Jump to content

A FARM article on 'Christian'


Akboy

Recommended Posts

I'm not a Mormon, but I've been reading a lot of articles on how various groups use the term 'Christian' and I found this one by FARMS.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=45&chapid=530

There are three question that stick out to me.

The terms Christian or Christians occur only three times in the New Testament (at Acts 11:26; 26:28; and 1 Peter 4:16). In each case these terms simply refer to those who follow Christ, which applies fully to Latter-day Saints.
1. So why don
Link to comment

I read the article, and from what I have read, those three questions you ask are answered within the context of the article itself.

The overall question is this - How can mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical Christians say that Mormonism is not Christian when they themselves do not fully fulfill the term "Christian" by definition? In fact, it is looking at how they use the term "Christian" as an overall title to define the various teachings (whether they agree or not agree on doctrines of thought, Biblical Interpretations, and Historical perspectives of Christian History and Tradition) that they believe in on the one hand, yet denounce Mormonism on the other hand.

It is the mainstream Christians who are redefining for themselves what they feel constitutes Christian belief and Christian teaching as opposed to objectivity and research that says otherwise.

Link to comment

Hello akboy,

It seems Christian has seveal different sets of criteria depending on who is using it. Theologans naturally believe theology is important and therefore limit Christian to adherance to a particular theology. I think the run of the mill Christians generally accept anyone as a Christian who makes the claim. Personally I choose not to be viewed as a Christian.

Link to comment

I read the article, and from what I have read, those three questions you ask are answered within the context of the article itself.

How so? What context explains why the authors don't stick with the Biblical use of 'Christian'? What context explains why followers of Christ need to take into account how 'abominable' and 'corrupt' use the term 'Christian'? What context explains why the authors take into account some uses of 'Christian' but ignore other uses?
The overall question is this - How can mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical Christians say that Mormonism is not Christian when they themselves do not fully fulfill the term "Christian" by definition?
How don't mainstream Protestants fully fulfill the term "Christian"?
Link to comment

May I kindly suggest that we stop fussing counter-productively over who should or shouldn't be covered under the label of "Christian", and concern ourselves instead with whether or not we, personally, are living Christ-like lives. To do otherwise is to miss the whole point of Christ's gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Akboy,

Read the article very carefully. Here is the first couple of sentences from the paragraph:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always accepted Jesus of Nazareth as testified of in the Bible: the divine Redeemer and Son of God who atoned for the sins of all mankind and ensured our universal resurrection. The church has never ceased to affirm that there is no other name given whereby man can be saved (see Acts 4:12).

The tenure of the article is established. The question is Are Mormon's Christian? Mainstream evangelical Christians will say a resounding no. This is because they define Christianity as a belief system that embraces a variety of doctrinal tenets that even they themselves cannot agree with. Pentecostal Christians believe that one has to be "baptized" by the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues as a doctrinal tenet. Calvinists believe that you are so depraved that the good works you do outside of God count as nothing, and that it takes only God to save you if God so chooses to save you and you were predestined to be saved. United Pentecostals believe in the Oneness Doctrines. Name your denomination, and there are various doctrinal differences among them. Yet, all of them consider one another Christian by definition.

Again, this is what is stated in the next paragraph:

Obviously there are doctrinal differences between Mormons and people of a variety of other Christian denominations. But Latter-day Saints believe that it must be possible for people to have different points of view and still be Christians. Given the large number of Christian denominations, all of whom disagree on points large and small, this conclusion is inescapable. Latter-day Saints embrace as fellow Christians those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. In the same vein, they believe that no doctrinal difference or variation in practice can loom so large as to cancel out their own sincere belief in and commitment to Jesus Christ as Lord and Redeemer.

We then jump to your "disputed quotations" that you wrestled out of context. When you look at the overall context of the article, it is very simple and quite clear based on this paragraph what you are missing and the answer you are refusing to see:

The historical fact is that the word Christian has been used over the centuries to describe a wide range of practices and theological positions, including some that Latter-day Saints find just as seriously mistaken as do their Protestant critics. For instance, the Marcionites rejected the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John. The Docetists denied that Christ possessed a real physical body. Yet these groups and many others are routinely referred to as Christians by the scholars who have studied them most.

