I suppose one could call himself/herself a Christian without believing in the fundamental beliefs now associated with Christianity. By that I mean the belief in the basic requirements outlined in the one of the three Ecumenical Creeds that have, over-the-years established the requirements for Christianity. These three are the Athanasian, the Nicene, and the Apostles Creed. But, saying that you are a Christian knowing full-well that you do not agree with the basic standards of Christianity as described in those Creeds is not really being truthful is it?
You may believe in the basic fundamentals of righteous living as taught by the person called Jesus according to the writers in the NT, in that sense I suppose you can call yourself a Christian. After all, you may believe that such a person could have existed in history. But, to be truthful, shouldn’t that require some kind of a “foot note” from you when writing or talking to someone about you being a “Christian”?
In other words, by saying that you are a Christian, it will be assumed that you are a believer in Christianity. However, I should add, that most who say they are Christians do not have a clue as to what is written in these Ecumenical Creeds, nor would most agree 100% with what is actually written in them as their fundamental belief. That is, if they were asked.
Thanks for sharing! And that’s a good point, but I suppose I’d ask - who says you need to believe in any basic tenants in order to call yourself a Christian?
People followed Jesus well before there were any creeds outlining theology and tenants and such. As you likely know, the history of a Christianity is much wider than those creeds and much deeper than orthodoxy would have us know - there are countless texts that were important to Christians of antiquity that didn’t make it into the Bible (Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, etc.). And so I think it’s possible to subscribe to none of those creeds and still be a Christian of some sort, someone who follows the Way of Christ.
That’s where I’m at these days in my own journey, and I don’t consider that being untruthful … especially when I spell it out like I have.
Well, you can define the word Christian anyway you want, but like I said earlier, to be truthful, by common standards, you do have to add some "foot notes" (as you did) to explain what "flavor of Christian" you are. Christianity has become very selective . . . . believe me.
Eh, I hear you. But you also aren't the gatekeeper, and neither is Orthodoxy. The Christian faith is wide and deep and (sadly) many have been told it needs to stay within the confines of a few manmade creeds or systematic theologies. I don't believe that to be true and don't think people need the validation of the church or creed to call themselves a follower of Jesus.
I suppose one could call himself/herself a Christian without believing in the fundamental beliefs now associated with Christianity. By that I mean the belief in the basic requirements outlined in the one of the three Ecumenical Creeds that have, over-the-years established the requirements for Christianity. These three are the Athanasian, the Nicene, and the Apostles Creed. But, saying that you are a Christian knowing full-well that you do not agree with the basic standards of Christianity as described in those Creeds is not really being truthful is it?
You may believe in the basic fundamentals of righteous living as taught by the person called Jesus according to the writers in the NT, in that sense I suppose you can call yourself a Christian. After all, you may believe that such a person could have existed in history. But, to be truthful, shouldn’t that require some kind of a “foot note” from you when writing or talking to someone about you being a “Christian”?
In other words, by saying that you are a Christian, it will be assumed that you are a believer in Christianity. However, I should add, that most who say they are Christians do not have a clue as to what is written in these Ecumenical Creeds, nor would most agree 100% with what is actually written in them as their fundamental belief. That is, if they were asked.
Thanks for sharing! And that’s a good point, but I suppose I’d ask - who says you need to believe in any basic tenants in order to call yourself a Christian?
People followed Jesus well before there were any creeds outlining theology and tenants and such. As you likely know, the history of a Christianity is much wider than those creeds and much deeper than orthodoxy would have us know - there are countless texts that were important to Christians of antiquity that didn’t make it into the Bible (Gospel of Truth, Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas, etc.). And so I think it’s possible to subscribe to none of those creeds and still be a Christian of some sort, someone who follows the Way of Christ.
That’s where I’m at these days in my own journey, and I don’t consider that being untruthful … especially when I spell it out like I have.
Well, you can define the word Christian anyway you want, but like I said earlier, to be truthful, by common standards, you do have to add some "foot notes" (as you did) to explain what "flavor of Christian" you are. Christianity has become very selective . . . . believe me.
Eh, I hear you. But you also aren't the gatekeeper, and neither is Orthodoxy. The Christian faith is wide and deep and (sadly) many have been told it needs to stay within the confines of a few manmade creeds or systematic theologies. I don't believe that to be true and don't think people need the validation of the church or creed to call themselves a follower of Jesus.
Ahh this is great insight - looking without as opposed to without. Thanks for sharing!