As far as breadth of definitions go, the word “Christian” may have the broadest range. Do two random people hold the same definition of “Christian?” It can be astonishingly broad, as in anyone who has any kind of belief in Jesus. This belief is regardless of how they view Jesus: divine or just man. There are millions who profess to believe in Jesus who simply hold him to be another great human teacher. The definition can be broader still as it can include anyone who believes in a god – not necessarily the God, but a god, as long as the belief is based upon the Bible (not necessarily the Bible in its entirety, but something in the Bible).
The term “Christian” can be defined quite narrowly as well. I look at this as the biblical definition of “Christian.” The word first appears in the Bible in Acts 11:26, where we are told that the followers of Jesus Christ were first called “Christians” at the church of Antioch. Paul and Barnabas had spent a year at that church, and it became the launching point for Paul’s missionary journeys. Why was that term so significant at that time? Well, up to that point the Gentile world had for the most part clumped Christ’s followers with the Jews. After all, they believed in the same scriptures (the Old Testament of today) and worshiped the same God (the Yahweh of the O.T.). However, over time the distinctions between the Jews and the now-called-Christians became quite apparent. The central distinction, of course, was in how the two faiths viewed Jesus.
The Christians believed that Jesus was both human and divine. The held that Jesus was the Son of God and that He fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. The believed that he was the Christ – the Messiah – and that He lived a sinless life. He was born of a virgin: the Holy Spirit implanted a fertilized egg into Mary’s womb, meaning He did not possess a sin nature and did not carry the imputed sin of Adam – His parents were not human. The Christians believed the Jesus rose from the dead. Christ had been executed by the Romans based upon accusations from the Jewish religious leaders. However, His tomb was found to be empty and His body not located. Hundreds of people, however, professed to have seen Him after He had been killed. The gospels contain accounts of eyewitnesses who confirmed that Christ had risen from the dead. These were not random accounts that didn’t jive with one another; instead, they complemented each other and made eyewitness accounts stronger.
The Christians believed that Jesus ascended to heaven 40 days after His resurrection and that he was going to someday return to earth and establish His kingdom. They had been given a commission by Jesus to preach the gospel to all nations. Their faith in Christ as their Lord and Savior was manifested in their works of spreading the good news of the gospel. They ended up enduring many trial and tribulations, with persecution claiming the lives of many (of the original twelve, only John died a natural death). Their faith was based upon a hope of eternal life in the presence of Christ.
These early Christians begot a next generation of believers (second century A.D.) that assembled the writings of those founding Christians (Peter, Paul, John, Luke, etc.): those writings became the canon of the New Testament as we know it today. By A.D. 135 the 27 books of the N.T. were agreed upon, and took their place with the 39 books of the O.T. The doctrine of the N.T. – especially the Pauline doctrine – became foundational to Christian beliefs. The Christians were persecuted still, yet they continued to prevail. Their faith was based upon God’s Word: 66 books that they believed were the inspired work of God. That is, the Holy Spirit breathed the words to the human authors: the Bible contains the words of God, not simply the words of man.
Does this coincide with your view of Christianity? There are many groups out there today labeled as “Christian:” Catholics, Lutherans, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses. Each one of these believes in the existence of Christ and believes He is divine. But do their beliefs match up with the beliefs of the those at Antioch and those of the first and second generation Christians? No way! The Catholics believe that Mary was divine and that she mediates between man and Christ. They also hold tradition and papal decrees as being equal to God’s Word. The Lutherans believe that baptism saves a person – belief stated nowhere in the Bible. The Mormons have “another testament of Jesus Christ” – the Book of Mormon – that tells of another coming of Jesus Christ. Just having another testament is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, which tell man to not add or take away from the Word of God. The Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus is just a son of God, not the Son of God. In fact, they say that all of us are sons of God: salvation is not through Jesus Christ alone.
Another flawed perception in the interpretation of the word “Christian” is the connection to works or a certain lifestyle. Rather than look at the beliefs and convictions a person has, we tend to look at how a person lives. For example, is someone a church-goer or a giver to charities? That doesn’t make one a Christian. Jesus Himself tells us in Matthew 7 that many will come before Him in final judgment and say that they did amazing things in His name. His response will be, “I never knew you! Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness” (7:23). That is not true Christianity since it’s just an outward appearance. True Christianity is in our belief in Jesus Christ alone for salvation – the divine Christ spoken of in the Bible, who died for our sins, rose from the grave, and lives today to give us hope of eternal life.
2 Comments
August 17, 2008 at 3:55 am
In John 10:16 Christ said that he would visit his other sheep. Does the Mormon belief that “the other sheep” were on the Western Hemisphere make them non-Christian?
Revelation 22:18 does say that the Word should not be added to, but the Book of Revelation was not the last Biblical book written – and for that matter there is similar wording in Deuteronomy 4:2. Have all the the books of the Bible beyond that point been “added to” as well?
The Book of Mormon is a companion to the Bible – not a replacement.
August 19, 2008 at 7:45 am
That’s a poor interpretation of John 10:16. Christ is clearly referring to Gentiles there. Remember, Jesus came to the Jews and ministered to the Jews. His disciples were Jewish. Moreover, when the disciples went out to preach the gospel after Christ’s ascension, they initially did so only to Jews. It was later on that Gentiles were included. Clearly that is what Jesus was referring to in John 10:16, especially considering the whole scope of the Bible.
You may want to brush up on your biblical history: Revelation was the last book written in the Bible – approximately A.D. 90. As for Deuteronomy, that was the last book of the Pentateuch, and that warning refers to the Law. The Book of Mormon distorts the Bible by setting books not contained in the biblical canon as being equal to them in their authority.
Most of all, though, the Book of Mormon has no manuscript evidence whatsoever. It is beyond unreliable and clearly the invention of Joseph Smith (just where are those tablets again?).
- Larrylegend