What is a 'true Christian'?

We often hear this definition or something like it stated by adherents of today's fundamentalist Protestant sects. This example comes from post 462 of the 'Protestantism through the Ages' thread. The assumption fundies make, based on a Golden Age myth crafted and retold by their leaders, is that early Christians used this formula and that more recent fundamentalist sects have 'restored' it.Not so. I submit that the definition of 'true Christian' shown above is a doctrinal formula of Reformation origin. To ascribe it to early Christians is an anachronism. In historical terms it is both impractical and incomplete. This can be demonstrated.We may then consider what additions and modifications the definition requires in order to meet the test of historical plausibility. In doing so, some merits will be seen in the approach that was actually taken by pre-Protestant Christians.'Comparative Religion' would seem to be a natural fit. Thanks for considering this topic.___Edited by Archer Opteryx, : typoEdited by Archer Opteryx, : typo

Wow. This really took off! I thought things were sleepier than that around here. Next time I'll be careful about walking away for two days after requesting a thread.The definition quoted in the OP has two parts: 1. takes the Bible as the final authority
2. believes in salvation by faith in Christ alone through God's grace, nothing added By this definition the early Christian communities had no true Christians. 1. Bible thumping is impossible until a canon is agreed upon, and is of little practical use afterward until a printing press is invented.
2. 'Faith alone' as a litmus test for orthodoxy is a Protestant fetish that reflects fifteenth-century European quarrels. The catch-phrase does not appear in the canon. It was not taught as a doctrine at all by early Christians, much less made into a shibboleth.That dispenses with the BS fundy slogans. Next, we'll take a look at what might really happen if someone were trying to resolve a question like that in ancient times.
___Edited by Archer Opteryx, : detailEdited by Archer Opteryx, : code

False analogy.The term 'Napoleon Bonaparte' refers to a specific individual. 'Christian' refers to a belief system that any individual can hold.You don't decide if you are Napoleon. The facts are established. The term refers to an individual who is not you.You do decide if you are a Christian. Everyone is an expert on the subject of his or her own beliefs.As long as the person is apparently sincere and is literate about the term's basic meaning--in this case, knows that a Christian regards Yeshua ben-Nozri as holding special moral authority--that person is the real item as far as anyone else is concerned.It's true that fundies might have a different opinion on the matter, not to mention Paul of Tarsus or any deities looking down on the conversation. But fundies are not authorities, Paul is dead (re 'Sgt Pepper' album art), and no deity is faxing us any club membership lists. You're the final authority on the subject of your own beliefs as far as anyone else is concerned.And just as there are good and bad athletes, there can be good and bad Christians. Why wouldn't there be?__Edited by Archer Opteryx, : detailEdited by Archer Opteryx, : correction of beer typo

Let's say I believe that. I can go to church with you and break bread with you now and all is good, right?Oh, by the way--what's a church? What's breaking bread?Did I mention I also believe Jesus rose again without his physical body attached? I just think people who loved him sensed his energy after he died. That's enough.I'm not sure Jesus ever had a physical body attached. Someone as pure and good as that, having intestines... it's kinda gross.I also happen to believe Jesus was the son of a god--and that other gods include Enlil, Odin, Astarte, Zhang'O, Shiva, Kali, Mazu, and the Triple Morrigan, praise be to all of them. I pray to each one every day.I also believe Mary was raped by a Roman soldier and think baptism is a left fielder for the Chicago White Sox.How am I doing? Still a true Christian?

I'm aware of that myth. It runs into two big problems with reality.Bible means book. Scripture means writing. Both words refer to things that are written down. As the words are used in Judeo-Christian tradition, they refer to certain writings regarded as speaking with divine authority. The collection of all such authoritative writings is a canon.When you talk about 'Bibles' and 'scriptures' in a 'different form' than writing, you are talking nonsense. Bibles and scriptures that are not in written 'form' are not Bibles and scriptures. You are talking about something else.And you know this. You say early Christians would 'have had the opportunity to hear [their teachers] expounding the meanings of the scriptures as any preacher today would.' Indeed. And when your teacher today delivers a sermon expounding from a text, you don't call that sermon 'scripture'. You call it a sermon. The text is scripture.The other problem the myth runs into is the reality of pluralism. Early Christians experienced no shortage of teachers telling them what to do. Plenty of it got written, too. Early Christians had energetic debates, as well they might, about which teachers to listen to and which writings to heed.For anyone in that situation, until consensus exists about what makes the cut and what doesn't.... you don't know. That's the problem with saying a recognised body of writings existed before the formation of a canon. A recognised body of writings is a canon. Before one exists, you don't have one.--You are really telling us that in the place of your not-yet-created Christian scriptures, 'divine authority' spoke through teachers, through speeches they made or through conversations they had, and through other 'forms'. Those other 'forms' are not a Bible, because a Bible is a book form. You can say avenues other than books can serve that same purpose if you want. I know a lot of Catholics who will happily welcome you and your fellow Protestants aboard with that one. But if there are no scriptures, then there aren't.My point stands. One cannot appeal to authoritative 'scriptures' prior to the formation of a canon.Next: we will look at the practical issues of how to circulate a canon, once one is formed, in a pre-Gutenberg age.___

Indeed. The inerrancy creed is a dogma of recent origin. It's mainly an American invention that launched a few years after AT&T.The doctrine of inerrancy was, of course, a reaction by some people to some things other people were doing that they didn't like. Polarisation, once again.___Edited by Archer Opteryx, : tinkering