Paul McNabb: September 2005I am relatively new on this board, but I have seen a number of people talk about true Christians and false Christians. It isn't clear to me where people are getting these definitions.
I've looked up "Christian" in my KJV and found the only the following instances of the word "Christian."
Acts 11: 26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Acts 26: 28Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
1 Pet. 4: 16Based on the Bible, it seems that the most that we can say about the term "Christian" isYet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
Does anyone want to add to the Bible's "definition" of Christian here? It seems that some people on this board want to use a different definition of Christian.
- a Christian is a disciple of Christ
- a Christian is something that other people call you
- a Christian is something one might be persuaded to become by believing Paul's story
- a Christian is someone who suffers or acts in a certain way
I didn't see anything in the Bible that talked about "true Christianity", so I wasn't sure how to define it purely from the Bible.
Input would be appreciated...
BTW, I checked the NASB and found only these three instances of the word Christian:
Acts 11:26and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 26:28Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
1 Peter 4:16but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.
sinned85I would say that a "true Christian" is not necessarily one that bears His name nor even one that goes to church, it does not matter what the denominational association. Church membership nor verbal association to Jesus does not make one a Christian. Example Matt 7:21-23
"ian" is the extension to a name that distinguishes "one that is of or belongs to; or characteristic of"
A Christian is one that is placed into the Spiritual Body of Christ through the new birth of God.s Spirit and has the mind of Christ is a true Christian. The mind of Christ is the Spirit of God dwelling in the true believer (1 Cor.2:6-16)that enables him/her to manifest the character of Chirst, eventhough we fall short sometimes.
- Ephesians- one that belonged to the church in Ephesus
- Corinthians- one that belonged to the church in Corinth
- Colossians- one that belonged to the church in Colosse
- Christian- one that belongs to the body of Christ
It does not take a whole lot of study of God.s Word and just a little illumination of His Spirit to see that they are many that profess His name, and are even doing good things, yet they know not the reason Saviour.
In summation- what does it mean to be a "true Christian" Christ in us the hope of glory.
Paul McNabb
sinned85I agree in part.I would say that a "true Christian" is not necessarily one that bears His name nor even one that goes to church, it does not matter what the denominational association. Church membership nor verbal association to Jesus does not make one a Christian.
Clearly one can claim to be a Christian, hold membership in some church that is accepted as being Christian, and structure one's life along Christian patterns, and still be a hypocrite.
That is, one would be a Christian, but somehow be lacking in sincerity in a way that would seem to make it reasonable to be called a "pseudo-Christian" or a "false Christian." We seem to need some kind of adjective to separate those we feel simply meet the "letter of the law" in terms of being a Christian and those who meet the "spirit of the law".
You seem to be saying that a "true Christian" should somehow be in communion (indwelling) with Christ. I would accept that definition of "true Christian." Of course, someone else could come up with his own definition of "true Christian" that would differ.
If our definition is acceptable, then we cannot deny anyone who claims to be a true Christian who claims also to be in communion (indwelling) with Christ.
I suppose we could look at such an one's actions and decide that they are so far off base that the person couldn't really be a Christian. But to do so then changes the definition of "true Christian" to someone who is in communion with Christ and who meets some standard of morality or behavior.
The same is true with belief. If we require certain beliefs in order to be a "true Christian", then we have set up a new definition.
But all of these approaches are just our personal way of judging "true Christians" from "false Christians", something that is extrabiblical.
sinned85
Paul McNabbWith all of your typing you missed the most valid evidence Paul- you did not address a man must be born again.But all of these approaches are just our personal way of judging "true Christians" from "false Christians", something that is extrabiblical.
Paul McNabbTo this point you are correct, but one must remember "a man's claim does not make a Christian"Clearly one can claim to be a Christian, hold membership in some church that is accepted as being Christian, and structure one's life along Christian patterns, and still be a hypocrite
Paul McNabbA man's sincerity or lack thereof does not discount or validate that he/she is a Christian. We all must admit that there are times we have all sincerly been wrong.That is, one would be a Christian, but somehow be lacking in sincerity in a way that would seem to make it reasonable to be called a "pseudo-Christian" or a "false Christian
Paul McNabbWe must not focus our attention on what "someone else would think" What does the scripture say... sometimes the beliver does not ejoy sweet communion with his/her Lord... our sin doeth seperate us (our fellowship with Him), but we still may be a "true Christian".You seem to be saying that a "true Christian" should somehow be in communion (indwelling) with Christ. I would accept that definition of "true Christian." Of course, someone else could come up with his own definition of "true Christian" that would differ.
Paul McNabbIt is not OUR definition that matters Paul.If our definition is acceptable, then we cannot deny anyone who claims to be a true Christian who claims also to be in communion (indwelling) with Christ
John 3:3I suppose we could look at such an one's actions and decide that they are so far off base that the person couldn't really be a Christian. But to do so then changes the definition of "true Christian" to someone who is in communion with Christ and who meets some standard of morality or behavior. Not at all. Who would have ever thought that David was a man after God's own heart?"Except a man be born again!"
Paul McNabbSearch the scriptures for in them is eternal life and they reveal the Christ. He takes our individual beliefs, new defnitions and personal opinions and brings them to naught.The same is true with belief. If we require certain beliefs in order to be a "true Christian", then we have set up a new definition.
Paul McNabbI agree that a "true Christian" must be born again. The Bible says that if a man isn't born again, he can't see the kingdom of God.
Unfortunately, it doesn't say anything about this defining what a Christian is.
But since no one except God can look into another person's soul, there is no way for anyone to know whether someone has been born again. So if we define "true Christian" as someone who has been born again despite what he does, we must accept anyone's self-designation as being accurate.
So then a "true Christian" will be someone who says he is a "true Christian" (by claiming he has been born again).
sinned85
Paul McNabbThis is all WE can do, but no one fools God.But since no one except God can look into another person's soul, there is no way for anyone to know whether someone has been born again. So if we define "true Christian" as someone who has been born again despite what he does, we must accept anyone's self-designation as being accurate.
2 Timothy 2:19The defining eveidence is the work of God's Holy Spirit in the life of an individual- fruit of the Spirit, against such is no law.Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His. And let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
RethinkerThe burden is on you to look at your own life, not others'. You are also right that no man can truly judge another man's heart. However, when people's hearts are transparent, or steeped in blatant darkness, then you're d.... straight that we can judge them. Hitler has 0% possibility that he was really a Christian, the BTK killer has 0% possibility of being truly a Christian while he was president of his local Lutheran Church and stalking people. We can see hypocracy and sinfulness in other people sometimes. As long as we aren't similarly stepped in sin, I think its in fact very biblical and very Christian to condemn their sin and distance ourselves from any claim said people might make to be "saved".
Paul McNabbI think there is a slight misunderstanding about what I believe and what I'm saying.
I believe that there is such a thing as a "true Christian." That term isn't defined in the Bible anywhere, neither is the term "Christian" defined in the Bible. Since the English word "Christian" is properly applied to a wide range of people, some of who appear to be unkind and hypocritical, it is many, many centuries too late to try to redefine the word "Christian" into something that we (or you) want it to mean.
My belief is that a "true Christian" is a person who has accepted Jesus of Nazareth as his Lord and who is trying to conform to Jesus' teachings.
Naturally, people are weak and sin-prone, so I don't expect a "true Christian" to be perfect.
I also recognize that since I can't see a person's heart, I may not be able to accurately determine if the person is sincere and repentent. Only God knows who is a "true Christian". Of course, some actions are so evil and "unChristian" that it is difficult to imagine that the perpetrator could be a "true Christian".
For example, I have a difficult time imagining that serial killers John Wayne Gacey and Jeffrey Dahmer (also cannibal) could be true Christians. Of course I don't know what was going on in their heads and hearts, but their actions were so evil and extended over so long a time that I, as a finite mortal, can only judge them to be completely out of touch with God.
Paul McNabb
RethinkerI agree completely.We can see hypocracy and sinfulness in other people sometimes. As long as we aren't similarly stepped in sin, I think its in fact very biblical and very Christian to condemn their sin and distance ourselves from any claim said people might make to be "saved".
The reason I brought this up came from the postings of the "Roman gang" who recently posted a slew of comments about non-Christians. They, like so many others, seemed to have a definition of "Christian" that went beyond accepting Jesus, being indwelt by the Spirit, and demonstrating the fruits of the Spirit.
I found it interesting that they had in their heads a list of some sort of things one must believe to be called "Christian". There list seemed to exclude about 90% of all the Christians who have ever claimed that title, including the New Testament church and the early post-apostolic church.