A FARM article on 'Christian'

[ERMD]

I'm saying there are specific things someone needs to do to be a Christian. But debating what those specifics are would outside the scope of this thread.

You insist on specifics, but refuse to provide them yourself. Some would call that hypocritical. I'm not looking to debate what those specifics are. I'm asking a follow-up to what you have pointed out. There is a difference between claiming to be a Christian and being a Christian. Again, what must one do to be a Christian?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

2. Why does the definition of Christian have to account for how it

[mrmendoza]

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.

1. So why don

[Daniel Peterson]

But do you believe all of those options are following Christ?

We disagree. But not so much that I'm willing (or even tempted) to deny that they're Christians. Good grief. What a wonderful contribution it would be to the English language (not to mention social harmony) if Quakers denied that Catholics were Christians, and Methodists denied that Baptists were Christians, and Lutherans denied that Presbyterians were Christians, and every little sectarian faction tried to restrict the title to itself alone.

What useful purpose do you think it would serve for the term Christian to be a perpetual battleground? Would we gain anything by urging the Orthodox and the Catholics and the Protestants to deny each other's Christianity?

To be candid, I'm not sure why you're pursuing what seems to be such a potentially divisive and linguistically eccentric course.

Does the Bible allow a great deal of latitude when it comes to what it teaches about how we follow Him?

The existence of numerous Bible-believing churches and sects that differ considerably on a whole panoply of issues seems pretty clearly to indicate that the Bible is compatible with a range of ways of being Christian.

Normal English (and German and Greek and French and Arabic and Dutch and Japanese and other) usage recognizes this, and has done so for many centuries. I don't see it as my role, nor as yours, to denounce this as wrong.

Is the LDS church monopolizing the term 'God' when they clearly state Christ and the Father are two separate beings? What about when they say God has a physical body?

How on earth would having a particular view of God "monopolize" the term? I can't make anything out of that language at all.

Do Jews "monopolize" the term God by denying that he is triune? Do Muslims "monopolize" it by declaring that he has no Son? Do Catholics "monopolize" it by asserting that he protects the pope from serious theological error?

If so, how???

I'm not here to say Mormons aren't Christians or they aren't following Christ. I don't want to get into specifics because that's not what this thread is about. It's about how broad the term 'Christian' should be.

I would say that it should be about as broad as, in standard usage, it is. The language works pretty well. Broad patterns of usage discard weird little eccentricities and partisan special pleading. Which is just as it should be.

[Akboy]

You insist on specifics, but refuse to provide them yourself. Some would call that hypocritical. I'm not looking to debate what those specifics are. I'm asking a follow-up to what you have pointed out. There is a difference between claiming to be a Christian and being a Christian. Again, what must one do to be a Christian?

I believe being a Christian requires someone to rely completely on Christ's atonement for the payment of sins. Any addition of works required to get to heaven with God or gain favor with God nullifies that faith in Christ because it would mean you're relying on your own efforts. Without this faith, Christ's atonement is not applied and sins are paid for in hell.

If that is how we're supposed to follow Christ, and if someone believes in something contradictory to it, then they aren't following Christ. Someone who isn't following Christ isn't a Christian. However, if Mormon teachings are the right teachings, then I wouldn't be a Christian because I wouldn't be following Christ. Two contradictory belief systems can't both be following Christ.

Apostacy doesn't mean that everything they believed in was false. So there is nothing to "take into account".

Since the bible never defines it what to you propose?

Were all their beliefs about following Christ correct? If not, why do we need to take their beliefs about following Christ into account when we define Christian?

'Christian' means follower of Christ. The Bible define following Christ. What's the problem here?

We disagree. But not so much that I'm willing (or even tempted) to deny that they're Christians. Good grief. What a wonderful contribution it would be to the English language (not to mention social harmony) if Quakers denied that Catholics were Christians, and Methodists denied that Baptists were Christians, and Lutherans denied that Presbyterians were Christians, and every little sectarian faction tried to restrict the title to itself alone.

