as Christian by the 23 denominations but do they do the Trinity?

In my own opinion I will stick with what someone has kindly highlighted in blue as my stance and remain with that, but for the purpose of this discussion I want to know whether Methodists do the Trinity and if not would you consider them therefore not Christian even though they are listed as a Chrisitian Denomination.
Click to expand...
Methodists most definitely believe in the Trinity. What are the 23 denominations you keep referring to? There are far more than that.

There is not one group I would call Christian that does not believe in the Trinity as defined in the Creeds.

As Methodists believe in or “do” the Trinity, they potentially qualify as Christians. (By that I mean that there could of course be other criteria that must be fulfilled, which is the question!) If they didn’t I wouldn’t count them as a Christian denomination, no matter what they are “listed” as. The question would then be: What authority does the creator of that list have to determine who is Christian and who isn’t? Wikipedia has no such authority, for example, but will go with what the majority (who don’t have the authority either) says. An example: Mormonism is listed as Christian there, but most of the groups we would term “mainline Christianity” would probably disagree.
 
englishredrose said:
True, it can mean anything you want it to me but if you are Christian and I mean Christian as in the whole realm and not just Roman Catholic then it could mean a whole lot more once start to try and break down exactly what it may mean. But for me Christian derives from Christ and one wouldn’t declare themselves as Christian if they couldn’t accept Jesus Christ otherwise they wouldn’t be Christians. I am not going to go into all the theological discussions. I leave that boring stuff to others. It is just a simple matter that Christian is like a noun or verb to Christ and we are of Christ, Jesus christ and for me too that is what makes us a Christian. Theological arguments about it all are meaningless to me because whichever denomination one comes from their be a different view point of defining Christian using the creed and the Holy Trinity etc so I am deliberately keeping it simple by saying that a Christian is made by that they are of Christ and putting ‘ians’ at the end makes it into a prounceable concept that we are Christians. Yeh yeh, I know about the rest and I know that once this thread gets going but for me it really is that simple and oh Christians is being Christlike the title we have is christian from christ and we are christlike… 😃
Click to expand...
I hate to have to disagree with one of my countrymen, particularly one from the Established Church, on this but your church and ours agrees on one thing - a Christian has to be baptised in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, using the form of water, by a baptised Christian. As Catholics there are also certain ecclesial norms that we have to observe to make the baptism canonically valid but the above is an absolute minimum for any mainstream Christian.
 
CutlerB said:
Methodists most definitely believe in the Trinity. What are the 23 denominations you keep referring to? There are far more than that.

There is not one group I would call Christian that does not believe in the Trinity as defined in the Creeds.

As Methodists believe in or “do” the Trinity, they potentially qualify as Christians.
Click to expand...
I can vouch for that - I received a Methodist baptism and this was accepted without question both when I was received into the Catholic Church and when I was accepted for ordination as a deacon.
 
When “Creed” was mentioned it reminded me of former Pres. Carter. I remember that he said he doesn’t believe in Creeds at all. Basically in his theology each should study the Bible on his own and words like “Trinity” that are not in the Bible should not be part of the faith teaching at all. Then I looked up what denomination he is. He is a solid member of Maranatha Baptist Church and he teaches Sunday school;so his ideas are considered quite acceptable within his church.

I find his ideas on all this quite ridiculous, but at the same time I would support that he is “Christian” and I’m hoping that there is some agreement on this despite the attempt to make Christianity very sharply defined and limited theologically. Whether or not you are like me in being against the furthering of either his political party or religious denomination can you say Pres. Carter is not a Christian while to the rest of the world he is one of the most famous Christians.

I’m not against being contrary to the way the world thinks, but I think we need to be able to speak the same language to discuss the matter with them.

This is why we as Catholics need to be reasonably flexible about this and have at least two meanings. One on the historical chain of Churches for people like Pres. Carter and the second based on a valid Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for use as who needs a Catholic Baptism after they complete RCIA. Then not unreasonably flexible to accept that anyone that is “pro Jesus” should be called “Christian”.
 
wmw said:
When “Creed” was mentioned it reminded me of former Pres. Carter. I remember that he said he doesn’t believe in Creeds at all. Basically in his theology each should study the Bible on his own and words like “Trinity” that are not in the Bible should not be part of the faith teaching at all. Then I looked up what denomination he is. He is a solid member of Maranatha Baptist Church and he teaches Sunday school;so his ideas are considered quite acceptable within his church.

