Definition of "Christian"

[RINO Tom]

In my research into religious denominations, it seems that - broadly speaking - there are four main definitions used for whether or not the members of a specific denomination are "Christian."  They go from most inclusive to least inclusive.

1. Self Identification:  This one seems to be the one favored by academics, and it employs zero theological or doctrinal requirements.  Jehovah's Witnesses might have views on Christ that are more similar to Muslims than to Trinitarian Christians, but they self-identify as Christians and Muslims do not; hence, the former is "Christian" according to Pew, and the latter is not.
2. Followers of Christ: This one has a lot of overlap with the first one, but I think its "flavor" is aimed more toward those in super liberal churches that might teach things that are COMPLETELY at odds with historical mainstream Christianity.  For example, a UCC pastor might teach that the Resurrection was metaphorical and didn't actually happen, but he/she is "following the teachings of Christ," so that pastor is therefore "Christian."  I would say this is more common among churches whose OFFICIAL beliefs are in line with mainstream Christianity even if the ACTUAL beliefs of its clergy are not.
3. Nicene Christians: This one effectively restricts Christianity to those who affirm the SUPER basic tenants of the Nicene Creed.  Trinitarianism, the divinity of Jesus, the historical truth of the Resurrection, etc.  They can still disagree on important issues such as the nature of the sacraments, baptism, liturgy, etc., but they affirm basic Christian "orthodoxy."
4. Being Born Again: However a given (usually Evangelical) group defines this, they place a cutoff at some type of "born again" experience (e.g., being baptized as an adult once you have "accepted Jesus as savior" or even speaking in tongues for some more extreme Pentecostal groups) as the litmus test for being a "true Christian."

What do you think the best definition is?  Feel free to add your own, of course.  I am pretty conflicted myself.  On one hand, I get the problem with #1 ... there is a very coherent argument that Mormon cosmology is just a straight-up different religion.  Regarding #2, I don't think women like that United Church of Canada pastor who is a literal ATHEIST should be considered "Christian" just because she has a robe.  #3 seems like a good definition, but I think "Christian" needs to be broad enough to encompass heretical views ... otherwise "heretical" means absolutely nothing, as you don't call someone from another religion (like a Buddhist) a "heretic."  #4 is just frankly ridiculous.

So, I guess my own personal definition would be a group that (1) self-identifies as Christian and (2) affirms the Resurrection was a literal historical event.

[°Leprechaun]

Definitely the first definition.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd say belief in the divinity of Christ is the reasonable cutoff point.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

#3

[RINO Tom]

#3

So not to be argumentative, but how would you answer my gripe about the word "heretical" and #3 possibly rendering it useless?  Historians often refer to "Arian Christians," but they are also recognized as heretical.  However, nobody would call Hindus or even Muslims "heretical," because those are simply different religions.  So it seems in order to have "orthodox Christians," there must also be "non-orthodox/heretical Christians" and thus a broad enough definition to make the distinction while still under the umbrella of Christianity.

[Irenaeus of Smyrna]

#3 becouse if you define God diffrently we are not talking about the same God

[LabourJersey]

I'd say belief in the divinity of Christ is the reasonable cutoff point.

I'd agree with this. I believe in the Nicene Creed, but I think limiting the definition of Christians just to those who adhere to the Creed leaves out a lot of people who have very different Christian views, but are Christian none the less.

[RINO Tom]

I'd say belief in the divinity of Christ is the reasonable cutoff point.

This is probably where I land, as well.  Believing Jesus Christ was "divine" and the "savior" is probably the best definition of "Christian."  There will obviously be debate in the margins (e.g., did Arians believe Jesus was TRULY divine if he was created, or is he more of a superior angel ... is that still divine??), and I do think that if you redefine what "Jesus is divine" means TOO much it's a little suspect, too (e.g., Mormon cosmology treats Jesus/God as something TOTALLY different).