What useful purpose do you think it would serve for the term Christian to be a perpetual battleground? Would we gain anything by urging the Orthodox and the Catholics and the Protestants to deny each other's Christianity?

To be candid, I'm not sure why you're pursuing what seems to be such a potentially divisive and linguistically eccentric course.

I'm not saying only one group can be Christian. Two groups could disagree on issues like end times theology and what type of songs to sing in church and still both be Christian because those issues aren't foundational to following Christ. I'm just saying two groups with different foundations can't both be following Christian.

Which is a higher priority, avoiding potentially divisive language or clarity and consistency when it comes to what we say about following Christ? Of course, we shouldn't try to offensive or anything. But avoiding divisiveness shouldn't be the highest priority. Christ did say the world would hate Christians and the gospel would divide people.

The existence of numerous Bible-believing churches and sects that differ considerably on a whole panoply of issues seems pretty clearly to indicate that the Bible is compatible with a range of ways of being Christian.

Really? Someone could use some Old Testament passages to justify genocide, but that doesn't mean the Bible would be compatible with that view. Just because there's a wide variety of ways the Bible has been interpreted does not mean it's compatible with those beliefs.

How on earth would having a particular view of God "monopolize" the term? I can't make anything out of that language at all.

I was trying to relate this back to the question about 'Christian.' How on earth would having a particular view of Christian "monopolize" the term?

The reality is that the term "Christian" as normally used by "most" people, is simply a generic term for anybody who either actively or passavily calls themself a Christian. So the answer to your second question(s) is/are because that's just how it is! As to your third set of questions, the answer is that in the generic sense it does take in all commers. For those who like a more narrow definition, then they can and do choose whatever criteria they want.

2. 'That's just how it is' doesn't explain why it's that way. It doesn't explain why we should rely on "most people" for the definition rather than relying on the Bible.

3. No, no it doesn't take in all commers. Read my 3rd question again. It lists 1-2 uses that these definitions do not take into account.

[ERMD]

I believe being a Christian requires someone to rely completely on Christ's atonement for the payment of sins. Any addition of works required to get to heaven with God or gain favor with God nullifies that faith in Christ because it would mean you're relying on your own efforts. Without this faith, Christ's atonement is not applied and sins are paid for in hell.

If that is how we're supposed to follow Christ, and if someone believes in something contradictory to it, then they aren't following Christ. Someone who isn't following Christ isn't a Christian. However, if Mormon teachings are the right teachings, then I wouldn't be a Christian because I wouldn't be following Christ. Two contradictory belief systems can't both be following Christ.

'Christian' means follower of Christ. The Bible define following Christ. What's the problem here?

Your "if" is a very big "if". Is relying on Christ's atonement a completely passive endeavor? How exactly does the Bible define "following Christ" in your opinion? Did Christ preach a passive belief?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Were all their beliefs about following Christ correct? If not, why do we need to take their beliefs about following Christ into account when we define Christian?

I will say this more slowly and even more clearly.

S-i-n-c-e

t-h-e

a-p-o-s-t-a-c-y

d-o-e-s

n-o-t

m-e-a-n

t-h-a-t

a-l-l

b-e-l-i-e-f-s

a-r-e

f-a-l-s-e

t-h-e-r-e

i-s

n-o-t-h-i-n-g

t-o

t-a-k-e

i-n

t-o

a-c-c-o-u-n-t.

That means that some things they got right, I would even venture to say that they got most things right. So if they go most things right then there is nothing to 2nd guess when it comes to defining what a Christian says. You are trying to lead us on a wild goose chase and it wont work.

"why do we need to take their beliefs about following Christ into account when we define Christian?"

We don't you are conflating the issue here. Being a Christian is not about how we follow Christ. It is taht we express a belief in Christ. You are still missing the issue here.

[Vance]

If that is how we're supposed to follow Christ, and if someone believes in something contradictory to it, then they aren't following Christ. