What is Christianity?

Would not the most simple and straightforward definition be "someone who accepts and confesses the Apostle's Creed"? This seems to be the oldest comprehensive statement as to fundamental Christian beliefs. It also is short on the doctrinal disputes that arose later. It seems to me that it would be problematic for anyone to claim to be a Christian and reject any of the articles in the Apostle's Creed. I would, however, still consider some one a Christian that believed or disbelieved things not included in the Creed.For example:Whether or not the earth is 6,000 years oldIssues regarding the exact number of hours Jesus was in the tombIssues regarding what it means to have a personal relationship with JesusWhether grape juice or wine is used for communionTo me these are not qualifiers to whether someone is "Christian" or not. If the discussion was about which doctrines are right or wrong, then these may be issues, but not in regards to defining "Christian."For reference:

quote:

---

Apostles' Creed

​

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

​

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:

​

3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

​

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

​

5. The third day he rose again from the dead:

​

6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

​

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

​

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

​

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

​

10. The forgiveness of sins:

​

1l. The resurrection of the body:

​

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

---

It would be really hard for someone to claim to be a Christian who doesn't accept this creed. Leave out one of these 12, and you belong to a different group - regardless of what "Club" you attend. I would say that if this is not the "definition", it is the criteria for being called a Christian. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.HBD

Good point. It also says nothing of the authority of Scripture, which is another source of contention with some Judaeo-Christian groups like LDS and JWs who hold other works to have equal or more authority than Scripture. However, I don't think either of those groups identify themselves as "Christian," but as completely separate religions - not just a branch of Christianity.I have to wonder though, that if the Trinity was such an important idea in the early church, why was it not clear in the early Creeds as well as in the New Testament writings? I personally accept the doctrine and believe that the New Testament writings support the idea, but it is not clear to me that the writers and early church fathers really understood the concept and had made it a matter of doctrine. It seems to me they treated the Godhead as a trinity without realizing the implications and without implicitly explaining the doctrine... which of course leaves the whole issue up to interpretation at a later time.So, I guess I would modify my definition/criteria somewhat to be "accepts and confesses the Apostles Creed AND self identifies as a Christian." ABE: It needs to be both, I don't think it should be "either/or." /ABEI would also note that I would consider this to be the definition/criteria of the Christian religion. Being a part of the Christian religion is not necessarily a free pass on Judgement Day.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : clarity

I am pretty sure they don't identify themselves as Christian. They actually believe Christians are heretics for claiming Jesus to be God and an uncreated being. They don't follow or worship Jesus, they only follow and worship Jehovah.So, they would not self-identify as Christian (nor would they be offended at being excluded)HBD

Personally, I separate the "religion" of Christianity from the "practice" or "relationship" of Christianity. Religion is all the external stuff we do to try a look like a Christian or to fit in with a particular Club or gain favor with God. We think that if we belong to the right Club or believe the right doctrine or develop the right theology that somehow that will make us "True Christians." But it never really does, it only causes contention. It is only external dressings over a much bigger problem - our own inner struggles, our own personal sin.The "relationship" of Christianity is different. It is about internalizing the teachings of Christ and allowing the Spirit to change us from the inside, change the core of who we are. NO. Absolutely not. The religion of Christianity is fraught with failures; we have a long, long history of very much anti-Christian behavior. I don't think it benefits any of us to simply sweep it under the rug by simply denying those people were "True Christians." Instead we should learn from it and try to do better, as you say One of the things I have learned by studying the history of Christianity is that it is not enough to go through the motions; to only externalize your faith. It has to be internalized, it has to become a part of who you are. It has to actually change you, otherwise it is just "whitewashing a tomb."Another thing I have learn is that ultimately we are responsible for our own choices. Claiming that God wants me to do this or that (or doesn't want me to do this or that) is ultimately an attempt to shift the responsibility from myself to God and to provide justification for my actions. Instead, we should seek out what we believe God wants us to do and simply say "I feel this is the right thing to do." Absolutely. I think one of the worst crimes in the Christian church today is that so many people put on a mask to hide their personal struggles and failings. We are afraid to admit that Christians often do not look very Christ-like. We are afraid to be real, reluctant to confess our sins, unwilling to accept responsibility, and uneasy about accepting the failings of others (while at the same time, quick to point them out).I don't think it all that difficult to identify those that fall under the umbrella of the Christian religion, and I do think it to be a pretty broad umbrella. To identify who is a "True Christian" or someone who "practices" Christianity (a "relationship-type" Christianity) is a lot more difficult and probably, for all practical purposes, impossible. Jesus said "By their fruit you will know them." and this is probably the best criteria to judge. However, it doesn't make the distinction clear-cut. Probably rather than saying that someone is not a "True Christian" because of some behavior, the better criticism would be that the behavior is not Christ-like.HBD