This obviously answers your questions in your original post. Answers, you do not seem to get, nor want to look at because you would rather take out of context a couple of paragraphs and then make them say something that the context truly does not say. Therefore, the premise of this article is to show forth that the term "Christian" as it is defined and applied to in our modern sense and understanding of mainstream evangelical and Protestant Christianity is an all-inclusive term where there exists a variety of opinions, doctrinal disputes, and Biblical interpretations between one another. Protestants call Roman Catholics Christians, Eastern Orthodox Churches are Christian Churches, Assemblies of God are Christian, Calvinists and Reformed Theological adheres are Christians, Nondenominational Churches are Christians. Yet they all disagree on specific points of doctrine. However, when it comes to applying the term and proper definition of Christian (which means Christ-Like and Follower of Christ), Mormon's can in no way hold this term because it is offensive to call a Latter-day Saint believer of the Mormon Faith "Christian" because of the difference in Biblical Interpretation, belief in Modern day Prophets and Revelations, open canon of Scripture and the like.

So, what right does mainstream Christianity say that the term is exclusive when it is not exclusive when you look at the differences between all of the denominations and faiths under the term Christianity?

That is the question that deserves the million dollar answer my friend. A question that this article is essentially addressing.

However, you would rather (as stated before) take three paragraphs out of context and then ask a questions that are specifically addressed and answered in the context of the article itself. If you still can't see them then that is your issue and problem, not ours.

Link to comment

May I kindly suggest that we stop fussing counter-productively over who should or shouldn't be covered under the label of "Christian", and concern ourselves instead with whether or not we, personally, are living Christ-like lives. To do otherwise is to miss the whole point of Christ's gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I personally agree, however the tone of the OP is simply to attempt to encourage a discussion and disputation that is not even in the context of the article itself. Had Akboy actually read and comprehended the article, then he/she would see exactly how, why, and to what point the article is addressing and would not have wasted their time posting such faulty argumentation.

Link to comment
I personally agree, however the tone of the OP is simply to attempt to encourage a discussion and disputation that is not even in the context of the article itself. Had Akboy actually read and comprehended the article, then he/she would see exactly how, why, and to what point the article is addressing and would not have wasted their time posting such faulty argumentation.

Agreed. I have no problem with the cited article, or the astute follow-up clarifications. I believe both are warranted, and this only because certain elements within Christianity have missed the point of Christ's gospel and have focused instead on waging valueless label wars.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

I'm not a Mormon, but I've been reading a lot of articles on how various groups use the term 'Christian' and I found this one by FARMS.

http://mi.byu.edu/pu...d=45&chapid=530

Thank you for pointing out this article, Akboy. It should make things clear to all who read it, but I would like to add a little something.

This question is always brought up by critics of the LDS Church who try to "marginalize" the LDS Church and try to imply that we are something other than "Christians". (Maybe Pagans?) They are not always clear on just what their defination of a "Christian" is, but they know that we are not one.

They are correct in one respect........we are not "creedal Christians". That is, LDS folks do not accept as doctrine what men put in their creeds of the third and fourth centuries concerning the nature of God. We do, however, hold to the doctrine concerning the atonement of Jesus Christ and His role in the salvation of mankind as expressed in the bible.

Yes, LDS are Christians, but what I say will have no effect on those who wish to describe us otherwise. I understand them because, you see, I used to be one of them.

Jim in Texas

Link to comment

The tenure of the article is established. The question is Are Mormon's Christian?

My problem isn't with the main thesis of the article. I'm not trying to say Mormons aren't Christians. My questions are about points the authors use to support the thesis.
Pentecostal Christians believe that one has to be "baptized" by the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues as a doctrinal tenet. Calvinists believe that you are so depraved that the good works you do outside of God count as nothing, and that it takes only God to save you if God so chooses to save you and you were predestined to be saved. United Pentecostals believe in the Oneness Doctrines. Name your denomination, and there are various doctrinal differences among them. Yet, all of them consider one another Christian by definition.
CFR. I have no doubt many Protestants consider all of those groups Christian, but do those same Protestants also say Mormons aren't Christians? I haven't heard of any. Have you actually heard a group make both of those claims?
This obviously answers your questions in your original post.

How do the the quotes you posted explain why followers of Christ need to take into account how 'abominable' and 'corrupt' Churches use the term 'Christian'? The article makes it very clear the majority of mainstream Christianity considers 'Christian' an all-inclusive term, but it doesn't explain why it should be an all-inclusive term. The Mormon church obviously disagrees with mainstream Christianity on many points. So why does it follow the mainstream when it comes to the definition of Christian?

So you agree with the article when it says, "A Christian is a person who accepts Jesus Christ as, uniquely, his or her Lord and Redeemer"? Why? That definition ignores multiple ways the term has been used through the centuries? Why doesn't the definition take those uses into account?

Link to comment

Akboy,

Again, third time is the charm as they say.

The article is not about WHY MORMONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CHRISTIANS. It is about HOW MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANS DEFINE WHAT IS AND IS NOT CONSIDERED CHRISTIAN, and how their basic argumentation is weakened with logical reasoning.

Let me break it down for you (because apparently you are not getting it).

Roman Catholics are considered Christian because they teach, preach, and live their lives according to the dictates of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. They believe in Christ, they worship Christ, they accept Christ for who he is. Roman Catholics denounce the Eastern Orthodox Church because, after all, this is the first major schism where two separate identities of Christianity split apart on doctrine.

Eastern Orthodox consider themselves Christian because they teach, preach, and live their lives according to the dictates of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ. They do not accept the tenets of Roman Catholicism - whom they had broken free from.

Protestant Christianity (Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Reformed Churches) consider themselves Christians. Their roots lay on the foundation of those who reformed Christianity (Martin Luther, John Calvin) and declared that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity had become corrupt in some way (remember the 95 theses that Martin Luther nailed to the door challenging the Roman Catholic Church over the doctrine of selling indulgances).

Modern mainstream Evangelicals and Fundamentalists (Non-denominational, Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, Baptists) view themselves Christians, yet hold to different doctrines and interpretations of the Bible.

All of these, with their divergence of views, interpretations, all believe and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Understand and interpret his divine mission here in mortality, his crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection as doctrinal truth. Though they vary in doctrine (Predestination verses Free Will, Once Saved Always saved versus losing one's Salvation, Pre-, Mid, Post, tribulationism, Realized Eschatology - or Preterism, Baptism by the Holy Ghost and speaking in Tongues, Health and Wealth Prosperity Gospel Preachers, Salvation by Grace and Works, Salvation by Grace Alone).

Yet, when it comes to Mormonism, suddenly, Mormon's are not Christian. They can't have the name Christian. Even though Mormonism testifies of Christ, preaches Christ, teaches the reality of His divine mission, reason for the atonement, power in salvation, how men are to be saved, his crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection. Despite this central belief that Mormon's share with other "Christian Denominations and Faiths" that accept, preach, and teach the same thing - they say Mormonism is not a Christian Religion.

Again, if Mormonism is not a Christian Religion and can't take the term Christian as biblically defined, then how can Roman Catholics call themselves Christians when they differ in doctrines from that of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or, the Protestants calling themselves Christians even though they differ from Roman Catholics? How about Calvary Chapel Christians who dispute doctrines with Calvinists? How can either one of them claim to be Christian by definition if they can't even agree on points of doctrine and interpretation?

As stated before, you are attempting to make a mountain out of an insignificant mole hill and trying to get the article to say something that is not what it truly says so that you can kick against the pricks and condemn Mormonism by establishing up a false pretense of questioning.

Yes, we have to define the Biblical Premise of what constitutes a true Christian from that of a False Christian. However, as clearly pointed out in the article itself, which of all the Christian Denominations truly fall under the true Biblical definition of Christian when they themselves can't agree on one single point of doctrine - except Jesus Christ, his mission, death on the cross, burial, and resurrection?

Link to comment

The article is not about WHY MORMONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CHRISTIANS. It is about HOW MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANS DEFINE WHAT IS AND IS NOT CONSIDERED CHRISTIAN, and how their basic argumentation is weakened with logical reasoning.

Where do you get that? The article is titled 'Are Latter-day Saints Christian?' The first two paragraphs are all about Mormons focusing on Christ. Sure, the mainstream definition of Christian is a major part of the article, but it isn't the focus. As the last line says, "faithful Latter-day Saints, along with hundreds of millions of other believers in Jesus of Nazareth . . . abundantly qualify as Christians." That is what the article is abo
Again, if Mormonism is not a Christian Religion and can't take the term Christian as biblically defined, then how can Roman Catholics call themselves Christians when they differ in doctrines from that of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or, the Protestants calling themselves Christians even though they differ from Roman Catholics? How about Calvary Chapel Christians who dispute doctrines with Calvinists? How can either one of them claim to be Christian by definition if they can't even agree on points of doctrine and interpretation?
Again, CFR. What group has said all those churches are Christian, but Mormonism isn't?

CARM, one of the most well known sites saying Mormons aren't Christian, includes many religions in their list. They say Jehonah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists aren't Christians. They also say Roman Catholic and Oneness Pentacostal doctrine isn't Christian, but there's enough variation between their churches that it's harder to make a generalization. They certainly aren't singling out Mormons when it comes to who they say aren't Christian. Have you heard any group single Mormons out?

What do you think of Christian Scientists? They don't believe God is a real being at all, rather God is a "Principle." They see Jesus as an example, but he didn't die on a cross, wasn't God and didn't atone for our sins. They consider themselves Christians. Many people consider them Christians. Do you believe they're Christians?

Link to comment
Historical Usage

The historical fact is that the word Christian has been used over the centuries to describe a wide range of practices and theological positions, including some that Latter-day Saints find just as seriously mistaken as do their Protestant critics. For instance, the Marcionites rejected the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John. The Docetists denied that Christ possessed a real physical body. Yet these groups and many others are routinely referred to as Christians by the scholars who have studied them most.

Christian teachings and practices can be more or less inadequate, even seriously mistaken, while remaining Christian, just as competing theories of the solar system can vary and still lay claim to being scientific theories. The only definition of the word Christian that accounts for its use through the centuries and that includes all the individuals and groups who are universally regarded as falling under its description seems to be roughly this: A Christian is a person who accepts Jesus Christ as, uniquely, his or her Lord and Redeemer. By this definition, faithful Latter-day Saints, along with hundreds of millions of other believers in Jesus of Nazareth distributed across many denominations over thousands of years and on every continent, abundantly qualify as Christians.

Now, dust off your glasses, get some windex to make sure they are squeaky clean.

Historical Fact is that the word Christian has been used over the centuries to describe a wide range of practices and theological positions.

Roman Catholicism

Eastern Orthodox

Pentacostalism

Reformed Theology

Eastern Orthodoxy

Nondenominational

Baptists

Protestants

Evangelicals

Fundamentals

Conservatives

Liberals

Reformed Theologians

As for your CFR? CARM is about as authoritative as Snap, Crackle, Pop in your morning.

From Religion Facts:

"The branches of Christ's church have developed diverse traditions that enlarge our store of shared understandings."

--United Methodist Church official website

"Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is his only Son."

--C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

"The World Council of Churches is a community of churches on the way to visible unity in one faith and one eucharistic fellowship, expressed in worship and in common life in Christ."

--World Council of Churches website

Over the centuries, Christianity has divided into numerous denominations. Each denomination has its own distinctive beliefs or practices, but they are commonly considered branches of the same religion because they agree on such fundamentals as the Bible, the Trinity, and the teachings of the Nicene Creed. The way in which members regard other denominations varies from mutual respect and acceptance to suspicion and denial that the other group is really "Christian."

The three main branches of Christianity are Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant (some would add Anglican as a fourth). Most of the denominations that exist today developed in the 500 years since the Protestant Reformation and fall under the "Protestant" branch. This section provides information on some of the major denominations that exist today, along with a brief history of how there came to be so many and many comparisons of their similarities and differences.

An Unpublished Essay by Richard John Neuhaus says this:

Moreover, most non-Catholic Christians in the West do not bridle at the claim that what is authentically Christian in their communities is derived, in one way or another, from the apostolically continuing tradition that is the Catholic Church, beginning with the canon of Holy Scripture and the Christological and Trinitarian definitions of the early councils. Of course, what they have selectively received from the Catholic Church they have revised and reformed according to their understanding of the Bible or of the needs of the time, and such changes are the subject of continuing ecumenical conversation. People of goodwill do not take umbrage at the claim that such elements are "gifts belonging to the Church of Christ [and] are forces impelling toward catholic unity," although they have their own ideas about what form that unity should take.