[Del Tachi]

I mean, each definition in useful in that they describe different things.  #1 is probably the best definition to use when talking about social or political demographics while #3 may be more appropriate in certain theological contexts.

I'd position myself between #3 and #4. Jesus says in John 3:1-7 being "born again" is necessary for salvation. Throughout the New Testament (Romans 6:4, Romans 12:2, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 2:20, 1 Peter 1:22-23, Titus 3:5, etc.), the idea of a partition between the "old" and a "new" or "born again" self in Christ is repeated. However, I don't fully align with #4 because I don't think being "born again" has to align with professions like baptism, speaking in tongues, or even a personal conversion experience. Yet, I feel #3 falls short because mere intellectual faith wouldn't be saving; you do need the transformation of being "born again."   I guess what I'm saying is that this "rebirth" isn't confined to a single event like baptism but unfolds gradually as one progresses in faithful Christian living.  So, yes, put me down as a 3.5 haha

I think a possible 5th definition could be added to include the concept of "cultural Christianity."  That is, people who would not affirm any kind of specific faith if you asked them (so not #2) but nonetheless say/do things that fit neatly within the broader culture of "Christian" society, like celebrating secularized Christian holidays or leaning very heavily into the former on the guilt-shame axis.  This is the definition most defensibly employed when people make claims like "America is a Christian country."

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I mean, each definition in useful in that they describe different things.  #1 is probably the best definition to use when talking about social or political demographics while #3 may be more appropriate in certain theological contexts.

I'd position myself between #3 and #4. Jesus says in John 3:1-7 being "born again" is necessary for salvation. Throughout the New Testament (Romans 6:4, Romans 12:2, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 2:20, 1 Peter 1:22-23, Titus 3:5, etc.), the idea of a partition between the "old" and a "new" or "born again" self in Christ is repeated. However, I don't fully align with #4 because I don't think being "born again" has to align with professions like baptism, speaking in tongues, or even a personal conversion experience. Yet, I feel #3 falls short because mere intellectual faith wouldn't be saving; you do need the transformation of being "born again."   I guess what I'm saying is that this "rebirth" isn't confined to a single event like baptism but unfolds gradually as one progresses in faithful Christian living.  So, yes, put me down as a 3.5 haha

I think a possible 5th definition could be added to include the concept of "cultural Christianity."  That is, people who would not affirm any kind of specific faith if you asked them (so not #2) but nonetheless say/do things that fit neatly within the broader culture of "Christian" society, like celebrating secularized Christian holidays or leaning very heavily into the former on the guilt-shame axis.  This is the definition most defensibly employed when people make claims like "America is a Christian country."

From my quasi-Baptist theological perspective, I would use camp #4 as the definition for similar reasons as Del Tachi, but it's not due to things like baptism or speaking in tongues.  I don't believe that baptism confers Salvation.  Rather, it's something we're called to do after Salvation as a public display of an inward transformation that already happened.  I'm not a Pentecostal, but I am a continuationalist on the gifts of the Holy Spirit and do believe that tongues can still exist today.  But, not every Christian will get the gift of tongues, as we're all given different gifts (and one isn't superior to another).  And, I think that tongues are grossly misused in most hyper-charismatic churches today (in the Bible, we see them most used for evangelism to help overcome language barriers supernaturally).

[vitoNova]

My very secular definition:  "one who rebels against the Romans."

Just sayin'

[ꙮ]

A Christian is a person who believes that Jesus is the son of God, is a follower of teachings ascribed to him, and does not believe in god(s) other than the god(s) of the New and Old Testament.

Parenthesis there are to allow Gnostics or Christians with “heretical” views on the trinity to count, while excluding, say, a polytheist who adds Jesus to a pantheon.

[°Leprechaun]

If belief in a three person Supreme Being was the definition of being Christian then I was never a Christian.

I do not, never have and never will believe that.
Do you think I will have to endure everlasting fire for rejecting something I can't believe in?

[Blue3]

If they self-identify, and believe Jesus (in whatever way) is worth following and centering your religious beliefs around (divine or not), then Christian.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

I would consider them to be the same group of people.  Now, that doesn't stop someone from having some views I'd consider heretical (since perfect theology isn't a requirement to go to Heaven).  If you accept Jesus as your Savior, you are a Christian and assured a place in Heaven.

[DaleCooper]

It's tough to define it. It's like pornography, I know it when I see it.

[Skill and Chance]

Divinity of Christ and literal resurrection.  Everything else is secondary.

[Associate Justice PiT]

#3

So not to be argumentative, but how would you answer my gripe about the word "heretical" and #3 possibly rendering it useless?  Historians often refer to "Arian Christians," but they are also recognized as heretical.  However, nobody would call Hindus or even Muslims "heretical," because those are simply different religions.  So it seems in order to have "orthodox Christians," there must also be "non-orthodox/heretical Christians" and thus a broad enough definition to make the distinction while still under the umbrella of Christianity.

     I actually would call Muslims "heretical", because heresy is originally understood as a choosing out of the truth, i.e. emphasizing one element to the exclusion of others. Muslims choose out the transcendence and oneness of God to the point of excluding the revelation of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In another topic I identified leftism as being a Christian heresy. It may seem like I am taking an overly broad view of what I define as a heresy, but to me it seems like the logical conclusion of identifying Christianity as the fundamental Truth around which the world turns.

     I adhere most closely to #3 (similar to Antonio's focus on divinity, I am willing to make an exception for modalists who confess Jesus is indeed God in the flesh), but for me being Christian and being heretical are two separate questions. One can have heretics who are not Christian, but one can also have heretics who are Christian, e.g. Donatists who have no problem confessing the Trinity but believe that personal sin obviates the power of the sacraments and renders the operations of the Church null and void. From my perspective both Arians and Donatists instantiate positions that are fundamentally incompatible with the Church, but one is much further from the elements of the faith than the other is.

[RINO Tom]

If belief in a three person Supreme Being was the definition of being Christian then I was never a Christian.

I do not, never have and never will believe that.
Do you think I will have to endure everlasting fire for rejecting something I can't believe in?

That is not the topic of this thread, lol.  Please refrain...

[Skill and Chance]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

I would consider them to be the same group of people.  Now, that doesn't stop someone from having some views I'd consider heretical (since perfect theology isn't a requirement to go to Heaven).  If you accept Jesus as your Savior, you are a Christian and assured a place in Heaven.

See, this is where I find the Evangelical view much more reasonable.  There's no way the average illiterate medieval peasant understood some "correct" theological view of the trinity!

[RINO Tom]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

I would consider them to be the same group of people.  Now, that doesn't stop someone from having some views I'd consider heretical (since perfect theology isn't a requirement to go to Heaven).  If you accept Jesus as your Savior, you are a Christian and assured a place in Heaven.

See, this is where I find the Evangelical view much more reasonable.  There's no way the average illiterate medieval peasant understood some "correct" theological view of the trinity!

While this is true, I would argue that there is a difference between not understanding it from a place of ignorance or an overly simplistic view of Scripture and seemingly going against orthodox teaching when "you should know better."  I have been listening to a lot of Dr. Ryan Reeves' lectures on church history on YouTube, and he made the point that the early church usually only labeled someone a heretic if they were actively trying to contradict church teachings on theology and it was determined they really should know the error of their ways.  Someone like Arius is an intelligent and learned man who can read the Bible for himself, and yet to stick to the positions he held he simply HAD to ignore about half of the passages referencing the Father's relationship to the Son to stay in his camp.

[Skill and Chance]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

I would consider them to be the same group of people.  Now, that doesn't stop someone from having some views I'd consider heretical (since perfect theology isn't a requirement to go to Heaven).  If you accept Jesus as your Savior, you are a Christian and assured a place in Heaven.

See, this is where I find the Evangelical view much more reasonable.  There's no way the average illiterate medieval peasant understood some "correct" theological view of the trinity!

While this is true, I would argue that there is a difference between not understanding it from a place of ignorance or an overly simplistic view of Scripture and seemingly going against orthodox teaching when "you should know better."  I have been listening to a lot of Dr. Ryan Reeves' lectures on church history on YouTube, and he made the point that the early church usually only labeled someone a heretic if they were actively trying to contradict church teachings on theology and it was determined they really should know the error of their ways.  Someone like Arius is an intelligent and learned man who can read the Bible for himself, and yet to stick to the positions he held he simply HAD to ignore about half of the passages referencing the Father's relationship to the Son to stay in his camp.

Agree that's different if they distinguished "intent" to break off on an intellectual level vs. casual misunderstanding. 

On the other hand, that does invite the question of whether someone who fully understood the theologically correct, monotheistic approach to Christian icons on intellectual level should have been more careful about how they were presented to illiterate people who literally worshiped idols the previous year? 

*Personally, I'm narrowly OK with icons/images, but the theological case for them does feel like one of those highly non-literal Supreme Court rulings on interstate commerce!

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

I would consider them to be the same group of people.  Now, that doesn't stop someone from having some views I'd consider heretical (since perfect theology isn't a requirement to go to Heaven).  If you accept Jesus as your Savior, you are a Christian and assured a place in Heaven.

See, this is where I find the Evangelical view much more reasonable.  There's no way the average illiterate medieval peasant understood some "correct" theological view of the trinity!

While this is true, I would argue that there is a difference between not understanding it from a place of ignorance or an overly simplistic view of Scripture and seemingly going against orthodox teaching when "you should know better."  I have been listening to a lot of Dr. Ryan Reeves' lectures on church history on YouTube, and he made the point that the early church usually only labeled someone a heretic if they were actively trying to contradict church teachings on theology and it was determined they really should know the error of their ways.  Someone like Arius is an intelligent and learned man who can read the Bible for himself, and yet to stick to the positions he held he simply HAD to ignore about half of the passages referencing the Father's relationship to the Son to stay in his camp.

Agree that's different if they distinguished "intent" to break off on an intellectual level vs. casual misunderstanding. 

On the other hand, that does invite the question of whether someone who fully understood the theologically correct, monotheistic approach to Christian icons on intellectual level should have been more careful about how they were presented to illiterate people who literally worshiped idols the previous year? 

*Personally, I'm narrowly OK with icons/images, but the theological case for them does feel like one of those highly non-literal Supreme Court rulings on interstate commerce!

And, then, you have issues that even I'm not certain about, even after reading my Bible and going to church for years.  Like, while I probably lean one way, I'm not certain about predestination and free will.  But, I fully expect to see brothers and sisters who believed both things in Heaven.

Some very Reformed/Calvinist Presbyterians believe that making a movie about Jesus is wrong because an image of Christ is an idol.  Churches of Christ believe that using instruments in worship is wrong.  Pentecostals believe that the primary evidence for having the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.  I believe all three of those are wrong theological views.  But, I expect to see people who believed all of those in Heaven.  And, I also have enough humility to know that I'm probably not perfectly theologically accurate either.

[Del Tachi]

Genuine question for Del Tachi and ER, as this is a point I've never understood: is the view that "the saved" and "Christians" are the same group of people? It seems to me pretty easy to be Christian but unregenerate, or a Christian who's in serious danger of going to hell when you die. The latter are descriptions of a spiritual or even ontological status; the former is just a description of the worldview someone happens to hold.

Your question boils down to Calvinism vs Arminianism.  The Reformed position would be that they're the same, as regeneration is the work of God to bring a person to salvation.  Arminianism would say regeneration is a post-salvation experience (i.e., a second work of grace.)