I crafted my definition of Christian as this:
"Any religion in which Jesus Christ is placed at the centre of worship/devotion and where the Bible is the highest authority."
Merriam Webster's dictionary defines "Christian" as:
"one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"
which is similar to my definition but not quite the same.
Considering my definition, Muslims and Mormons are not Christians. Considering Merriam Webster's definition, Muslims and Mormons could be Christians, because they do recognize that Jesus was important in some way (the Muslims believe he was the last prophet before Muhammad, and the Mormons do "believe" in the Bible, but it is just not their highest authority).
I believe my definition most closely resembles what Christian should stand for, and if something of a Christian's denomination does not fit in line with the Bible, it should be rejected. I don't believe Muslims are Christians, because their focus is mainly on Muhammad and Allah and the Quran; likewise, I don't believe Mormons are Christians, either, because they believe in Joseph Smith and use the Book of Mormon as their highest authority. To the extreme, my definition could also include Catholicism, because Mary is at the centre of their devotion, and not Jesus. I am sure there are many more that could fit under this definition, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any.
What do you think? Does my definition make sense?
Your definition makes perfect sense, yes :) I could imagine that almost everyone in the world would agree to it.
ReplyDeleteHowever:
-> 'in which Jesus Christ is placed at the centre of worship/devotion' -> you can worship Christ and still not follow Him. -> Proof:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
And
"This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me."
Therefore I prefer Christ's direct orders to your definition. They are much more unambiguous and rely more on acts:
"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
That last one I find to be the best definition of a Christian. It doesn't leave room for hypocrisy, because by deeds you prove your love and not by words or beliefs, so Webster's is wrong.
Consider the man in Luke 9, 50:
"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."
That man maybe only once heard Jesus when He said "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." He had very little knowledge compared to today's standards and wouldn't even know what a bible is, but the difference is that he went and did after what he heard. And amazingly that's enough for Jesus to consider him one of His, without maybe ever seeing him, and without making him sign a nice paper with a nicely crafted definition of the church's beliefs and lots of blablabla. The disciples, just like you, tried to somehow narrow down or more closely define the group of what a true Christian is, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't do that, ("But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."), but it usually leads to 'you have to do and believe exactly like this and this, otherwise you're not a Christian/one of ours', as was the case here with the disciples. But it's God who ultimately searches the hearts and will be the final judge. So I'm glad that we don't have to spend time constructing the best definitions. Leave that to the denomination leaders, theologists, scribes and other hypocrites, they're good at that. What counts is if it makes a difference in your life.
Muslims are obviously not Christians. Christians follow the teaching of Christ, Muslims the teachings of Muhammad and Buddhists the teachings of Buddha. That's purely definitional. If Muhammad was Christ, and his teachings the same as Jesus' teachings, then it would be true, but that is not the case. That is just Ecumenism that wants to make everyone everything, and throw everyone into the same soup, as long as they somehow believe in someone, or something.
Yes, I suppose. I guess I wrote my definition more as a way to separate different religions than to separate true believers from "false" believers.
Delete