Who IS and IS NOT a Christian?

[Josiah]

IMO....

There are two main ways people use the term "Christian" to refer to people.....

1. A person who has been given the divine gift of faith and thus trusts/relies in Jesus Christ as Savior.
2. A person who professes a certain corpus of doctrines/teaches and/or behaves in ways considered to be Christian.

Both of these uses can be found in Scripture and in the history of the church. It's similar to the two ways in which the word "faith" may be used (as trust/reliance or as embrace of correct doctrine).



I use the first as the definition of who IS a Christian - their IDENTITY.
I use the second as marks of what a Christian (should) profess and do.
The first has to do with identity, the second with performance.
Some would say there's a Law/Gospel distinction here.


Of course, the first is not objectively observable. When God gives us faith and makes us His child, we don't grow 5 feet or get a third eye or even a visible halo over our heads. So, how can we KNOW that someone is a Christian? Objectively, perfectly - we can't. Which is why Jesus tells us to just gather fish - haul them ALL in - and let Jesus sort it all out on Judgement Day; Jesus can see into people's hearts, NO HUMAN can. In the Church, we tend to take Jesus and people both "at their word." If someone says "I believe" we tend to accept that (after all, neither they or we can prove that). EVEN if they commit some sin! EVEN if WE think they are wrong about some bit of theology!


And of course, the second cannot PERFECTLY be objectively observed, either. Satan himself knows theology perfectly (he seems able to quote the Bible at will, too). And a Buddhist can live well (in fact, I wish my outward life was as good as a Buddhist I work with). There can be indications (Jesus speaks of "by their fruits") but it's far from perfect in terms of objectivity: it's probably more helpful in identifying who is NOT than who is. God knows.


I believe we should be "evangelical" or "open" about embracing who is and is not a brother or sister in Christ, slow to burn others at the stake, slow with the torchure rakes in inquistitions. I think it's likely better to love and embrace one who may (unknowingly to themselves) not actually BE a Christian than to hate, repudiate and excommunicate one whom God has chosen, redeemed and forgiven - but is struggling in thought an deed (as ALL Christians DO to some extent). God is able to sort this all out. God knows who are His own.


I know some disagree with me......


Discussion?


- Josiah



PS It is NOT the intent of this thread to discuss any polities of this website. There is a separate forum for discussing community matters. This thread is to discuss the topic at hand. Thanks!



.

 

[Albion]

If it's true that this "issue" goes back to a comment I made in the thread on non-denominationalism...

...then there's another, a third, meaning to the word, and it's the most common one of all-- 3. Which religion (if any) a person identifies with.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus in the Parable of the Weeds and the Wheat....

24 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field,
25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away.
26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also.
27 And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’
28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’
29 But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”


.

Matthew 13:24-30

 

[MennoSota]

Those whom God has adopted and chosen as His children are Christians (sheep). Those whom God has not adopted and chosen are robbers (wolves in sheep's clothing).
You can identify a wolf by its actions as well as the flavor of the fruit. The Bible also uses the idea of the tares and the wheat. Tares can look identical to wheat...until harvest time. In the end, God knows whom he has written in the Lambs book of life and whom he has not written in the book. He is the Sovereign King and He gets to make that decision.

 

[Lamb]

There are cults who self-identify as Christian but they deny the truth of the Gospel (salvation is not by faith for them), so going by their confession they are not classified as Christian as a whole. There might be Christians within those cults who believe differently than their group though and that coincides with God only knowing who His sheep are. As for us, we look to the confession of faith to get a hint even though we will not be positive.

 

[Albion]

Why do we have "Christian" as a profile choice when a new member joins CH?

 

[Lamb]

Why do we have "Christian" as a profile choice when a new member joins CH?

Because there are lot who refuse to put any group or denomination even if they align with those beliefs.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Doesn't CH define "Christian" as adherence to the Nicene Creed?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Because there are lot who refuse to put any group or denomination even if they align with those beliefs.

As a working hypothesis it is useful to think of unaffiliated Christians as "non-denominational" and then go from there.

 

[Lamb]

Doesn't CH define "Christian" as adherence to the Nicene Creed?

That is how it was explained to me from the beginning. It is our Statement of Faith (the Nicene Creed).

 

[Albion]

Because there are lot who refuse to put any group or denomination even if they align with those beliefs.

But we do not know all the doctrines they accept or reject; and we do not know their hearts, whether they really and truly are among the Lord's sheep. Isn't that so?

 

[Imalive]

If one says beeeeh it's a sheep.

 

[Tigger]

Because there are lot who refuse to put any group or denomination even if they align with those beliefs.

When I first signed up for CH I chose 'Lutheran' as my faith icon because I am officially a member of a Lutheran congregation. I changed it to 'Christian' because there were so many denominational debates going on here. I enjoy discussing theology but felt there was too much hostility between Christian traditions here that I didn't want anyone assuming I doubted the sincerity of their particular tradition and them feeling ostracized. (I know, I know but that's just how I roll). Although I do appreciate having an initial idea of were a poster is coming from in a discussion by the use of a faith icon so I decided for clarity purposes I'd start using a 'Lutheran' icon again and just try to use words that were kind and gentle in our exchanges. :ange06: j/k Truth be told though I'm a hybrid of Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox.

 

[Josiah]

The Bible also uses the idea of the tares and the wheat. Tares can look identical to wheat...until harvest time. In the end, God knows whom he has written in the Lambs book of life and whom he has not written in the book. He is the Sovereign King and He gets to make that decision.

I agree.

 

[Josiah]

Why do we have "Christian" as a profile choice when a new member joins CH?

In MY opinion, SELF is far, far more likely if self trusts/relies in Christ as Savior, if self has the divine gift of faith than some other individual.... They could we innocently wrong.... they could be lying.... but they'd be more likely to know that than any other human on the planet (and of course, only God truly knows).

In the church, we typically take people at their word.

 

[Josiah]

That is how it was explained to me from the beginning. It is our Statement of Faith (the Nicene Creed).

IMO, a "Statement of Faith" or "Article of faith" is not the same thing as identity of faith. IMO, I was a Christian LONG before I'd heard of the Nicene Creed and a LOT longer before I understood all those articles.

 

[Lamb]

IMO, a "Statement of Faith" or "Article of faith" is not the same thing as identity of faith. IMO, I was a Christian LONG before I'd heard of the Nicene Creed and a LOT longer before I understood all those articles.

The owner chose the Nicene Creed to be a Statement of Faith by Christians here on the site. This will not be changed.

 

[Josiah]

The owner chose the Nicene Creed to be a Statement of Faith by Christians here on the site. This will not be changed.

My point in my post to you, Lamm, was that generally, the Creed is not understood as declaring who is and is not a CHRISTIAN but rather what is and is not orthodox (traditional, accepted) teachings, what teachings will and won't be permitted within a certain fellowship or setting. The history of the Creed was to determine what DOCTRINES would and would not be permitted within the Roman Church (at specific denomination), what "we" (those of the Roman Church) theologically embrace (and by exclusion, denounce).

As you know, I was baptized within less than one minute of my emergency C-Section, in a very brief window between when I was taken out of the womb on one table in the OR and placed on another for my surgery. If I had died, I would have been given a CHRISTIAN burial because Catholics understand baptism as regenerative, as giving faith (Lutherans actually affirm this MORE SO than Catholics do). Did I affirm all the articles of the Nicene Creed? Actually, Lamm, as you can understand, it would be some years before I'd ever recite that Creed and many more years before I'd understand what they are proclaiming and embracing (and equally condemning). I suspect (but don't know) most of the adults in my Lutheran parish (probably including me, lol) don't really know all that is being proclaimed and rejected in that Creed. BUT, it is our Lutheran understanding that the divine gift of faith in our hearts is not the same thing as a proper understanding of orthodox theology in our heads. I would have been given a CHRISTIAN burial if I had died in that surgery on by birthday..... my parents would have been assured of my being in heaven...... would that have been wrong?

Lamm, I accept that the Catholic Pope is a Christian (see the opening post). NOT because at his confirmation he felt he understood the 3 Creeds well enough and professed that's his theology too but because I take him at his word that he embraces Jesus as his Savior and because he has said or done nothing to strongly indicate he's LYING. Now, OF COURSE, he and I both accept the Nicene Creed - BUT NOT THE SAME WAY. The Lutheran understanding and Catholic one are different, for example, the "one holy catholic church." I consider Billy Graham to be a Christian for the same reason, but I know he understands "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" VERY differently than I do. I think CHRISTIANS can lack understanding and even understand things differently - and yet not THEREBY be heathens bound for hell. Put Matthew Harrison, Pope Francis and Billy Graham into a room..... they'll articulate things (including things in the Nicene Creed) differently. IMO, it is sound for me to accept them as my full, equal brothers, fellow Christians with a place awaiting them in heaven (where they'll all learn that the LCMS was right about everything all along).


An Illustration: A few weeks ago, in my Sunday School class (I have the teens), we got on the issue of the Trinity. One of the kids - a boy who has gone to our church since birth, both his parents are on the Church Council - explained the Trinity in perfect articulation of a HERESY (one to which the Nicene Creed was written to REPUDIATE). It's called "modalism" He expressed that heresy perfectly! He thus was denying the Creed. But Lamm, he just misunderstood. We spent the rest of the time (and much of the next Sunday, too!) talking about the Doctrine of the Trinity, the various ideas that were bounced around for 300 years that the Creed was written to denounce, and why what he (quite boldly and confidently) said in class was.... well...... heresy and a flat out rejection of the Creed. Lamm..... If I had not caught that and spent the time correcting it, do you think Ian would be a pagan and headed for hell? Of course not! Thus, my point



Understand my perspective? Do you disagree?


Thank you!


- Josiah


PS I will modify the OP to indicate this thread is not about any polities here at CF (this is the wrong forum for that anyway)




.

 

[Lamb]

The creed is an affirmation of faith in the Savior. I suppose I don't understand your intentions with this thread?

 

[Josiah]

The creed is an affirmation of faith in the Savior.

.... well, it could be said that's here. But it is a GREAT deal more than that, too. The Emperor called for the Council of the Roman Church (only that denomination) to decide a few matters regarding doctrine, a few of which were debated and many were embraced that seemed were not all possible to be true. The Emperor wanted those issues nailed down in terms of DOGMA, what views (on these matters) would and would not be allowed in he Roman denomination.

Now, the function you mention is more closely associated with the Apostles' Creed. We don't know the origin or reason for that Creed, only that it soon became associated with Baptism (which is why the "WE" was changed to "I"). In the rite, this Creed has always been used - not to define allowed and disallowed Dogmas within a denomination, but to share issues of faith. But even here, it's NEVER been understood that AGREEING with these articles is what makes one a Christian. Your issue is better associated with the Apostles - but still not really.

I suppose I don't understand your intentions with this thread?

There is a LOT of shouting among people in Christian settings about who IS and IS NOT a Christian. We've had a bit of that lately even here at CH. I thought it would be good to discuss that, as a community.

I attempted to address your post in # 18 above. I hope it helped!

I largely gave my view in the opening post.


Does that help?


Thanks!


- Josiah



.