I find his ideas on all this quite ridiculous, but at the same time I would support that he is “Christian” and I’m hoping that there is some agreement on this despite the attempt to make Christianity very sharply defined and limited theologically. Whether or not you are like me in being against the furthering of either his political party or religious denomination can you say Pres. Carter is not a Christian while to the rest of the world he is one of the most famous Christians.

I’m not against being contrary to the way the world thinks, but I think we need to be able to speak the same language to discuss the matter with them.

This is why we as Catholics need to be reasonably flexible about this and have at least two meanings. One on the historical chain of Churches for people like Pres. Carter and the second based on a valid Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for use as who needs a Catholic Baptism after they complete RCIA. Then not unreasonably flexible to accept that anyone that is “pro Jesus” should be called “Christian”.
Click to expand...
If he believed that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, three Persons in One God, then I’d say it doesn’t matter whether he uses the word Trinity.
 
wmw said:
When “Creed” was mentioned it reminded me of former Pres. Carter. I remember that he said he doesn’t believe in Creeds at all. Basically in his theology each should study the Bible on his own and words like “Trinity” that are not in the Bible should not be part of the faith teaching at all. Then I looked up what denomination he is. He is a solid member of Maranatha Baptist Church and he teaches Sunday school;so his ideas are considered quite acceptable within his church.

I find his ideas on all this quite ridiculous, but at the same time I would support that he is “Christian” and I’m hoping that there is some agreement on this despite the attempt to make Christianity very sharply defined and limited theologically. Whether or not you are like me in being against the furthering of either his political party or religious denomination can you say Pres. Carter is not a Christian while to the rest of the world he is one of the most famous Christians.

I’m not against being contrary to the way the world thinks, but I think we need to be able to speak the same language to discuss the matter with them.

This is why we as Catholics need to be reasonably flexible about this and have at least two meanings. One on the historical chain of Churches for people like Pres. Carter and the second based on a valid Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for use as who needs a Catholic Baptism after they complete RCIA. Then not unreasonably flexible to accept that anyone that is “pro Jesus” should be called “Christian”.
Click to expand...
I had the “non-creedal” folks like many Baptists and other Evangelicals in mind when in my post I defined a Christian as someone who could at least implicitly believe in the creed. While they may not “accept the Nicene Creed” they nevertheless can affirm faith in “God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things visible and invisible…” etc.
 
The irony in this discussion, is that the party that actually has the authority to define ‘what makes one Christian’, and to declare who is Christian, and who is not–the actual, express heirs of Christ’s teachings, and the Gospel–His Apostles, and their proper successors–(i.e.–the Catholic Church)–applies a rather liberal, broad definition–recognizing (as has been pointed out above) anyone baptized according to the Trinitarian formula, and proclaiming fielty to Christ Jesus and His teachings (and recognzing Him as God).

Meanwhile, the most exclusionery definitions come from illigitimate usurpers–Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians—who would have the world believe that only those professing ‘Christians’ who drink from the trough of their post 16th century confessionals, qualify.

IOW: the most divisive, exclusionery and judgmental lot that make it into the Catholic definition only by the most liberal, merciful, open definition of Christianity–are the most outspoken about not just shutting the door behind them to let no one after them in–but about arbitrarily drawing a circle around their little corner of the catholic Christian universe, and pretending to declare that little circle, as comprising the entirety of the catholic Christian universe…

…which of course, characterizes Christ’s teachings to a tee–because clearly, Jesus Christ taught his followers to be judgmental, exclusionery, and divisive. 😃

(ok, so perhaps Christ’s teachings were a bit divisive–but not so much the other two factors–and the divisiveness He championed, was for juxtaposing His Kingdom, against the secular world–not in order to be judgmental and exclusive).

FWIW.
 
Valeite said:
I hate to have to disagree with one of my countrymen, particularly one from the Established Church, on this but your church and ours agrees on one thing - a Christian has to be baptised in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, using the form of water, by a baptised Christian. As Catholics there are also certain ecclesial norms that we have to observe to make the baptism canonically valid but the above is an absolute minimum for any mainstream Christian.
Click to expand...
Actually, FWIW–in exigent circumstances, the Catholic Church doesn’t even require that the person doing the baptizing, be baptized himeself–only that that person being baptized, desire to be baptized, and understand what that means (and still further, in some circumstances, this desire/understanding can be imputed to the person).

e.g.–your drunk uncle is hiking in the mountains…he is unbaptized…he slips and suffers a compound fracture, that punctured a vital artery, and he is bleeding profusely…he calls you on your cel. phone, to say good bye…he tells you he wishes he had lived better, and that he wished he had been baptized…

…his hiking mate, is a prophesed atheist and physician–he can not stop the bleeding, and confirms to you that your uncle is going to die. Even though he (uncle’s hiking mate) is an atheist, you instruct him to take some water from your uncle’s canteen, and baptize him in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the HS…you tell him how to do it…he does.

According to the CCC, your uncle was validly baptized.

e.g. 2–everything same as above, only your uncle passed out due to loss of blood, before he could tell you that he wished he had been baptized. In fact, you don’t even know that your uncle would have told you that he wished he had been baptized, etc., had he not passed out. The baptism may still be vaild and effective, if the desire to be baptized and understanding, are imputed to him (though of course there is absolutely no way of knowing this).

That’s accoriding to the CCC (although the hypo. is mine–just illustrating the application–according to my understanding of it).

I don’t know if the Anglican Church recognizes this–it just caught my attention that you indicated that it must be done by one who is baptized.

NOTE: same hypo as above–except that your uncle doesn’t even get to call you–but the atheist hiking buddy ‘…saw someone do it in a movie one time’, and baptizes him—still valid. The point is that the intent of the person administering the baptism isn’t really controlling–it’s the intent/understanding of the recipient that controls. According to teh Catholic Church, anyway.
 
CutlerB said:
Now this may sound awkward, but let me explain:

I assume most of you will agree that Mormonism is not Christian, and neither are Jehovah’s Witnesses or Oneness Pentecostals. The common description I hear of them is “pseudo-Christian”. Yet, on Wikipedia one reads that all of these groups are “Christian”, and each of them claim this for themselves. I believe many people in the general public would also number some of them among Christianity.

From a Catholic perspective, I gather there are a few things that must be given in order to be counted as Christian. Among these things would be a valid Baptism and belief in the Most Holy Trinity. If any of these two are absent, the Catholic Church would not count them or their beliefs as Christian, I understand.

While I completely agree, how does one argue this to non-Catholics or secularists? I imagine their argument being: “Who are you to say what is Christian and what isn’t? They believe in Christ, don’t they?” At least that’s a possibility. So, is there a way to argue in favour the Catholic position without appealing to Church authority?
Click to expand...
A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as his/her personal Savior. A Christian is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and believes in the Holy Trinity and all it stands for. A Christian believes that Jesus Christ is God-Man and sits at the right hand of the Father. A Christian believes in the Second Coming of Jesus and that Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead. A Christian devotes his/her life to the faith, hope, and love of serving and sharing the word of the Lord. A Christian reads the bible and lives by the words that Jesus left us in the New Testament, but reads the OT as well to parallel and understand the teachings and fulfillment of Jesus. A true Christian lives, prays fervently, and sacrifices his life for the love of others and strives to emulate and live his/her life in the image of Jesus. A Christian shares and spreads the teachings of Jesus Christ. A true Christian always keeps Jesus as the Center Focus on one’s life.
 
Matthew 22:34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sad′ducees, they came together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Striving for these two commandments without ceasing.
 
Didn’t the Church come up with the Nicene Creed to answer the question of what one is required to believe in order to call one’s self Christian?

As an aside, if all it takes is to be Christian is to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then demons are Christians…
 
It’s the three fundamental pillars, perhaps even two.
  1. Living by love.
  2. Living by the truth.
    We could even say that the two are so inseparable that they become one single criterion.
  3. Believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the long-awaited Messiah, the only Son of God the Father and believing that Jesus Himself is God the Son, resurrected and immortal.
    Therefore, I personally think that for example Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.
    Michał Obrębski
 
Michal_Obrebski said:
It’s the three fundamental pillars, perhaps even two.
  1. Living by love.
  2. Living by the truth.
    We could even say that the two are so inseparable that they become one single criterion.
  3. Believing that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the long-awaited Messiah, the only Son of God the Father and believing that Jesus Himself is God the Son, resurrected and immortal.
    Therefore, I personally think that for example Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian.
    Michał Obrębski
Click to expand...
JWs do not believe Jesus to be God the Son.
 
You said, “So that would be transferred to your question too in that what exactly makes one Christian?” Would you be happy with the simple answer of someone who believes in Jesus Christ?"
The question here is what does one believe about Christ. He is an historical person but if that is the extent of one’s belief that is not saving faith. Believing that Christ’s death was complete atonement for one’s sin and that all have sinned and need a Savior is what makes one a Christian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top