Southern Baptists are encouraged to hold the line on gays

[Perd Hapley]

I think it would be most interesting to see the various criteria people here use to define who is a Christian.

Not would be. Is. 

[lee n. field]

I think it would be most interesting to see the various criteria people here use to define who is a Christian.

Nicene Creek and Apostles' Creed, work for me.  At least as a first filter. 

[Ron]

Please excuse my following paraphrase that is sure to inflame the orthodox  


Behold, a certain Jewish theologian stood up and tested Jesus, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"

He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, with all your mind, [Deuteronomy 6:5]; and your neighbor as yourself [Leviticus 19:18]."

He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."

But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"

 "A certain (insert "other" of choice) was going down from Chicago to St Louis, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain Roman Catholic priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Protestant minister also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side.

But a certain agnostic, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and provided first aid. He put him in his own vehicle, and brought him to the emergency room where they took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out his credit card, and paid the ER bill, and said to them, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond this charge to my card.'

Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"

The Jewish theologian said, "He who showed mercy on him."

Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."



Orthodoxy and creeds are OK even necessary I guess; but the way of Jesus is pretty simple.

He says follow me ie emulate me.  

In the end God separates the wheat from the chaff so I'll reserve my judgement on who and who is not justified. I've known plenty of doctrinally sound scoundrels as well as beautiful people of compassion who didn't self describe as Christians.  

My hope in Jesus, in God is also a hope for those who don't subscribe to my 'orthodoxy'. I cannot know the internal dialog with God that other people engage in and I don't want to be a hindrance to that dialog.  

I believe Jesus is the way the truth and the life yet I'm not convinced that adopting creeds and orthodoxies is what that means. It's more an inward condition, a result of an acknowledgement, a relationship with the God who is here and is not silent that precedes an outward confession of belief as well is reflected in how we treat others. A small kernel of faith is more efficacious than mental assent of creeds and orthodoxies.

Those who are agnostic should really just read the gospels while trying to filter out all of the Christian cultural baggage we've come to associate with following Jesus.

I did that and my faith in God through Christ has been strengthened.

[MillCreek]

Are Unitarians Christian?  They say they are.

[Ron]

Are Unitarians Christian?  They say they are.

I doubt Unitarians consider themselves orthodox Christians. So the answer is dependent on how specific the question is asked and the definition of the terms. Define Christian first.

Even if they are wrong doctrinally in my eyes it would not be unsurprising to me to find out that some walk with God.

Who knows a persons heart and has the authority to save a soul?

That's who I would ask if you are so curious.

[Hawkmoon]

Are Unitarians Christian?  They say they are.

The original Unitarians were Christian, with the oddity (for lack of a better word) that they believed and taught a different understanding of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. To most Christians, these three represent three aspects of divinity, and are referred to as the Holy Trinity. The old Unitarian belief was that there was no trinity, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were one with God and thus represented a unity rather than a trinity. Thus, "Unitarian."

And that's the way it still was when I was a youth. In the small town in Maine where I spent summers with my grandparents, there was an Episcopal church, a Roman Catholic church, a Congregational church, and a Unitarian church. My grandparents were both Episcopalians, but they preferred the Unitarian church there because of the simplicity of the services (which were not very different from the Congregational services, but I guess they liked the Unitarian pastor better).

Fast forward a few decades, and there are very few (if any) actual Unitarian churches left. Somewhere along the way the Unitarian church merged with the Universalist Society to become the Unitarian Universalist Society. Over the years I have had friends who were Unitarian Universalists and I have attended their services. It's extremely rare for them to even mention God or Jesus. I don't know what they are, but they aren't Christian. Personally, I question of they should even be considered a religion. I think they are more of a philosophy, and I think it's kind of a sham that their guides call themselves "ministers."

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

So does that mean that I can be a Pagan without dancing naked under the full moon

 

please


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Balog]

Are Unitarians Christian?  They say they are.

Are any of the various LDS splinter groups who teach that their local leader is a unique prophet and therefore totally justified in forcing 12y/o girls to marry him? We can't exclude anyone from anything, words just mean whatever the person speaking them feels right?

[MechAg94]

I would say that Christian just means someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I guess anyone can call themselves anything.  It doesn't matter to me.  I figure God is the one deciding who is saved and who isn't.  I don't think I or any Church need to try to decide that.

I shouldn't have left the Belief/faith in Christ out of my definition.  I could say it was assumed, but it was incorrect.  I guess i shouldn't post on topics like this at work.

[MechAg94]

I think it would be most interesting to see the various criteria people here use to define who is a Christian.

Do they teach and follow the Word of God?  

Judging the teachings of a group or a pastor is one thing.  Judging whether individuals are Christian is something else.  Sometimes, it is best just to not worry about everyone else and focus on your own Christian life.  

[MechAg94]

Ummm, errrr ... no. Just ... no.

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus was the son of God, that He died to atone for our sins, and that on the third day after His crucifixion he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.

By your definition, a Muslim could almost be described as a Christian, since Islam recognizes Jesus as "a" prophet. (Just not "the" prophet.)

Yes, I shouldn't leave that out. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

It's interesting that some folks feel god only saves good folks. On the contrary in my case he saved someone that lived anything but a moral life . All I had to do was be willing.the change in behavior came second and as a result


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cordex]

Do they teach and follow the Word of God? 

Most everyone with a pulpit claims to, but there are an alarming number of entirely conflicting interpretations of the same Word. Worse still, a good many of those interpretations are reasonable and rational at some level.  Or at least make sense given various assumptions.

I wonder .... If words mean things, are Shi'ites Muslim?  Are Sunni?  Are Wahabbis?  Same book, not even close to the same teachings.

Judging the teachings of a group or a pastor is one thing.  Judging whether individuals are Christian is something else.  Sometimes, it is best just to not worry about everyone else and focus on your own Christian life.  

Very well put.

[Perd Hapley]

The original Unitarians...believed and taught a different understanding of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. To most Christians, these three represent three aspects of divinity, and are referred to as the Holy Trinity. The old Unitarian belief was that there was no trinity, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were one with God and thus represented a unity rather than a trinity. Thus, "Unitarian"....

It's extremely rare for them to even mention God or Jesus. I don't know what they are, but they aren't Christian.

This is not a coincidence.

There is a reason why Christians (Roman, Eastern, Protestant, or otherwise) have historically insisted on certain tenets of orthodoxy. It's not because they are just weirdos, or have a hang-up about hypostatic unions and triune deities. It's because these abstract theological concepts are actually not just abstract theological concepts. They are the difference between knowing God, and refusing to even heed what God has to say about very basic things. Things like, just what/who we are worshiping.

[roo_ster]

This is not a coincidence.

There is a reason why Christians (Roman, Eastern, Protestant, or otherwise) have historically insisted on certain tenets of orthodoxy. It's not because they are just weirdos, or have a hang-up about hypostatic unions and triune deities. It's because these abstract theological concepts are actually not just abstract theological concepts. They are the difference between knowing God, and refusing to even heed what God has to say about very basic things. Things like, just what/who we are worshiping.

This. 

Say what you will about the RC/Eastern church, they did their homework.  Reading the early church fathers will elicit a feeling of vousjade, the feeling that the contemporary heterodoxies/heresies would not have happened if their leaders & adherents had read them, too.  Because they all happened before.  Seems the modern heterodox believes pretty fervently in recycling above all else.

[lee n. field]

This is not a coincidence.

There is a reason why Christians (Roman, Eastern, Protestant, or otherwise) have historically insisted on certain tenets of orthodoxy. It's not because they are just weirdos, or have a hang-up about hypostatic unions and triune deities. It's because these abstract theological concepts are actually not just abstract theological concepts. They are the difference between knowing God, and refusing to even heed what God has to say about very basic things. Things like, just what/who we are worshiping.

Men's group at church has covered some of the early  church fathers, now going over the Didache.   The Didache is the earliest thing we have, outside the NT, and might possibly come from the time of the apostles.  Even if one wishes to discount what the NT itself says, belief in Jesus as God goes back as far as we can go.   

[Ron]

There is a book called The Jewish Gospels, the story of the Jewish Christ that lays out the historical context of the terms Son of man, Son of God, and what many of the Israelites were expecting of the Messiah.

Jesus was very much a first century Jew and understanding some of that culture adds a richer understanding to the gospels. The Jews of his day certainly understood that claiming to be the Son of man as well as the Son of God was a claim to not only being the Messiah but a claim to deity.  

Just as a warning. The above book is not written by a Christian and I don't necessarily subscribe to everything he claims. Yet as a respected Talmud scholar his insights about the era in which Jesus lived is very interesting indeed. Just like today where there are many iterations of Christianity that is how it was in Israel. There was no one monolithic belief system. They were broken up into different competing groups as well as many various sects. For a very long time the followers of Jesus were just considered a Jewish sect, even long after the crucifixion and resurrection.

While codifying and agreeing upon good doctrine is important we also run the risk of being dramatically wrong about some things, not unlike the religious leaders of Jesus day. To think we the religious of our day don't share in the same hubris of the religiously learned of Jesus day would be a big error :)

[MillCreek]

Are any of the various LDS splinter groups who teach that their local leader is a unique prophet and therefore totally justified in forcing 12y/o girls to marry him? We can't exclude anyone from anything, words just mean whatever the person speaking them feels right?

Words can have both an absolute or relative meaning depending on the context.  As someone in the building trades, you look at the word 'unionized' and think of someone belonging to a union.  As a former chemist, I look at the word 'unionized' and I think of something that is not ionized.  Who is correct?  What is, to quote one of your favorite words, orthodoxy?

[Ron]

What is, to quote one of your favorite words, orthodoxy?

It is the accepted consensus of the experts in that field...    

[MillCreek]

It is the accepted consensus of the experts in that field...    

And then you get to that whole issue of who is an expert.  You see theologians and clergy on one side arguing their interpretation of the Bible and Christian theory does not condemn gays, says that men are not leaders in the church and home solely from having an X chromosome, and the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God; and on the other hand, you find theologians and clergy arguing the exact opposite.  If there is one thing that being a litigator taught me, is you can always find experts to support whatever position you want to take.

[Ron]

As we all know consensus isn't science 

[Perd Hapley]

And then you get to that whole issue of who is an expert.  You see theologians and clergy on one side arguing their interpretation of the Bible and Christian theory does not condemn gays, says that men are not leaders in the church and home solely from having an X chromosome, and the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God; and on the other hand, you find theologians and clergy arguing the exact opposite.  If there is one thing that being a litigator taught me, is you can always find experts to support whatever position you want to take.

You don't understand. We're not saying that the Christians are the people who agree perfectly on every point of doctrine and practice. With the possible exception of the inerrancy of scripture, none of the things you mentioned there would be considered heresy. False teaching does not equal heresy.

As lee said, above, we're talking about creedal truths. Here's the Nicene creed. Notice what it includes, and what it doesn't. 


Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

There's nothing in there about sexual ethics or infant baptism or many of the other things on which denominations disagree.

[MechAg94]

Some of this made me remember one of my favorite songs, Mississippi Squirrel Revival by Ray Stevens.

http://youtu.be/K16fG1sDagU

[Perd Hapley]

says that men are not leaders in the church and home solely from having an X chromosome

I think you meant Y chromosome.

I don't know if you're presenting this as a caricature, or if you actually think that's Biblical. Or whatever. But it's a common misconception, so...

I guess some Christians might see it that way (and it's the kind of thing that doesn't rise to the level of heresy), but the Bible's much more specific than that. Biblically speaking, no one is a leader just because of being male. The Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands; not that women should submit to any man that happens to be standing around. The Bible (arguably) places some limitations on female leadership in the church, while clearly showing that women did have some say (literally) in the business of the early church. So it is true that the church leadership is traditionally mostly (or entirely) male, but having a Y chromosome doesn't automatically make anyone a leader.

[Ron]

The whole submission of women to their husbands never seems to be taken in the context of the husbands responsibility.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it.

Christ came as a servant, he washed the apostles feet. He exemplified sacrificial love.

But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

I could post a dozen different verses on the same theme.

Submission? We are to submit or serve each other.

Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God

Gods idea of leadership doesn't line up with patriarchy. Gods leaders are servants. The whole servile woman and domineering manly man is cultural rubbish. There are a couple verses accommodating patriarchy just like there are verses acknowledging the reality of the master/slave relationship. In both cases the actual message delivered undermines the historical and cultural balance of power in those relationships without calling for revolt or rebellion.

Men are to love and serve their wives in the most servile and sacrificial way imaginable. Love like Jesus loved. Order and lay down your very life for her, submit all your personal desires to the greater good of the marriage. That was radical then and still is pretty radical. that's a far cry from "woman! get me a sammich!"

Masters were commanded to treat their slaves as brothers and sons. Kind of hard to be a slave owner and treat your "property" with love as a brother or son. The cognitive dissonance forces the slave owner to reevaluate the worth of the individual human. Love your slave like Jesus loved you. Is it no wonder that Christians eventually spearheaded the end of slavery in the world?    

The books of the new testament were written for first century patriarchal societies. Just because there is a couple of acknowledgments of the way society worked back then doesn't mean we ignore the big picture message. Christianity was revolutionary but not in a violent overthrow or even civil disobedient way. It changed (and changes) hearts and made (makes) old modes of thinking obsolete.