Who Gets to Define 'Christian'?

[KofC660]

Acceptance of the Nicene Creed defines one as “Christian”.

If you don’t accept the Nicene Creed, you reject Christ.

 

[Hellisreal]

Byzantine Catholics are not ‘Roman’ Catholics. They are Eastern Rite Caholics. But they are Catholics in union with CC, the Latin Rite. I now I’m a Latin Rite Catholic married to an Easter Rite Catholic.

All groups who use the word ‘Catholic’ are in union.

:nope:

Please try to post this comment in the eastern orthodox forum and see what happens…

You may be surprised.

This is why I go with the LONG title that estesbob thinks is too long.

Its to be clear, and to avoid confusion.

 

[paarsurrey]

“Who gets to define ‘Christian’”? is an interesting question.

Hi
For secular purposes any body who says that he is a Christian, must be considered a Christian.
For spiritual purposes, GodAllahYHWH would decide who is who? Leave it on God, let Him judge, please.
Thanks

 

[estesbob]

Hi
For secular purposes any body who says that he is a Christian, must be considered a Christian.
For spiritual purposes, GodAllahYHWH would decide who is who? Leave it on God, let Him judge, please.
Thanks

i woud say that a Muslim would be very far down list who gets to define a “Chrisitian”

 

[Peregrino]

Acceptance of the Nicene Creed defines one as “Christian”.

If you don’t accept the Nicene Creed, you reject Christ.

Would Arius of Arianism fame be considered a Christian? He rejected the Nicene creed. He received his theology from Lucian of Antioch, that is St. Lucian of Antioch, a Saint in the Roman Calendar. Can you be a Saint in the RC church and not be a Christian?

 

[BelFarfalla]

Would Arius of Arianism fame be considered a Christian? He rejected the Nicene creed. He received his theology from Lucian of Antioch, that is St. Lucian of Antioch, a Saint in the Roman Calendar. Can you be a Saint in the RC church and not be a Christian?

How much did he deviate from what St. Lucian taught him?

 

[Ahimsa]

Acceptance of the Nicene Creed defines one as “Christian”.

If you don’t accept the Nicene Creed, you reject Christ.

What about those ‘Christians’ who lived before the Nicene Creed was written?

 

[Peregrino]

How much did he deviate from what St. Lucian taught him?

From my limited research of Lucian, it appears that Arius deviated very little from what Lucian taught him. Either way he was considered heterodox by his contemporaries.

Ahimsa is correct: “what about the Christians prior to 325 AD?”. It seems to me that this “Nicene criteria” is perhaps not the best.

Personally, I believe that your behaviors define to what degree you are Christian (i.e. Christ-like). Jesus himself liked to draw contrasts between the behavior of people (like the good Samaritan) considered to be outsiders (enemies) by the Jews of his day.

Estesbob: Given that Muslims revere Christ to the same degree that we do except for the divinity issue, I see no problem with a Muslim saying “you are not a very good Christian” if that person’s behavior falls short of emulating Christ. A Christian could of course say the same to a Muslim, “you are not being very Jesus-like”. Jesus himself made these “scandalous” types of contrasts to the listeners of his day.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

Ahimsa is correct: “what about the Christians prior to 325 AD?”. It seems to me that this “Nicene criteria” is perhaps not the best.

Personally, I believe that your behaviors define to what degree you are Christian (i.e. Christ-like). Jesus himself liked to draw contrasts between the behavior of people (like the good Samaritan) considered to be outsiders (enemies) by the Jews of his day.

I think we are trying to define people living in this century, not the 4th. The entire purpose of the creed was to drive out heresy. Now we find ourselves once again in need of it’s clear voice. It is truly a perfect description of our base belief. Trying to minimize it by projecting our current problem into a past that it didn’t come from is only muddying the waters for no reason. If there were 4th century Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, then your argument would be a valid one. But since these groups formed AFTER the creed was written they stand in object defiance of it. Hence they have abandoned Christianity as defined by Christians.

I support Deb’s argument that you don’t get to make up your own rules and just expect everybody else to tolerate it.

BTW, I am looking forward to Fred’s Dark Chocolate Feast

 

[Ahimsa]

If there were 4th century Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, then your argument would be a valid one. But since these groups formed AFTER the creed was written they stand in object defiance of it. Hence they have abandoned Christianity as defined by Christians.

I’m sure there were people who held ideas similar to that of Arius, centuries before the Nicene Creed was written.

 

[Peregrino]

I think we are trying to define people living in this century, not the 4th. The entire purpose of the creed was to drive out heresy. Now we find ourselves once again in need of it’s clear voice. It is truly a perfect description of our base belief. Trying to minimize it by projecting our current problem into a past that it didn’t come from is only muddying the waters for no reason. If there were 4th century Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, then your argument would be a valid one. But since these groups formed AFTER the creed was written they stand in object defiance of it. Hence they have abandoned Christianity as defined by Christians.

I support Deb’s argument that you don’t get to make up your own rules and just expect everybody else to tolerate it.

BTW, I am looking forward to Fred’s Dark Chocolate Feast

This is a well reasoned response. However, I think the fact that we still have these issues, some of the same issues as experienced by those in the fourth century, points to obvious fact that there still exists a diversity of opinion as to who gets the final say. Should the RC church have a monopoly? Depends if you are aligned with Rome. Should only those who believe in the rapture be called Christians? Here is an interesting link:

religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

Your tacit assumption is that the “Christians” who “defined Christianity” (believers in the Nicene creed) have a monopoly on what is “really Christian”. This stance assumes its conclusion and is closed to dialogue. The creed was created to drive out heresy. It is interesting to me that there still exists this diversity of opinion as to what is heretical and what is Christian.

As I pointed out earlier, it appears that the RC church has canonized Saints who would not be Christian by the “nicene standard”. Personally, I think the definition we use should be broad and inclusive rather than narrow and exclusive. We are all one in Christ.

 

[hamba2han]

If being a ‘Christian’ means to faithfully follow the ways of Jesus (pbuh), then Muslims are certainly the best Christians in the world.

Followers of the teachings of Paul on the other hand are not even sure what being a Christian means as is so evident to just about anyone who reads these message boards.

 

[Peregrino]

If being a ‘Christian’ means to faithfully follow the ways of Jesus (pbuh), then Muslims are certainly the best Christians in the world.

Followers of the teachings of Paul on the other hand are not even sure what being a Christian means as is so evident to just about anyone who reads these message boards.

I don’t see why a Muslim couldn’t be considered a good Christian given that s/he emulates Christ. However, people on this board are seem to generally be more concerned with what doctrines you assent to and your religious affiliation than with the content of your behavior (as long as it is not malicious or scandalous).

However, I would not generalize that all Muslims are “good Christians”. I don’t see Jesus condoning suicide bombings, terrorism or war (holy or unholy).

 

[tomarin]

Acceptance of the Nicene Creed defines one as “Christian”.

this is the best answer so far. one could add that at a minimum one should believe in the trinity (sorry, muslims and jw’s) and be baptised.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

This is a well reasoned response. However, I think the fact that we still have these issues, some of the same issues as experienced by those in the fourth century, points to obvious fact that there still exists a diversity of opinion as to who gets the final say. Should the RC church have a monopoly? Depends if you are aligned with Rome. Should only those who believe in the rapture be called Christians? Here is an interesting link:

religioustolerance.org/chr_defn.htm

Your tacit assumption is that the “Christians” who “defined Christianity” (believers in the Nicene creed) have a monopoly on what is “really Christian”. This stance assumes its conclusion and is closed to dialogue. The creed was created to drive out heresy. It is interesting to me that there still exists this diversity of opinion as to what is heretical and what is Christian.

As I pointed out earlier, it appears that the RC church has canonized Saints who would not be Christian by the “nicene standard”. Personally, I think the definition we use should be broad and inclusive rather than narrow and exclusive. We are all one in Christ.

So what you are basically saying is (and I am saying this with all the love in the world) you are a product of secular rationalism and you are willing to water down your faith to suit the needs of any and all so that we can live happily in some sort of ‘Christian’ utopia?

What if the next ‘christian’ you meet doesn’t believe in the Holy Spirit as God? Willing to give him up too?

We are Christians, we get to decide what that means. We don’t have to give an inch, nor should we, to appease every new-age cult that comes along. With that sort of thinking we should all have been worshiping David Karesh as the second coming. Why hurt somebody’s feelings by pointing out they are in mortal err, right?

Seriously, what does the creed say that is so narrow? There are hundreds of thousand Protestants that recite the creed every week. Don’t you think they should have a say if we are going to start removing things that Mormons, SDA’s, or JW’s don’t like?

When I buy chocolate ice-cream I expect to see chocolate ice-cream in the container. I don’t expect that the guys at the dairy will suddenly decide chocolate is too strong a flavor and some people don’t like it so they replaced it with mocha.

Become a warrior for the faith:knight2: Many martyrs have given their very lives rather than compromise a single article of the creed! We owe them the same in return. :knight1:

 

[Peregrino]

So what you are basically saying is (and I am saying this with all the love in the world) you are a product of secular rationalism and you are willing to water down your faith to suit the needs of any and all so that we can live happily in some sort of ‘Christian’ utopia?

What if the next ‘christian’ you meet doesn’t believe in the Holy Spirit as God? Willing to give him up too?

We are Christians, we get to decide what that means. We don’t have to give an inch, nor should we, to appease every new-age cult that comes along. With that sort of thinking we should all have been worshiping David Karesh as the second coming. Why hurt somebody’s feelings by pointing out they are in mortal err, right?

Seriously, what does the creed say that is so narrow? There are hundreds of thousand Protestants that recite the creed every week. Don’t you think they should have a say if we are going to start removing things that Mormons, SDA’s, or JW’s don’t like?

When I buy chocolate ice-cream I expect to see chocolate ice-cream in the container. I don’t expect that the guys at the dairy will suddenly decide chocolate is too strong a flavor and some people don’t like it so they replaced it with mocha.

Become a warrior for the faith:knight2: Many martyrs have given their very lives rather than compromise a single article of the creed! We owe them the same in return. :knight1:

Actually, my thought probably is largely a product of secular rationalism. I have never really thought about it before, though I don’t think that this is a bad thing as you apparently do.

I guess I don’t just automatically assume that my faith (or anyone else’s) is 100% correct. It is a matter of faith which is by definition outside the realm of objective verification. If I sit here and claim that you are wrong because you don’t believe as I do, it really is a fundamentally arrogant position because I can’t prove in any meaningful way that I am right.

I can automatically fall back on church “authority”, tradition or a particular interpretation of scripture. All these things can and have been questioned. It is comforting to assume that the church is correct but unfortunately that is merely an assumption. We really don’t know, we may believe, but we really don’t know in a factual sense and I won’t sit here and tell you that someone is not Christian simply because they don’t hold my belief in the divinity of Christ. For me, “Christian” is a way of life, not a club.

I refuse to become a warrior for anything. A lover of and for Christ yes, a warrior for Christ never.

 

[StMarkEofE]

There are no Roman Catholics.

There are Catholics of the Latin Rite, in union with Rome.

And all those sign posts in front of “Roman Catholic” Churches that I have failed to take pictures of in my area. My, how misguided these churches are. We even have a high School named “Roman Catholic High School” in the city. I guess they are very misguided.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

lol, I just had this conversation with a friend.

I prefer to refer to myself as “Christian” rather than RC. “Christian” because I believe we are called to emulate Christ rather than being called to emulate Rome or Romans.

“Who gets to define ‘Christian’”? is an interesting question. Reminds me of the comment by Gandhi in the movie Gandhi, which basically said “I would be a Christian but for the example of Christians”.

You’re both right. The Church is catholic because it is Christian and it is Christian because it is Catholic it is not an either or thing. First Christian – second Catholic… but the two go hand in hand and Catholic defines what our Church is and “Roman” defines the rite of the Church to which we belong.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

There are no Roman Catholics.

There are Catholics of the Latin Rite, in union with Rome.

I am a Roman Catholic of the Latin Rite united to Rome.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

If being a ‘Christian’ means to faithfully follow the ways of Jesus (pbuh), then Muslims are certainly the best Christians in the world.

hamba2han:

Followers of the teachings of Paul on the other hand are not even sure what being a Christian means as is so evident to just about anyone who reads these message boards.

I don’t go to Moslem forums to bash your religion, now please move along.