What is a Christian?

[Peanut]

So, I was reading through a different thread on CAA when I came across this post and it brought back to my mind something that's been brewing there since last semester. It didn't fit the topic of that thread at all so, instead of completely derailing it, I decided to just make a different thread.

There is an individual named Albert Schweitzer whose rather famous in the world of Biblical Studies for his work called The Quest for The Historical Jesus. The central thesis of this book asserts that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet and, like most liberal works of theology, goes against the idea that Jesus is the Son of God. In fact, Schweitzer did not believe in the divinity of Christ at all and it could be argued (and has been argued) that he didn't believe in God at all. With all this being said, Schweitzer spent a large portion of his life working as a Medical missionary in Africa, was an outspoken critic of colonization, and came up with the philosophical idea of Reverence for Life. It's safe to say that this man loved people more then most Christians who love God do and you could argue that by doing that he loved God more then most Christians do. So, what is a Christian and would an individual like Albert Schweitzer qualify for that label?

[MxCake]

theirs a lot of miss information and myths about what a christian is or what you have to do to be a christian.the word “Christian” comes from the Greek word, “Christos”.which was just a label and sometimes a insult. and was only mentioned in acts Jesus him self never used it in the greek language bible. if I'm not mistaken.and if you want to be technical being a "christian" is fallowing Christ rather you a nice person or not. john was not a nice person to start out with he was hot headed and kinda ignorant. i don't like being labeled a christian mainly because of this but i tolerate it. and with this guy if he didn't believe in Jesus and he might not have even believe in God then hes just a really and caring guy but sad to say that's not enough to get into heaven because unfortunately hes a sinner anyways. i hope that made some sence haha.

[LadyRushia]

I suppose if you defined a Christian as a person who lives by Christ's teachings, anyone who confesses faith or not whose ideals and actions line up with Christ's would qualify, but if works could bring salvation, then Jesus wouldn't have needed to come to Earth in the first place. At the same time, faith without works is dead.

In that case, perhaps the question for the religious would be if their professed faith has transformed their actions and values to line up with those of Jesus Christ. I believe that any person who is genuine in his/her profession of faith would naturally see a shift in attitude toward other people. This change in attitude can manifest in many ways. If being a missionary or outspoken activist is the only marker of someone who truly loves God and is a Christian, then Christianity as a whole isn't that effective. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for social activism and I value anything that treats all people fairly, but I think there are many ways God's work manifests itself.

I like C.S. Lewis's metaphor of the Church being a literal body. Some people are the hands, others are the feet, and others are the eyes. All of those have completely different functions and areas of focus, but they're all necessary in order for the body to function properly. What the hands do are no more/less important than the feet or the eyes, nor can the eyes or feet be the hands lest there cease to be eyes and feet altogether.

However, I do believe that compassion for others in some way is a marker of someone whose faith is real. Actions as a result of that vary. Of course, the case of people who aren't Christians yet still show that same compassion is interesting. I haven't met enough people like that to talk extensively about it, but I'd like to think that at the very least God is working through those people even though they don't believe in Him/don't know Him. I don't know if that makes them Christian, but I would hope God honors their hearts or even uses that to show them how He feels the same way toward others.

EDIT:

[quote="MxCake"]the word “]
Although this is true, I think it's also important to note that Christianity has a tendency to make a lot of lowly, insulting things glorified. The cross was a brutal instrument of Roman torture reserved for criminals, yet it became a symbol of sacrifice and salvation. Strength and power are generally the most honored things across all cultures, but Christianity places humility and compassion--which are often perceived as weak--above them in that they bring true glory and justice.

[ClosetOtaku]

This is a very tough question, because the word 'Christian' carries many more connotations than, say, a 'Stalinist', 'Contrarian', 'Buddhist', etc.

For most other descriptors, we acknowledge that person holds a certain number of core beliefs that parallel commonly accepted and usually well-defined principles. We distinguish a 'Capitalist' from a 'Marxist', for example, by the way each approaches distribution of wealth and underlying economic models.

