Board index ‹ Christianity

[Beehive]

1. How about people raised Christian and are a part of the culture but don’t actually believe in god despite being like a Christian in all other aspects of life including following the teachings of Jesus?

2. So are black churches that believe that Jesus dying on the cross was the act of salvation in of itself not actually Christian? And does that mean anyone who doesn’t preach the gospel to others isn’t a true Christian either?

3. What about devout Christians who have studied philosophy and developed their own more nuanced moral codes? Is their enhanced sense of humanitarianism mean they’re no longer Christian?

4. Uhhhhh I don’t think someone would need to believe in the Bible to use Jesus as a moral teacher. Jefferson famously cut up a Bible and kept just the moral bits and removed all the magical parts. He was atheist but like the moral teachings, does that make him Christian under your definition?

5. What about Catholics who recognize that the Bible was written by dozens of authors decades after the events of the Bible? They’re human written accounts and most Christians accept the issues that come with that premise. Are 2.1 billion people no longer Christian to you?

6. I grew up going to mass and catholic school and I have no idea what the hell this is. I think a lot of people aren’t Christian according to this idea because it’s not nearly as mainstream as you think. Sorry to pop your bubble

You’re really gatekeeping who gets to say “I like Jesus as my spiritual teacher” tbh

[jimwalton]

1. If they don't believe in God, they can't possibly be Christians. Being part of a Christian culture doesn't make one a Christian any more than being in a garage makes one a car. And being like a Christian in all other aspects of life (presumably you mean being a good person) doesn't count for anything (Mt. 5.20; Lk. 18.9; Rom. 1.17, et al.)

2. Jesus dying on the cross WAS an act of salvation. Salvation is through the blood of Christ, appropriated by faith.

3. Christianity isn't about a moral code, it's about a love relationship with God grounded in His crucifixion and resurrection and our aligning ourselves with Him in all ways. Humanitarianism and morality are a manifestation of one's faith, not the grounds of it (Rom. 3.21-5.2).

4. One doesn't need to believe the Bible to use Jesus as a moral teacher, but recognizing Jesus as a moral teacher misses the point. Jesus always but always pushed the conversation further, declaring Himself to the Messiah, the Son of God, and equal to God. That's what we must recognize and live by. I'm in no position to judge whether Jefferson was a true Christian or not, but just abiding by the moral teachings is inadequate (Mt. 5.20; Gal. 2.21, et al.)

5. The Bible WAS written by dozens of authors. The OT was complete before Christ; the NT was written decades after Christ by about 8 authors. But you'll notice that nowhere on my lists was any indication of the canon, who wrote it, or how it came about.

6. I'm not sure to what you are referring by this comment. My conclusions have nothing to do with what is mainstream, but by deep study of the Bible. That's where our authority lies. Don't worry, you didn't pop my bubble; you possibly only revealed to me that your knowledge of such things is limited to Catholic school.

> You’re really gatekeeping who gets to say “I like Jesus as my spiritual teacher” tbh

Not at all. The Bible gets to tell us what the Bible teaches. Jesus Christ gets to define what a Christ-follower is. That's our authority. I'm not the gatekeeper; I've studied the Bible. If you think anything I've said is wrong, you must show me so from the Bible. The Bible is our authority in biblical matters and Christ is our authority on Christianity.

[Bluefin]

You nailed every single thing we must do (I can't recall any others) in order to align our hearts with God's and in doing so, "passing our citizenship test" into his kingdom. But those finer details can simply be summed up as practicing what Jesus teaches us to do. Which was the sentiment of my original post in defining a Christian for classification purposes in our world versus what standards we need to meet in order to get into heaven. 2 drastically different things.

Merely labeling myself a Christian isn't enough to be accepted into heaven, even Christians fall short. I have to live my life the way you described, the way Jesus taught us, and be born again in spirit so that the spirit can guide my soul.

[jimwalton]

To me, the problem of summarizing it as "practicing what Jesus teaches us to do" can be too easily misunderstand as earning our salvation by being good people. To me it misses all of what is embodied in the relationship itself, even before we talk about behavior, and about aligning with Jesus, identifying with Him, and becoming one with Him in relationship. Those, by my reading of Scripture, are foundational to what it means to be a Christian, and, while they necessarily translate into "practicing what Jesus teaches us to do," they precede the doing with repentance, being born of the Spirit, and being "in Christ." To me, that's more complete than "be a good person and a good Christian" by "practicing what Jesus teaches us to do." That's the distinction I see.