Classical

What does someone mean when they say: "I am a christian."?

Let me use my family as an example of what I am getting at here:

Most of my family members would say: "I am a christian." Most of them do not really know what this means when they say it, and are just identifying themselves as a general believer with faith in god. On the other hand, others in my family are very literal, fundamentalist christians who will even say when a family member dies "what a shame they are burning in hell right now." This type of a statement of belief is horrifying to the many who say they are christians, but reject such a notion.

In the book that started my deconversion, Joseph Wheless in chapter twelve of IS IT GOD'S WORD? begins a historical study of "Bible Theology and Modern Truth." He traces that early church dogma, the original doctrine clearly affirmed that one single rejection of any fact of belief meant that person was "shipwrecked in the faith."

This type of historical study leads me to say that many who call themselves christians, literally are not . Anyone want to discuss?

Ahab

That book sounds very dated. When was it written?
Modern scholars have come to realize there was as much variety in early Christian belief as there is now. The idea of early Christians all believing the same thing is a myth. So I fail to see why diversity in belief now should disqualify either a fundy or liberal Christian from being 'literallly' a Christian.

Classical

You are correct that it is old. It was copyrighted in 1926. Wheless did not spend much time discussing other diversities of early christian belief. His research was of the catholic church and information from the catholic encyclopedia and writings of the church fathers and later protestant reformers.

I am very interested in a discussion of diversity of christian belief or definitions of christianity. Where is the best place to read about this? I cannot find today anything other that what Wheless described. I have tried to get a good friend of mine who is a very liberal episcopalian to explain what his faith believes, and it seems to me to be the same thing as the baptist beliefs I was taught, with a more "liberal" slant.

Can someone call themselves a christian without believing that jesus died for their sins? It seems to me that going "over the line" too far creates basically a new religion/belief system, but still uses the same name: christianity.

Ahab

Well, even if you go back to the book of acts and Paul's epistles, you can see that there was a lot of disagreement on what one had to do to be a Christian. E.G., how much of the Jewish law still had to be obeyed?
You can also check out the writings from Nag Hammadi to get an idea of how different gnostic christianity was from the 'orthodox' form.
It has been about 5 or 6 years since I read much on early chrisitan history, so I can't point you to the latest research, but you might want to check out the following authors: Daniel Boyarin an orthodox Jew who has written a fascinating book about Paul called "A Radical Jew:Paul and the Politics of Identity." His understanding of Paul's teachings is quite different than the traditional Protestant interpretation.
Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels."
Raymond Brown's "The Churches the Apostles Left Behind." Brown (now deceased) was a Catholic priest who was also an impeccable scholar. This book is probably one of the better ones to start with.
And I'm sure others who've kept up with the latest historical research can point you to other and probably better books to start with.

newtype_alpha

Keep in mind, Classical, the definition of a Christian varies depending on who you are talking to. Orthodoxy does not always have the final say, and neither do fundies; for that matter, fundies generally define "Christian" as "someone who believes every last word of the Bible to be absolutely true." If you agree with the fundies than this definition is subjective at best since there are a great many words in the Bible that Christianity almost universally rejects or itnentionally misinterprets.

Regardless of behavior, structure of belief, or opinions of the inerrancy of the Bible -- or lack thereof -- I think it's safe to define a Christian by what the name implies: someone whose religious/spiritual/philosphical views are based primarily or entirely on the teachings and writings of (more accurately, "about) Jesus Christ. By that definition, someone who reads the gospels and largely bases thier life on them would be a Christian. Someone else who read them and takes some notes as a sort of possible life lesson the way you and I would read Socrates or Confucious is more than likely not a Christian, but a dabbler in religious thought.

Igor Trip

It seems to me that most people have a very simple view of religion.

They believe there is a God who is good and an afterlife of some sort, and that is pretty much it.
All the details really are not that important to them. If they are myths well so be it. Their core beliefs are all that really matter.

Classical

So far these responses verify my line of thinking on this issue. There are many ways to define christian, but still it appears to me that "when push comes to shove" most reasonable people will abandon the core doctrine of "all unbelievers going to hell," and thus they are not literal, bible christians as I understand the term overall.

Bertrand Russell discussed this idea in his work WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, and explained that in one sense all of us born in the West are christians if you think in geographical terms, but the traditional definition is someone who believes that jesus died for our sins and anyone who does not know or accept this is in a state of damnation.

I think if we examine the apostles creed, as commonly seen in the Westminster confession of faith, that masses of people will recite this without giving one thought as to what the words are literally saying.

I think the bottom line is this: most people who call themselves christian have never really thought about what this means and if they would stop to think about it, they would realize they are not christians. I read an article today in the Atlanta Journal Constitution which had various religious leaders giving their take on the tsunami disaster and what they would say to their congreagations. It is so obvious to me that these people who are leading are starting from a presupposition that god, jesus, and the bible are true, and then just say what they think afterwards. I don't see people starting from the beginning, and this is what bothers me the most.

Rational BAC

The answer is really very simple.---

A Christian is a Christian because he or she considers himself or herself to be a Christian.

No other qualification is truly valid.

Which explains very easily why there are sooo many kinds of Christians.

And they are all literally Christian.

Dark Knight Bob

dude, that's pretty horrifying full stop! Do they literally say that? I mean how do you not slap these people?!

Ahab

It seems to me that you are saying that fundies are the only ones with the true Christian faith. Maybe you are right, but how can you convince all the other Christians who disagree with them?

Sounds like Mr. Russell is setting up a strawman here. And though I respect him very much, I would not take very seriously anything he has to say about the Christian faith. Just as I wouldn't trust a Christian's interpretation of what it means to be an atheist.

Why do the words have to be taken literally? Is there a core doctrine of Christianity that insists on such? Can you cite a scripture passage that says only the literal interpretation is correct? Or is such a statement in that apostle's creed?

Not sure how you would verify such a conjecture. In any case, seems they, as practicioners of that religous system, have a better claim to defining what their faith is than non-believers like you and me.