In one sense, one can be a Christian without being a follower of Christ; that is, one can accept the 'moral' teachings of Jesus (the Golden Rule, the Beatitudes, etc) without recognizing Jesus as Diety. This is the Christianity of Albert Schweitzer.

I don't agree with this concept, but along with terms such as Kleenex and Xerox, 'Christian' has become a label almost devoid of meaningful content. It can be applied many different ways, and given that so many people assume the descriptor of Christian without showing any visible sign of regeneration speaks to the weakness of the word.

It was this problem that gave rise to the '70s term "Born Again Christian" to differentiate the supposedly regenerate from the masses of philosophically-minded adherents. Unfortunately, this has also become something of a political term, and has lost a lot of its validity as a descriptor.

In my mind, a true 'Christian' is one who has recognized his/her own sinful nature and debt to a Holy and Almighty God, has grasped (though not nearly understood) the Cross and its implications for the need to die to self, has accepted Christ's sacrifice and believed in His resurrection, and will, someday, stand before God as a fully justified being complete in Christ. This idea is much different than being a Marxist or Lutheran, where you 'agree' with a certain number of principles; rather, as a Christian, you cry 'Uncle' at the conviction of the Spirit and 'Abba' to the only Reality that exists.

So, I'll turn the question back on you: which 'Christian' definition are you using to measure old Albert (and, as a corollary, many others)? In the vulgar tongue, it's a label, nothing more. In the eternal scheme of things, though, that label is utterly meaningless. It is what is written on the heart, not the tombstone, that ultimately matters.

[MxCake]

In one sense, one can be a Christian without being a follower of Christ; that is, one can accept the 'moral' teachings of Jesus (the Golden Rule, the Beatitudes, etc) without recognizing Jesus as Diety. This is the Christianity of Albert Schweitzer.

thats still wrong since the word christian means follower of Christ.

Although this is true, I think it's also important to note that Christianity has a tendency to make a lot of lowly, insulting things glorified. The cross was a brutal instrument of Roman torture reserved for criminals, yet it became a symbol of sacrifice and salvation. Strength and power are generally the most honored things across all cultures, but Christianity places humility and compassion--which are often perceived as weak--above them in that they bring true glory and justice.

i agree. my point was to just give him history of it.

[Cognitive Gear]

I think that this question can be interpreted in many ways, and depending on how it is interpreted, it will change the answer. To give a couple of quick examples:

You could interpret it as "What makes someone a member of the Christian religion?" This is the easiest to answer, because all you would need to do is claim to be one.

It could also be interpreted as "According to the Bible, how do you get into heaven?" Which would be a more complex question to answer, with an incredible number of opinions ranging from "Believe in Jesus" to "There is no heaven".

So really, I think it depends on how the question is being interpreted.

[Midori]

Well I don't know what a Christian is but I'm pretty sure I am one.

[Nate]

Okay, here's the problems:

Problem one. Many will say "Someone who believes Jesus was the Son of God and need to repent of their sins." That seems like a simple answer, doesn't it? Yet, there are many who are Christians who say that Mormons and Catholics are not Christian. Yet Mormons and Catholics believe Jesus was the Son of God. Even Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is the Son of God, and I doubt anyone here would call them Christian. It's clear, then, that believing in a sinful human nature and that Christ as the Son of God died on the cross is not enough to qualify as a Christian.

Problem two. In Matthew 25, Jesus gives a description of what will happen when He returns. It's a long passage and I won't quote it, but Jesus says that He will separate out all the peoples of the world, some on his left, some on his right. The ones on his right He will say to them,

"Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."

The interesting part being that nowhere in that is there any statement of belief in Christ, He says nowhere "You believed in me as the Son of God and worshiped me." His statement is that simply, these people helped others in need, and will be welcomed into the Kingdom of God.

Even the thief on the cross didn't say "I believe you are the Son of God who died for my sins." He merely rebuked the other thief who made fun of Jesus. And what did Jesus say? "Tonight you will join me in paradise." The thief never made any statement regarding that he believed in Christ's divinity, but Jesus still said that thief was going to Heaven. Interesting to me.

Problem three. This gets brought up a lot. What about the people who live in remote jungles and never hear about Jesus? They never hear the gospel. What happens to them when they die? Some say "Oh they would automatically go to Heaven" but then that makes missionary work a bad thing. If they automatically go to Heaven because they never heard, then a missionary witnessing to them would have made them hear it and if those people rejected it, then that missionary is the reason they're going to Hell instead of Heaven.

However if you say they're going to Hell, well, why? Sure, they never heard of Jesus, but they never got a chance to. How can they be expected to accept Christ if they've never heard of Him? Some people say that the Bible says that the works of Creation will speak to these people and tell them of the glory of God. Hey, great! But looking at a tree isn't going to make someone say "You know, this tree makes me believe there was a man called Jesus Christ who is the Son of God and died on a cross for my sins even though I don't know what a cross is."

Finally, saying that if works could get you into Heaven then Christ's sacrifice was pointless is, I think, disingenuous or misunderstanding of what people are saying. Humanity is inherently sinful. With that inherent sinfulness, it doesn't matter how many works we would do, we could never get into Heaven. If Jesus died on the cross for our sins, then our inherent sinfulness is forgiven. Thus, a person can believe that a person who does good works but doesn't believe in Jesus will get into Heaven is not in any way denying the necessity of Christ's sacrifice, because the inherent sinfulness of man is still a factor. Christ needed to die to take the punishment for that sin.

[Lynna]

Ummm...Correct me if I'm wrong, but It doesn't seem to me like Mormons or JWs believe you have to believe Jesus Died for your sins. From what I know of their teachings, their both very work-based.

A christian to me is someone who has accepted Jesus as the savior for their sins, believes in his teachings, and has a relationship with him.
And as for people who've never heard, I think we really won't know until we go to heaven, but I don't believe they'll just be sent to hell.
And someone mentioned something interesting about people who helped God's children getting into heaven. If that's possible, that would be awesome, but I'm not sure they would be necissarilly considered christians

[MxCake]

i really cant explain this with typing its way to much to explain on a forum if you want me to go over it with you and you have skype or somethin we can talk about it i just dont want to type 3 paragraphs lol sorry ive explained all this to another person before XD

[Nate]

Ummm...Correct me if I'm wrong, but It doesn't seem to me like Mormons or JWs believe you have to believe Jesus Died for your sins. From what I know of their teachings, their both very work-based.

I shall correct you, then.

From Wikipedia about Jehovah's Witnesses:

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was God's only direct creation, that everything else was created by means of Christ, and that the initial unassisted act of creation uniquely identifies Jesus as God's "only-begotten Son". Jesus served as a redeemer and a ransom sacrifice to pay for the sins of humankind.

As you can see from the last sentence, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus died on a torture stake (as opposed to a cross) for the sins of mankind. The method of death I wouldn't think is important though as much as believing Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

As for Mormons:

The church teaches that Jesus Christ is central to his father's plan of happiness and emphasizes that Christ's divinity enabled him to take upon himself the penalty for sin and to endure the consequential suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross that paid for the sins of humanity.

So there you go. You are now corrected, Lynna. :p

[MxCake]

ok i cant help it Jesus also says no one can add or remove from the bible and the mormans and the Jehovah's wittiness have the morman have there own bible and the jehovas wittiness say that there are only a choice few going to heaven so no they are not fallowers of christ they are false teachers yes they do go by jesus word but they also add to it which in actuality is not fallowing his word lol. and with the people in the jungles God can bring anyone he deems worthy into heaven why jesus died was so that we didint have to sacrifice goats daily and that our sins that we did and what we will do is forgivin its the people that have the choice but reject him that will be sent to hell

oh and yes jesus said something to the fact of beilf in christ: john 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

your taking things out of context

[Midori]

I'm pretty sure there are many different definitions of the word Christian, so picking one and parading it as the one true definition is probably not helpful. If you want to mathematically classify people by a religion then maybe you need to pick a precise definition, but for almost all other purposes regular ambiguous language is quite enough.

Also: I smell a fight brewing. Please stop brewing it, all who are involved.

[MxCake]

and also your right works dont get you into heaven but how your heart is does, accepting jesus as your personal savior and believing in the bible does

I'm pretty sure there are many different definitions of the word Christian, so picking one and parading it as the one true definition is probably not helpful. If you want to mathematically classify people by a religion then maybe you need to pick a precise definition, but for almost all other purposes regular ambiguous language is quite enough.

Also: I smell an argument brewing. Please stop brewing it, all who are involved.

im confused then whats all the definintions for it and who decides what the definition of it is?

[SnoringFrog]

It depends on how strictly you define the word. In a loose sense, Albert Schweitzer could certainly fit the label because of his adherence to Christian principles. If you keep a tighter definition of it, however, then you definitely cannot include him in it, because to be a Christian would necessitate some sort of belief in God, at the very least. By the way I would define it, it would require a belief in the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, and acceptance of the fact that they are triune (three in one). In addition, you would have to believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world and resurrected Himself after his death.

Someone who professes to believe all of that I would label as a Christian, however, due to the way most "Christians" seem to live, it would seem that many of them don't abide closely by the teachings they would claim to follow. Thus, what I would consider a "true Christian" (or, "devoted" might be a better adjective there) would be someone who professes what I (briefly) outlined above as well as living a life probably more like Albert Schweitzer than like the majority of modern day Christians.

And I'm gonna go ahead and stop myself here before I drop into a rant about current Christianity and the church and suchnot.

[Nate]

Jesus also says no one can add or remove from the bible

Jesus never said that, because "the Bible" didn't exist when Jesus was around. The Torah existed, but Jesus never said not to add or remove anything from the Torah, either.

You're thinking of a verse in Revelation, which is written by John, and NOT Jesus. Also there is dispute over whether the phrase "this book" refers to only Revelation or the Bible in its entirety, especially since the Bible also did not exist when Revelation was written.

the morman have there own bible

No, they don't. The Mormons have a couple of extra books, but it is not a different Bible. It's like how Catholics have Tobit and 1 and 2 Maccabees in their Bibles, but that doesn't make it "their own Bible." They simply have books in it that we don't.

And my point wasn't that Mormons were Christians. I was just saying that you can't define Christianity as simply believing Christ died on the cross for your sins, or else Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses would be considered Christians as well. But they aren't, so clearly believing Christ died on the cross alone doesn't make you a Christian.

the jehovas wittiness say that there are only a choice few going to heaven

Christians also believe only a choice few are going to Heaven. If they didn't, they'd be Universalists.

You're probably referring to the "144,000" thing mentioned in Revelation. The 144,000 refers to the people they believe will reign with God in the Kingdom, and that all others who are saved will live in a perfect paradise on Earth like the Garden of Eden was. Interestingly enough, Revelation does say God will create a new Heaven AND a new Earth, and if everyone was in Heaven, what would be the point of creating a new Earth?

That's from Revelation 21:1 by the way. "Then I saw 'a new heaven and a new earth,' for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea." The reason it's in quotes is because it is a reference to Isaiah 65:17 where God says, "See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Interesting how Jesus does not say "No one comes to the Father except by believing in me." He just says "through me." That would allow for a person to believe that you can be saved without believing in Christ. You also have no proof of the thief on the cross expressing belief in Christ's divinity, and Jesus Himself said the thief would go to Heaven. If believing in Jesus is so important, you'd think that the thief's expression of belief would be mentioned. But, no such expression is mentioned or even hinted at.

The thief merely said to the other thief, "Don’]your taking things out of context[/QUOTE]
I could very well say the same for you.

EDIT:

By the way I would define it, it would require a belief in the Holy Trinity of God the Father, Jesus Christ as the incarnate Son of God, and the Holy Spirit, and acceptance of the fact that they are triune (three in one).

Except that there are Christians who do not believe in the Trinity. They believe Jesus is the son of God and died on a cross for their sins, but do not believe in the Trinity. Yet they believe in the truth of the Bible, believe Christ died to allow them into Heaven, and live according to the moral principles outlined in the Bible. I'd say they're Christian.

This is the point Peanut is trying to make. Everyone likes to say "You just have to believe Jesus died for your sins and you're saved!" But then the say "Oh but you have to believe this too. Oh and you can't believe this. And if you believe this you're wrong. Oh and make sure you do this too. And don't forget you have to think this way."

[Midori]

im confused then whats all the definintions for it and who decides what the definition of it is?

The definition is decided by whoever happens to be speaking at the time. This is how language works. I can say "I've got a bike" and you can think I mean a bicycle, but I can say I mean a motorcycle, and we can argue over whether the category of 'bike' includes motorbikes. But in the end, it's because my definition of 'bike' would include motorcycles and yours would be restricted to the non-motorized variety, and we're both right by our own language.

(I have neither a motorcycle or a bicycle by the way. That was just hypothetical.)

In the same way, somebody can use 'Christian' to mean somebody who follows Jesus's teachings without believing in his divinity, and somebody else can say you have to really be born again to be a 'Christian'. And they'd both be correct.

Language is not a precise mathematical construct. That's why arguments over terms like this are kind of stupid (no offense intended). The only way I can see this argument going if it ceases to be about language would be 'Who is saved? Are Borderline Christians/Mormons/Agnostics/Good Pagans saved?' And that's an argument that nobody can answer for certain, and anybody who says they have a definite answer to it is either misinformed or lying.

[Nate]

'Who is saved? Are Borderline Christians/Mormons/Agnostics/Good Pagans saved?' And that's an argument that nobody can answer for certain, and anybody who says they have a definite answer to it is either misinformed or lying.

I agree with this statement.

[Peanut]

Well all of these posts have been pretty thought provoking so, I figure now would be a time to add in some thoughts of my own. Generally, I answer this question which I posed as many of you have, by pointing to a set of doctrine that are definitive to being a Christian. However, this is why Schweitzer's life interests me. It seems like he was genuinely transformed by a belief in Jesus which was radically different then our own. I don't think you do the things he did the way he did them unless something bigger is motivating you. The fact that he does claim it is "God" and the example of Jesus is challenging to be quite honest. It doesn't mean that he is "saved" or even a Christian but I do think it should make us all at least examine our own actions and wonder "Are we really all that Christ like?"

Language is not a precise mathematical construct. That's why arguments over terms like this are kind of stupid (no offense intended).

I agree with you about language not being precise but I don't think that leads to arguments or discussions like this being completely useless. There are some terms which have to be defined for at least the current moment. I think this is one of them since it is definitive in who we claim to be. Beyond this, much of theology and Biblical studies do rely on the definitions of words from the original language. Any good paper or sermon on a specific passage will have at some point the writer/preacher looking at the definitions for important words within the passage. Generally the information doesn't make it into each sermon, but to be well informed on what is actually being taught in that piece of scripture you have to go beyond the English language and figure out what the original word used actually means. So discussions on meanings of words are never always completely meaningless or kind of stupid.

[J.D3]

ok i cant help it Jesus also says no one can add or remove from the bible and the mormans and the Jehovah's wittiness have the morman have there own bible and the jehovas wittiness say that there are only a choice few going to heaven so no they are not fallowers of christ they are false teachers yes they do go by jesus word but they also add to it which in actuality is not fallowing his word lol.

That is correct. I do not intend to bash JW's and Mormons here (coz that's very wrong to do), but they do in fact differ from three of the key doctrines of Christianity taught in the Bible, that is, they both differ on their teachings of God as a perfect, co-equal Trinity, about the person of Jesus Christ and about the nature of salvation (this is where the 'works over grace alone' business comes in.) And it is also true that they use either their own literature, or otherwise their own versions of the Bible.

As for the initial question in this thread, this has probably already been answered quite thoroughly, but here's my 2 cents anyway.
I believe that to be a 'Christian,' one must believe sincerely in their heart and confess with their mouth that Jesus was sent for mankind's salvation, that He died on the cross for our sins and that He was raised to life again by God so that everyone who believes in Him and confesses this will be saved and have eternal life. Doing good deeds is a natural outworking of faith in Christ, and while important (as James 2:14-25 indicates), they most definately aren't the means of our salvation.
There are a number of passages that clearly say these things too, like Eph. 2:8-9, John 5:24, Titus 3:4-5 & Rom 3:27-28

Hope that helps!

[Midori]

I agree with you about language not being precise but I don't think that leads to arguments or discussions like this being completely useless. There are some terms which have to be defined for at least the current moment. I think this is one of them since it is definitive in who we claim to be. Beyond this, much of theology and Biblical studies do rely on the definitions of words from the original language. Any good paper or sermon on a specific passage will have at some point the writer/preacher looking at the definitions for important words within the passage. Generally the information doesn't make it into each sermon, but to be well informed on what is actually being taught in that piece of scripture you have to go beyond the English language and figure out what the original word used actually means. So discussions on meanings of words are never always completely meaningless or kind of stupid.

You have a good point. I never intended to discount the original purpose of this thread, I just didn't want people getting into a tizzy about it. I tried to specify I was referring to the argument that was developing rather than the discussion in the first place, but I didn't really word it well, so thanks for helping me clarify myself. By all means, continue.

[MxCake]

<modsnip> This kind of behavior is not acceptable on the boards. Please see this thread for our rules on respecting others on CAA. Thank you.

[Dante]

As to the original question, I can't really say that the term "christian" is a "well-defined". Certainly there are many individual definitions, most of which are defined to make Christianity into a kind of clique for people who have a certain religious world-view - but as to a consensus which all can agree to, that is impossible to do.

On a broad level however, (although this will show my personal bias as well) one can simply define a christian as one with a religious world view that they describe as Christianity. Of the wide array of faiths under this banner, most believe in Christ and hold him in the key position of importance.

So then, a christian, it would seem, would be any person who believed that they were living a life influenced by the life of Jesus the Christ. This is a very vague statement - one that doesn't even require the inclusion of the Bible or, even the four gospels. And of course, this is still excluding those Jews whose faith revolves around the return of a messiah they do not believe has come. Still, I think it fits most situations for when a person describes themselves as Christian.

These are mere definitions though, and so, in order to avoid confusion between people it is best that they contain the largest possible range of meanings. What one's individual beliefs are on what a "christian ought, or ought not to do, or ought or ought not to believe" that's purely a result of one's own personal paradigm. So a deep definition it seems to me is impossible.

______________

Which leads of course to your question on Albert Schweitzer. It would for instance be true that one might describe his actions of kindness as "christian" in nature, but from what I have seen here, I doubt he would wish to describe himself as "christian" even if some of his more generous characteristics originated in Christ. As to whether Christ felt he followed in his foot-steps with his life, even if he did not believe in him, I'll leave that to Christ to decide.

[Peanut]

Which leads of course to your question on Albert Schweitzer. It would for instance be true that one might describe his actions of kindness as "christian" in nature, but from what I have seen here, I doubt he would wish to describe himself as "christian" even if some of his more generous characteristics originated in Christ. As to whether Christ felt he followed in his foot-steps with his life, even if he did not believe in him, I'll leave that to Christ to decide.

Uh, in this case Schweitzer himself would disagree with you. He did profess to be a Christian and was actually ordained. Now he's of the more liberal variety for certain but I think if you went back in time and asked him "Are you a Christian?" he would say yes.

[Rusty Claymore]

Personally, I think that if you want a definition of what being a "Christian" is, read the new testament. Cover to cover. Like in the dictionary: Christian n. - Matthew 1:1 through Revelation 22:21.

But that is probably just me being lazy.

[SnoringFrog]

Except that there are Christians who do not believe in the Trinity. They believe Jesus is the son of God and died on a cross for their sins, but do not believe in the Trinity. Yet they believe in the truth of the Bible, believe Christ died to allow them into Heaven, and live according to the moral principles outlined in the Bible. I'd say they're Christian.

This is the point Peanut is trying to make. Everyone likes to say "You just have to believe Jesus died for your sins and you're saved!" But then the say "Oh but you have to believe this too. Oh and you can't believe this. And if you believe this you're wrong. Oh and make sure you do this too. And don't forget you have to think this way."

