Christianity 101: How To Tell You Are Not Christian
Do you believe in the Trinity? If you say no, you are not Christian. If you say yes, you’re most likely Christian.
depiction of the Trinity from the 4th century.
This Trinitarian belief is held by Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox believers. A common expression of this view is through the Nicene Creed. Here are the specific Trinitarian lines of the creed:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty….
And in one Lord Jesus Christ…very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father….
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life…who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified….
Click below to read the full creed at any of these websites representing a variety of Christian belief systems:
Aren’t Some Non-Trinitarians Christian?
We just talked about the expansive breadth of Christian believers that believe in the Trinity. There are, though, some belief systems that put Jesus central that are not Trinitarian. A major example is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormons. Jesus is central in their theology but they don’t believe in the Trinity. Another example is Jehovah’s Witnesses. They adamantly deny trinitarianism. Like I stated at the beginning, many want to define Christianity as any religion where Jesus is a major player in the belief system, but clearly there are many beliefs about Jesus. Some concepts are closer to a Christian belief than others but the Trinitarian belief has always been the main uniter of Christians. My point is not that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other non-Trinitarian faiths shouldn’t be labeled as Christians, although I don’t think they should,* my point is that Christian is a specific term for a specific belief system — a belief system that is Trinitarian.
*I feel that believers of these religions in these examples, and others, want to be considered Christian because otherwise they are labeled as cults or worse and suffer persecution and bullying tactics. I may not agree with their beliefs or that they are Christian but I vehemently condemn any persecution towards them because of not being Christian.
**If you believe in the meaning of the Trinity but just don’t like that term, I get where you’re coming from. It’s just a term that contains a concept. The term, though, is very helpful to many people and I do believe doctrine needs to be defined not so much as a means to determine what to believe but what not to believe.
Related Posts
About The Author
Bethany Sundstrom-Smith
Bethany Sundstrom-Smith holds a Master's Degree in Theology (Th.M.) with a focus in Media Arts from Dallas Theological Seminary. Her background is in journalism, marketing, and making lattes. She lives in Portland and runs Cadia Marketing and Food Blog Usability.
I’m a Mormon and I would disagree with you. I don’t see why a very specific belief in the Trinity is the deciding factor for whether or not you are a Christian. Mormons believe in the Trinity, but our beliefs are slightly different (and we usually call the Trinity the Godhead, probably to differentiate our version of the Trinity). We believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, but we believe that they are three separate individuals who are one– and thus completely unified– in purpose.
But I think if you believe that Jesus Christ is your Savior (and not a really nice guy who said some nice things, as so many want to claim these days), then that should be enough to qualify you as a Christian. And if this is your litmus test, then Mormons are without a doubt Christians.
While we appreciate not being called a cult, our emphasis on Christ is because we consider Him to be the center of our religion. Not just so we don’t get stuck with a nasty label!
I don’t know if I agree with this. (I also don’t know that I don’t.) We all of us almost certainly have *some* misconceptions about the nature of Christ; I have a hard time understanding which beliefs are essential and which are not.
And I have a hard time understanding the Trinity. In fact–and this may get me hanged–I’m not sure the apostles quite understood the trinity. And I am quite confident that I’ve never met anyone serious who claims that he or she does have a firm grasp on it. And it seems like God has left some questions–including this one–purposefully ambiguous. Maybe because it is beyond our ability to understand. But if it is beyond our ability to understand, then I don’t know how to hold anyone accountable for misunderstanding. And i *seems* like a God who can forgive even rape and murder can also forgive misunderstandings about exceedingly difficult concepts, especially when they stem from earnest and prayerful readings of scripture.
Further, if Christianity is defined soteriologically, wouldn’t anyone who has confessed and believed be counted among us…?
I feel like I’m having a Jon K moment here but bear with me.
The question you’re asking is a good one. The problem is (IMO) is that a label that tries to define the pinnacle of what someone is or isn’t can’t possibly be ascertained by our collective understanding of who and what God is.
Mc Vile is right. The apostles were in fact too stupid (as much as we are to be fair) to realize what Jesus (God, the Son and Spirit) were saying to him prior to his ascension to really grasp what it meant to be a follower of Jesus or in modern terms, a Christian.
I’ve been asking a similar question of various different religions as I’ve studied them. What makes a Jew a Jew? I can’t answer that one. (Anyone care to chime in?) What makes a Muslim a Muslim? The Shahada is what I would point to as a pivitol moment of a new believer of Islam. How do you become a Christian? That’s even more loaded that it seems.