If Jesus was born of a normal conjugal relationship between Mary and Joseph, doesn't it pretty much change the nature of Jesus? I think that is a pretty important premise. It doesn't say "all humans" it says "The resurrection of the body." It could be debatable as to what that means - resurrected as a spirit body, a physical body, all humans, only some humans, what? But the point is that death is not the end, death does not have the final victory. Another important premise. No, not hell in the traditional sense. In this context it is more referring to "the grave" or "Sheol", the "underworld," the place where the dead go. It does not refer to the hell where the wicked go for judgement.This is another important premise, since some deny that Jesus actually died. They suppose that he was in a coma or some other kind of ethereal state, but the Creed states that he was DEAD, he even went to the place where the dead go. True. I would be unlikely to grill someone about their particular set of beliefs and there are a lot of important issues that would be very unlikely to come up. But that doesn't change what we might say about where the line is or what the distinction is between Christian and other religions.By my definition (which I altered in a message to jar to be "accepts and confesses the Apostles Creed AND self identifies as a Christian.") is to identify the Christian religion, not what a "True Christian" is.HBD

Yea, from my conversations with my aunt (who is JW) I got the impression that that are really a separatist group. They don't really associate themselves with the Christian religion. They consider Jehovah's Witness to be the TRUE religion, not just an offshoot of Christianity. But I guess they do call themselves "Christians."Here is a statement from their website

quote:

---

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Christians?

​

Yes. We are Christians for the following reasons:

​

We try to follow closely the teachings and behavior of Jesus Christ.1 Peter 2:21.

​

We believe that Jesus is the key to salvation, that there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.Acts 4:12.

​

When people become Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are baptized in the name of Jesus.Matthew 28:18, 19.

​

We offer our prayers in Jesus’ name.John 15:16.

​

We believe that Jesus is the Head, or the one appointed to have authority, over every man.1 Corinthians 11:3.

​

However, in a number of ways, we are different from other religious groups that are called Christian. For example, we believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, not part of a Trinity. (Mark 12:29) We do not believe that the soul is immortal, that there is any basis in Scripture for saying that God tortures people in an everlasting hell, or that those who take the lead in religious activities should have titles that elevate them above others.Ecclesiastes 9:5; Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 23:8-10.

---

So, they call themselves Christians, but are not part of the Christian religion - based on the statement "we are different from other religious groups called Christian."HBD

But I don't see that it is really clear that the Apostles had the concept of a Trinity in mind when they wrote their scriptures. That concept had to be pieced together later. Maybe some had a better idea of it than others, but it doesn't appear to be a universally understood concept. It is almost presented as a contradiction that needed to be resolved. In one place it says that God is one; in another it says Jesus is God and the Father is as well. That's a contradiction... how do you resolve it? The doctrine of the Trinity.I already said I accept the Trinity, and it makes sense to me (as much sense as it can, I guess). But it was a doctrine that developed later rather than something that the Apostles clearly and distinctly taught and that allows some openness to interpretation and makes me willing to consider some inclusivity in my definition of Christian.Now, the concept of a Trinity IS an Article of Faith of the Church of the Nazarene, of which I am a member, and I would not consider someone who rejected the Trinity to be a Nazarene, but that's a different subject, right? Except that you don't believe I can be born-again since I believe the earth is very, very old and that life came to be like it is today because of evolutionary processes. So rather than making born-again part of the definition, you define what it means to be born-again. Belief that the Bible is literal truth, belief that the earth is only 6,000 years old, belief in a trinity, belief in a literal hell, etc. are the criteria for being born-again or at the least, are the signs that one is born-again.HBD

But it's not good enough for me to say that I am, you would need to know if I believe all the "right" things, correct. Things that are beyond the Apostle's Creed, beyond "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." and "Whoever believes on him will have everlasting life." You need more than that to decide if someone is saved (i.e. "True Christian") or not, correct?HBD