Definition of the word "Christian"一詞的定義， "基督徒"

There are at least two very different ideas of what a "Christian" is.至少還有兩個非常不同的想法，何謂"基督教" 。 Before proceeding very far in studying Christianity, it is necessary to understand the situation.之前很遠，在學習基督教，是要了解有關情況。 This presentation will attempt to clarify the waters.這個發布會將試圖澄清水域。

First, any word has no "meaning" unless it has been somehow "defined".第一，任何一個字沒有" ，意思是"除非它已經在某種程度上"定義" 。 Consider the word "dog".考慮用"狗" 。 We all have a general idea of what that word means.我們每個人都有一個大略的構想是什麼詞的意思。 Even though a housecat generally resembles a small dog, very few people would try to call that animal a "dog".即使housecat普遍類似於一個小型狗，很少人會嘗試致電動物的"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!只是事實，即有四條腿，一條尾巴，爪子，面對面與眼睛，鼻子和嘴巴，耳朵，皮毛等，不作一種動物狗！ 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".當狗一詞最初的定義，它可以被界定為包括所有這些動物，並在此情況下，他們將所有現在被稱為"狗" 。 But someone defined a different word for that (quadruped).但有人確定了不同的字， （四） 。

There are animals that seem to very closely resemble dogs, such as wolves.有動物，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.但一詞的定義，狗是不夠具體，以排除這樣的動物，即使他們有時會誤認為對方的經驗。

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.類似的情況存在，就兩個字"基督徒"非常早期的追隨者耶穌實際上並沒有任何"名號" ，為自己和對手顯然是第一人，用"基督教"一詞來指他們。 The name stuck, and around the Fourth Century, a strict definition was given to the word.姓名，卡在靠近四世紀時，要實行嚴格的定義，給予了字。 The definition was needed then because many groups with very different beliefs were all referring to themselves as Christians.定義中，需要的話，由於有很多團體非常不同的信仰，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.定義方式解決，基本上是內容的使徒們的信條和尼西亞。 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.兩者之中任何一種信條，其實是來自聖經的文本，但它們是彼此視為密切的基礎上，這是基礎，它們的信譽。 In this discussion, we will refer to this as the NARROW definition.在這次討論中，我們會把這個作為狹義的定義。

A common attitude among the modern public is that anyone who "believes in" Jesus is a Christian.一個共同的態度，現代市民的是，任何人， "相信在"耶穌是基督。 That certainly sounds nice!這當然聽起來不錯！ Let's refer to that from now on as the BROAD definition of the word.讓我們參考，從現在起就為廣大一詞的定義。 It is not actually supported in a strict sense, but it is so widely believed that it must be considered.這是不是反而支持在嚴格意義上，但它是如此普遍認為它必須加以考慮。

Given this environment, we will attempt to proceed!鑑於這種環境下，我們將嘗試進行！

And, in early Christianity, it was. ，並在早期基督教的，它是。 For this reason, a large number of the world's leading Christian scholars got together in Nicaea in 325 AD.基於這個原因，大量的世界領先的基督教學者坐在一起在了尼西亞，在325個專案。 For better or for worse, they decided on a very sharply defined definition of Christianity, that was meant to be used world-wide.是好是壞，他們決定於一個非常尖銳的定義，界定了基督教，那是意味著將用於世界各地。 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.他們的"尼西亞信" ，列出了各種很具體的概念，即成為"基督徒"必然相信 的，我們呼喚這種狹義的定義在這裡。

For a moment, let's jump forward to today.一個時刻，讓我們的跳躍式前進到今天。 If this NARROW definition is used, a LOT of people who think they are "Christians" are NOT!如果這種狹隘的定義，是用，有很多人以為他們是"基督徒" ，是不是！ Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) do not qualify, for several reasons.摩門教（教會耶穌基督後期聖徒） ，不符合要求，原因有好幾個。 Unitarians do not because they do not believe in the Trinity. unitarians不要，因為他們不相信在三一。 MANY other groups would be excluded if the NARROW definition is used.許多其他群體將被排除在外，如果狹隘的定義，是用。 If, instead, the BROAD definition is used, then they all are very definitely "Christians"!如果，取而代之的是，廣義的定義是用的話，他們都非常肯定"基督徒" ！

Confused??!糊塗？ ？ ！

THAT'S the problem!這就是問題！ The two common definitions are rather different from each other.兩國共同的定義是相當不同的，從對方的經驗。 It becomes EXTREMELY important to know WHICH of the two definitions is being used.它變得極其重要的是要知道其中的兩個定義被使用。 Without that, people begin to argue and fight.不這樣做，人們開始爭論和鬥爭。

