JL

bltl6 wrote:

So I may rightly call anyone who fulfills these criteria a true Christian.

What about, let's say, the Inquisition? Do you identify individuals or groups who have commited hienous acts like this one as true Christians? They identified themselves as Christians, in fact persecuted and tortured on behalf of God and His Son...

The Other Michael

Hi KeithHarwood,

Ah, but as Tom Waits sings (well, as much as he sings) "the small print giveth, and the small print taketh away".

A short creed statement is all very nice, but doesn't seem to me to be the sum total of the tenets of the religion.

For example the part that says "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" seems to open the door to hundreds of pages worth of the different things that the Church decides you should believe in - not just that handy dandy little statement.

cheers,
Michael

bltl6

Like I said, it's both mind and HEART. One can claim to be a Christian, but just because someone 'says' it, it doesn't make it so. You can say "Jesus, Jesus" all you want, but if it isn't coupled with a belief in the heart, it's just words.

bltl6

There are different versions of the Apostles Ceed. The one I studied (at an RCA Church) said nothing about the "Holy Catholic Curch" and also said that Jesus "desended into Hell" after his death.

This is a creed, and while worth looking at, it's not scripture. There are verses that can be used to back these ideas up though.

The thief on the cross next to Jesus didn't have the New Testament scriptures or the Apostles Creed. I doubt he had much of a grasp on Christian theology at all since the church as we know it didn't start until Acts 2 (after Christ's assention). However, Jesus told the man that he would be with him in paradise that day simply because, even on a cross himself, the thief realized that Jesus was the Christ.

IvanK

I think we'll leave that for your fellow Christians to do:

Anabaptists were torn apart because they didn't believe in infant baptism.

Protestants and Catholics tore each other apart for centuries over disagreements about the nature of the Eucharist, the authority of the Bishop of Rome, the efficacy of works as contrasted with that of divine grace and so on and so on.

Various other "heretics" have been torn apart over the years because of what they believed about the nature of Jesus, of knowledge, of the Godhead and dozens of other fine theological points.

Presumably all these people who tore each other apart believed in their minds and hearts that Jesus was Lord. They also believed their Lord Jesus had granted to them exclusively the knowledge of what salvation is and how to attain it, that anyone who believed differently was dangerous and that it was right, just and necessary to change their beliefs or exterminate them.

Our True Christian says she is a True Christian(TM) because she believes in the Bible. So did everyone down through the ages who tore apart their fellow Christian, not to mention us infidels. I think you'll understand why we get a little nervous and edgy when we hear those kinds of things.

ManM

IvanK wrote:
Well, there is a very clear record that the majority of Christians accept: the Bible. What did Jesus desire? "That they all may be one... (John 17:21)" Does this not show a spirit of love within Jesus?

But how are we to know whether the spirit of love will lead to salvation? Well if it doesn't, I do not wish to be saved. I don't need any promise of eternal life to understand goodness. Maybe simpler folk might, but I don't.

Brian63

Thanks for the response Brad.

My concern is that when a Christian-turned-atheist reveals him/herself to be a Christian-turned-atheist, he/she is often confronted with remarks by some, but not all, Christians along the lines of "Well, you were never a True Christian." I can understand it if they instead said, "You are currently not a True Christian." Many do not say that though, and they say that the person "never was" a True Christian (the "T" is usually capitalized for some reason ).

Obviously, this reeks of post hoc interpretation. Why can't this supposed "False Christian" be identified right at the outset as being exactly that? If humans are unable to determine who the "True Christians" are and are not, and only God can, then no person should be making the claim that another person is or is not a "True Christian." For all we know, Barbara is not a "True Christian" and I am, even though I profess to be an atheist.

If instead humans are able to distinguish between the "True Christians" and the "False Christians," let's get it out of the way right now. After (if)Barbara identifies the defining characteristics, then we can apply that to every Christian that frequents this board (yes you too ) and determine if they are or are not a "True Christian."

I realize a lot of this may not apply to you, but I'd just like to ask you an important and related question. If a person told you that they once were Christian but is now an atheist, would you believe that they never were a "True Christian" in the first place, or could they have been, if we go by your own definition of "True Christian?"

Brian

Gurdur

Hiya Blt6,

I hope you remember me, since I've always had a certain respect for you.

However, I don't think you as yet quite see the full nature of the problem here.

Whatever you may think is a True Christian, this remains solely your own opinion and the opinion of those who agree with you; and let's face it, real agreement in theological worlds is very raré, and seemingly always short-lived.

Instead of trying to say who is a True Christian, you'ld probably be a hell of a lot better off simply saying which version of Christianity you find best, and why - in other words, trying to tackle things from the consequences end rather than the justification end.

I look forward to watching your further development here.

IvanK

But here's a different part of that very clear record that seems to contradict what you tell me the majority of Christians accept:

Where's the "spirit of love" at work in this passage? It certainly doesn't seem to support the idea that Jesus wants them all to be "one." BTW, what might it mean for us all to be one? That isn't very clear to me from the Bible alone. Could you try to make it very clear for me please?

And if only a "spirit of love" is necessary for salvation, then aren't Jews, Islamists, Buddhists -- and even atheists -- able to be saved? Doesn't that contradict most Christian doctrines?

ex-preacher

According to John 17, Jesus prayed that all of his followers would be one, "even as I and the Father are one." Yet, throughout Christian history, Jesus' followers have been bitterly divided on virtually every aspect of doctrine. It seems to me that one of the following must be true.

1. Jesus never really prayed this.

2. Jesus didn't realize that his prayer could not cause unity - due to the free will of the believers. He forgot about this.

3. Really, all his true followers are united. Everyone who is not a member of ___________ (fill in your denomination) is not a true follower.

4. The Father thought it would be better if all followers were split up into warring camps.

5. There is no God.

Are there other alternatives that I'm missing?