All Christians can agree on the formula that there is finally only one Church because there is only one Christ and the Church is his Body. Of course, Catholics are insistent that the one Church is both visible and invisible. But all affirm the maxim extra ecclesia nullas solus- at least to the extent that one must have heard the preaching of the gospel or read the Bible, both of which are impossible without the Church. As for saying that these other associations are ecclesial communities rather than churches in the full sense- as, for instance, the "particular churches" of Orthodoxy are churches- this should cause no hard feelings.[1]

And, we have this from ApologeticsIndex.com:

According to recent statistics, in the United States alone, there are 327,717 Protestant churches and 19,863 Catholic churches.
Link to comment

Let's forget about the article for a moment and take a step back.

What do Mormons base their definition of Christian on? Is it the Biblical usage, historical uses or something else?

Is there something wrong with that question? I think it's a reasonable question to ask.

I posted the article because I didn't want it to sound like my question is some random, out of the blue question I came up with. It really is based on something I thought about when reading Mormon articles. It may not directly relate to the point of the article, but so what? If the question itself is reasonable, does it really matter where I got it from?

Link to comment

Let's forget about the article for a moment and take a step back.

What do Mormons base their definition of Christian on? Is it the Biblical usage, historical uses or something else?

Is there something wrong with that question? I think it's a reasonable question to ask.

I posted the article because I didn't want it to sound like my question is some random, out of the blue question I came up with. It really is based on something I thought about when reading Mormon articles. It may not directly relate to the point of the article, but so what? If the question itself is reasonable, does it really matter where I got it from?

Since there is not really a biblical definition we turn to a historical definition. Specifically "A Christiain some one that believe in x,y,and z. That type of an appraoch is not outlined in the bible.

And that definition is that Jesus was the Son of God and that he sacraficed his own life and was resurrected, so that we to will be resurrected and have a chance at returning to God the Father. It really is a pretty simple definition.

Link to comment

Let's forget about the article for a moment and take a step back.

What do Mormons base their definition of Christian on? Is it the Biblical usage, historical uses or something else?

Is there something wrong with that question? I think it's a reasonable question to ask.

I posted the article because I didn't want it to sound like my question is some random, out of the blue question I came up with. It really is based on something I thought about when reading Mormon articles. It may not directly relate to the point of the article, but so what? If the question itself is reasonable, does it really matter where I got it from?

Christ is Greek for Anointed one - Christos. It is the equivalent of Messiah in Hebrew.

Christian is Christianos in Greek - meaning Follower of Christ. This is understood in the first New Testament passage of Acts 11:26 as being called Christians, in Antioch.

Regarding Acts 11:26 - Barnes New Testament Notes says this:

And the disciples were called Christians, etc. As this became the distinguishing name of the followers of Christ, it was worthy of record. The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves; or whether it was given by Divine intimation, has been a matter of debate. That it was given in derision is not probable. For in the name Christian there was nothing dishonourable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when they wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galilaeans, Ac 2:7 or as Nazarenes, Ac 24:6 "And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them; and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach. It is but twice used besides this place: Ac 26:28, "Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian;" 1 Pe 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed." No certain argument can be drawn in regard to the source of the name from the word which is used here. The word crhmatizw used here, means,

(1.) to transact any business; to be employed in accomplishing anything, etc. This is its usual signification in the Greek writers. It means,

(2.) to be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a Divine communication, etc., Mt 2:12; Lu 2:26; Ac 10:22; Heb 8:5; 11:7; 12:26.

