Mystery quotation: Who is a Christian? Open question? Or settled?

by Dan Phillips

I don't think it too likely that anyone can source this without cheating. I'll keep the identity of the writer a mystery for just a bit, to make it fun. But go ahead and discuss the content of the quotation. I will tell you in advance that the context of the quotation will be essential in understanding it. This will unfold, DV, in the meta.

As to the quotation's source, for now, no tricks—

1. Use your memory (or guessing) alone
2. No electronic tools
3. No Googling

So, without further eloquence:

Is it not offensive and intolerant to suppose that anyone can distinguish true Christians from others? Are there not, it is said, many kinds of followers of Christ and does not love demand that we regard them all as 'fellow Christians'?

This objection often proceeds on the basis of another argument — usually unstated — namely, that the New Testament itself does not give us enough light to be definite. And if Scripture does not resolve the question, 'What is a Christian?' then we must tolerate and justify a breadth of opinion on the subject. But if the New Testament does settle the question then we have no liberty to redefine 'Christian' in terms which neither Christ nor his apostles ever authorized. Evangelicalism has historically been distinguished by its conviction that Scripture speaks plainly on this fundamental issue; it gives us all the light we need to discern between the true and the false, between the nominal and the real.

Have at it.

---

UPDATE: after a few hours' discussion in the meta, I've decided to provide the answer and context in the post.

The source is Iain H. Murray, from Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth: 2000), 151. You may not know this Murray, but you really should. He's authored a number of really helpful, solid works. This one focuses on the changes within evangelicalism between the years 1950 and 2000.

I'm re-reading it, and a sad read it is. It put John Stott, J. I. Packer, and Billy Graham in lights of which I'd been previously unaware, and confirmed suspicions about F. F. Bruce.

You really should read the book rather than relying on my summary. HSAT, Murray's argument is that evangelical leaders became overly concerned with the wrong things, which led to a disastrous fragmentation, pollution, and derailing of the movement. Those concerns included:

1. Academic respectability (in the eyes of the Gospel's enemies)
2. Impressive numbers
3. Ecumenical/denominational/ecclesiastical unity at any price

In the immediate context of the quotation above, Murray has just asked "What if the first need of the Church and the nation was not Christian unity but the recovery of Christianity itself? In that case the question, 'What is a Christian?' demanded a very different order of priority."

So the context of my quotation is not primarily the identification of individual Christians among orthodox professors, but the identification and separation of genuine Christian leaders from faux-Christian leaders. In the larger context of the book, can those who deny the truthfulness of the Gospels, the atonement, the bodly resurrection of Christ, and other fundamentals of the Gospel be identified as "Christian"? And if not, should they be embraced as leaders by evangelica;s? Should evangelicals form common-cause with them? Should evangelicals concern themselves with pleasing and being accepted by such men?

It's Murray's argument, developed convincingly with great specificity and documentation, that acceptance of these false criteria and goals has been ruinous. Our great need is for a return to the centrality of the Gospel, which can only come in the framework of the absolute authority of Scripture.

So you see, this is germane to a great deal of our discussions — including Frank's open letters.

---