Considering the whole umbrella of Christendom including Eastern Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, Abyssinian, has there been any acceptance of people as true "Christian" who refuse to believe in Creation by a God? Can a person, in any of these streams of Christianity, deny the part of the Creeds mentioning Creation, and still be considered legitimate members of the Christian Church? Still be called Christian? Is ***Creation of the universe by a God*** considered an *essential belief*, or a non-essential? This question totally ignores "how" a Creation was carried out; it sets aside the discussion of the "manner or method" of said Creation! Or is this a ***universal prerequisite"*** (along with perhaps other beliefs or doctrines)? ***Verses to consider to help in answering this***: >Thus saith God the LORD, He who created the heavens and stretched them out; He who spread forth the earth, and that which comes out of it; He who gives breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them who walk therein. (Isaiah 42:5) >Giving thanks to the Father...Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the Kingdom of His dear Son...For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible...all things were created by Him, and for Him. (Colossians 1:12-16)

When Jesus was born, he was a Jew. So he stayed this his whole life. Only later in life, he spoke on behalf of his Father. His Father, the almighty JHWH (another name instead of the name God), was Jewish too. And so was the holy Mother Maria. Obviously, he couldn't be a Christian yet, and *if* he was, wouldn't that mean he was involved in a personality cult in which he was his own admirer? So, during his life did he consider himself a Jew or a Christian? **How did others consider him?** I'm *not* asking if he belonged to a religion, like Judaism, or Islam, or Christianity, or even Hinduism. I'm asking if he was born as a Jew. As can be expected if your father and mother are both Jewish. Or is this a modern notion? **I'm asking if he was considered a Christ (Messiah) *already* in his time**. Note: I don't see why this is a duplicate, I don't ask if He was a time traveler! I ask if **others** (*but not Himself*) **consider Him Jewish**.

Many Christians emphasize the importance of having an actual *relationship with God/Jesus* as opposed to merely being *religious*. The previously asked question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/69228/50422 attests very well to this fact. But what about when people from other religions claim to have similar personal relationship experiences with their deities? For example, a Muslim claiming to have a personal relationship with Allah, a Hindu claiming to have a personal relationship with Brahman, a Hare Krishna claiming to have a personal relationship with Lord Krishna, a New Ager claiming to have a personal relationship with the Universe, their spirit guides, their higher self, etc. Qualitatively speaking, what sets the Christian *relationship with God* apart from *relationship* experiences that people claim to have in other religions? What makes the Christian *relationship with God* special and unique? Are people in other religions just having counterfeit, deceitful experiences? ____ Related: - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/84362/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86124/50422

If a Christian considers that the [burden of proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) has not been adequately met by any known theological doctrines about God's nature, including mainstream ones such as Trinitarianism, Binitarianism, Unitarianism and Modalism, and in the absence of sufficient evidence they decide to withhold judgement and declare themselves to lack a definite position, would any official label apply to them? Candidate labels I have in mind at the moment include *"neutral"*, *"undecided"*, *"uncertain"*, *"still researching"*, *"skeptical but open-minded"*, and even *"agnostic with respect to God's nature"*, but I'm curious to know if there is anything close to an "official" label out there. _______ #### Appendix: examples of questions evidencing the existing debate - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/49022/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/18043/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/2622/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/33246/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62297/50422 - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/40799/50422

There are a number of Christians (groups that believe in Christ and name themselves "Christian") who don't believe in the Trinity. Many of these are broadly considered Christians. Muslims are non-Trinitarians, but they believe in Jesus and claim that they follow his teachings. Why won't Muslims be considered Muslims and Christians at the same time in the sight of God?

I came across a blog author [Matthew Bryan](https://conciliarpost.com/author/matthew-bryan/) who self-identify as a "post-Protestant", a term that I encountered for the first time. When I Googled what "post-Protestant" means, I came across [this entry](https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Post-Protestant) from *religion.wikia.org*: > Post-Protestantism is the movement in 20th century and 21st Christianity to even further remove Christian faith from the influence and traditions of the Roman Catholic church and "her sister churches" (traditional, mainline, liturgical Protestant denominations dating back mostly to the 1600s and 1700s). > > Many of these "post-Protestant" churches refer to themselves simply as "Christian", or nondenominational, but also commonly use the terms "Church of", followed by such words as "God", "Christ", "Jesus", "The Bible", etc. The trend was the natural outgrowth of the evangelical and fundamentalist movements of the earlier 20th century (1900s), and partly includes, but is not limited to, Restorationists and the Community Church movement, who refer to themselves as being post-Protestant and postdenominational. > > These leaders of these often promote points of view which are anti-intellectual, or at least ahistorical, to the point that they totally deny or are even oblivious to the history of Christian denominations, and the meaning of the word Protestant (which essentially, is any Christian who is not a Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox Christian). This often adds to the confusion and ignorance of people who mistakenly believe that only churches with the words "Christian", "Christ", or "Jesus" in the name are Christian, and that Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. are something else. I'm looking for a good article from either a religious studies scholar or a Christian / church that self-identify as "post-Protestant" that can do at least a few of the following: - explain why they don't simply use the term "non-denominational" or "evangelical" - describe specific hermeneutical principles that they use to interpret Bible, which distinguish them from evangelicals - describe their understanding of *sola scriptura* since they seem to reject mainstream Protestant (and even some evangelical!) use of the early church councils to narrow down certain interpretation of the Bible (for example, to reject non-Trinitarian interpretation) - describe several theological positions that unite them as a group (for example, their view of the Lord's supper, baptism, and gifts of the Holy Spirit) - speak for others who identify as "post-Protestant"