It also means,

(3.) to be named, or called, in any way, without a Divine communication. Ro 7:3, "She shall be called an adulteress." It cannot be denied, however, that the most usual signification in the New Testament is that of a Divine monition, or communication; and it is certainly possible that the name was given by Barnabas and Saul. I incline to the opinion, however, that it was given to them by the Gentiles who were there, simply as an appellation, without intending it as a name of reproach, and that it was readily assumed by the disciples as a name that would fitly designate them. If it had been assumed by them, or if Barnabas and Saul had conferred the name, the record would probably have been to that effect; not simply that they "were called," but that they took this name, or that it was given by the apostles. It is, however, of little consequence whence the name originated. It soon became a name of reproach; and has usually been in all ages since, by the wicked, the gay, the licentious, and the ungodly. It is, however, an honoured name; the most honourable appellation that can be conferred on a mortal. It suggests at once to a Christian the name of his great Redeemer; the idea of our intimate relation to him; and the thought that we receive him as our chosen Leader, the source of our blessings, the author of our salvation, the fountain of our joys. It is the distinguishing name of all the redeemed. It is not that we belong to this or that denomination; it is not that our names are connected with high and illustrious ancestors; it is not that they are recorded in the books of heralds; it is not that they stand high in courts, and among the gay, and the fashionable, and the rich, that true honour is conferred on men. These are not the things that give distinction and peculiarity to the followers of the Redeemer. It is that they are Christians; that this is their peculiar name, and by this they are known; that this at once suggests their character, their feelings, their doctrines, their hopes, their joys. This binds them all together

Link to comment

Since there is not really a biblical definition we turn to a historical definition. Specifically "A Christiain some one that believe in x,y,and z. That type of an appraoch is not outlined in the bible.

And that definition is that Jesus was the Son of God and that he sacraficed his own life and was resurrected, so that we to will be resurrected and have a chance at returning to God the Father. It really is a pretty simple definition.

When you say 'historical definition,' could you be more specific? What part of history do you get the definition from?

Link to comment

Christ is Greek for Anointed one - Christos. It is the equivalent of Messiah in Hebrew.

Christian is Christianos in Greek - meaning Follower of Christ. This is understood in the first New Testament passage of Acts 11:26 as being called Christians, in Antioch.

So, in its basic sense, to be called "Christian" in the Biblical sense and definition, it is the appellation of title where one claims that they are the follower of Jesus of Nazareth, the Anointed One. To this, Mormons are rightly called Christians because they acknowledge and follow Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Read the bolded carefully. Those are two different definitions. Why don't we stick with the first one? Why do we have to add 'claim'?

Consider Christian Scientists. They claim they're Christians. But they don't believe God is a real being, rather God is a "Principle." They see Jesus as an example, but he didn't die on a cross, wasn't God and didn't atone for our sins. By your definition, are they Christian?

Link to comment

Read the bolded carefully. Those are two different definitions. Why don't we stick with the first one? Why do we have to add 'claim'?

Consider Christian Scientists. They claim they're Christians. But they don't believe God is a real being, rather God is a "Principle." They see Jesus as an example, but he didn't die on a cross, wasn't God and didn't atone for our sins. By your definition, are they Christian?

Yeah lets, so were do we learn what specifically in the bible teaches that a Christina must believe in X,Y, or Z? or else the cannot be Chrsitain.

Beside the point, this is not my argument. You ask LDS to outline what we believe, I did that and now you want to move on to your point using your definitions. Sorry but I don't want to play.

It is not for me to tell some one else what they are or are not. I don't waste my time in trying to define what others believe for them.

I see I responded to the wrong post,

When you say 'historical definition,' could you be more specific? What part of history do you get the definition from?

I get it from what it meant in a tradintional way. Some might even go so far as to say that you must be baptised to be a Christian, however the bible never makes such a statement. It also never says taht I have to believe in nicean trinitarianism either.

Link to comment

Read the bolded carefully. Those are two different definitions. Why don't we stick with the first one? Why do we have to add 'claim'?

Consider Christian Scientists. They claim they're Christians. But they don't believe God is a real being, rather God is a "Principle." They see Jesus as an example, but he didn't die on a cross, wasn't God and didn't atone for our sins. By your definition, are they Christian?

You are now cherry picking because you still do not get it.

Christ is not a surname, nor is it name. It is Greek/ Christos/ that means "Anointed One". Christianos is the etymological term for those who follow the Anointed One. Who is this anointed one? Jesus of Nazareth.

Again, as pointed out: Mormon's believe that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the Living God and follow him. As to who is and is not Christians? That is not for me to judge. However, it is easy for modern evangelical and mainstream Christians to define who is and who is not Christians.

Again, will point this out.

Christ is Christos meaning Anointed one. Etymologically, Christian is Christianos in Greek meaning followers of Jesus the Anointed one.

Again, will point this out for you.

Christ is Christos meaning Anointed one. Etymologically, Christian is Christianos in Greek meaning followers of Jesus the Anointed one.

