Perry wrote: > ... if you want to open up the definition to include > everyone who may use the name of Christ in the > name of their Church, or may claim to believe in > Him but does not, and says they follow Him, but > do not, or claims that some strange alien jesus > from Kolob is the same one as the is in the Bible, > then you pretty much have lost the essence of what > a Christian is, and anyone can then claim to be a > Christian for any reason. At that point, the term > becomes totally meaningless because you lose all > distinction of what the word means. Under > your definition, I understand why you may consider > Mormons to be Christians. Under your definition > my dog may be a Christian.
LOL. Well, maybe YOUR dog might be a Christian, but not just any dog. :-) The term "Christian" as I have defined it does not lose all meaning. Only those who profess an attempt to follow Christ would be included. This would exclude Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. who do not see that Jesus Christ holds such a prominent role in our lives. I realize that my definition tends to follow a more academic one, whereas yours is one that is used more of one within the religion of Christianity. Following is a dictionary definition: Christian Chris�tian noun (plural Chris�tians) 1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody who believes that Jesus Christ was sent to the world by God to save humanity, and who tries to follow his teachings and example Microsoft� Encarta� Reference Library 2005. � 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Now, it may be that you might like the first part, and you might even add the word "TRUE" and say that a Christian would be a TRUE believer in Jesus Christ as savior. I tend to favor the latter half, especially as it says, "who TRIES to follow his teachings." One reason I like the broader definition is because we have other terms to talk about TRUE believers. We can talk about being born again, about being saved, about receiving the Holy Spirit, etc. Futhermore, I have found that a Christian who is not born again is easier to talk with if I do not constantly deny what he affirms to be true, that is, that he is NOT a Christian. It is a better foundation for me to acknowledge that he is a Christian, but that being a Christian does not save him. Considering that churches often confuse the salvation and being a Christian issue by their introduction of church membership, I truly think it is a better way of discussing these issues. In other words, adopting a more popular definition rather than an esoteric definition facilitates communication. Mormons, like Roman Catholics, see the institution of their church as a saving institution. I feel on much better ground acknowledging their Christian foundation but denying that their religious institution has anything to do with salvation. I suppose you would prefer to denounce their Christian foundation, but I see that as creating a stall in the communication process. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
