Who Are Christians?

[tGette]

I wanted to start this thread based on that fact that this type of thread has been done many of times before and I am starting one of my own because I feel differently now. Please let me know your thoughts! Maybe I will be enlightened to think otherwise?

Anyone who believes in Christ, regardless of the “type” of Christianity…they are still Christians.

Even though Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and any type of Christian who does not believe in the Trinity have a misconstrued idea of who Jesus is/was, they are still Christians in that they believe in Jesus as the Messiah and that He died on a cross for our redemption.

They strive to live “Christ-like” lives and to follow Him. They try, like us all, to live according to His teachings.

I have realized it is unfair to label them “NOT Christian”. They are still Christian, albeit their misunderstandings of His Divine Nature.

I guess I am wondering…at while point do we draw the line in “allowing” someone to be titled a Christian?

(A small comment):
According to many, I, as a Catholic Christian, am not considered Christian.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I am presupposing a Christian perspective here.
From a purely historical or sociological perspective, a Christian is a matter of self-identification; although certainly people usually put a lot of modifiers in front of it (intolerant, tolerant, so called, etc).
As believers we have vastly differing views on what makes one a believer though. Best for me to just read this one.

 

[Analyzer]

**Those who claimed Christians and in their minds are following Christ, are in fact followers of Saul/Paul and not Christ of so-called four canonised gospels of 4th century A.D.

By the way the word ‘Chrisitan’ was first labelled by the people of Antioch, long after Jesus, as, Jesus was not a Christian nor he preached Christianity.**

 

[tGette]

I am presupposing a Christian perspective here.
From a purely historical or sociological perspective, a Christian is a matter of self-identification; although certainly people usually put a lot of modifiers in front of it (intolerant, tolerant, so called, etc).
As believers we have vastly differing views on what makes one a believer though. Best for me to just read this one.

Yeah…I think I am going to just read too. Not sure though.

I am expecting some rebukes…

…Let’s tune in!

 

[tGette]

Those who claimed Christians and in their minds are following Christ, are in fact followers of Saul/Paul and not Christ of so-called four canonised gospels of 4th century A.D.

By the way the word ‘Chrisitan’ was first labelled by the people of Antioch, long after Jesus, as, Jesus was not a Christian nor he preached Christianity.

Please elaborate and in light to the thread title, please.

Thank you!

 

[1ke]

I guess I am wondering…at while point do we draw the line in “allowing” someone to be titled a Christian?

(A small comment):
According to many, I, as a Catholic Christian, am not considered Christian.

You state you are a Catholic. If that is so, then you should have no confusion whatsoever regarding who is or is not a Christian and when someone can be called a Christian.

The Church is quite clear on the matter. A person baptized in the Trinitarian formula becomes a member of the Body of Christ at that moment.

Unbaptized persons-- that would be Mormons and JWs, too-- are not Christans no matter what they call themselves.

 

[tGette]

You state you are a Catholic. If that is so, then you should have no confusion whatsoever regarding who is or is not a Christian and when someone can be called a Christian.

The Church is quite clear on the matter. A person baptized in the Trinitarian formula becomes a member of the Body of Christ at that moment.

Unbaptized persons-- that would be Mormons and JWs, too-- are not Christans no matter what they call themselves.

Hmm…Great point!

That is why I start threads, there is always something I overlook.

That still makes me wonder, through invincible ignorance, can they still claim the title? For instance, what is a non-baptized person (Catechumen) were a practicing Christians (and maybe even in RCIA) are they not considered a Christian until their baptism.

I pretty much can guess your response. I guess if we are not washed clean to receive the Spirit we cannot be technically united to God.

Hmm…did I answer my question. I think I know, but I think I might be confusing myself.

 

[GailMac]

I wanted to start this thread based on that fact that this type of thread has been done many of times before and I am starting one of my own because I feel differently now. Please let me know your thoughts! Maybe I will be enlightened to think otherwise?

Anyone who believes in Christ, regardless of the “type” of Christianity…they are still Christians.

Even though Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and any type of Christian who does not believe in the Trinity have a misconstrued idea of who Jesus is/was, they are still Christians in that they believe in Jesus as the Messiah and that He died on a cross for our redemption.

They strive to live “Christ-like” lives and to follow Him. They try, like us all, to live according to His teachings.

I have realized it is unfair to label them “NOT Christian”. They are still Christian, albeit their misunderstandings of His Divine Nature.

I guess I am wondering…at while point do we draw the line in “allowing” someone to be titled a Christian?

(A small comment):
According to many, I, as a Catholic Christian, am not considered Christian.

Yes, it is difficult to love them and let go. Think of it this way, some have some of the truth and some know the church is right yet remain away from her. They can get really nasty, so if I were you, I’d keep walking right past anyone who you don’t think shares your beliefs.