Again, will point this out for you.

Christ is Christos meaning anointed one. Etymologically, Christian is Christianos in Greek meaning followers of Jesus the Anointed one.

If this has not sunk into your mind, then it will never sunk in and you are desperately hanging on an imaginary thread that only you can see. Time to let go and realize that your argumentation is futile beyond this point.

Link to comment

You are now cherry picking because you still do not get it.

Christ is not a surname, nor is it name. It is Greek/ Christos/ that means "Anointed One". Christianos is the etymological term for those who follow the Anointed One. Who is this anointed one? Jesus of Nazareth.

Again, as pointed out: Mormon's believe that Jesus is the Christ, Son of the Living God and follow him. As to who is and is not Christians? That is not for me to judge. However, it is easy for modern evangelical and mainstream Christians to define who is and who is not Christians.

Again, will point this out.

Christ is Christos meaning Anointed one. Etymologically, Christian is Christianos in Greek meaning followers of Jesus the Anointed one.

I agree with all the bolded. That doesn't explain why 'claim' needs to be added to the definition. Just because someone claims to be following Christ doesn't mean they actually are. What's wrong with saying that? Claiming to do something isn't the same thing as actually doing it.

Yeah lets, so were do we learn what specifically in the bible teaches that a Christina must believe in X,Y, or Z? or else the cannot be Chrsitain.

The Bible doesn't have to teach that. As Seattle pointed out, the Bible does use the term Christian and it means someone who follows Christ. Doesn't the Bible teach what someone must do to follow Christ?
I get it from what it meant in a tradintional way. Some might even go so far as to say that you must be baptised to be a Christian, however the bible never makes such a statement. It also never says taht I have to believe in nicean trinitarianism either.
So you get the definition from how the term has been used through the centuries?
Link to comment

I agree with all the bolded. That doesn't explain why 'claim' needs to be added to the definition. Just because someone claims to be following Christ doesn't mean they actually are. What's wrong with saying that? Claiming to do something isn't the same thing as actually doing it.

The Bible doesn't have to teach that. As Seattle pointed out, the Bible does use the term Christian and it means someone who follows Christ. Doesn't the Bible teach what someone must do to follow Christ?

So you get the definition from how the term has been used through the centuries?

1. The bible never tells us in what way we have to believe in Jesus to be dubbed a christian.

2. Yes.

Link to comment

1. The bible never tells us in what way we have to believe in Jesus to be dubbed a christian.

2. Yes.

1. As Seattle pointed out, the Bible does explain what a Christian is, a follower of Christ. The Bible also explains how to follow Christ. It's like if A=B, and B=C, then A must equal C.

2. How do you pick what traditions to follow when you define Christian? Some traditions say Christ wasn't God's Son and he didn't die for our sins. Do you consider those traditions?

Link to comment

1. As Seattle pointed out, the Bible does explain what a Christian is, a follower of Christ. The Bible also explains how to follow Christ. It's like if A=B, and B=C, then A must equal C.

2. How do you pick what traditions to follow when you define Christian? Some traditions say Christ wasn't God's Son and he didn't die for our sins. Do you consider those traditions?

How does the Bible teach that we are to follow Christ?

Link to comment

1. As Seattle pointed out, the Bible does explain what a Christian is, a follower of Christ. The Bible also explains how to follow Christ. It's like if A=B, and B=C, then A must equal C.

2. How do you pick what traditions to follow when you define Christian? Some traditions say Christ wasn't God's Son and he didn't die for our sins. Do you consider those traditions?

1. I think you ened to reread my post. It is evident that you didn't get what I said.

2. I am unaware of any traditional uses of the word Christian that spell out how and in what ways some one must beleive in who Jesus is or was. If some one wants to believe that Jesus was not devine, that in no way disqualifies them from being Christan. I might disagree with them on that point quite strongly but it is between them and God. All that matters is taht they claim to be a follower of Jesus to gain the title of "Christian".

Now if you want to get into a theological debate of "who has the correct understanding of who Jesus is" that might be a better discussion and one were you seem to be heading.

Having a correct understanding of who Jesus is is not a requirement to be a Christian other wise you would only have one group of people that are Christians. Oh and the bible never tells us that that is a requirement for being a Christian.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...