• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Definition of a "Christian"

The Baron

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,967
Reaction score
1,530
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It has been my observation here at DP concerning debates on Christianity that two positionson Christianity are always going to be expressed.

1. Non-Christiansare going to lecture Christians about what it means to be “Christian”. Typically they’re rants are both elitist and wrong (although not always the case).

2. Those who think they are Christian (and who are not) espouse what they self-identify as Christian beliefs. These would be beliefs that are un-Biblical.

By those who I say are “not” Christian but claim to be I mean Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, some Catholics (but not all and I would even be hesitant to say “most Catholics”), etc.

So it seems to me that what we need here at DP is a good definition of “Christian”.

A “Christian” is someone who understands that they are a sinner and unfit for a just and holy God and deserve everlasting Hell.

A “Christian” also understands that what a holy God requires the love of God provided when no-less than God, Himself, came to this world in a physical body, born of a virgin and died an excruciating death on a cross. He died to pay the price for their sins and to rescue them from Hell by imparting in them the very righteousness of Christ, Himself.

A “Christian” understands that they are absolutely helpless to save themselves and that Christ’s free gift of grace is all that is required for their salvation--nothing more.

A “Christian” is someone who undergoes a change of heart (vs. a change in position as some would argue, i.e. the “rich man” who must give away all his possessions to obtain eternal life).

I’m sure I could elaborate but that’s really all there is to it.

So what’s wrong with my definition of a Christian?
 
Last edited:
Simply put....

Roman's 10:9

"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Notice the scripture didn't mention any particular religion, denomination, ritual or CCD classes.
 
Scripture actually does mention directly the rituals or sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. Furthermore, it always surprises me when I see posts that want to reduce Christianity to the words of Jesus yet they accept the matured theology of the great Ecumenical Councils such as the two natures of Christ (Chalcedon), the Trinity (Nicaea), or the dogmatization of the biblical canon, for example.
 
Once this has been hashed out can we define what a true Scotsman is? Thanks.
 
The Baron said:
It has been my observation here at DP concerning debates on Christianity that two positionson Christianity are always going to be expressed.

1. Non-Christiansare going to lecture Christians about what it means to be “Christian”. Typically they’re rants are both elitist and wrong (although not always the case).

2. Those who think they are Christian (and who are not) espouse what they self-identify as Christian beliefs. These would be beliefs that are un-Biblical.

By those who I say are “not” Christian but claim to be I mean Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, some Catholics (but not all and I would even be hesitant to say “most Catholics”), etc.

So it seems to me that what we need here at DP is a good definition of “Christian”.

A “Christian” is someone who understands that they are a sinner and unfit for a just and holy God and deserve everlasting Hell.

A “Christian” also understands that what a holy God requires the love of God provided when no-less than God, Himself, came to this world in a physical body, born of a virgin and died an excruciating death on a cross. He died to pay the price for their sins and to rescue them from Hell by imparting in them the very righteousness of Christ, Himself.

A “Christian” understands that they are absolutely helpless to save themselves and that Christ’s free gift of grace is all that is required for their salvation--nothing more.

A “Christian” is someone who undergoes a change of heart (vs. a change in position as some would argue, i.e. the “rich man” who must give away all his possessions to obtain eternal life).

I’m sure I could elaborate but that’s really all there is to it.

So what’s wrong with my definition of a Christian?
Click to expand...

I consider someone a Christian if they *try* to follow their Holy Book / Church leaders as they're instructed within legal limits (pedo cults don't count, for example) so long as their HOly Book centers around Christ in some fashion.

My definition is vague because there are countless interpretations and applications thereof.
 
Sarcogito said:
Once this has been hashed out can we define what a true Scotsman is? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Only a true Scotsman can recognize another true Scotsman - or tell him from a Scotsman not-so-true.

But...classic fallacies notwithstanding, we can tell - roughly, in most cases - a Scotsman from a Vietnamese.

What does the designation "Christian" really mean? Forget Mormons and "many Catholics" - why, technically speaking, Muslims are not "Christians"? They do recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and a Great Prophet. Not as the (mind-bending) "Son of God" (whatever it means) - but so what?

Perhaps some nutty libertarian somewhere thinks Friedrich Hayek was a superhero-messiah from Planet Krypton; I don't. It doesn't make me any less libertarian - or any less 'Hayekian' (although, perhaps, less likely to make an idol out of a mere man, however insightful)

I would say, a "Christian" is whoever considers the message of Christ (in whatever interpretation) central to his or her worldview.

Muslims are not Christians because Muhammad replaced Jesus as the central figure in their system. I am not a Christian because I don't see any valid reason to believe in "gods" and "prophets", in general. The Mormons, the Catholics (I was one of them once), the Southern Baptists, and (not to offend, but to state the obvious) the Ugandan Army of Lord thugs - they are all legitimate "Christians".
 
The Baron said:
So what’s wrong with my definition of a Christian?
Click to expand...
Spiritually, there is nothing wrong with your definition but no more right about it than pretty much anyone else's. You've not explained why your definition is the "right" one compared to any different or contradictory ones.

Temporally, it seems quite divisive, somewhat open to interpretation and doesn't seem to exclude people who unrepentantly commit true horrific crimes, especially if they claim to do so in the name of God. In general it seems to be about what you are rather than what you do (not necessarily wrong, just incomplete).

From a position very much on the outside, I'm not convinced there can be only on definition of what a Christian is (without it becoming so generic as to be pointless). The concepts have developed, spread and expanded so much from their starting point that pretty much all of the varying forms would be unrecognisable to those who first called themselves Christian. If only one form of Christianity had the right to the name, surely it would be theirs.
 
I'm a Christian and I find any attempt of the OP to define Christianity or a Christian outside of the normal definition is stupid.

A Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ and accepts him as his Savior.

Everything else is secondary.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Hmmm then how do we know your a "Christian"?
Click to expand...

heh

I'm struggling to see how a Catholic is NOT a Christian . . . All Catholics are Christians - not all Christians are Catholics.

The fundamentals are the same, the Holy Book is the same - the differences are not in the essentials of the beliefs. Same Holy Book, Same God, Same major views and stories = Christians.

Someone who tries to argue otherwise really doesn't know much - honestly. . . and maybe should read up on the history of religion, and the countless views written on it by papal scholars. I might disaprove of the Catholic church but if they call their selves Christians - I'm going to sort of go with them on that.
 
The Baron said:

1. Non-Christiansare going to lecture Christians about what it means to be “Christian”. Typically they’re rants are both elitist and wrong (although not always the case).


By those who I say are “not” Christian but claim to be I mean Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, some Catholics (but not all and I would even be hesitant to say “most Catholics”), etc.
Click to expand...


irony.jpg


A Christian is anyone who accepts Christ as lord and saviour, to claim certain sects who believe that, but whom you disagree with, is elitist.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'm struggling to see how a Catholic is NOT a Christian . . . All Catholics are Christians - not all Christians are Catholics.

The fundamentals are the same, the Holy Book is the same - the differences are not in the essentials of the beliefs. Same Holy Book, Same God, Same major views and stories = Christians.

Someone who tries to argue otherwise really doesn't know much - honestly. . . and maybe should read up on the history of religion, and the countless views written on it by papal scholars. I might disaprove of the Catholic church but if they call their selves Christians - I'm going to sort of go with them on that.
Click to expand...

It’s another debate but Catholics don’t have the same Bible and they don’t interpret it the same way. They also pray to idols (statues)--something “Christians” are forbidden to do.

I’ve had numerous Catholic friends over the years and I can honestly tell you that some of them have understood to be saved you had to be saved by Jesus. Other friends found this concept alien (and these were church-goin’ folks).

These are the reasons I made the comments concerning Catholics in the O.P.
 
spud_meister said:
A Christian is anyone who accepts Christ as lord and saviour, to claim certain sects who believe that, but whom you disagree with, is elitist.
Click to expand...

Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

I’m “elitist” and yet I not saying anything different than what Jesus, Himself, said.

Odd.
 
The Baron said:
It’s another debate but Catholics don’t have the same Bible and they don’t interpret it the same way. They also pray to idols (statues)--something “Christians” are forbidden to do.
Click to expand...
Catholics and the Orthodox Church are the two oldest churches and both have the same canon. Neither pray to idols or statues, that is a myth propagated by a few backwater non-denom churches in the 20th century.

I’ve had numerous Catholic friends over the years and I can honestly tell you that some of them have understood to be saved you had to be saved by Jesus. Other friends found this concept alien (and these were church-goin’ folks).

These are the reasons I made the comments concerning Catholics in the O.P.
Click to expand...
Read Benedict XVI's Jesus books for clarification.
 
Libertas-Mors said:
Catholics and the Orthodox Church are the two oldest churches and both have the same canon. Neither pray to idols or statues, that is a myth propagated by a few backwater non-denom churches in the 20th century.
Click to expand...

And yet I've been to church with Catholic friends and saw them do that very thing with my own eyes.

Odd.
 
The Baron said:
It’s another debate but Catholics don’t have the same Bible and they don’t interpret it the same way. They also pray to idols (statues)--something “Christians” are forbidden to do.

I’ve had numerous Catholic friends over the years and I can honestly tell you that some of them have understood to be saved you had to be saved by Jesus. Other friends found this concept alien (and these were church-goin’ folks).

These are the reasons I made the comments concerning Catholics in the O.P.
Click to expand...

You don't know much. :shrug:
 
The Baron said:
And yet I've been to church with Catholic friends and saw them do that very thing with my own eyes.

Odd.
Click to expand...

Lol. Odd indeed. You clearly have mistaken what they were doing then. It's the difference between an icon and an idol. The icon is a visual aid to worship, just like how some people play contemplative music as they embark in deep prayer. No Catholic believes that God is actually in the statue, rather they use a statue of Jesus, for example, to contemplate the sufferings on the cross.
 
The Baron said:
Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

I’m “elitist” and yet I not saying anything different than what Jesus, Himself, said.

Odd.
Click to expand...

Jesus said, specifically "but only the one who does the will of my Father". You're arbitrarily labeling entire sects of Christianity based on your feelings towards them, not on whether they're actually doing the will of God.
 
spud_meister said:
Jesus said, specifically "but only the one who does the will of my Father". You're arbitrarily labeling entire sects of Christianity based on your feelings towards them, not on whether they're actually doing the will of God.
Click to expand...

Well, yea! That's one way to get debates started.
 
I would think anybody who reads the red letters and makes at least making SOME attempt to follow them has the right to call themselves a Christian.

Those most prone to thumping their bible are the least likely to do so as are those who create litmus tests for who can be considered a Christian based upon something other than following His teachings.
 
Gardener said:
I would think anybody who reads the red letters and makes at least making SOME attempt to follow them has the right to call themselves a Christian.

Those most prone to thumping their bible are the least likely to do so as are those who create litmus tests for who can be considered a Christian based upon something other than following His teachings.
Click to expand...

Having been raised in a devout Christian environment, I can see where that tendency comes from, as many Christians believe that faith alone (and a symbolic acceptance) is the path to salvation, and some will tend to ignore the practice of His teaching, as it opposes much of the old testament text as old Judaic law. Fortunately, my parents were what I consider Christian in faith and in action, so I got a pretty good look at what a Christian should be.
 
lizzie said:
Having been raised in a devout Christian environment, I can see where that tendency comes from, as many Christians believe that faith alone (and a symbolic acceptance) is the path to salvation, and some will tend to ignore the practice of His teaching, as it opposes much of the old testament text as old Judaic law. Fortunately, my parents were what I consider Christian in faith and in action, so I got a pretty good look at what a Christian should be.
Click to expand...

What I find most ironic about those who believe in faith without works is that it is so diametrically opposed to Jesus' actual teachings.

James 2:14-26. He spells it out.
 
The OP sets out to judge who is and isn't saved specifically against the teachings of Jesus!! BURN HIM!!

Or not, I won't judge him. :)
 
The Baron said:
What, specifically, would that teaching be?
Click to expand...


Matthew 7:1-5

"1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom