What is a True Christian

I have a weird question, when did people start refering to themselves as christians.
I recently met a man who reads the bible, and believes in jesus, but doesn't consider himself a christian. He doesn't belong or go to any church, he said where ever he is when he discusses god, or prayer, is in a sence his church.
So what do u call a guy who flools the bible, believes in Jesus but doesn't like being called a christian?
 
Insecure?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

That's why I like the dictionary definition, it's short, sweet and to the point:

one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Click to expand...
 
The definition of Christian is very accurate, it just happens to be more vague than you'd like it to be.

Some Christians don't consider Catholics Christian either, does that mean they're not?
 
The Russian or Greek Orthodoxy?

(And it's beyond the pale not outside the pail - the Pale is a river)
 
I have to bring something up. One thing that bothers me is that we that are here who profess the faith must understand that we must do so with humility.

It is dangerously easy for apologists to become prideful when we identify the truth with our ego instead of with God Himself. Instead of contending for "the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3), we may end up contending for our own infallibility. We should heed Blaise Pascal, who wrote in his Pensees (Thoughts on Religion and Some Other Subjects) that "it is false piety to preserve peace at the expense of truth. It is also false zeal to preserve truth at the expense of charity." Several facts can point us toward the fruitful partnership of true piety and true zeal.

First, Christian truth is best defended when it is held both firmly and humbly — in the manner one would hold a newborn child. It is infinitely precious and therefore worth defending; but it is a gift not of our own making. We lay no claim to its greatness or even to the fact that we recognize it as truth (Eph. 2:8-9). We know by grace that grace may be known. If we speak of "our faith" we should emphasize that the truth is not our possession; rather the truth possesses us. No one put it better than G. K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy who confessed concerning Christianity: "I will not call it my philosophy; for I did not make it. God and humanity made it; and it made me."

Second, our knowledge of biblical truth should grow over a lifetime. Orthodoxy will always exceed my present understanding of orthodoxy. The humble apologist will defend Christianity's core claims to the best of his ability — the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, the Incarnation, justification by faith, and so on — while remaining open to discussion about less central and more debatable issues such as the particularities of eschatology or church government.

Third, Jesus said that the meek, not the belligerent, will inherit the earth. No matter how winsome the presentation, the gospel will offend those with hardened hearts; but we should avoid increasing the offense through arrogance. Paul is a model when he says, "We have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us" (2 Cor. 4:7). The principles of Paul's pastoral instruction to Timothy apply to all apologists: "And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 2:24-25). Our aim should be to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).

Fourth, no matter how adept our advocacy of the faith, we must glory in the Lord and not in our apologetic prowess. Without humility, even the best arguments will ring hollow. Our aim in defending the gospel is to set people free, not to defend ourselves or acquit ourselves of all error. The humble apologist stands valiantly for God's absolute, objective, and universal truth, even as he stands on feet of clay with an ear open to correction.

Fifth, whatever our skill at defending the faith, any humble presentation of Christian truth is a powerful tool in God's hands. The Lord opposes the proud and exalts the humble (Matt. 23:12; James 4:6). Christian humility is an arresting apologetic in and of itself. Those who with plain speech forget themselves in service of Christ outshine those who eloquently defend only their egos.

Let all apologists pray with Albert Outler: "Lord, protect us from the mindless love that deceives and the loveless truth that kills." Amen.
 
kevman4christ said:
If what they believe is outside the pail of orthodoxy then yes.
No, it's not. Its PAIL not Pale as in you look awefully Pale.
Click to expand...
Main Entry: pail
Pronunciation: 'pA(&)l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English payle, paille
1 : a usually cylindrical container with a handle : BUCKET
2 : the quantity that a pail contains
- pail·ful /-"ful/ noun

Main Entry: 1pale
Pronunciation: 'pA(&)l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French pal stake, from Latin palus -- more at POLE
1 archaic : PALISADE, PALING
2 a : one of the stakes of a palisade b : PICKET
3 a : a space or field having bounds : ENCLOSURE b : a territory or district within certain bounds or under a particular jurisdiction
4 : an area or the limits within which one is privileged or protected (as from censure) <conduct that was beyond the pale>
5 : a perpendicular stripe on a heraldic shield

NOT...

Main Entry: 3pale
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): pal·er; pal·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin pallidus, from pallEre to be pale -- more at FALLOW
1 : deficient in color or intensity of color : PALLID <a pale complexion>
2 : not bright or brilliant : DIM <a pale sun shining through the fog>
3 : FEEBLE, FAINT <a pale imitation>
4 : deficient in chroma <a pale pink>
- pale·ly /'pA(&)l-lE/ adverb
- pale·ness /-n&s/ noun
- pal·ish /'pA-lish/ adjective

Is it so hard to admit that you're wrong?
 
Last edited:
kevman4christ said:
I have to bring something up. One thing that bothers me is that we that are here who profess the faith must understand that we must do so with humility.
Click to expand...

No offense, but what does this have to do with the topic?
 
The definition of Christian is very accurate, it just happens to be more vague than you'd like it to be.
But by it being vague, it does not capture what being a Christian is. Those who study b-hai (I think that is how it is spelled) are not Christians, yet they accept Jesus' teaching. But, they do not accept the diety of Christ, or His atoning death on the Cross
Click to expand...
 
Then by YOUR definition Mormons, etc are not Christians. Yet THEY believe they are.

By some Christian's definition, Catholics aren't Christian either. And by some Catholic definitions, Protestants are Christians.

You see the problem here?

Your definition is exclusive, mine is INclusive.
 
Not EXACTLY the same thing.

The problem here is that you are using exclusive definitions for the SAME term.

The term "christian" is a vague term, just as "atheist" is a vague term.

You may be a Christian who doesn't agree with other Christians (ie, a Protestant doesn't follow the same teachings as a Catholic) but you are still identifiable as a Christian.

If an animal is a warm blooded vertabrate covered in feathers with wings, it's a bird. Whether or not it's a duck, goose or chicken is irrelevant, it's still a bird.

If someone follows the teachings of Christ, they are a Christian. No matter if they believe in his divinity or a countless number of other points or they are a Catholic, Methodist, Protestant, Mormon, etc.

Protestant : Christian :: Duck : Bird

Does that make more sense?
 
DV- Here is my point, the Divinity of Christ is a major defining point of Christianity. One can study the teachings of Jesus all they want, but that does not qualify them to be a Christian. By accepting this, many are grouped into the religions of Christianity, those who do not are not.

Protestant : Christian :: Duck : Bird
Click to expand...

This make sense as long as you are calling a duck a duck and not trying to call a cat a duck

Gen
 
Genesis1315 said:
DV- Here is my point, the Divinity of Christ is a major defining point of Christianity. One can study the teachings of Jesus all they want, but that does not qualify them to be a Christian. By accepting this, many are grouped into the religions of Christianity, those who do not are not.
Click to expand...

One can study the teachings of Christ without being a Christian. I am a good example of that. A Christian is one who FOLLOWS those teachings. You are being nitpicky in the details and are seeking to ostrocize those that you don't agree with. Again, I point to Catholics being labeled as "non-Christian" by Protestants as an example. Just because there is some variation in beliefs does not mean they are not still Christian.

This make sense as long as you are calling a duck a duck and not trying to call a cat a duck
Click to expand...

Is that what you think I'm doing?

A duck is a bird, but not all birds are ducks, correct?

A Catholic is a Christian, but not all Christians are Catholic.

See where I'm going here?

I really don't understand the exclusivity Christians try and employ here.

What is the harm in using a vague term to define Christians?

I understand that there are Christians on this board, but what KIND of Christians are you? Methodist? Catholic? Baptist? Just saying you are Christian is like saying I am Hispanic. Sure, it gets you pointed in the right direction, but there is a WHOLE lot of room for interpretation. What you are trying to do is limit the definition of Christian to a very narrow view, one that very few people would fit into.

I think it's important in this day and age to realize that Christian doesn't mean the same thing it did during the Dark Ages when saying CHRISTIAN was synonymous with CATHOLIC. There have been too many schisms since then.
 
What you are trying to do is limit the definition of Christian to a very narrow view, one that very few people would fit into.
Click to expand...

Not really, I am trying to hold to a definition that reflects the Bible. Vague terms leave room for uncertainty. With the diety of Christ, there can be no uncertainty. Either He is God's only begotten Son and being fully man and fully God, died on the cross as the payment for my Sins so that I will not die but have everlasting life or He is not. If He is not then Christianity, as a whole is null and void, because this concept is what Christianity rests on. And if Christianity is null and void, there is no reason to define what a true Christian is because there would not be one. Then, the various denominations would be moot as well. In fact, they may even fall into a conversation that is being discussed in another thread (hint: cults)

Gen
 
The problem is that YOUR definition isn't going to match someone else's definition of what Christianity is. The more specific you are trying to be, the more you will disagree with other Christians.

Christianity as a whole can't settle on a singular definition. If you can't even do that then how can you begin to judge who is a "true" Christian and who is a "false" Christian? Especially considering that while you are pointing out the false Christians, there are Christians pointing YOU out as false.
 
Not that I believe in God or anything, but these people can't actually prove God exists, God can't exist without faith, if suddenly every christian in the world vanished, there'd be no Christian God, and if you prove he exists then there's no faith because then we'd be saying ''yep he's there, when's lunch?''.
Therefore your never going to prove him without killing him. That's my theory kinda.
 
ala Douglas Adams?

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bog-gglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets
himself killed on the next zebra crossing."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top