This situation is why, universally, ALL Christian scholars use the NARROW definition when discussing Christianity. 這種情況是為什麼，普遍，所有的基督教學者用狹隘的定義，當討論到基督教。

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. 學說已經很少做它，我們接受這個概念， "紅" ，因為大部份的社會選擇了來形容某些事物被認為顏色。 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".當我的做法是一個交匯點和最輕便的是點燃了，我不認為"藍燈亮" ，還是" gzrwkkg指示燈點亮" 。 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.在遵守一個非常廣泛（狹義）概念的定義紅色，我認為紅燈亮，我和相應的驅動器， 它絕對沒有任何關係的理解，氣溫一燈絲在一個燈泡，或一個過濾器，或電，或什麼事，無論做什麼， "紅" ，其實是無關緊要。 The WORD "red" has no meaning whatever except due to a generalized agreement as to a definition.字， "紅"的說法並沒有什麼意義，除非是由於一種廣義的協議，以一個定義。 THAT is essentially what EVERY definition actually is.這基本上是每一個定義，實際上是對的。 The WORD "Christian" is the same.字， "基督徒"是一樣的。 The BROAD definition is an extremely ill-defined interpretation of that word.廣義定義是一個非常不明確的解釋這個詞。 Scholars, by necessity, choose to use the much more precisely defined (NARROW) understanding of the word.學者，其性質也必然選擇使用更精確的界定（縮小）這個詞的理解。 Whatever we happen to think about or see regarding the traffic light doesn't change it's actual essence.無論我們忽然想到或看到關於紅綠燈不改變它的實際本質。 We could choose to call it blue, but it is still what it is, and it is unchanged.我們可以選擇，稱其為藍色，但它仍是它是什麼，這是不變的。 It's intrinsic essence is unchanged, no matter what you call it.它的內在本質是不變的，無論什麼你稱之為。

One could call some group of Christians "Buddhists" or "tax collectors", because the name does not change who they are or what they believe.一個可致電一些小組的基督徒"佛教徒"或"收稅員" ，因為名稱，並不能改變他們是誰或什麼，他們相信的。 It would just make your conversations with anyone else very difficult.它只是使你的交談，誰都很難的。 It is irrelevant if a person PRIVATELY chooses to use a loose definition for the word in question.這是不相干的，如果一個人的私人選擇採用一個鬆散一詞的定義問題。 But problems would certainly occur when trying to communicate with someone from a different background.但問題一定會出現的時候，設法溝通與某人從一個不同的背景。 A group of Mormons talking can confidently refer to themselves as Christians (BROAD) and they all agree on that!一群摩門教談，可以理直氣壯地稱自己是基督徒（廣義） ，而且他們都同意這一點！ But should they say those same things to a non-Mormon, who happens to understand the NARROW definition, that person might violently disagree!但要他們說，同樣是這些東西，以一個非摩門教，碰巧認識狹隘的定義，這個人可能是粗暴地不同意！ Same sentences, but the listeners take them VERY differently!同樣的句子，但聽眾帶他們非常不同！

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".由於道路，認為這是有組織的，我們選擇了近普遍使用的"學術" （窄）的定義，因為許多條款是可能的，而這包括了詞， "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.許多數以百計的作者（所有學者）的許多工程列入相信一定總是利用這種狹隘的定義，因為它是如此尖銳地界定。

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.當然，我們也無意試圖作出任何基督徒採取一些不同的方式崇拜耶穌，如果他們已經有一個方法，他們覺得是合適的。

We don't think that He would find fault in EITHER group!我們不認為他會找到故障要么組！ HOWEVER!但是！ We think He would look at the HEART of each individual member of a Congregation.我們想他會看心臟的每一個成員聚集。 If that person was Devout at Worshipping Him, then we believe that He would be Pleased!如果那人是虔誠的在崇拜他的話，我們相信他會很高興！

Notice that this definition is NOT Denomination-specific or Church-specific.公告說，這個定義是不面額特定或教會的具體情況。 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.無論是虔誠的基督徒參加了天主教教會或五旬節派教會或摩門教會或任何其他教會試圖教，基督教，虔誠congregagation會員一定會請耶穌，並因此成為基督徒，我們（新的）的定義。 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.人坐在旁邊，給他/她，誰出席該教堂及其他原因，是誰，是不是虔誠的，不一定會請耶穌，因此將不會成為基督徒今（新的）的定義。

You might note that this (new) definition is entirely individual.你可能會注意到，這（新的）的定義，完全是個人。 Only that person (and Jesus) would be able to determine whether or not he/she was actually a Christian.只是那人（耶穌） ，將能確定與否，他/她實際上是一個基督徒。 Because of this, our (new) definition is entirely useless for scholarly purposes!正因為如此，我們（新的）的定義是完全無用的學術宗旨！

In my personal view, most "official" Christian Churches have a LOT of "non-Christians" attending every week as Congregation members.我個人認為，最"官方"基督教教會有很多的"非基督徒"參加每星期為眾成員。 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，即使我是一個新教牧師，我很誘惑，以為這是令人印象深刻的奉獻，許多摩門教會的成員可能意味著他們有"更多的實際基督徒按百分比"比幾乎任何新教教堂。 Rather amazing, since the Mormon Church is "officially" NOT Christian (by the NARROW definition)!而令人驚異，因為摩門教教堂是"正式"不是基督教（狹義的定義） ！

This is a truly odd circumstance!這是一個真正多元的情況下！ A LOT of very Devout Christians attending a non-Christian Church.許多非常虔誠的基督教徒參加了一個非基督教的教堂。 This isn't an intentional conclusion!這是不是一種有意的結論！ 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).這是抵達試圖想像耶穌會評估個別'眾成員（很高興！ ）及『教會』 （ MIS系統-針對幾種方式，並可能值得的，他譴責） 。

As it happens, this same situation would have applied to the Branch Davidians a few years back.因為它發生的，這同樣的情況，將已提出申請，要求大衛教派幾年回來。 David Koresh was clearly sin-filled and extremely mis-directed, particularly in selfish ways.考雷什顯然是單填充和極其錯誤的指示，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!但數十名追隨者死於那場火災已經選擇了跟隨他，因為他深信，他們說，他是耶穌！ In following the publicity of that tragedy, it was very clear that many of the followers were extremely Devout Christians.在之後的宣傳那場悲劇，這是很明顯的是，許多的信徒們都非常虔誠的基督徒。 Most people say that it is tragic that they chose to follow a wrong Path, and they are all now in Hell!大多數人都認為這是不幸的是，他們選擇了走一條錯誤的道路，他們現在都在地獄裡！ I personally believe that most or all of them are now in Heaven with Jesus, but Koresh is definitely not there!我個人相信，大部分或全部，他們現在在天堂與耶穌，但考雷什是絕對不會有！ Again, an example of a non-Christian "Church" having very Devout Christian followers.再次，這是一個非基督教的"教會"有非常虔誠的基督教信徒。 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.我的假設是，每個人都將會看個人奉獻給主，即使他/她所學的東西不正確東西。

None of us will ever know, while we are still here.我們沒有人會知道呢，而我們卻仍然在這裡。 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.但它只是好像耶穌，被無限富有同情心，看到那些虔誠的信徒，他的門外的天堂，有一些程序，例如，他們沒有扭頭，只是有選擇的，以跟隨精神病或MIS系統知情的領導人。

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.的尼西亞剛好被一個先前同意的基礎上，為一個定義， 它其實是不相干的，是否有任何聲明同意在了尼西亞人，即使真還是假！即使他們最終都變成是錯誤的，嚴格的（狹義）的定義這個詞， "基督信仰"的定義是基於對這些報表。 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".如果它應該有，實在沒有三一（我寫了一篇文章，認為即使有點表明這種可能性） ，信仰和接受的概念，三位一體就是其中的"條件"的定義中的"基督徒" 。

BELIEVE tries very hard to NOT have any "soapbox"!相信嘗試很難不會有任何" soapbox " ！ The fact that it is necessary to consistently use the most precisely defined (NARROW) definition has nothing to do with dogma or doctrine.事實是要堅持用最精確的界定（窄）的定義完全與教條或教義。 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，應該強調的是，我們不一定同意狹義定義，但覺得有必要使用它，是因為它的精確的定義。

I suggest defining an entirely separate term "Believer in Christ" and imbue it with the BROAD definition.我建議確定一個完全獨立的"信奉基督" ，並貫穿於它與廣泛的定義。 No problem there.沒有問題存在。 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.當時，許多個人和團體都自動"排除在外" ，由"嚴" （縮小）一詞的定義， "基督徒" ，將包括由新的任期。 The alternative would be to convince the entire world community to alter the NARROW definition of "Christian".否則，便只好說服整個國際社會要改變狹隘的定義， "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.這可能是也可能是不恰當的（取決於一個人的態度） ，但似乎不可能，因為一千七百年的相當一致的使用率已根深蒂固，目前nicaean定義與術語。 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.鑑於該（縮小） ， "基督教"有其不同的定義方面（所有nicaean ） ，無論喜歡與否，它的數字，以保持原樣。

Pastor Carl Johnson牧師卡爾約翰遜
A Christ Walk Church 1基督步行教會
Editor, BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site編者的，相信宗教信息源網址

This subject presentation in the original English language本主題介紹在原來的英文

Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail發送電子郵件的問題或意見給我們：電子郵箱

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at主要相信網頁（和索引科目），是在