How does one tell if a particular sect is Christian?

[McCulloch]

How does one tell if a particular sect is Christian?

I have been taken to task for asking Is Roman Catholicism a part of Christianity? without providing any criteria for evaluation.

So, rather than asking for each separate group is X part of Christianity where x could be

• Catholicism
• Mormonism
• Liberal Christianity
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• Unitarians
• Anglicans
• Seventh-Day Adventists
• church of Christ (and other restorationist groups)
• various cults and extreme groups
• Calvinists
• Arians
• Bob's Corner Church

Let's ask, what criteria do we use to determine if a group is part of Christianity?

[Abiele777]

How does one tell if a particular sect is Christian?

I have been taken to task for asking Is Roman Catholicism a part of Christianity? without providing any criteria for evaluation.

So, rather than asking for each separate group is X part of Christianity where x could be

• Catholicism
• Mormonism
• Liberal Christianity
• Jehovah's Witnesses
• Unitarians
• Anglicans
• Seventh-Day Adventists
• church of Christ (and other restorationist groups)
• various cults and extreme groups
• Calvinists
• Arians
• Bob's Corner Church

Let's ask, what criteria do we use to determine if a group is part of Christianity?

Groups are never Christian, only individual people can be Christian. Every denomination that calls themselves 'Christian' will more likely consist of Christians and those who call or think of themselves as Christian, but who are not. Christianity is not inherited.

To become a Christian, one must believe in their heart and mind that Yeshua (Joshua, Jesus) is the Messiah predicted in the Jewish (Old) Testament that has come to fulfill the 7 appointments written therein, that He is the only begotten Son of God the Father, that He kept the Mosaic Law in its entirety on our behalf, that His body and physical death bore the punishment that we each deserve for the sins we commit, that his blood shed on the cross washes away (or more exactly, covers from God the Father's eyes) our sins, that He rose to life after His death, and that He in like manner will raise up after their death all who believe and put their trusts in Him and His finished work, to an extroadinary peaceful and joyous eternal life. Through our faith in Yeshua we each receive the Holy Spirit (God in me), and thus we renew our daily fellowship with God that Adam lost for us in the Garden of Eden. It is through this fellowship that God works us to transform our inner nature that we may continually do the good that God created us to do. We no longer live by laws written on stone, but by faith in God and the work He is doing in us, that we may truly love one another, and our Creator.

[McCulloch]

Groups are never Christian, only individual people can be Christian. Every denomination that calls themselves 'Christian' will more likely consist of Christians and those who call or think of themselves as Christian, but who are not. Christianity is not inherited.

Good point. Christians are told to gather themselves in groups (churches, congregations, ekklesia). So look at the question as how does one tell if a group that claims to be a group of Christians is a group of Christians.

[Confused]

Groups are never Christian, only individual people can be Christian. Every denomination that calls themselves 'Christian' will more likely consist of Christians and those who call or think of themselves as Christian, but who are not. Christianity is not inherited.

Good point. Christians are told to gather themselves in groups (churches, congregations, ekklesia). So look at the question as how does one tell if a group that claims to be a group of Christians is a group of Christians.

Were we not looking at the group to begin with. I mean, I agree in the context of only an individual can call themselves a Christian. But when a group of individuals get together they form a denomination that calls themselves Christians (as a whole). So have we not been asking how to tell if a particular sect is Christian in regards to the sect as a whole reflecting themselves as a single entity calling itself Christian?

[juliod]

Groups are never Christian, only individual people can be Christian.

It's not really my place, and not really relevant to the current topic, but I want to attack this idea that christianity is a personal rather then group religion. This is not the way it was originally concieved or practiced.

For one thing, the main christian service originally was the agape, or collective meal. And the main rite of baptism was inherently a group activity with at least three people: the baptist, the victim, and the witness. The idea of baptising oneself is nonsensical given that even Jesus Christ was baptised by another. One must "confess Jesus" publically, to be a christian.

In any case, baptism was a symbolic act intended to be witnessed and to indicate joining of the person to the group. Christianity was very much a matter of joining. Of being a member of a group: the saved, of the body of Christ, or brothers, or the kingdom of god, etc.

Obviously it is possible for a christian to be alone, but the idea of a personal devotion is counter to all the early evidence, and is probably a medieval invention for different social needs (like monasticism).

Edited to add:

Oh yeah, and one of the earliest christian documents, the Didache, tells us how to identify genuine christian clerics.

DanZ

[micatala]

Oh yeah, and one of the earliest christian documents, the Didache, tells us how to identify genuine christian clerics.

And what does the Didache tell us?

[Goat]

Oh yeah, and one of the earliest christian documents, the Didache, tells us how to identify genuine christian clerics.

And what does the Didache tell us?

From Chapter 4

Therefore, the one who comes and teaches you all of these things which have been previously spoken, accept him. But if he, the teacher, should turn to teach another teaching, so as to release this one, do not listen to him. But if he teaches to promote what is right and knowledge of the Lord, accept him as you would the Lord.

Now about the envoys and prophets, do just as according to the tenet of the good message. Now each envoy who comes to you, accept as you would the Lord. But he will not remain for one day. Now if there is need, also the next day. But if he remains for three, he is a false prophet.

Now when the envoy departs, he should take nothing except bread until he lodges.
But if he should ask for money, he is a false prophet.

And every prophet who speaks with the spirit, you will not test or judge, for every sin will be forgiven. But not everyone who speaks with the spirit is a prophet: but if he has the conduct of the Lord. Therefore, from their conduct, the false prophet and the prophet will be made known. And no prophet with the spirit who orders a meal eats from it, unless indeed he is a false prophet. Now every prophet who teaches the truth, if he does not do as he teaches, is a false prophet. But every prophet who has been proved, who is true, who does things for the kosmic secrets of the assembly but who does not teach to do as he does, will not be judged among you. For the ancient prophets did it this way also. But whoever says with the spirit, "Give me money (or something else)," you will not listen to him. But if he says to give on behalf of others who are in need, no one should judge him.

Damn, it says a lot of those televangalists are false.

it also says in chapter 7

Now hand pick for yourselves overseers and servants worthy of the Lord: men who are meek, not lovers of money, true and proved. For they are giving religious service to you also, as the prophets and teachers are giving religious service.

[Confused]

Oh yeah, and one of the earliest christian documents, the Didache, tells us how to identify genuine christian clerics.

And what does the Didache tell us?

From Chapter 4

Therefore, the one who comes and teaches you all of these things which have been previously spoken, accept him. But if he, the teacher, should turn to teach another teaching, so as to release this one, do not listen to him. But if he teaches to promote what is right and knowledge of the Lord, accept him as you would the Lord.

Now about the envoys and prophets, do just as according to the tenet of the good message. Now each envoy who comes to you, accept as you would the Lord. But he will not remain for one day. Now if there is need, also the next day. But if he remains for three, he is a false prophet.

Now when the envoy departs, he should take nothing except bread until he lodges.
But if he should ask for money, he is a false prophet.

And every prophet who speaks with the spirit, you will not test or judge, for every sin will be forgiven. But not everyone who speaks with the spirit is a prophet: but if he has the conduct of the Lord. Therefore, from their conduct, the false prophet and the prophet will be made known. And no prophet with the spirit who orders a meal eats from it, unless indeed he is a false prophet. Now every prophet who teaches the truth, if he does not do as he teaches, is a false prophet. But every prophet who has been proved, who is true, who does things for the kosmic secrets of the assembly but who does not teach to do as he does, will not be judged among you. For the ancient prophets did it this way also. But whoever says with the spirit, "Give me money (or something else)," you will not listen to him. But if he says to give on behalf of others who are in need, no one should judge him.

Damn, it says a lot of those televangalists are false.

it also says in chapter 7

Now hand pick for yourselves overseers and servants worthy of the Lord: men who are meek, not lovers of money, true and proved. For they are giving religious service to you also, as the prophets and teachers are giving religious service.

So let me get this straight, if you ask for money, you are false. But if you ask for money for they starving children, you are not. Does it matter how much of it actually goes to the starving children as opposed "adminstrative" costs? At church, the pastors never ask for donations on behalf of themselves, but instead, on behalf of the church. The televangilists, hmmmm, tough, but wouldn't their asking for donations to support their "church" be similar to that of the pastor?

[Goat]

<snip for topic shortness >

So let me get this straight, if you ask for money, you are false. But if you ask for money for they starving children, you are not. Does it matter how much of it actually goes to the starving children as opposed "adminstrative" costs? At church, the pastors never ask for donations on behalf of themselves, but instead, on behalf of the church. The televangilists, hmmmm, tough, but wouldn't their asking for donations to support their "church" be similar to that of the pastor?

Society was much different back then than now. I suspect that if a preacher was asking for money for personal gain, that made him false.

Let's look at the televangalist. Many of them live in luxury. A few of them, when they are 'preaching', ti is a non-stop asking for tithes. Forgive me, but if you have someone continually asking for money 'for the poor', yet lives in a multi-million dollar house, that is a con game. That person isn't out there to help the poor, they are out there to help themselves. There have been more than one televanglist who made claims on the good deeds they did that was found to be less than honest about where the money donated went.

In the days that the Diache was written, the early Christians didn't have established churches. If you look at the SPIRIT which is given, it is warning against those who preach to others for their own financial benefit, rather than for true concern about the congregents.

There are a lot of that type of false minister out there today. I have seen locally a minister to very poor people driving around in a late model expensive car, and buy lobster and steak with the church check book. I don't know if anything was
underhanded, but I know their church was smack in the poorest section of town.
Their car was a $40,000 car, and the latest model for that year.

[juliod]

So let me get this straight, if you ask for money, you are false. But if you ask for money for they starving children, you are not.

I don't think that is what the Didache is saying. I think what it means is:

If someone says "Give me money"; he is false.

If someone says "Give me money so I can help the poor"; he is false.

But if someone says "Give money to the poor"; he might be genuine. (Or might not, depending on his other views.)

Is it any wonder that the church got rid of the Didache? Yeah, I'm looking at you Benedict XVI...

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

So let me get this straight, if you ask for money, you are false. But if you ask for money for they starving children, you are not.

I don't think that is what the Didache is saying. I think what it means is:

If someone says "Give me money"; he is false.

If someone says "Give me money so I can help the poor"; he is false.

But if someone says "Give money to the poor"; he might be genuine. (Or might not, depending on his other views.)

Is it any wonder that the church got rid of the Didache? Yeah, I'm looking at you Benedict XVI...

DanZ

It makes you wonder why it didn't make it in the cannon. I thought it was because it was so Jewish except for later Christian additions.