I'm sure there are people who say they're Christians that claim to not believe in the Trinity yet also claim they believe the Bible is true (not really sure how you make those two claims work together, but that's a different point all together and for sake of discussion I'll just assume that makes sense in my head). By my definition, however (which, at that point in my post, I was speaking of my personal definition) I wouldn't consider someone who didn't believe in the Trinity to be a Christian, at least not in the stricter sense of the word. In the general definition that often seems to expand to "I believe in Jesus", sure. But for my "actual" definition of it, no. I'd say "Christian" would necessitate a belief in the Trinity, belief in the veracity of the Bible (fun fact: I typo'd that as the Bile, which would make this whole post a lot less sensible but much more amusing), and being "born again"/believing Christ died to allow us access to Heaven.

I was just giving my opinion on the definition. Obviously not everyone will agree, or this topic likely wouldn't exist. I wouldn't include the example you gave in my definition of Christian, though.

[Nate]

they both differ on their teachings of God as a perfect, co-equal Trinity

However, you ignore what I said about someone I know on here who doesn't believe in the Trinity. Even I myself have some very serious doubts about the truthfulness of the Trinity. While I'm not saying "The Trinity is not true" I'm not quite sure that I believe in it. Yet I fully believe that I am sinful, Christ died for my sins, and that I am forgiven of them. I don't see how the Trinity is a necessary concept for salvation.

Though again, this isn't a thread to debate who is saved or what constitutes salvation. I'm just saying I don't think you can say that the Trinity is a necessary requirement for being a Christian. There are in fact a few denominations that teach explicitly that the Trinity is not true, and they are still considered Christian.

otherwise their own versions of the Bible.

Actually that's completely and totally false. In fact, on his website, Jack Chick pushes the KJV as the only "true" word of God and the only God-inspired translation of the Bible, and all the others as corrupted and false. One of the points he makes is that the NIV Bible is the preferred translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and this further "proves" that the NIV is Satanic because Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult and they use the NIV Bible.

What I'm saying is they don't have their own "versions" of the Bible. They use the same Bible we do, just with different books. Again, see my comment about how Catholics have a few other books in their Bible that most Protestants do not. This in no way makes Catholics not Christians or that they have "their own version" of the Bible. It's the same Bible, just with a couple of extra books.

I believe that to be a 'Christian,' one must believe sincerely in their heart and confess with their mouth that Jesus was sent for mankind's salvation, that He died on the cross for our sins and that He was raised to life again by God so that everyone who believes in Him and confesses this will be saved and have eternal life.

And my first post in this thread was that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons do exactly that and they are not considered Christians. Now, I realize that their beliefs on the origin of Jesus, and a few other doctrines vastly differs from mainstream Christianity. I'm not denying that, and I do believe their doctrines are wrong. What I am saying is if you said that statement to a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, they would reply "Yep, we believe that too, you're absolutely right."

So clearly, what you just said cannot possibly be true or you'd welcome them as fellow Christians.

There are a number of passages that clearly say these things too, like Eph. 2:8-9, John 5:24, Titus 3:4-5 & Rom 3:27-28

Interestingly, two of those passages say nothing to contradict the belief that a person can go to Heaven without believing in Christ. Ephesians 2:8-9 seems to incorrectly use the terms "grace" and "faith" as synonyms. Romans 3:27-28 is more explicit regarding faith, though. Still, again, this isn't about who is saved, but who is a Christian. None of those verses really say anything about Christianity, but rather salvation.

EDIT:

I'd say "Christian" would necessitate a belief in the Trinity

I don't see how, honestly.

And we now have further reason to see why people on this site don't think I'm a Christian. Oh well. I'll be sure to get a room next to yours in Heaven so you can see me every day when I walk by. :p

[SnoringFrog]

I'm just saying I don't think you can say that the Trinity is a necessary requirement for being a Christian.

Ehh...wasn't enitrely trying to say that it's necessary for salvation, but I have a feeling that what I've said previously and what I say now are going to lean that way anyways. Truth is, I'm not entirely sure what I'd say about them being necessary for salvation, but when I go through what I'd say is necessary for that, they kind of get included pretty quick. In trying to avoid making this mostly off-topic angle even more prominent, I'll try give a quick answer to the above quote and then just agree to disagree on it.

On belief in Trinty/being a Christian: I say belief in the veracity of the Bible is necessary to be considered a Christian. As I've read it, the Trinity is presented in the Bible as being true. I'm horrible with remembering verses for a lot of things (my focus is usually elsewhere, but I do need to start getting better at remembering key verses for stuff like this).

On belief in Trinity/salvation: I'd imagine that to obtain salvation you'd have to believe the Bible was true (how else would you believe that Christ died to save you?), and, as I said in the paragraph above, I believe the Bible indicates the truth of the Trinity. So, while it's not exactly directly necessary, this is how (the way I'm seeing it, at least) it becomes "necessary". It kind of just happens if you have the right beliefs to have been saved, though it's not necessary for salvation itself, if my thought process makes sense there.

So, basically, I think it's necessary as an extension of believing the Bible. The person you're speaking of (and maybe yourself) wouldn't agree that the Bible indicates that, but as that's not the purpose of this thread I say we drop that angle. Just wanted to try to explain how I can see it that way.

Oh well. I'll be sure to get a room next to yours in Heaven so you can see me every day when I walk by. :p

That's completely fine by me. For one, I'd be stoked to finally meet someone else from CAA, and it'd be great if I'm wrong, as that would mean that there's probably more people that'll be in Heaven than what I originally would have thought, which is always a good thing. I'll get a sign or poster or something for my place up there to let everyone know that's where SnoringFrog is XD

[Davidizer13]

Except that there are Christians who do not believe in the Trinity. They believe Jesus is the son of God and died on a cross for their sins, but do not believe in the Trinity. Yet they believe in the truth of the Bible, believe Christ died to allow them into Heaven, and live according to the moral principles outlined in the Bible. I'd say they're Christian.

Being one of those Christians (or at least one who's still working on the issue), I'd have to agree with this one. And having a couple more "heretical" beliefs besides that one, I'd have to once again reiterate that the only qualifier you need to be a Christian is the pursuit of Jesus and the desire to become more like Him. The fruit of that choice: that is, everything that marks us as Christians, such as good works, a love for others, a prayer life, etc., will stem from that trust in Jesus and a daily striving for that. The thief on the cross didn't have any of that fruit, but he had the prerequisite for it, and that's what apparently saved him.

In fact, on his website, Jack Chick pushes the KJV as the only "true" word of God and the only God-inspired translation of the Bible, and all the others as corrupted and false. One of the points he makes is that the NIV Bible is the preferred translation of Jehovah's Witnesses, and this further "proves" that the NIV is Satanic because Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult and they use the NIV Bible.

Which is more tragic/hilarious because the Jehovah's Witnesses made their own translation of the Bible (the New World Translation). It does have a bias towards supporting their doctrines, but at least they did a proper translation from the original languages, unlike the time when Joseph Smith "translated" the Bible by picking up an English copy and fixing all the things he thought were wrong with it.

Anyway, the parable of the wheat and the tares applies here (Matthew 13:24-43), which states that until Jesus returns, we won't know who is saved and who isn't. Let God sort it all out, because it's not our job to point fingers at each other and argue about which doctrines are the correct ones. Instead, we're to be unified in Christ and to be ambassadors for Him.

[Rusty Claymore]

Just as a side note, I do know that becoming a Christian changes who you are. We actually become different people. So every Christian is in a constant state of flux, and while someone might believe, for example, that getting physically violent is sometimes nescessary, and in the event it is not, as time passes God will continue to change that person until they become more fully aligned with how He wants His "little Christs". Eventually, everyone is going to know for certain what was what. Until then I think it's good to try and define things for ourselves in our surch for truth, but not try to force our definitions on others. If someone is wrong about something but ferverently believes they are right, we should let God sort them out. We wouldn't want to steal God's Thunder, now would we? XD