Peace,

Gail

 

[RC_Matt]

I wanted to start this thread based on that fact that this type of thread has been done many of times before and I am starting one of my own because I feel differently now. Please let me know your thoughts! Maybe I will be enlightened to think otherwise?

Anyone who believes in Christ, regardless of the “type” of Christianity…they are still Christians.

Even though Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and any type of Christian who does not believe in the Trinity have a misconstrued idea of who Jesus is/was, they are still Christians in that they believe in Jesus as the Messiah and that He died on a cross for our redemption.

They strive to live “Christ-like” lives and to follow Him. They try, like us all, to live according to His teachings.

I have realized it is unfair to label them “NOT Christian”. They are still Christian, albeit their misunderstandings of His Divine Nature.

I guess I am wondering…at while point do we draw the line in “allowing” someone to be titled a Christian?

Most Buddhists I know live “Christian lives” too, they’re very good people, but that doesn’t make them Christians (which, by the way, does not mean they are not “saved”). Some of the groups, like Mormons, aggressively proselytize and self-identify as Christians to appear mainstream, making it easier to attract and introduce themselves to potential converts. This works too, most people don’t know anything about core Mormon beliefs and, if you did, I sincerely doubt you would be asking this question. Mormonism is in its own category, like Buddhism or Hinduism, and this has nothing to do with the Trinity. At the core, Judaism and Islam are closer to Christianity. That doesn’t mean that Mormons are bad people or don’t teach good morals, it’s just not a Christian faith.

If the Catholic Church accepts the Baptism of a particular faith community, and that includes just about every church that professes Christian belief, then that faith community falls within the very broad bands of Christianity. If the Church does not accept the baptism, and requires converts to be Baptized in the Catholic Church, as is the case with Mormons and a handful of others, there is a very good reason.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

You state you are a Catholic. If that is so, then you should have no confusion whatsoever regarding who is or is not a Christian and when someone can be called a Christian.

The Church is quite clear on the matter. A person baptized in the Trinitarian formula becomes a member of the Body of Christ at that moment.

Unbaptized persons-- that would be Mormons and JWs, too-- are not Christans no matter what they call themselves.

(Bolding mine)

Then it isn’t as simple as “the Trinitarian Formula” rather the understanding of said formula.

Mormons are indeed “baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” yet their baptisms are deemed invalid by the church due to the Mormons’ understanding of that Trinitarian God.

With this in mind, I’d say a Christian is someone who accepts at the VERY LEAST the Nicene Creed (which suitably anathematizes non-trinitarian doctrines of those such as the Watchtower Society, the LDS Church, and the Oneness Pentecostals.

 

[Rolltide]

(Bolding mine)
With this in mind, I’d say a Christian is someone who accepts at the VERY LEAST the Nicene Creed (which suitably anathematizes non-trinitarian doctrines of those such as the Watchtower Society, the LDS Church, and the Oneness Pentecostals.

Exactly. This is precisely the definition of a Christian. You are not the first person to struggle with the definition of a Christian. It was a huge problem for the early church as well, with sects like the Donatists, Gnostics, and Arians all claiming the title. To settle the question once and for all, early Christianity got together and held the Council of Nicea to determine the exact answer to this question. The result was the Nicene Creed, which stands today as the absolute minimum requirements one must believe in order to be considered a Christian. In fact, that’s the entire purpose of the Nicene Creed.

 

[cathopologist]

**Those who claimed Christians and in their minds are following Christ, are in fact followers of Saul/Paul and not Christ of so-called four canonised gospels of 4th century A.D.

By the way the word ‘Chrisitan’ was first labelled by the people of Antioch, long after Jesus, as, Jesus was not a Christian nor he preached Christianity.**

Dear Americanrevert/Analyzer, why do you troll threads when you have nothing substantial to discuss other than throw ad hominem arguments about our religion? Did you not take my advice to give justice to your username and re-analyze your purposes of joining this forum?

 

[tGette]

Thank you everyone who has responded so far. It has given me some to think about:

From the beginning I have held these groups to be non-Christian (and I started this thread basically because I thought maybe that was an uncharitable thing to think) Now, moving on:

I think I got stuck wanting to use semantics. Now I realize that it is more complex. To live a Christ-like life one must be following Christ. Like was mentioned, simply living a “Christ-like” life is not the same as living this life because of Christ.

So…to follow Christ, I guess we have to know who Christ to be following Him properly. So…then is it safe to say that if one does not believe in the Divinity (as Second Person of the Trinity) of Jesus they cannot actually be following Him?

They may be following His teachings, but because of their misunderstandings they are not actually following Him, they are following their own idea of who He is.

Am I making any sense?

 

[dzheremi]

That makes perfect sense, tGette. It is possible to claim that you follow the teachings of Christ without following the traditional Catholic/Orthodox understanding of those teachings. In that case, you are following a personal interpretation (your own, that of your pastor, etc), rather than one that is in line with early church tradition. The Muslims claim that they follow the teachings of Jesus, but I don’t think any Christian group, Catholic or otherwise, would agree with them.

To me, I draw the line at apostolic vs. non-apostolic Christianity. Apostolic Christianity is the only kind that I will personally recognize as being true and completely valid.

Earlier this week I had a somewhat impassioned conversation with a very strange Protestant group (detailed in the “Living Stream Ministry” thread, if you’re curious). I took exception to what I had read in their literature about their idea of the Trinity. When confronted, one of them said “We believe in the divinity of the triune God that is God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” On the surface, I could not disagree with that, but after further questioning as to the specifics (this particular group believes that God the Father assumed human form in the person of Jesus!), their understanding of the Trinity was exposed as very unorthodox indeed. So while it sounds like they had a traditional (if very basic) understanding of the Trinity, it was not so. I find that the case with many heretical groups grouped under the title of “Christian”. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

To me, I draw the line at apostolic vs. non-apostolic Christianity. Apostolic Christianity is the only kind that I will personally recognize as being true and completely valid.

I don’t know about that. There are quite a few Anglo-Catholics I know (members of the Anglican Communion who stand more on the Catholic side of the spectrum) whose bishops lack apostolic succession yet I know such adherents to be much more closer to Catholic belief than say a Lutheran with apostolic succession.

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t know about that. There are quite a few Anglo-Catholics I know (members of the Anglican Communion who stand more on the Catholic side of the spectrum) whose bishops lack apostolic succession yet I know such adherents to be much more closer to Catholic belief than say a Lutheran with apostolic succession.

That’s fine. I too know some Protestants who incidentally follow very closely to Catholic teachings. I do not understand Anglicans myself, and unfortunately I don’t know any so I can’t really go to the source for an explanation of who they are and what they believe (I have seen threads about them on here concerning their own self-indentification as non-Protestants). From an outsider’s perspective, it seems like they want to be Catholics but retain affinities for some Protestant viewpoints. That’s not enough to actually make them Catholics.

Again, following closely to Catholic belief is not the same as actually being Catholic. In my time in RCIA I began to realize how well what I had grown up thinking and wondering already fit into the framework of Catholicism, but it was not until I was actually confirmed that I became Catholic.

If Anglicans want to be Catholic, let them return to the Church. They’re not there now, as far as I can tell.

 

[Henning]

What about the Moonies ?
Are the followers of Rev. Sun Myung Moon considered Christians ? They follow Moon who called himself the second coming of Christ.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

That’s fine. I too know some Protestants who incidentally follow very closely to Catholic teachings. I do not understand Anglicans myself, and unfortunately I don’t know any so I can’t really go to the source for an explanation of who they are and what they believe (I have seen threads about them on here concerning their own self-indentification as non-Protestants). From an outsider’s perspective, it seems like they want to be Catholics but retain affinities for some Protestant viewpoints. That’s not enough to actually make them Catholics.

Again, following closely to Catholic belief is not the same as actually being Catholic. In my time in RCIA I began to realize how well what I had grown up thinking and wondering already fit into the framework of Catholicism, but it was not until I was actually confirmed that I became Catholic.

If Anglicans want to be Catholic, let them return to the Church. They’re not there now, as far as I can tell.

I think mine were a poor choice of words. I understand that no Anglican (no matter how “Catholic” their viewpoints are) are Catholic. I myself though in full submission to Christ’s Church am even not Catholic for the reason you pointed out: I’ve yet to be received in baptism and confirmation (still going through RCIA myself).

I singled out certain Anglicans I know as exemplifying the fact that they are obviously Christian in the sense of believing in the same Trinitarian God as Apostolic Christians do (i.e. Catholics and Orthodox), yet they have no apostolic succession (or possibly an invalid one).

 

[xixxvmcm85]

What about the Moonies ?
Are the followers of Rev. Sun Myung Moon considered Christians ? They follow Moon who called himself the second coming of Christ.

I don’t know what Moonies believe, but from what you told us it seems they aren’t as they obviously don’t believe in the same God as Christians who adhere to the Nicene Creed do. I think it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that this “Rev. Moon” was fully human and in no way divine. In doing so (while holding to the premise that Moonies worship someone who is 100% man and 0% God) we can demonstrate that such a god is not the same God we believe in.

 

[nebula]

Really, this all depends on why you are asking the question, from what perspective? From the perspective of a scholar of religions making a general definition, someone might define a Christian as: someone who identifies the person of Jesus as necessary to their soteriology. From that definition, JWs and Mormons would be classified as Christians. From the perspective of a born again Christian the definition is: someone who is saved (i.e. accepts the notion of salvation by grace alone through faith) and so Mormons are excluded, Catholics an arguable case, etc…

What is a useful definition really depends on why you need to know.