Elder Wirthlin's definition of Christian

[Just_A_Guy]

So if someone tells you they're a Christian, but they don't believe Christ was God, what do say to them? Do you tell them your church has the fullness of the gospel, in essence telling them you believe their view is wrong?

Yeah; probably something along the lines of "That's an interesting brand of Christianity" and, depending on circumstances, maybe follow up with "I don't agree with it" and go from there.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not talking about being perfect. There's no way we could completely stop sinning. I'm talking about accurately following Christ. If you're accurately following Him, you may not be perfect, but at least you're going in the right direction. However, if you're not accurately following Him, then you're not heading in the right direction.

But you're talking theology now, not semantics.

[Rider]

But you're talking theology now, not semantics.

What do you mean?

[Just_A_Guy]

I mean, saying someone is a Christian (subjective, man-made term) is not the same as saying someone is doctrinally right (objective, Divinely-defined term).

[Rider]

I mean, saying someone is a Christian (subjective, man-made term) is not the same as saying someone is doctrinally right (objective, Divinely-defined term).

If all you have to do to be a Christian is say 'I'm a Christian,' then isn't the term meaningless? If being a Christian has nothing to do with doctrine, then it has nothing to do with Christ and is just based on people's preferences. If you take this too far, you'll take the Christ out of Christian.

Someone could say 'I don't believe Jesus was God and I don't really like his teachings, but I like his hair style. I'll grow out my hair and make it look like Jesus in those paintings. So I'm a Christian.'

I don't see how it's a good thing to water down the term like that.

[Just_A_Guy]

If all you have to do to be a Christian is say 'I'm a Christian,' then isn't the term meaningless?

Theologically, yes. But in a theological sense, the attempt by some to monopolize the term over the past few decades has pretty much made it meaningless already. You've got Protestants claiming that Catholics aren't Christian, for crying out loud.

If being a Christian has nothing to do with doctrine, then it has nothing to do with Christ and is just based on people's preferences.

But if we're very honest, we can't get around the fact that linking the term "Christian" with "doctrine" still ultimately gives us a meaningless term that is just based on people's preferences.

If you take this too far, you'll take the Christ out of Christian.

Perhaps, but we're not taking it that far. We're just letting people claim a label that their culture and their language already allows them to take.

Someone could say 'I don't believe Jesus was God and I don't really like his teachings, but I like his hair style. I'll grow out my hair and make it look like Jesus in those paintings. So I'm a Christian.'

I don't see how it's a good thing to water down the term like that.

Theologically, it isn't.

Sociologically, though, we've got to classify people somehow. Letting them classify themselves may not be perfect; but letting relative Johnny-come-latelies to the Christian movement (in the form of newer sects) hijack the term and re-define it to apply only to themselves (at the expense of traditional as well as non-traditional Christian groups) seems worse.

[Rider]

Theologically, yes. But in a theological sense, the attempt by some to monopolize the term over the past few decades has pretty much made it meaningless already. You've got Protestants claiming that Catholics aren't Christian, for crying out loud.

Why do you care what those other groups do? Why should true Christians with the full gospel change how they talk about 'Christian' just because false teachers pop up? False teachers shouldn't get to dictate how truth is discussed or defined.

If what I'm saying is true, if two contradictory groups can't both be Christians, then Protestants and Catholics can't both be Christians. They contradict each other on foundational issues like salvation.

But if we're very honest, we can't get around the fact that linking the term "Christian" with "doctrine" still ultimately gives us a meaningless term that is just based on people's preferences.

How so? Doctrine isn't based on preferences.

Perhaps, but we're not taking it that far. We're just letting people claim a label that their culture and their language already allows them to take.

How far are you taking it then? Would the guy with the 'Christian hair' be a Christian just because he says he is? Can someone be a Christian even if they don't believe in Christ at all or any of His teachings?

Sociologically, though, we've got to classify people somehow. Letting them classify themselves may not be perfect; but letting relative Johnny-come-latelies to the Christian movement (in the form of newer sects) hijack the term and re-define it to apply only to themselves (at the expense of traditional as well as non-traditional Christian groups) seems worse.

We have plenty of names to classify people. Catholic, Protestant, LDS, agnostic, atheist, Muslim. Wouldn't it be easier to call them all by those names than to lump them all into 'Christian' just because they say they're one?

What I'm talking about, this narrow definition of 'Christian,' is not new. It's not an invention of a newer sect. Justin Martyr (early to mid-second century church father) said this:

Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. . . . For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians. . .”

Martyr was using a narrow definition of 'Christian.' He was saying even if people are called 'Christian,' if their doctrine isn't accurate, then they aren't Christians. If there was any hijacking, it sounds like the term was hijacked by the people who insist on using it broadly, not the other way around.

[john doe]

And the circular talk continues...........

[Rider]

And the circular talk continues...........

Most of that last post is stuff I haven't talked about yet.

[john doe]

Most of that last post is stuff I haven't talked about yet.

You asked a question, JAG answered it, and your response was to ask why he cares. He likely wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't asked about it.

[Just_A_Guy]

Why do you care what those other groups do?

Context. You alleged that my broad definition makes the term "Christian" meaningless. I was responding that your hyper-technical definition makes the term a mockery.

I mean, Catholics as non-Christians? Mother Theresa as a non-Christian???? Bunkum.

And incidentally, I note your preoccupation with how Mormons use the term Christian. Funny, that.

Why should true Christians with the full gospel change how they talk about 'Christian' just because false teachers pop up? False teachers shouldn't get to dictate how truth is discussed or defined.

You tell me first why "true Christians" should have such a problem saying "Yes, he's a Christian and purports to believe in Jesus, but he's wrong on some key fundamentals." Why does it bother you so much that anyone besides yourself--and those whom you carefully select--might be seen, by the world, as "Christians"?

Doctrine isn't based on preferences.

True doctrine isn't. Man's doctrinal interpretations--which is at the core of the differences between the many sects, Christian and otherwise--obviously are.

We have plenty of names to classify people. Catholic, Protestant, LDS, agnostic, atheist, Muslim. Wouldn't it be easier to call them all by those names than to lump them all into 'Christian' just because they say they're one?

That would work if nobody was using the term "Christian" anymore. But that's not your grand scheme, is it Rider?

In reality, the term "Christian" has an awful lot of connotations in our society that have little to do with the finer points of doctrine. As I wrote earlier:

. . . the term "Christian" has built up an enormous store of goodwill. It stands for charity; for compassion; for forgiveness; for integrity; for hard work. And, above all, to a good-faith effort to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

And I also suspect that the idea of Mormons laying claim to that goodwill drives some people absolutely batty.

What I'm talking about, this narrow definition of 'Christian,' is not new. It's not an invention of a newer sect. Justin Martyr (early to mid-second century church father) said this:

So said a Catholic. You are not a Catholic. By Justin's definition it is you who are not the Christian.

What say you to that?

[Rider]

And incidentally, I note your preoccupation with how Mormons use the term Christian. Funny, that.

I care because I believe the Bible teaches us to call out false teachers and point out false doctrines. I don't call them Christians just because they say 'I'm a Christian.'

You tell me first why "true Christians" should have such a problem saying "Yes, he's a Christian and purports to believe in Jesus, but he's wrong on some key fundamentals." Why does it bother you so much that anyone besides yourself--and those whom you carefully select--might be seen, by the world, as "Christians"?

One of the problems is the impact it has on people trying to choose what faith to believe in. Have you heard of this quote from Ghandi: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” People of other faiths, or no faith, look at Christians and see people who say one thing and do another. They see the Puritans who taught sex is evil and basically discouraged pleasure, and other "Christians" involved in adultery and homosexuality. They see all that coming from one group, Christians.

Wouldn't that problem be easier to deal with if Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, etc., could all agree that being a Christian is about more than just saying "I'm a Christian?"

True doctrine isn't. Man's doctrinal interpretations--which is at the core of the differences between the many sects, Christian and otherwise--obviously are.

Isn't LDS doctrine "true doctrine?"

That would work if nobody was using the term "Christian" anymore. But that's not your grand scheme, is it Rider?

You said we need a way to classify groups. Those names fit that need. I'm not saying one group should sue another group for misusing 'Christian.' Just don't call people Christian if they're not following Christ's teachings.

So said a Catholic. You are not a Catholic. By Justin's definition it is you who are not the Christian.

What say you to that?

The Catholic church of the 2nd century is vastly different from the Catholic church of today.

You made it sound like newer sects had hijacked 'Christian.' I was just showing how that's not true.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Rider

[OneEternalSonata]

Isn't what Heavenly Father calls us more important than label warfare? Let's just let love abide here and be content in being His children, okay?

[Just_A_Guy]

I care because I believe the Bible teaches us to call out false teachers and point out false doctrines. I don't call them Christians just because they say 'I'm a Christian.'

The Bible teaches us that we have to tilt at linguistic windmills? You'll have to show me chapter and verse on that one.

One of the problems is the impact it has on people trying to choose what faith to believe in. Have you heard of this quote from Ghandi: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” People of other faiths, or no faith, look at Christians and see people who say one thing and do another. They see the Puritans who taught sex is evil and basically discouraged pleasure, and other "Christians" involved in adultery and homosexuality. They see all that coming from one group, Christians.

Wouldn't that problem be easier to deal with if Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, etc., could all agree that being a Christian is about more than just saying "I'm a Christian?"

Are you really so naive as to think that even if all churches agreed that only one religion (or none) would use the term "Christian", the non-Western world would fall into line and draw distinctions between the hundreds of sects hitherto lumped together as "Christian"?

Isn't LDS doctrine "true doctrine?"

Yes. But what does that have to do with anything? I acknowledge that non-Mormons won't agree with that statement, and I don't demand that the English language re-arrange itself to suit a doctrinal outlook embraced by only a fraction of its speakers.

You said we need a way to classify groups. Those names fit that need. I'm not saying one group should sue another group for misusing 'Christian.' Just don't call people Christian if they're not following Christ's teachings.

Christ's teachings as interpreted by whom?

The Catholic church of the 2nd century is vastly different from the Catholic church of today.

Ah. So you want me to assume that if Justin Martyr and the other church fathers were alive today, they'd actually ditch Catholicism and see things your way.

This fits perfectly into the overall pattern: take everything good that the public associates with "Christianity", arrogate it to your own sect, and portray anyone who disagrees with you as a bunch of heathens.

[Just_A_Guy]

One other thought:

One of the problems is the impact it has on people trying to choose what faith to believe in. Have you heard of this quote from Ghandi: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” People of other faiths, or no faith, look at Christians and see people who say one thing and do another. They see the Puritans who taught sex is evil and basically discouraged pleasure, and other "Christians" involved in adultery and homosexuality. They see all that coming from one group, Christians.

Wouldn't that problem be easier to deal with if Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, etc., could all agree that being a Christian is about more than just saying "I'm a Christian?"

Ghandi's problem wasn't that some of the Christians he spoke of had the wrong doctrines. His problem was that they didn't live up to the doctrines that their several sects professed to embrace.

[Rider]

The Bible teaches us that we have to tilt at linguistic windmills? You'll have to show me chapter and verse on that one.

How can we make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19) without pointing out false teachings?

Are you really so naive as to think that even if all churches agreed that only one religion (or none) would use the term "Christian", the non-Western world would fall into line and draw distinctions between the hundreds of sects hitherto lumped together as "Christian"?

Of course, nothing would happen over night. It would take time to filter down to the basic ways people think of Christians. Nothing we say or do will magically make whole cultures change their mind. This is more an issue of doing the right thing and praying God will work in people's hearts.

Yes. But what does that have to do with anything? I acknowledge that non-Mormons won't agree with that statement, and I don't demand that the English language re-arrange itself to suit a doctrinal outlook embraced by only a fraction of its speakers.

Muslims wouldn't agree that Jesus is God's son. Does that change how you talk about Jesus?

You don't have to re-arrange any language. Wirthlin was taking his definition from the American Heritage Dictionary, "One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ and . . . One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus." That sets the bar higher than just saying "I'm a Christian."

Christ's teachings as interpreted by whom?

As I said, the LDS because you believe their doctrine is the true doctrine.

Ah. So you want me to assume that if Justin Martyr and the other church fathers were alive today, they'd actually ditch Catholicism and see things your way.

I don't know enough about Martyr to know what he would think about specific doctrines, but his quote makes it very clear he wouldn't consider someone Christian based on conflicting key doctrine points. He even instructs other people to take the same stance.

Ghandi's problem wasn't that some of the Christians he spoke of had the wrong doctrines. His problem was that they didn't live up to the doctrines that their several sects professed to embrace.

I think, for the most part, if someone genuinely believes the right doctrines, they won't have those behavioral problems. And if people are following false doctrines, then they don't have a good foundation and it makes sense they would fall into a sinful lifestyle.

[john doe]

It has been decided by the mods that this thread serves no purpose. As such, we are closing the thread.