More to your point, can a Christian be a Christian (in the ordinary, Western protestant way) without believing in the Trinity? The premise of this question is answered (however not convincingly) by the fact that the person choosing requires the faith to believe it to be true.
If we take the Bible as the premise of God’s letter to mankind that is divinely inspired by dreams, visions and everything else inbetween, then it is up to the interpreter of the text (which is what different denominations are based on) of if their findings of the Trinity are true.
Me personally, trying to take qualitative and quantitative analysis of whether or not God could be 3 people in one is like me trying to come up with some brand new, never before thought of. I cannot because I am not God. Consequently, I don’t feel discouraged because I can’t, but I choose to have hope that someday I will understand it beyond this plane of existence.
Alanna — Thanks for your comments! Yes, I agree that Mormons believe in the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, but as my post explains, what Mormons believe about who and what they are is different than Christians. The link I posted of a message from Jeffrey Holland makes it clear that Mormons don’t agree with the concept of the Trinity.
Yes, Christians believe Jesus is our Savior. But again, what we believe about what that means is different. Christians and Mormons use many of the same words and terminology but they don’t always mean the same thing.
Here is a definition/explanation of the different views of salvation. – http://www.mrm.org/salvation-definition . The same organization also has an informative About Us page – http://www.mrm.org/about .
To MC Vile and Hockett — The Trinity has always been something many have questions about or are searching regarding. That is different than denying it altogether, or believing something entirely different which is what I’m trying to get at in my post.
It does bring up the interesting question as to whether one might find salvation in Christ and not be a(n orthodox) Christian. (Somewhat like CS Lewis’s believing Telamarine.)
The Early Church was still coming to understand the person of the Trinity, but it had a pretty good idea that the one God contained three distinct persons. Iranaeus of Lyon and Justyn Martyr both argued for this point. Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp who was taught by the Apostle John, so he is not far removed from the Apostles. The term was first used to describe God by Tertullian between 200 and 209 AD, though the definition of one God with 3 persons was already there. The basis of Christianity is that there is only one godness shared by the Father, Son, and Spirit. This has to be accepted to be considered a Christian.
Clarity did not really come with analogy until the time of Augustine. Augustine described the Trinity in this way. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father, but the Father, Son, and Spirit are all three–God. Augustine recognized that the Trinity was one in essence, but in three persons. Each person was a distinct member of the Trinity, but each member of the Trinity was fully the one God.
Without a Christian view of the Trinity, there is no Christian view of the Gospel. Without the Trinity there can be no Christian view of creation, and there can be no Christian view of the crucifixion, resurrection, or ascension. The views of Creation, Jesus Christ, and Salvation are all based on the Trinity. This is because all three members of the Trinity work together in all things. The Father works through the Son, who works by the Spirit. The Father is unbegotten and the Son proceeds from the Father (Jesus is begotten, but not created). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. The Son came to glorify the Father, and the Spirit came to glorify the Son. Salvation is Trinitarian in that it is from the Father, by the Son, and we receive it through the Spirit. We even relate back to God in a Trinitarian way. We pray to the Father, through the Son, and by the Spirit. All three eternally exist, and all three eternally work together in all things.
That is not to say that Mormons don’t have beliefs about the Son, or the Trinity, or that Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews, and others don’t have beliefs about Jesus, but their beliefs are not Christian, even if they are somewhat based on the Bible.
Jesus cannot be savior without being part of the Trinity, and the Trinity is not tri-theism. We cannot fully comprehend this as God transcends human logic, but we do seek to understand it the best that we can.
Hockett, thanks for the hat tip. Gotta take issue with you one thing, the disciples were a bit clueless at first but after the resurrection, Jesus unpacked all of the scriptures and explained to them how he fit into them. At that point, I really do think they had a firm grasp on the subtleties of theology probably firmer than we’ll get this side of eternity.
Personally, I don’t really see an issue with the Trinity. Three persons in one person. Obviously I can’t do that, but it doesn’t present to me as something fundamentally impossible. I’m also 100% responsible for my choices. So is God through his predestination and foreknowledge. Ok. God can do 200%. No heartburn there… Next question?
In addition to my last comment, I would like to say that we do find truthful beliefs in many religions. And I do think that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and others should communicate better and in love. We can all learn things from one another. Even if our core spiritual beliefs are different, we can find some common ground in practices and traditions, and we can learn better ways of doing things from one another.
But Alanna, as a mormon you believe that Jesus is a created being you become a god. The Bible is clear that Jesus has always been God. You believe in a fundamentally different Jesus. In light of God’s law, justice, and purity, the Jesus that you believe in does not have the power to forgive sins or save anyone.
At it’s most fundamental, yes the litmus test for Christianity is “belief that Jesus Christ is your savior”, but many things are embedded in that statement–most importantly, who is Jesus. If you get that wrong, everything else falls apart. Mormons do get it wrong.
Rene, to answer your question, no, you cannot find salvation in Christ and not subscribe to orthodox Christian faith. But, I say that within the context of a progressive scale.
Someone who has had Jesus wrong their whole life, can on their deathbed, find their heart regenerated by the Spirit and come to saving knowledge of Christ. The state of their life and heart, at their time of death, may, in this situation be very immature and on a grand scale not at all orthodox.
On the flip side, if the Holy Spirit gets your heart at 30 and you live to a ripe age of 80 or 90, true faith, will not allow you to persist in unorthodox belief. Your progressive journey toward christlikeness will necessarily shape your life toward orthodox believe. It is a path that all believers are on and we will all end it at different places, but if you are truly a Christian you will not stand still or drift into heterodoxy or apostasy.
“Christian” simply, and literally, means follower of Christ. Anyone that considers themselves following Christ should be allowed to call themselves a Christian regardless of what strings other people claim it should come with. Further I don’t recall a central mission in Christianity to be running around deciding if others are fitting some definition, believing the Nicene Creed or any other dogma. Live your own life, walk your own walk, be your own person and keep your dogma for your own betterment. From the perspective of someone that doesn’t adhere to any Christian belief, this effort to point out who’s “in” and who’s “out” looks like a thinly veiled way to feel superior to others. Despite all the niceties given to the Mormon here, she’s still “out”, right?
If follower of Christ is the definition, follower should be carefully defined. I could follow Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount because they are good ideas, and treat people with more integrity based on his protecting the woman from being stoned to death, but still disregard any deification of Jesus.
John, technically she (Alanna and all other mormons) is still “out” but that is because Mormon’s and Christians are not the same religion. Aaron, I see your point, but terms are defined contextually. Contextually in this conversation, the term Christian is being used to define a religious practice. That practice focuses on Jesus as being the God-man and the second member of the Trinity. So someone who just holds to the moral teachings of Jesus would not be part of this religious movement. That being said, the term Christian here really means “evangelical Christian” so with a broadened context, than perhaps some could call themselves Christians who are not “evengelical Christians,” but then why would they want to? Why would they not rather be proud of the label that commonly defines their belief system?
I am not trying to be argumentative or wrongly get into a semantics, but the fact is, not all religions are the same and they certainly do not all hold to the same beliefs.
Religious language is incredibly important. Many religions use the same terms, but understand them differently. Individuals must decide for themselves what the correct definitions are. For “evengelical Christians,” Bethany explained very well what the definition is.
The issue of the definitions is a major reason why I believe we should have more open dialog with members of other faiths. We can disagree on certain issues, remain civil, and hopefully come to understand each other better in the process.
While I think Muslims and Jews believe incorrectly about the person of Christ, I still think they have the right to believe about him whatever they think is correct. Religious liberty is the freedom to worship as one sees fit. It is one of the greatest things about our country. No group should be persecuted for their beliefs. Mormons and Muslims have every right to believe what they will about Jesus, so do Jews, so do evangelical Christians, and so do people of every other religion, cult, or occult system.
Why should “follower” be carefully defined? I mean, why does it matter if I, or Joe Schmoo defines “follower” differently than you?
It should be carefully defined, because each religion claims to be true. If truth matters, then followers of each religion should desire others to believe as they do. Unfortunately all beliefs cannot be true. Evangelical Christians believe that correct belief in the Trinity and consequently in Jesus is what allows a person to live eternally in the presence of God.
I think the importance deals with salvation. It is not so much to say who is “out” as it is to help others get “in.”
Most religious groups try to add to their numbers because they believe their views are true. The same can be said of evangelical Christianity. There is a desire for others to embrace this truth.
Belief that a religion is true is exactly why so many religions send out missionaries (by whatever name they are called).