From: smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: And what *is* a Christian?
Date: 18 Aug 92 06:14:02 GMT
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA

mkkuhner@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) writes:

>In article <Aug.14.05.12.20.1992.607@athos.rutgers.edu> smayo@wang.com (Scott Mayo) writes:
---
>>I have always believed that a Christian is a person who has taken Jesus as
>>his personal saviour. 
---

>I will note, Scott, that in private debate you have not been willing to
>stick with this definition, but have invariably added "and confesses
>that there is no other means to salvation" (or sentiments to that effect)
>to it.  This makes a large difference in which individuals are excluded.

In *private* debate, Mary, I have put forth my own understanding of
Christianity. I think it correct, of course, or it wouldn't be my belief.
However, I usually confine such comments to private discussion. In public
discussion, with a large group of people who are not Christian (ie, alt.pagan)
I have not come in, spouting flames. I have stuck to correcting only the
rare, really offbase attacks on Christianity made by a few folk in a.p. One
of those attacks was that even the very general definition of a Christian,
outlined above, was unacceptable. I posted the same, very general definition,
here to see if it got public support. People can argue whether the definition
should be even tighter (I'd give support to a tighter definition in
individual discussion), but that doesn't alter the question of whether
the s.r.christian population, those calling themselves Christian, all go for
the definition I did post. If so, I think the claim of one or two folk in
alt.pagan, that the current proposed definition is too narrow, has little
justification. The fact that I would have it narrower still isn't germaine
to the question of 'what all Christians think.' It might be germaine to
a different, and less useful issue, 'What I think all Christians should think.'

I also left 'and Lord' out of the defintion I posted, though I think it
essential. Again, I was giving what I consider to be a pretty wide
definition. The charge in alt.pagan, that it was too narrow, is what I
am looking at.

BTW, I retract the word 'personal' in my definition; I've been told that it
has become a buzzword and a stumbling block between some Protestants and
some Catholics. It is generally conceeded that the additional qualification
is not needed; I can hardly imagine an Impersonal Saviour in this context.

Mary does offer up the possibility of a separate thread, and perhaps, for
my own curiosity, s.r.christian might give it a go. I believe that Jesus
is not only the way of salvation, but the *only* way to salvation. It is
him or nobody, in terms of presenting us clean and forgiven before God.
That is what I believe and *I* think it should be universal Christian
belief. (I think I can see Our Fearless Moderator rolling his eyes, this
is probably an invitation to a flamefest between conservatives and
liberals.)

I won't flame anyone, publically, who says that this belief is not a
necessary part of the Christian faith. (That is what *private* mailboxes
are for, of course :-). But those of you who know the doctrines of your chosen
denominations, does your church agree? Do you yourself? If we mostly
agree that "a Christian is a person who has taken Jesus as his saviour"
can we also tack on "and there is no other saviour" here, and keep most
of the Christians in agreement? Post the opinion you live by - let's tally
the opinions. NO FLAME FESTS, PLEASE. This may be an emotional
topic, and I'd like to see the love of Jesus rule it. If you are not a
Christian, and you answer, please mention that you are not a Christian;
my own goal is to see what consensus exists among the Christians here, but
I'm curious about everyone.

Peace...
--
He is a slave to a sign who uses or worships a significant thing without
knowing what it signifies.			-Augustine
smayo@wang.com

[I suspect most Christians would agree that Christ is the only savior
-- even fairly liberal Christians.  There are people who believe that
non-Christians can be saved, but the most common explanations say that
they are still saved by Christ.  If you don't require uniqueness, then
you may end up saying that Baha'i and possibly even Hindus and Moslems
are Christian.  I think this is an absurd outcome.

I'd like to separate salvation from the definition of Christian.  Only
God can judge a person.  There are probably people who appear to us to
be Christians who will not be saved and those who do not that will be.
But if it is to point to something reasonably specific, and not just a
vague admiration for the golden rule, I think the term Christian ought
not to be applied to Baha'i, etc.

--clh]
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern