There are at least two very different ideas of what a "Christian" is.至少还有两个非常不同的想法，何谓"基督教" 。 Before proceeding very far in studying Christianity, it is necessary to understand the situation.之前很远，在学习基督教，是要了解有关情况。 This presentation will attempt to clarify the waters.这个发布会将试图澄清水域。
First, any word has no "meaning" unless it has been somehow "defined".第一，任何一个字没有" ，意思是"除非它已经在某种程度上"定义" 。 Consider the word "dog".考虑用"狗" 。 We all have a general idea of what that word means.我们每个人都有一个大略的构想是什么词的意思。 Even though a housecat generally resembles a small dog, very few people would try to call that animal a "dog".即使housecat普遍类似于一个小型狗，很少人会尝试致电动物的"狗" 。 Just the fact that there are four legs, a tail, paws, a face with eyes, nose and mouth, ears, fur, etc, does NOT make an animal a dog!只是事实，即有四条腿，一条尾巴，爪子，面对面与眼睛，鼻子和嘴巴，耳朵，皮毛等，不作一种动物狗！ When the word dog was first defined, it could have been defined to include all such animals, and in that case they would all now be called "dogs".当狗一词最初的定义，它可以被界定为包括所有这些动物，并在此情况下，他们将所有现在被称为"狗" 。 But someone defined a different word for that (quadruped).但有人确定了不同的字， （四） 。
There are animals that seem to very closely resemble dogs, such as wolves.有动物，似乎非常密切肖狗，如狼。 But the definition of the word dog is specific enough to exclude such animals, even though they are sometimes mistaken for each other.但一词的定义，狗是不够具体，以排除这样的动物，即使他们有时会误认为对方的经验。
A similar situation exists regarding the word "Christian" Very early followers of Jesus did not actually have any "name" for themselves and an opponent was apparently the first person to use the word "Christian" to refer to them.类似的情况存在，就两个字"基督徒"非常早期的追随者耶稣实际上并没有任何"名号" ，为自己和对手显然是第一人，用"基督教"一词来指他们。 The name stuck, and around the Fourth Century, a strict definition was given to the word.姓名，卡在靠近四世纪时，要实行严格的定义，给予了字。 The definition was needed then because many groups with very different beliefs were all referring to themselves as Christians.定义中，需要的话，由于有很多团体非常不同的信仰，都提到自己是基督徒。 The definition settled on was basically the contents of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed.定义方式解决，基本上是内容的使徒们的信条和尼西亚。 Neither of these two Creeds is actually from the Bible's text, but they are each considered to be closely based on it, which is the basis for their credibility.两者之中任何一种信条，其实是来自圣经的文本，但它们是彼此视为密切的基础上，这是基础，它们的信誉。 In this discussion, we will refer to this as the NARROW definition.在这次讨论中，我们会把这个作为狭义的定义。
A common attitude among the modern public is that anyone who "believes in" Jesus is a Christian.一个共同的态度，现代市民的是，任何人， "相信在"耶稣是基督。 That certainly sounds nice!这当然听起来不错！ Let's refer to that from now on as the BROAD definition of the word.让我们参考，从现在起就为广大一词的定义。 It is not actually supported in a strict sense, but it is so widely believed that it must be considered.这是不是反而支持在严格意义上，但它是如此普遍认为它必须加以考虑。
Given this environment, we will attempt to proceed!鉴于这种环境下，我们将尝试进行！
| BELIEVE 相信 Religious 宗教 Information 资讯 Source 源 web-site 网址： |
| Our List of 1,000 Religious Subjects 我们所列出的1000名宗教科目 |
| E-mail 电子邮箱 |
And, in early Christianity, it was. ，并在早期基督教的，它是。 For this reason, a large number of the world's leading Christian scholars got together in Nicaea in 325 AD.基于这个原因，大量的世界领先的基督教学者坐在一起在了尼西亚，在325个专案。 For better or for worse, they decided on a very sharply defined definition of Christianity, that was meant to be used world-wide.是好是坏，他们决定于一个非常尖锐的定义，界定了基督教，那是意味着将用于世界各地。 Their "Nicene Creed" lists a variety of very specific concepts that a "Christian" must necessarily believe in. We are calling this the NARROW definition here.他们的"尼西亚信" ，列出了各种很具体的概念，即成为"基督徒"必然相信 的，我们呼唤这种狭义的定义在这里。
For a moment, let's jump forward to today.一个时刻，让我们的跳跃式前进到今天。 If this NARROW definition is used, a LOT of people who think they are "Christians" are NOT!如果这种狭隘的定义，是用，有很多人以为他们是"基督徒" ，是不是！ Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) do not qualify, for several reasons.摩门教（教会耶稣基督后期圣徒） ，不符合要求，原因有好几个。 Unitarians do not because they do not believe in the Trinity. unitarians不要，因为他们不相信在三一。 MANY other groups would be excluded if the NARROW definition is used.许多其他群体将被排除在外，如果狭隘的定义，是用。 If, instead, the BROAD definition is used, then they all are very definitely "Christians"!如果，取而代之的是，广义的定义是用的话，他们都非常肯定"基督徒" ！
Confused??!糊涂？ ？ ！
THAT'S the problem!这就是问题！ The two common definitions are rather different from each other.两国共同的定义是相当不同的，从对方的经验。 It becomes EXTREMELY important to know WHICH of the two definitions is being used.它变得极其重要的是要知道其中的两个定义被使用。 Without that, people begin to argue and fight.不这样做，人们开始争论和斗争。
This situation is why, universally, ALL Christian scholars use the NARROW definition when discussing Christianity. 这种情况是为什么，普遍，所有的基督教学者用狭隘的定义，当讨论到基督教。
Doctrine has very little to do with it. We accept the concept "red" because the majority of society has chosen to describe certain things as being that color. 学说已经很少做它，我们接受这个概念， "红" ，因为大部份的社会选择了来形容某些事物被认为颜色。 When I approach an intersection and the top light is lit, I don't think "the blue light is lit" or "the gzrwkkg light is lit".当我的做法是一个交汇点和最轻便的是点燃了，我不认为"蓝灯亮" ，还是" gzrwkkg指示灯点亮" 。 In compliance with a very broadly held (NARROW) definition of the concept red, I think that the red light is lit, and I drive accordingly. It has absolutely nothing to do with the understanding of the temperature of a filament in a light bulb, or a filter, or electricity, or anything. Whatever "red" actually IS is irrelevant.在遵守一个非常广泛（狭义）概念的定义红色，我认为红灯亮，我和相应的驱动器， 它绝对没有任何关系的理解，气温一灯丝在一个灯泡，或一个过滤器，或电，或什么事，无论做什么， "红" ，其实是无关紧要。 The WORD "red" has no meaning whatever except due to a generalized agreement as to a definition.字， "红"的说法并没有什么意义，除非是由于一种广义的协议，以一个定义。 THAT is essentially what EVERY definition actually is.这基本上是每一个定义，实际上是对的。 The WORD "Christian" is the same.字， "基督徒"是一样的。 The BROAD definition is an extremely ill-defined interpretation of that word.广义定义是一个非常不明确的解释这个词。 Scholars, by necessity, choose to use the much more precisely defined (NARROW) understanding of the word.学者，其性质也必然选择使用更精确的界定（缩小）这个词的理解。 Whatever we happen to think about or see regarding the traffic light doesn't change it's actual essence.无论我们忽然想到或看到关于红绿灯不改变它的实际本质。 We could choose to call it blue, but it is still what it is, and it is unchanged.我们可以选择，称其为蓝色，但它仍是它是什么，这是不变的。 It's intrinsic essence is unchanged, no matter what you call it.它的内在本质是不变的，无论什么你称之为。
One could call some group of Christians "Buddhists" or "tax collectors", because the name does not change who they are or what they believe.一个可致电一些小组的基督徒"佛教徒"或"收税员" ，因为名称，并不能改变他们是谁或什么，他们相信的。 It would just make your conversations with anyone else very difficult.它只是使你的交谈，谁都很难的。 It is irrelevant if a person PRIVATELY chooses to use a loose definition for the word in question.这是不相干的，如果一个人的私人选择采用一个松散一词的定义问题。 But problems would certainly occur when trying to communicate with someone from a different background.但问题一定会出现的时候，设法沟通与某人从一个不同的背景。 A group of Mormons talking can confidently refer to themselves as Christians (BROAD) and they all agree on that!一群摩门教谈，可以理直气壮地称自己是基督徒（广义） ，而且他们都同意这一点！ But should they say those same things to a non-Mormon, who happens to understand the NARROW definition, that person might violently disagree!但要他们说，同样是这些东西，以一个非摩门教，碰巧认识狭隘的定义，这个人可能是粗暴地不同意！ Same sentences, but the listeners take them VERY differently!同样的句子，但听众带他们非常不同！
Because of the way BELIEVE is structured, we chose to nearly universally use the "scholarly" (NARROW) definitions of as many terms as is possible, and that included the word "Christian".由于道路，认为这是有组织的，我们选择了近普遍使用的"学术" （窄）的定义，因为许多条款是可能的，而这包括了词， "基督信仰" 。 The many hundreds of authors (all scholars) of the many works included in BELIEVE certainly always use that NARROW definition, because it is so sharply defined.许多数以百计的作者（所有学者）的许多工程列入相信一定总是利用这种狭隘的定义，因为它是如此尖锐地界定。
We certainly have no intention of trying to make any Christians adopt some different way of Worshipping Jesus, if they already have a method they feel is appropriate.当然，我们也无意试图作出任何基督徒采取一些不同的方式崇拜耶稣，如果他们已经有一个方法，他们觉得是合适的。
We don't think that He would find fault in EITHER group!我们不认为他会找到故障要么组！ HOWEVER!但是！ We think He would look at the HEART of each individual member of a Congregation.我们想他会看心脏的每一个成员聚集。 If that person was Devout at Worshipping Him, then we believe that He would be Pleased!如果那人是虔诚的在崇拜他的话，我们相信他会很高兴！
Notice that this definition is NOT Denomination-specific or Church-specific.公告说，这个定义是不面额特定或教会的具体情况。 Whether that Devout Christian attended a Catholic Church or a Pentecostal Church or a Mormon Church or any other Church that attempted to Teach Christianity, that Devout Congregagation member would definitely Please Jesus and therefore be a Christian by our (new) definition.无论是虔诚的基督徒参加了天主教教会或五旬节派教会或摩门教会或任何其他教会试图教，基督教，虔诚congregagation会员一定会请耶稣，并因此成为基督徒，我们（新的）的定义。 The person sitting right next to him/her, who attends that Church for OTHER reasons, and who is NOT Devout, would not necessarily Please Jesus and therefore would not be a Christian by this (new) definition.人坐在旁边，给他/她，谁出席该教堂及其他原因，是谁，是不是虔诚的，不一定会请耶稣，因此将不会成为基督徒今（新的）的定义。
You might note that this (new) definition is entirely individual.你可能会注意到，这（新的）的定义，完全是个人。 Only that person (and Jesus) would be able to determine whether or not he/she was actually a Christian.只是那人（耶稣） ，将能确定与否，他/她实际上是一个基督徒。 Because of this, our (new) definition is entirely useless for scholarly purposes!正因为如此，我们（新的）的定义是完全无用的学术宗旨！
In my personal view, most "official" Christian Churches have a LOT of "non-Christians" attending every week as Congregation members.我个人认为，最"官方"基督教教会有很多的"非基督徒"参加每星期为众成员。 And, even though I am a Protestant Pastor, I am tempted to think that the impressive Devotion of many Mormon Church members might mean that they have "more actual Christians by percentage" than nearly any Protestant Church.以及，即使我是一个新教牧师，我很诱惑，以为这是令人印象深刻的奉献，许多摩门教会的成员可能意味着他们有"更多的实际基督徒按百分比"比几乎任何新教教堂。 Rather amazing, since the Mormon Church is "officially" NOT Christian (by the NARROW definition)!而令人惊异，因为摩门教教堂是"正式"不是基督教（狭义的定义） ！
This is a truly odd circumstance!这是一个真正多元的情况下！ A LOT of very Devout Christians attending a non-Christian Church.许多非常虔诚的基督教徒参加了一个非基督教的教堂。 This isn't an intentional conclusion!这是不是一种有意的结论！ It is arrived at by attempting to imagine how Jesus would evaluate individual 'Congregation members' (VERY Pleased!) and 'Church' (mis-directed in several ways and possibly worthy of His censure).这是抵达试图想象耶稣会评估个别'众成员（很高兴！ ）及『教会』 （ MIS系统-针对几种方式，并可能值得的，他谴责） 。
As it happens, this same situation would have applied to the Branch Davidians a few years back.因为它发生的，这同样的情况，将已提出申请，要求大卫教派几年回来。 David Koresh was clearly sin-filled and extremely mis-directed, particularly in selfish ways.考雷什显然是单填充和极其错误的指示，尤其是自私的方式。 But the several dozen followers who died in that fire had chosen to follow him because he had convinced them that he WAS Jesus!但数十名追随者死于那场火灾已经选择了跟随他，因为他深信，他们说，他是耶稣！ In following the publicity of that tragedy, it was very clear that many of the followers were extremely Devout Christians.在之后的宣传那场悲剧，这是很明显的是，许多的信徒们都非常虔诚的基督徒。 Most people say that it is tragic that they chose to follow a wrong Path, and they are all now in Hell!大多数人都认为这是不幸的是，他们选择了走一条错误的道路，他们现在都在地狱里！ I personally believe that most or all of them are now in Heaven with Jesus, but Koresh is definitely not there!我个人相信，大部分或全部，他们现在在天堂与耶稣，但考雷什是绝对不会有！ Again, an example of a non-Christian "Church" having very Devout Christian followers.再次，这是一个非基督教的"教会"有非常虔诚的基督教信徒。 My assumption here is that each person would be judged on personal Devotion to the Lord, even if he/she had been Taught some incorrect things.我的假设是，每个人都将会看个人奉献给主，即使他/她所学的东西不正确东西。
None of us will ever know, while we are still here.我们没有人会知道呢，而我们却仍然在这里。 But it just seems that Jesus, being infinitely Compassionate, seeing those Devout followers of His outside the Gates of Heaven, would have some procedure such that they weren't turned away, just for having chosen to follow a psychotic or mis-informed leader.但它只是好像耶稣，被无限富有同情心，看到那些虔诚的信徒，他的门外的天堂，有一些程序，例如，他们没有扭头，只是有选择的，以跟随精神病或MIS系统知情的领导人。
Nicaea just happens to be a previously agreed to basis for a definition. It is actually irrelevant whether ANY of the statements agreed to in Nicaea were even true or not! Even if they all eventually turn out to be erroneous, the strict (NARROW) definition of the word "Christian" is defined based on those statements.的尼西亚刚好被一个先前同意的基础上，为一个定义， 它其实是不相干的，是否有任何声明同意在了尼西亚人，即使真还是假！即使他们最终都变成是错误的，严格的（狭义）的定义这个词， "基督信仰"的定义是基于对这些报表。 IF it should be that there really IS no Trinity (and I wrote an essay that even somewhat suggests that possibility), belief and acceptance of the concept of the Trinity IS one of the "conditions" of the definition of "Christian".如果它应该有，实在没有三一（我写了一篇文章，认为即使有点表明这种可能性） ，信仰和接受的概念，三位一体就是其中的"条件"的定义中的"基督徒" 。
BELIEVE tries very hard to NOT have any "soapbox"!相信尝试很难不会有任何" soapbox " ！ The fact that it is necessary to consistently use the most precisely defined (NARROW) definition has nothing to do with dogma or doctrine.事实是要坚持用最精确的界定（窄）的定义完全与教条或教义。 The paragraphs above should emphasize that WE do not necessarily agree with the NARROW definition, but find it necessary to use it because of its precision of definition.以上各段中，应该强调的是，我们不一定同意狭义定义，但觉得有必要使用它，是因为它的精确的定义。
I suggest defining an entirely separate term "Believer in Christ" and imbue it with the BROAD definition.我建议确定一个完全独立的"信奉基督" ，并贯穿于它与广泛的定义。 No problem there.没有问题存在。 Then, many individuals and groups that are automatically "excluded" by the "strict" (NARROW) definition of the word "Christian" would be included by the new term.当时，许多个人和团体都自动"排除在外" ，由"严" （缩小）一词的定义， "基督徒" ，将包括由新的任期。 The alternative would be to convince the entire world community to alter the NARROW definition of "Christian".否则，便只好说服整个国际社会要改变狭隘的定义， "基督徒" 。 That may or may not be appropriate (depending on one's attitude), but it seems impossible, because 1700 years of fairly consistent usage has ingrained the current Nicaean definition with the term.这可能是也可能是不恰当的（取决于一个人的态度） ，但似乎不可能，因为一千七百年的相当一致的使用率已根深蒂固，目前nicaean定义与术语。 Given that the (NARROW) word "Christian" has its various definitional aspects (all Nicaean), whether one likes it or not, it figures to remain as it is.鉴于该（缩小） ， "基督教"有其不同的定义方面（所有nicaean ） ，无论喜欢与否，它的数字，以保持原样。
Pastor Carl
Johnson牧师卡尔约翰逊
A Christ Walk Church
1基督步行教会
Editor, BELIEVE
Religious Information Source web-site编者的，相信宗教信息源网址
This subject presentation in the original English language这一主题演讲，在原有的英语
Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail邮件发送问题或意见给我们： 电子邮箱
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at http://mb-soft.com/believe/beliecha.html主要相信网页（和索引科目） ，是在http://mb-soft.com/believe/beliecha.html