Christian

It's not catholic enough for me. Primarily because there are believers in Jesus, particularly children of Baptists, who have not yet been [baptised]. Incidentally, how would you define "following Jesus" - or would you? --Bobacus

If you were Christian and unbaptised (and of an age where, according to your denomination, you could be), you would get yourself baptised. The definition may have bugs, but it's not bad. --Requiem

I would say that baptism (at any age) is the beginning of the path to salvation.  It won't produce the completed Christian, but it is at least the first step.  I contend, as many would argue that the Church Fathers do, that baptism "does something".  It's not only a sign of faith, but an action of God that produces faith in a person which the Church must nurture.  The definition of Christian that I gave includes the words "baptised" and "follower".  I think you're correct to say that baptising someone at the age of 2 weeks won't make them into a Christian, but that's where some of us begin.  Making Christians involves practices that extend over an entire life-time.  I don't think "Christianity" labels the result of holding beliefs, nor is it what it means to be truth to those beliefs.  Instead, being part of the Church is the condition for knowing what we believe about Christianity. --AR

The Wiki's Christians would define these things in a variety of different ways (as hinted at by the above-linked webpage). Most but not all of us would say that there's often a time when one "becomes a Christian" - as in, decides to put his own will secondary to God's will - but often there's not. Although we'd agree with AngelaRayner that the habits and practices associated with being a Christian are something that one grows into over the course of a lifetime, I suspect most of the Protestants would locate the distinguishing factor more internally than that, although it must necessarily have external outworkings: NIV: James 2: 14,26. It would be very interesting to get the comments of Requiem here. --AlexChurchill

I hope you're not using the word "Most" in a way that is an attempt to flex wiki-muscle!  By what I wrote, I did not exclude the possibility that some are able to name a time when they "became a Christian".  However, from what I wrote, it ought to be clear that I think that that is too narrow an understanding.  What do you mean when you speak of the distinguishing factor being internal? --AR

It certainly wasn't my intent to be especially forceful; please forgive me if it came across that way. What I was responding to was your comment that "Making Christians involves practices that extend over an entire life-time". I was attempting to distinguish between "becoming a Christian" (undergoing the transition such that one wasn't a Christian before and is afterwards) and what Requiem called "being a good Christian" - which is hopefully what a believer grows into over the course of a lifetime. I'm not sure that you'll agree with that distinction, but I think it's important to at least have the alternatives pointed out.  --AC

The language you are using here reminds me of somthing I've read previously, but don't have to hand.  I think that Protestants define sanctification and justification to be two different things.  Catholics do not.  (Now that's a brief remembering from a basic intro. to Christian theology by Alasdair McGrath?.  I'll stop here and look it up when I have access to the book.)  If that is the case, then I probably don't accept your distinction.  Obviously I have to use the word "probably" because I find myself constituted as an Anglican.  It's not at all clear whether Anglicans are able to clearly define themselves as "Protestant". --AR

I don't see why you need to go to services to be a good Christian. That could be evidence that you're a good Christian, but it doesn't make you a good Christian. Someone who goes to church three times a week, but is otherwise a horrible person, isn't a very good Christian, wheras it's  hard to argue with someone who says "I don't have time for Church; I'm too busy doing volunteer work at the kitten orphanage". -- Xarak

H'm. It's more that good Christians go to services than the other way round, really. I'd question someone who didn't have time for Church at all due to doing volunteer work, though. For example, I can't make services in the morning due to circuit training - I go in the afternoon. It doesn't have to be matins on a Sunday to count as a church service. --Requiem

Requiem, I think you're right to question whether the statement I proposed is a definition.  There is a sense in which if one is a follower, then one is a Christian.  It's somewhat self-fulfilling.  However, I dislike the definition that anybody who believes herself to be a Christian is a Christian.  Oddly enough, despite disliking the definition, I'm not in the business of wandering around telling people whether I think they're Christian (how would I know?).  I do, however, have a suspicion of those who claim to be Christians, but seen to have no ecclesial rooting.  One needs to go to services to be a good Christian in order to be aligned with one's community, to meet Christ.  Being a Christian is not something we do alone.  Doing volunteer work at the kitten orphanage is service, but not necessarily Christian service.  I suppose I ought to add that I agree with Xarak that one can go to services and still be uncharitable.  Perhaps it's necessary to go more often! :-) --AR

As I am a solitary practicioner of my faith, and know many other people who simillarly have no faith based support network local to them, I don't think you need to interact with others in order to believe, or in order to obey the rules.  In generally I find Christian churches ridiculous, overlly political, overlly controlling and often down right rude, I'm fairly sure that if I believed in their god I would still find many attitudes of 'the church' stupid, contradictory and annoying, I'd still find some subset of other believers stupid and wrong headed, I'd still be annoyed about sitting still for an hour listening to some guy wibble on about stuff... thus I doubt that I would attend church even if I agreed with most of the things that the church was saying -- Naath

Perhaps you don't need to interact with others to have some kind of generic faith.  I can't really speak for those who aren't Christians.  But for Christian faith, you do need to interact with others.  Christian faith is not generic, not some universal experience one can have without being shaped by others.  One would not know what to believe (in terms of Christian doctrine) or which rules to obey (broadly, Christian ethics) if one did not interact with others.  It is not surprising that many "one-person" faiths are springing up.  I think this is an indication of what some call "post-modern".  Obviously, I don't agree that church is: ridiculous, stupid, contradictory, overly political, controlling, rude and wrong-headed.  I am glad that it has made some kind of impression.  It's hard to overcome apathy these days, let alone actually have anybody bother to call you foolish!  --AR

Ah. That's very interesting. The impression I got from CICCU was that they thought the Bible was everything you needed to be saved, and to be a Christian. A community of fellow believers was a bonus, but theoretically, if a Bible washed up on a desert island and the one guy stranded there read it, he could be saved. I think they would consider the idea that the Bible isn't a self-sufficient guide to Christian doctrine and ethics ( or at least all the important points therof ) to be diminishing the glory of God; after all, if the Bible is the totality of God's word, then He wouldn't have left out any important points. -- Xarak

Oooh, something to pick up on! ISTM there's a world of difference between "the Bible is God's word" and "the Bible is the totality of God's word". See KnowingGodsWill etc. for that debate. -MoonShadow

I have no idea what CICCU think :).  Well, actually, I've a few ideas, but I don't rate CICCU highly because I think they're just an Evangelical evangelism society.  That's fine, but it doesn't give them authority to say what the Christian faith is or is not.  They are parasitic upon the Church.  That's a good thing, of course, but the next question that ought to be asked is "Which part of the Church do they represent?".  All Christians are, in a way, parasitic upon the Church because we need the Church to enable us to know, for example, how to read the Bible.  (Of course, you can read it alone, but there's a possibility that you'd end up in a one-person faith, thinking that you had the truth...)  CICCU still interpret the Bible.  They give it a slant.  That's unavoidable for anybody.  However, it follows that if we're all giving it a slant and we want to read it corporately, we need a good tradition from within which to interpret it.  (It's the same for scientists.  One is unable to approach scientific texts, or say, French literature, without prior training.)  Thus, I don't think the Bible is everything you need to be saved.  I don't think they'd say that either.  They'd probably say it contains everything you need to be saved.  I'd disagree.  I think you need the Church to be saved.  Part of my problem with CICCU is that I think that they marginalise the Church.  There is an attempt to be "inter-denominational", but they simply don't work well with some denominations, especially those which have a "high" view of the church.  I don't know whether they'd consider the idea that the Bible isn't a self-sufficient guide to doctrine to be diminishing the glory of God, but it does seem rather odd when it's put into some kind of historical structure.  Throughout much of history, Christians have been unable to read.  We only have the Bible because some people considered Jesus important enough to write about.  Those people were, yep, you guessed it, the Church... :-) --AR

OK, so there are two questions here: "What does it take to be saved?" and "What is a Christian?".  From what I think I know of early church history (which admittedly isn't much), it wasn't the believers that called themselves Christians; other people gave them that name.  Which, to me, implies that a "Christian" is, to some extent, someone that is living in a certain way (as a result of their beliefs), rather than someone who merely believes certain things. Am I in the right ballpark? -M-A

Spot on.  I think the living in a certain way often comes before, rather than as a result of beliefs, but I'm nit picking.  I think you're in the right ballpark.  I like it when people take mess and make "two questions" out of it.  It's not soemthing I'm capable of :-).  I think the two questions you highlight are quite key, but also have slightly different answers. --AR

Check out "ChristianGospel" for debate on "what does it take to be saved". This is why I tried to define "What is a Christian?" in terms of that at the top of the page. - MoonShadow

I still think that there are two slightly different questions being asked.  "What is a Christian?" is a different question from "Are non-Christians saved?".  I think that's the distinction we're talking about.  I could be wrong!  --AR

Isn't that talking about different things, though?  There are some things that are the minimum required to become a Christian, but then there are other things that you should have if at all possible to help you become the best Christian you can be.  Also, you have to bear in mind that different things apply to different circumstances.  So, if you are all alone on a desert island, a Bible would surely be sufficient but, in a society, you shoulg seek out other Christians, partly because it helps re-affirm your identity, and also because you can help each other reach a better understanding of God. --M-A

Rather controversially, I often think that if alone on a desert island, I might use the Bible to burn on a bonfire, to keep myself warm or to cook food, or perhaps as loo paper.  There's no guarantee that handing somebody a Bible when on a desert island will enable them to be skilled enough to read it.  If it were written in a language they could understand, they'd be able to read it as literature.  But I think that to make sense of it requires a community.  Lots of people get upset when I say that it is important to have training to read the Bible.  But one needs training to read a Part III Maths paper (I'd have no chance), and I don't see that the Bible is any different.  Now if the question you are asking is "will they be saved?" or "are they going to be ok?", that requires a different answer.  It's up to the grace of God. (Incidentally, I hope I'm not being too irreverant when I say what I might use the Bible for on a desert island, but not all of the Christian tradition considers the text as text to be important). --AR

PeterTaylor cheekily wonders which pages you'd use first (but doesn't want to divert the entire discussion). (BTW you'd be better off with a copy of TheTimes? for loo paper).