Every time I revisit questions about God's nature on Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange I can't help but come out with more doubts than convictions. For example, take a look at the following questions: - [Is Paul suggesting in Eph. 4:6 that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/70188/38524) - [Is 2 Corinthians 13:11-14 an assertion that God is three equal Persons?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55344/38524) - [“Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” - why did the Jews want to throw stones at Jesus for saying this?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55803/38524) - [What does it mean to be "equal with God" in John 5:18?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/60302/38524) - [What does "equality with God" mean, and how can it be "exploited"? Philippians 2:6](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55612/38524) - [What can we learn about the relationship between "God" and "the Spirit of God" ontologically from 1 Corinthians 2:6-16?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55640/38524) - [Is the Son second in authority under God the Father? 1 Corinthians 15:24-28](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/55872/38524) When questions about Christology, Pneumatology and the nature of God in general can cause so much debate and doctrinal division among Christians, with arguments both for and against each conceivable position, it is very hard for me to accept the idea that one has to embrace a particular doctrinal position about God's nature **as an essential condition for salvation**, as opposed to simply withholding judgement. Personally, I see no other way to hold a strong conviction about the nature of God than God Himself revealing these details about Himself in a crystal clear manner to the individual, through a special revelation. **Question**: Are there any Christian groups or denominations that do not see having a definite doctrinal position on God's nature as essential for salvation, even if they, personally, have one? Or in more colloquial terms, are there any Christian groups or denominations that either lack a definite doctrinal position on God's nature OR believe in one but say *"we believe that God's nature is best described by X, but if you are not sure or have doubts about X, that's okay, you can still be saved"* ? ___ Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86199/50422

Many Christians who attend church, when confronted by inquirers outside the church, who wonder why they believe in Christianity, simply respond by saying, *I just accept it by faith*. Or they might say, *It was good enough for my grandpa, so it's good enough for me.* But in an age of science and technology, which places a premium on "facts, evidence, proofs, etc., those responses seem hollow--even irrational, or at least unintellectual. Quite inadequate to the modern mind enmeshed in collegiate surroundings. The average church-goer seems oblivious to the biblical aspect of *apologetics*. Nor do they understand the exhortation of Saint Peter: >Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer (Gk. apologian) for the reason (Gk. logos) of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. (1 Peter 3:15) This leaves the Christian, especially the Christian student, in the lurch, susceptible to attacks of doubt by professors, as well as peer pressure from culture. So should pastors and teachers equip their congregations with occasional sermons on the *evidences, infallible proofs (Acts 1:3), metaphysical proofs (Romans 1, Acts 17:18-34), reasons (1 Peter 3:15), supernatural conclusions (John 5:36 miracles), eye-witness testimony (1 John 1:1-3):* things which would provide a "reasonable response" to skeptics who doubt these revolutionary facts"? Or is "faith in faith" without proofs, or "blind faith" as some would call it (uninformed faith, that is), sufficient for Christian believers? Should this be the biblical approach for preparing congregates to survive in modern society? What is the correct definition of "faith"? What is the best definition that would be adequate for the modern mind, and cause him to consider Christ as God?

[Christian atheism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism) is the practice of following the teaching of the Christian bible, or Jesus, without believing in the existance of God or that Jesus is the son of God. Do Christian atheists have denominations, and if so, what are those denominations? I will accept *either* actual denominations of Christian atheists, or denominations of Christians who believe in God but who nevertheless have members who identify as Christian atheists, however, I am primarily interested in the former.

Recently, I have noticed a trend here of people fighting to deny self-identifying Christians who deny parts of the Nicene creed the label Christian. I am of course talking about LDS and I guess the part that is denied is consubstantiality(??). Anyway, this question is not about whether or not LDS are Christians, it's just the context of the question. Christian seems to me like a label that should be applied to those professing to follow Jesus Christ, independent of other doctrinal differences!? I found this question which deals with whether Catholics are Christians according to evangelicals , but I am not completely happy with the answers because they revolve around being born again, which is personal, as opposed to doctrinal points which seem to be the issue when you deny whole groups the label. Is there any theological significance attached to the label that causes this reluctance to grant the label Christian (according to evangelicals)? Or are there non-theological reasons?

