What is a Christian?

@divegeester said
Didn’t you once assert something along the lines of true spiritual Christian church was one of the orthodox churches?

We had a lengthy exchange about it.

In that thread, I was recounting what the mainstream position is, irrespective of my opinion about it. The mainstream position is that The Church is that which can trace its lineage back to one of the apostles (the doctrine is known as "apostolic succession" ); all others are bogus (according to the mainstream position). The Orthodox Church can do this, as can the Armenian Church, RC, and Thomas Christians. Lutheranism cannot; it broke the 'chain of command' by separating from RC (Lutherans are considered "schismatics" by the mainstream branches).

@moonbus said
In that thread, I was recounting what the mainstream position is, irrespective of my opinion about it. The mainstream position is that The Church is that which can trace its lineage back to one of the apostles (the doctrine is known as "apostolic succession" ); all others are bogus (according to the mainstream position). The Orthodox Church can do this, as can the Armenian Ch ...[text shortened]... command' by separating from RC (Lutherans are considered "schismatics" by the mainstream branches).

But given that there is this large spectrum of acknowledged Christian denominations how can one say what “mainstream” is. I don’t think there is a mainstream.

Besides that doctrine is only a doctrine in those churches who cite it. Whether of not they can fulfil it is another matter and of course they cannot despite their claims that they can.

@fmf said
The definition I have offered is not "partial" or "misleading" or "biased" at all. I think it is complete and clear and candid. It means exactly what I mean it to mean and is not "incomplete". If you want a more vague or wishy-washy, everybody-gets-a-rosette-type definition of "a Christian" that embraces people that do not agree with the five core beliefs I laid out, by all means, offer one of your own.

FMF's Five Fundamentals:

1. A Christian is defined by his or her beliefs with regard to the life, death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2. A Christian believes that God sent his son Jesus, the messiah, to save the world.

3. A Christian believes that Jesus was crucified and died in order to offer the forgiveness of sins and the opportunity for "salvation".

4. A Christian believes that Jesus rose from the dead and later ascended to heaven.

5. A Christian believes these things and endeavours to obey God's commandments, including those that Jesus is believed to have stipulated while he was alive, and demonstrate, by doing good works, that their faith is not dead.

This list begs for comparison with the Five Fundamentals set down in 1910 by the Presbyterian General Assembly:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).

2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).

3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).

4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).

Quoted from: https://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/five_fundamentals_of_the_faith.htm


So, here are my thoughts on your list.

I. FMF's list is missing two items: namely, the virgin birth and the inerrancy of Scripture.

II. FMF's item 3. is close enough to the Presbyters' item 3., so we'll let that pass without comment or objection.

III. FMF's item 2. is a preliminary to his own item 3. and redundant.

IV. FMF's item 4. is close enough to item 4., so that passes muster as well.

V. FMF's items 1. and 5. do not appear in the Presbyters' list at all.

FMF's items 1. and 5. do not quite mesh: item 1. asserts that what it is to be a Christian is defined by beliefs, whereas item 5. tries to smuggle in something about "good works" (or at least "endeavoring" ) to "demonstrate" that faith is not just believing. This is a cheap fudge to paper over the salvation by faith vs salvation by works dilemma. Given that smarter theologians than ourselves have not resolved this issue over the last 1700 years, it cuts no mustard to try to paper over it in such a superficial manner. In other words, FMF's list says one has to do both, belief and good works. So what it is to be a Christian is not defined by beliefs alone (which denies item 1. on the list).

Thus, there are 2 problems with this list, as I see it: a) it is internally inconsistent, and b) it leaves out two essential and necessary items from a list which has the backing of a recognized authority in such matters. So why should a 'recognized authority' matter? Why indeed? Well, why do some Christians lay so much emphasis on being able to claim a label which starts with a capital "C"? Christianity (with a capital "C" ) is not a cafeteria where people can pick and choose the dishes they like and ignore the rest. Sure, anyone can make up a list of the bits he likes; however, this moves him out of the mainstream tradition (which lays claim to the label with a capital "C" ) to the penumbra (inhabited by sects, cults, heretics, and satanists).