Heheheh :).  The pious answer might be "I'd use the pages that I've already memorised..."!  However, I shall not deign to answer that question!  I probably would use a copy of TheTimes? first, but I assumed this was a desert island scenario where you were landed with very few items... I wouldn't use the Bible if I had other paper available!! :) --AR

I fear I could point at many examples historically who went to any number of services and still didn't show many signs of charity. I know you're keen on these things being addressed by "participating in church", but in cases like this I really think what might be more useful could be serious consideration of Jesus' character and teachings, or honest discussion with fellow believers, rather than just going to services. These others can of course also be done from the context of church. --AlexChurchill

Interesting; are you saying that salvation is by works not faith, then? Or that "Christians" does not equal "saved people"? -- Xarak

One interesting thing about pointing at people who go to services, but don't show charity is that we start to question our salvation :-).  If we are Christian, we want to think of ourselves as saved.  Faith alone, and all that... --AR

I've been pondering on the question of whether "Christian" means "saved".  We tend to use them as synonymous.  If a Christian is a baptised follower of Christ, we'd assume that salvation would follow.  I think a more Calvinistic model always assumes salvation whatever a Christian does, until one does something so bad that one "clearly wasn't a Christian to begin with"...  I think a more catholic model sees salvation as something that is begun, but continues as one lives the Christian life.  So "saved" is not such a static concept for all Christians. --AR

I think that perhaps it's nearsighted of us to think of ourselves as 'saved', even if we truly are. Being Christian, we're on the path to salvation, and by all our efforts we try and walk along that path. Without Jesus to bring us the rest of the way, we'd never make it - but that doesn't mean we should make Him bring us the whole way. So, yes - salvation by faith, because God is all-forgiving and all-merciful in the end. But also salvation by works, because everything we do to make the world better in God's name brings us a step closer to who He wants us to be - a step closter to God. --Requiem

It's certainly a good point that it is at least as much why you're doing something as what it is you're doing. Perhaps the definition would be improved by including a little of my statement below - that a Christian is someone who holds a specific set of beliefs. The marginal cases are, however, a difficult call. --Requiem

I'm afraid I steer as far from the beliefs thing as possible.  I acknowledge that Christians do hold a particular set of beliefs, but I don't think that's what makes them Christian. --AR

Although we have all noted that it lacks the general MiddleOfTheRoad? English denominations such as Anglican. --CH

It lacks anything remotely Calvinist, indeed, any tradition dating back to the Reformation. Could it, perhaps, have been written by a Yank?

It has references to election, atonement, justification by faith, sola scriptura ... what do you mean? --B

The reference to sola scripture scares me. It's worrying enough that the author of the quiz thinks that some people might consider sola scripture more important than, say, soteriology, but even more worrying to think that he could be right. Incidentally I tried to investigate the weighting of that question for the various targets, and began by selecting the middle option for each question to get a baseline. The result is a tiebreaker question where it asks you to pick the "Most true" out of (corresponding position indicated in italics):

Karl Barth's theology is hugely important (Neo-orthodox)

Speaking in tongues is one of the most important parts of being saved (Charismatic/Pentecostal?)

Inner experience is key to understanding God and is a good assurance that he exists (Classical liberal)

Older churches are unintelligible to modern people (Emergent/Postmodern?)

Preaching the word is more important than worship (Reformed Evangelical)

It is right to baptise infants (Roman Catholic)

God's grace enables us to respond to him (Holiness/Wesleyan?)

The world was literally made in six days (Fundamentalist)

The Gospels tell us more about the early church than they do about Jesus (Modern liberal)

I must say I'm baffled by the use of "modern" in the postmodern option. It seems a bit Cheshire Cat - words have technical meaning when I want them to, and otherwise I'll use them casually.

I also discovered that the way it scores is rather poor. Each question affects one of the numbers, so each of the 9 classifications has 7 questions. You start at 50%; strongly agree is worth about +7% and strongly disagree -7% or vice versa, mild (dis)agreement is worth half of strong (dis)agreement. To me that devalues the quiz a lot. To give an obvious example, the answer given on sola scriptura should have a roughly inverse effect on the scores for Catholicism and Evangelicalism.

Oh, and for the record the description for Reformed Evangelical contains explicit reference to TULIP, so the quiz author has probably heard of Calvin. --PT

Given that it seems to categorise almost everyone as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan?, and there's a fairly wide spectrum of Christianity represented here, I'm dubious about its value. (As a side note, I'm not even sure that it makes sense to talk about Holiness/Wesleyan?. Wesley probably wouldn't have been a speaker at Keswick had they been contemporaneous, and AIUI modern Methodism is closer to classic liberalism). The target audience seems to be quite specific: theologians who are either North American or Anglican. Who else has an opinion on the relative importance of the theologies of Barth and Spong? --PT