Lately I've been trying to figure out whether or not Constantine is a Nicene Christian. He was baptised by Eusebius who was of course an Arian. And since he was very close to Eusebius, he was influenced by Arian views (exiling Saint Athanasius). Some sources I have looked at say that he favored Arianism instead of the Orthodox christian view. Others say that he also exiled Eusebius because he continued to teach Arianism. Was Constantine an Orthodox/Nicene Christian believing Christ was in fact God?

Referring to Acts 11:26 : Did the people (unbelievers) of Antioch call the "Believers" Christian, or did the Believers start calling themselves Christian first in Antioch? Here is what I mean: Acts 11:26 The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.” I have this feeling in the tone of these two verses that the word "Christian" was more of a mockery since it came from unbelievers, like we have "goody-two-shoes", especially the way Agrippa said it to Paul, I could almost hear the rest of Agrippa's audience laughing at this!? And 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter." sort of supports my argument!? It seems that this mock-name Christian was getting around, and the disciples were resenting it, so 1 Peter 4:16 tells them not to be ashamed (for they mocked our Lord also) but that they should glorify God in this matter!? Your thoughts fellow Believers?

>If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. There is arguably little difference between the lifestyle of the Stoic and the lifestyle of the Christian. Both eschew effeminacy in pursuit of virtue. Both find it best for man to worry about things he can control and to not worry about the things he cannot (Epictetus wrote of this. Christians call this "trusting the plan"; there is also the Christian serenity prayer which expresses this). Both believe in the cardinal virtues of Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance (Christians certainly ought to believe these, and I'd bet most Stoics do believe them as well). I would argue that their way of life is in essence, the same. The question is this: if a Christian and a Stoic both **live the same exact life**, and the **only** difference in their essence is that the Christian believes in the gospel, then why does the Christian go to heaven while the unbelieving Stoic does not? More generally, the question is about the "mechanics" of Christian salvation: when one comes to believe in Christ (esp. when converting from stoicism) what is it that *actually* changes in the person's essence/soul/existence that makes him fit for the Kingdom of God? In other words, what is it about the intellectual position of being Christian that impacts the *state* of someone's soul?

If a Christian "converts" to Judaism or Islam (or any of the Abrahamic religions), is he still considered saved as a Christian? What if he/she converted from Trinitarian to Unitarian? This is a general Christian question, so I am requesting an overview of Christian positions on such conversions.

If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians? Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them. So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian?

Every now and then I hear non-Catholic Christians, usually Evangelicals, say things along the lines of “Catholics are not Christians” or “the Catholic Church does not teach the true Gospel.” Unless I am mistaken, Catholicism and various Orthodox Churches were virtually the only Christian “denominations” that existed before the Protestant Reformation, aside from a heretical sect here and there (e.g., the Cathars). So for those who think the Catholic Church has abandoned the true faith or Gospel, do they identify anyone from the time period of the fourth century A.D. until the Protestant Reformation who had retained the true Gospel?

Many religious leaders/organizations place the "cult" label on groups of people or churches who interpret the Bible differently than them. If we claim the Bible as our only authoritative source for our doctrinal foundation. What does it actually say on the matter?

There is a charismatic church called People of Praise that is under a good deal of scrutiny at the moment because a member of this church may well be appointed to the US Supreme Court. Wikipedia has little information about the doctrines of People of Praise, calling it > an independent Christian charismatic "covenant community" with no other ecclesial affiliation People of Praise - WikiPedia yet strongly indicates a relationship with the Catholic church, especially involving its ecumenism. I normally wouldn't put Charismatic and Catholic in the same sentence, so I'm confused what their core doctrines may be. Their own official site says > A majority of People of Praise members are Catholic, and yet the People of Praise is not a Catholic group. We aim to be a witness to the unity Jesus desires for all his followers. Our membership includes not only Catholics but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and nondenominational Christians. What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common. Who We Are - People of Praise This leaves me with the impression that People of Praise is not a unique church of its own, but a pact of Christians from diverse churches that may have conflicting doctrines, but they seek to do good Christian work together all the same. If this is true, then their list of official doctrines is probably smaller, perhaps only limited to "Jesus is Lord" or something similar. Even perhaps their official dogma may be non-existent, in light of the following: > Freedom of conscience is a key to our diversity. People of Praise members are always free to follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, experience and the teachings of their churches. *ibid* What do People of Praise generally believe; what is their central dogma? If they have none, under what central plan do they congregate (i.e. why do they exist)?

Matthew 5:11-12 states that persecution is an expectation of those who follow Christ. > Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and > shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. > Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: > for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Can persecution identify the true church of Christ? Or can it only identify a disciple of Christ? If no one has ever "reviled" you or said "all manner of evil against you" because of the church you belong to, does that mean you're not a good follower of your church or Christ, or that your church is wrong?

I've seen many testimonies and case studies lauding the benefits of transcendental meditation. It is said that it isn't a religion and people of all religions participate in this practice. As a dedicated Christian my only concern is that partaking in this practice would violate teachings of my faith. Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs?