In order to reach a reasonable definition of the word “Christian”, it is necessary to remove the discussion from the squabbles within Christian sects. There are some extremely conservative Evangelical faiths that do not believe Catholics or liberal Protestant sects can count as “Christian”. Any definition that excludes groups that, outside the squabbles of sects, the rest of the world universally views as Christian is worthless and meaningless.
So the definition of Christian, by necessity, ends up being quite generic, as seen here:
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christianor here:
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
http://www.answers.com/topic/christian…then Mormonism, in my opinion, must be logically accepted as a Christian sect. As I said repeatedly in the last thread on this topic, one can also fairly state that it’s outside of mainstream Christianity, or even that it’s an heretical Christian faith, but it is absolutely based on the Biblical Jesus.
In regards to disputes over the nature of Jesus (exalted being in the pre-existence, the nature of the godhead), there is evidence that early Christians were divided on issues related to some of these questions, as well, so to insist on separating Mormonism based on theological disputes over the nature of the godhead seems specious to me.
I think this site gives a reasonable assessment from Religious Tolerance
WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?
Which definition is correct?
Which one does this website use?
Which definition is correct?
This question assumes that there is one and only one correct definition of the term "Christian."
However, depending upon your understanding of the nature of truth, many definitions may be "true" to various groups:
• To conservative Protestants, a Christian is often defined according to their salvation status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with some of their foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace, and that one must be "born-again" to be saved and avoid eternal punishment in Hell.
• To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs about the nature of sacrements, their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, the statements of many popes, and their church's tradition.
• To many in the very early Christian movement, a Christian was defined as a person who was baptized and proclaimed "Jesus is Lord." Their definition was "true" to them because it agreed with their understanding of their religious belief at a time when the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) had not yet been written and assembled.
• And so on, with other faith groups.
Each group has their own definition of "Christian" which agrees with their own beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, church tradition, written text, evolved theology, the cultures in which they are implanted, etc. There appears to be no way to compromise on a single definition that is acceptable to all. One apparently cannot call on a higher power to resolve the problem, because there seems to be no way to assess the will of God on such matters. If there were such a method, then different definitions would have been harmonized centuries ago. People would simply have prayed to God and asked Him to define what a Christian is. Then, a consensus would exist today on the true meaning of the word "Christian."
There is no consensus on what the "correct" definition of "Christian" is. There is only a near consensus within individual faith groups. Therefore questions like "Are you a Christian?" or "How many Christians are there in the U.S." are only meaningful:
• Within a single denomination, or among a group of similarly-minded denominations.
• In a public opinion poll where the definition of "Christian" is either clearly stated or left up to the subject to define.
The definition used on this web site:
We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe themselves to be a follower of Yeshua of Nazareth (a.k.a. Jesus Christ).
In North America there are over a thousand faith groups including the Roman Catholic church; the Eastern Orthodox churches, other conservative, mainline, liberal and progressive Christian faith groups; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons); Jehovah's Witnesses, the Unification Church, Christian Science, progressive Christians, and other religious organizations. They all identify themselves as Christian. In fact, many regard their group as the only "true" Christian church. Yet they, and their followers, have very different beliefs about the life, events, teachings, actions, sinlessness and expectations of Yeshua.
Also included as Christians are those who regard themselves as being followers of Jesus even though they do not affiliate themselves with any particular religious group. They appear to be growing in numbers.
We realize that we are defining Christians in terms of being Christian. As one person Emailed us, that is like defining a parrot as "something that has the characteristics of a parrot." But since there is no consensus on the definition of "Christian," we see no other choice. On the other hand, there is a general agreement about what a parrot -- or mountain, or car, or computer -- are.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htmWhen I was LDS I worshipped Jesus as my personal Savior. Do any of you fellow exmormons deny that you did the same, when you were believing LDS? While, like other LDS, I idolized Joseph Smith, I never worshipped him as a deity. Regardless of Jesus's pre-existent status (and why believers in the trinity would quibble over that is beyond me, given the fact that they believe Jesus and The Father are the same being, hence, Jesus was, by default, God before his birth as well), I firmly believed Jesus was the Son of God, and his atonement made my personal salvation possible. Yes, LDS believe that works are necessary to obtain the
highest degree of glory, but Catholics believe baptism is a requirement for heaven, as well – or at least traditional Catholicism teaches that. I think it can be argued the LDS church is more universalist than traditional catholicism in that regard. But my understanding of LDS teaching was that all the works in the world would be pointless without Christ’s atonement in the first place.
I do admit I find the idea that one could profess to accept Jesus as one's personal Savior, and then live a horrible life, and STILL be "saved" a bit repulsive.