Who is a Christian, anyhow?

[jane_doe]

Absolutely! That’s why I made this thread: to point it out. Christians are still a very diverse group, and we have always been (1 John, for example, was written against early schismatics and Gnostic groups).

And, amongst all of this, we still have the fellowship of Jesus Christ – He knows His faithful, and He always will.

 

[Hatikvah]

The Athanasian Creed answers your question Straight and honest…

And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

This states what fundamental beliefs an orthodox (catholic) Christian holds, but not what a general Christian is and where Christianity ends and another religion or irreligion begins.

And Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus does not necessarily dictate that a non-member of the Catholic Church cannot be saved. (CAF article on that here)

 

[Marcel28]

This states what fundamental beliefs an orthodox (catholic) Christian holds, but not what a general Christian is and where Christianity ends and another religion or irreligion begins.

And Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus does not necessarily dictate that a non-member of the Catholic Church cannot be saved. (CAF article on that here)

If its not orthodox then its called heterodox and there for a person
Who follows Heterodox belifes can not truly be called a Christian because
They follow something outside of what was established by christ and held by
The eairly church which is apparent in the writings of the eairly church fathers
And held by All Christians up until the reformation only 500
Years ago and not trying to offend anyone but history speaks for its self

 

[jane_doe]

If its not orthodox then its called heterodox and there for a person
Who follows Heterodox belifes can not truly be called a Christian because
They follow something outside of what was established by christ

Some Protestants use this exact logic to say that Catholics aren’t Christian.

(Note: I’m neither Catholic nor Protestant, and I don’t endorse either of these viewpoints, but am simply pointing out the way different groups use the same logic to make directly contradictory claims).

 

[Hatikvah]

If its not orthodox then its called heterodox and there for a person
Who follows Heterodox belifes can not truly be called a Christian because
They follow something outside of what was established by christ and held by
The eairly church which is apparent in the writings of the eairly church fathers
And held by All Christians up until the reformation only 500
Years ago and not trying to offend anyone but history speaks for its self

And yet we have heterodoxy going back to the days of the apostles (docetism, for example). We have, oh, Arianism (325), Nestorianism (now the Church of the East)(431), Oriental Orthodoxy and other mono/miaphysites (451), iconoclasts, Cathars, Valentinians, and countless pre-Reformation heterodoxies… not to mention Eastern Orthodoxy!

Christ founded a universal Church, the Body of Christ, the communion of saints. His faithful already transcend denominations or language or region. Christians are part of this Body. One cannot blame the Reformation for every religious problem in the world, just like how we cannot blame the government.

God bless.

 

[Usige]

Personally I would say we would need to look beyond simply claiming the label of Christian. In particular I would look at the Christological foundation of their faith. In that case I would look at the Christological statements expressed in the creeds of the early Church (Apostles, Nicean-Constantinople, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian creeds).

The reason I believe these creeds (or the truths expressed in them) are important is that they provide common points of understanding in who Christ is. If we don’t have a common understanding of who it is we follow, then how can we say we belong to the same brotherhood? The whole point of the creeds and early councils was to come to a common understanding of Christ and to express the Christian faith. To reject the Christological statements would be to repudiate what it is to be Christian.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t those that follow in Christ’s foot steps. There are some that live out the teachings of Christ even if they reject who he was. I compare it to someone that sees Christ and follows regardless of where he goes versus some that find His foot steps and follow despite not knowing who laid the path.

PS - Before someone jumps on me about the Oriental Orthodox rejecting the council of Chalcedon, I think that Cyril of Alexandria’s teachings are close enough that they can be understood as a difference in terminology rather than a simple repudiation of the devine and human natures of Christ.

 

[Hatikvah]

Personally I would say we would need to look beyond simply claiming the label of Christian. In particular I would look at the Christological foundation of their faith. In that case I would look at the Christological statements expressed in the creeds of the early Church (Apostles, Nicean-Constantinople, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian creeds).

The reason I believe these creeds (or the truths expressed in them) are important is that they provide common points of understanding in who Christ is. If we don’t have a common understanding of who it is we follow, then how can we say we belong to the same brotherhood? The whole point of the creeds and early councils was to come to a common understanding of Christ and to express the Christian faith. To reject the Christological statements would be to repudiate what it is to be Christian.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t those that follow in Christ’s foot steps. There are some that live out the teachings of Christ even if they reject who he was. I compare it to someone that sees Christ and follows regardless of where he goes versus some that find His foot steps and follow despite not knowing who laid the path.

Yes, much like the Sea of Faith in the Anglican Communion. They believe that religion is man-made, and yet still value collective morality and membership in a church. Or the “Christian Deists” of Thomas Jefferson’s day (he was one).

PS - Before someone jumps on me about the Oriental Orthodox rejecting the council of Chalcedon, I think that Cyril of Alexandria’s teachings are close enough that they can be understood as a difference in terminology rather than a simple repudiation of the devine and human natures of Christ.

Well, the mia/monophysite position that the Oriental Orthodox hold was actually because they saw the hypostatic union as “too Nestorian,” and they wanted to avoid heresy so badly that they happened to deviate from what everyone else taught. The Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox seem to have gotten closer to reconciliation (as in* the common declaration of Pope John Paul II and HH Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, June 23, 1984*).

There’s an article on their view from a Catholic website: taylormarshall.com/2015/03/meet-the-oriental-orthodox-christians-and-their-controversial-christology.html

 

[Hatikvah]

Personally I would say we would need to look beyond simply claiming the label of Christian. In particular I would look at the Christological foundation of their faith. In that case I would look at the Christological statements expressed in the creeds of the early Church (Apostles, Nicean-Constantinople, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian creeds).

That’s the actual purpose of the creeds, yes… and denial of them would be heresy. But in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, he says [source]:

It would seem that heresy is not a species of unbelief. For unbelief is in the understanding, as stated above… Now heresy would seem not to pertain to the understanding, but rather to the appetitive power; for Jerome says on Galatians 5:19… “The works of the flesh are manifest: Heresy is derived from a Greek word meaning choice, whereby a man makes choice of that school which he deems best.” But choice is an act of the appetitive power, as stated above… Therefore heresy is not a species of unbelief.

So these people can still be within the Body of Christ, the communion of saints in junction with Christ because they follow Him (John 15:14-15) though not in any particular church that does not allow heresy. This is solely because it is “not a species of unbelief,” but it has something to do with personal power and the denial of an important doctrine.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t those that follow in Christ’s foot steps. There are some that live out the teachings of Christ even if they reject who he was. I compare it to someone that sees Christ and follows regardless of where he goes versus some that find His foot steps and follow despite not knowing who laid the path.

Yes, much like the Sea of Faith in the Anglican Communion. They believe that religion is man-made, and yet still value collective morality and membership in a church. Or the “Christian Deists” of Thomas Jefferson’s day (he was one).

PS - Before someone jumps on me about the Oriental Orthodox rejecting the council of Chalcedon, I think that Cyril of Alexandria’s teachings are close enough that they can be understood as a difference in terminology rather than a simple repudiation of the devine and human natures of Christ.

Well, the mia/monophysite position that the Oriental Orthodox hold actually came about because they saw the hypostatic union as “too Nestorian,” and they wanted to avoid heresy so badly that they happened to deviate from what everyone else taught. The Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox seem to have gotten closer to reconciliation (as in the common declaration of Pope John Paul II and HH Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, June 23, 1984).

There’s an article on their view from a Catholic website: taylormarshall.com/2015/03/meet-the-oriental-orthodox-christians-and-their-controversial-christology.html

 

[jmcrae]

Some Protestants use this exact logic to say that Catholics aren’t Christian.

(Note: I’m neither Catholic nor Protestant, and I don’t endorse either of these viewpoints, but am simply pointing out the way different groups use the same logic to make directly contradictory claims).