What do I think defines Christians? Not a list of beliefs. But rather a particular set of assumptions (for example, about man and divinity and nature) and values, and a broad spectrum of sacred literature, doctrines, and practises. This, of course, is a historian's, social scientist's, or anthropologist's view of it -- and is the same view I take of Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Buddhism, Yoruba, the Greek pantheon, and other religions.

@fmf said
KellyJay certainly did nothing to preach about Christians "walking [their] faith. It was rhetoric. 'Walk your faith'? Nothing of the sort.

Umpteen times he asserted that doing stuff cuts no ice with his version of God and that it was only belief in Jesus that led to "salvation".

KellyJay preached that there was zero obligation to "walk your faith". He preached that deeds ...[text shortened]... w it as empty posturing and sanctimoniousness.

I just listened to the actual ideology he recited.

I should let KJ speak for himself. My bad.

@moonbus said
FMF's Five Fundamentals:

1. A Christian is defined by his or her beliefs with regard to the life, death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2. A Christian believes that God sent his son Jesus, the messiah, to save the world.

3. A Christian believes that Jesus was crucified and died in order to offer the forgiveness of sins and the opportunity for "salvation".
...[text shortened]... I take of Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Buddhism, Yoruba, the Greek pantheon, and other religions.

Mmm. Like, I said. I don't mind who calls themselves a Christian. If they arrive at the five core beliefs I laid out in the OP, then I will call them one too.

I am not worried about anyone's personal belief regarding "the virgin birth" and the "inerrancy of Scripture" doesn't worry me either. Nor am I worried about them believing in eternal torment.

I am most certainly not concerned about what "smarter theologians than ourselves" believe. If Christianity is not a code for living - i.e. good works and following the commandments of Jesus - then it is nothing as far as I am concerned.

If people go along with what "smarter theologians than ourselves" say and reject my fifth core belief, then I don't think I'll be calling them a Christian but if they insist that they are Christians, then they should go ahead and do so and take comfort in what the theologians-that-they-agree-with believe.

@fmf said
Mmm. Like, I said. I don't mind who calls themselves a Christian. If they arrive at the five core beliefs I laid out in the OP, then I will call them one too.

I am not worried about anyone's personal belief regarding "the virgin birth" and the "inerrancy of Scripture" doesn't worry me either. Nor am I worried about them believing in eternal torment.

I am most certainly not ...[text shortened]... hey should go ahead and do so and take comfort in what the theologians-that-they-agree-with believe.

One more comment. It is not clear from your list whether Jesus, being sent by God, a Messiah, and having risen from the dead, is actually God himself. That is a significant divergence from the Presbyters' list, which makes the point of Jesus's divinity very clearly. Muslims, for example, accept that Jesus was sent by God and was a prophet of God, but reject the claims that he was resurrected and was God himself. I think you would also find some who call themselves Christians who would accept this interpretation, too.

@moonbus said
One more comment. It is not clear from your list whether Jesus, being sent by God, a Messiah, and having risen from the dead, is actually God himself. That is a significant divergence from the Presbyters' list, which makes the point of Jesus's divinity very clearly. Muslims, for example, accept that Jesus was sent by God and was a prophet of God, but reject the claims ...[text shortened]... k you would also find some who call themselves Christians who would accept this interpretation, too.

If someone doesn't believe that Jesus was a divine being, i.e. God incarnate or the "Son of God", or if they don't believe in the Trinity concep or in something along the lines of divegeester's not-the-Trinity-thing or something adjecent [in terms of divinity] to that, then I don't perceive them as a Christian. But it's their prerogative if they want to do so. I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am defining "a Christian" according to my perspective and not trying to define one in a way that embraces as many self-identifying Christians as possible.

@fmf said
I used to be a Christian but I began to lose my faith and eventually realized that I no longer believed the same things that Christians believe about the meaning of Jesus' life and what they believe about themselves [and the afterlife] as a result of their faith in Jesus.

I finally came to terms with the fact that my faith was gone and I was longer able to self-identify as a ...[text shortened]... od works, that their faith is not dead.

This is an answer to Eladar's request on another thread.

a Christian is one who will commit absurdities in the name of his God

@lemondrop said
a Christian is one who will commit absurdities in the name of his God

I think theists of any number of persuasions are capable of committing absurdities in the name of their God figures.

@divegeester said
My question was on what basis are you asserting that Christianity would have died out if it was not diverse. This reply by you is a bit of a cop out of an interesting are making.

You see, I think that Christianity had died out because it has become diverse. Christianity was a narrow sect in its origin, full of (apparent) spiritual power and divine authority. NoW it is pretty much a unilateral sham.

In order for a religion to survive and be passed on to succeeding generations it must fulfil a few obvious minimum conditions.

First, it must not be openly inimical to life. A religion which required every member to jump into a live volcano, for example, would be obviously inimical to life and would not be passed on to succeeding generations. A religion which required sterilization or which enforced strict abstinence would also not be passed on to succeeding generations. Some very early Christians interpreted a certain saying of Jesus literally, to mean that the second coming would occur within the lifetime of those still alive when Jesus preached, and believed that they should not have children; that interpretation, quite obviously, died out very early on.

Second, for a religion to survive, it must develop a power structure (a sort of bureaucracy, if you will) which can replicate itself in the absence of its founder. Anybody remember Osho? Paradigm case of a failed religion. Western Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy succeeded in this.

Third, for a religion to survive, it must appeal to a broad enough range of people to reach 'critical mass.' A religion which appealed only to blue-eyed, left-handed, club-footed, regretfully-transgender, Albanian immigrants to the UK, for example, would not reach critical mass. Hence, diversity confers upon any religion a higher survival potential. The very early history of Christianity confirms this; early variants of Christianity, and sects influenced by early Christianity, died out, either because they appealed to too few people to keep going or because they were actively stamped out by the more powerful and more populous variants which did survive (e.g., Ebionites, Marcionites, Donatists, Montanists, Essenes, Gnostics, etc.).

@lemondrop said
a Christian is one who will commit absurdities in the name of his God

"Men will commit atrocities so long as they believe absurdities." --Voltaire

@fmf said
If someone doesn't believe that Jesus was a divine being, i.e. God incarnate or the "Son of God", or if they don't believe in the Trinity concep or in something along the lines of divegeester's not-the-Trinity-thing or something adjecent [in terms of divinity] to that, then I don't perceive them as a Christian. But it's their prerogative if they want to do so. I think we are talk ...[text shortened]... and not trying to define one in a way that embraces as many self-identifying Christians as possible.

All right, but "Christianity according to your (or somebody else's) perspective" is precisely what Christianity is not. Christianity is not a cafeteria where anybody can pick and choose the bits he likes and ignore the rest and still call himself a Christian with a capital "C." Picking and choosing the bits you like is called something else. That's some sort of quasi-religious dilettantism; what you end up with is not a religion at all, but a collection of religious quotations.

@moonbus said
Christianity is not a cafeteria where anybody can pick and choose the bits he likes and ignore the rest and still call himself a Christian with a capital "C."

This seems to me to be exactly what "Christianity" - and all its 40,000 denominationsness - is and exactly the definition that you appear to be promoting. "Cafeteria". Nice metaphor. The Christians I recognize are the ones you hold the beliefs in the OP. I fully accept that loads of people I don't think are Christians DO think they ARE. And that's fine.

@moonbus said
Picking and choosing the bits you like is called something else. That's some sort of quasi-religious dilettantism; what you end up with is not a religion at all, but a collection of religious quotations.

I am sure that there are hundreds of millions of quasi-religious dilettantes out there who self-identify as Christians. It doesn't mean I have to identify them as such too. It's not as if I am truncating their rights or affecting their reality in any way.

@moonbus said
In order for a religion to survive and be passed on to succeeding generations it must fulfil a few obvious minimum conditions.

First, it must not be openly inimical to life. A religion which required every member to jump into a live volcano, for example, would be obviously inimical to life and would not be passed on to succeeding generations. A religion which required ste ...[text shortened]... ts which did survive (e.g., Ebionites, Marcionites, Donatists, Montanists, Essenes, Gnostics, etc.).

Thanks for this tangential albeit somewhat obvious offload; I don’t see what what it has to do with the pints I made in the post you were replying to though.