They can if they like, but Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, seems to have left his chair in the Vatican, and these 266 guys who have sat in it were all Popes of the Catholic Church, and I have never seen anyone explain how that happened while Peter was believing in some kind of Protestantism (and they really start getting vague when you ask which kind of Protestantism he was practicing).

 

[Hatikvah]

Peter was believing in some kind of Protestantism (and they really start getting vague when you ask which kind of Protestantism he was practicing).

He practiced Lutheranism, duh!

 

[Usige]

That’s the actual purpose of the creeds, yes… and denial of them would be heresy. But in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, he says [source]:

So these people can still be within the Body of Christ, the communion of saints in junction with Christ because they follow Him (John 15:14-15) though not in any particular church that does not allow heresy. This is solely because it is “not a species of unbelief,” but it has something to do with personal power and the denial of an important doctrine.

I think the question though is not simply about holding one or two views that have been denounced as heresy, but still maintaining a core understanding of Christ. At what point is the understanding so different that someone is practicing another religion that simply uses the new testament as a vaneer?

Let me try with an example. Let’s say you have a Hindu that believes that Christ is an incarnation of Krishna. They map both the old and new testament into a Hindu Cosmology. Are they Hindu or Christian? Now what if they did the same thing and implicitly state they are Christian without changing anything else. Would that change anything?

I think the trouble of leaving similarities of belief completely out of it is that you essentially change Christianity from a religion based on a set of theological pillars and rather turn it into a sociological definition based on a pattern of behavior that is loosely based on some idea of how Christ lived. With that broad definition even atheist could be considered Christian if they follow a Christian like ethos. If the behavior is not based on belief in who Christ was and is, then we are really talking about being nice to each other.

Basically as long as you follow the Golden Rule you could be considered Christian even if you reject that he was anything other than someone worthy to emulate. That level of reductionism essentially makes the word Christian meaningless.

 

[Hatikvah]

I think the question though is not simply about holding one or two views that have been denounced as heresy, but still maintaining a core understanding of Christ. At what point is the understanding so different that someone is practicing another religion that simply uses the new testament as a vaneer?

Let me try with an example. Let’s say you have a Hindu that believes that Christ is an incarnation of Krishna. They map both the old and new testament into a Hindu Cosmology. Are they Hindu or Christian? Now what if they did the same thing and implicitly state they are Christian without changing anything else. Would that change anything?

They would be Hindu nonetheless because that is not our Jesus, that is taking their deity and putting him into the historical person of Jesus (Who we take as Messiah and God). New Agers also do this with their “energies” or deva-gods or whatever they have (it varies vastly). They still worship their god, so they cannot be Christians. Islam’s Jesus is not the historical Jesus, either, so that separates them from us in one manner. Christians would recognize Jesus as, at the very least, a prophet and Messiah.

We do not know at what point a heresy becomes its own religion or crosses into some other zone. We must judge by another religion’s standards. Does an extremely low form of Arianism eventually become Judaism? No, because Judaism follows Halakha (Arianism does not) and they also do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. They are still waiting for the Messiah.

If someone who identifies as “Christian” holds to a Christian ethos but nothing else, they’re not Christians as we are: they follow Christianity as a philosophy but not as a religion. This is called Jesuism.

 

[jcrichton]

I think the question though is not simply about holding one or two views that have been denounced as heresy, but still maintaining a core understanding of Christ. At what point is the understanding so different that someone is practicing another religion that simply uses the new testament as a vaneer?

Let me try with an example. Let’s say you have a Hindu that believes that Christ is an incarnation of Krishna. They map both the old and new testament into a Hindu Cosmology. Are they Hindu or Christian? Now what if they did the same thing and implicitly state they are Christian without changing anything else. Would that change anything?

I think the trouble of leaving similarities of belief completely out of it is that you essentially change Christianity from a religion based on a set of theological pillars and rather turn it into a sociological definition based on a pattern of behavior that is loosely based on some idea of how Christ lived. With that broad definition even atheist could be considered Christian if they follow a Christian like ethos. If the behavior is not based on belief in who Christ was and is, then we are really talking about being nice to each other.

Basically as long as you follow the Golden Rule you could be considered Christian even if you reject that he was anything other than someone worthy to emulate. That level of reductionism essentially makes the word Christian meaningless.

Hi!
…interestingly enough Scriptures speak on this… there was an incident involving someone who was not part of Jesus’ circle and Jesus’ Disciples wanted Jesus to forbid that person from using Christ’s Name:

49 And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you. (St. Luke 9:49-50)

…so it would seem that simply mimicking Christ but not being part of the Body (accepting every tenet of the Faith) is acceptable… yet, there’s the turning of the worm:

20 But if I by the finger of God cast out devils; doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you.

23 He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth. (St. Luke 11:20, 23)

Jesus, in deed, demands that those claiming fellowship with Him must actually abide in Him–being/acting Christ-like while rejecting Christ is not enough to make a person a Christian (one in Fellowship with Christ).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Peter_J]

In my eyes, a Christian is anyone who is baptized in the Trinitarian form, even those who don’t practice. I might even extend that to baptized Christians who have converted, as I don’t think conversion takes away the benefit of baptism.

I don’t want to start a long fruitless argument about the highlighted, but fwiw I consider someone who leaves Christianity to be an ex-Christian, not a Christian.

 

[Peter_J]

One cannot blame the Reformation for every religious problem in the world

Maybe, or maybe we just haven’t been trying hard enough.

 

[Hatikvah]

I don’t want to start a long fruitless argument about the highlighted, but fwiw I consider someone who leaves Christianity to be an ex-Christian, not a Christian.

Yes, because it is apostasy. No, we don’t have a formalized and enshrined vision of exactly what apostasy entails for the apostate, but we do know that it means that they have rejected Christianity and its view of Jesus.

Hi!
…interestingly enough Scriptures speak on this… there was an incident involving someone who was not part of Jesus’ circle and Jesus’ Disciples wanted Jesus to forbid that person from using Christ’s Name

But this man was within the faith of Jesus which wasn’t even really Christianity yet. That was a great example you took. It must also be noted, however, that it was Jesus’ power and this man’s faith in Jesus that gave him the ability to cast out demons. His faith has made him well (Mark 5:34; Luke 17:19).

 

[Hatikvah]

I don’t want to start a long fruitless argument about the highlighted, but fwiw I consider someone who leaves Christianity to be an ex-Christian, not a Christian.

Yes, because it is apostasy. No, we don’t have a formalized and enshrined vision of exactly what apostasy entails for the apostate (like stoning or prosecution, as it is in some places and former communities) because Christianity is not have a legal system, but we do know that it means that they have rejected Christianity and its view of Jesus.

Hi!
…interestingly enough Scriptures speak on this… there was an incident involving someone who was not part of Jesus’ circle and Jesus’ Disciples wanted Jesus to forbid that person from using Christ’s Name

But this man was within the faith of Jesus which wasn’t even really Christianity yet. That was a great example you took. It must also be noted, however, that it was Jesus’ power and this man’s faith in Jesus that gave him the ability to cast out demons. His faith has made him well (Mark 5:34; Luke 17:19), and that was at least faith in Jesus’ authority to cast out demons.

 

[Thom18]

I don’t want to start a long fruitless argument about the highlighted, but fwiw I consider someone who leaves Christianity to be an ex-Christian, not a Christian.

I understand that. I wouldn’t call them a Christian, I’m just pointing out the role that baptism (should) play in making that determination. I shouldn’t have brought that up.

 

[fbl9]

I understand that. I wouldn’t call them a Christian, I’m just pointing out the role that baptism (should) play in making that determination. I shouldn’t have brought that up.

Baptism does leave a mark but one would lose any benefit of that mark when they rejected the Gospel.
I do agree that perhaps being baptized should be part of the criteria in identifying who is a christian. However we do have in scripture we have some who were Christians yet not baptized yet, but soon were.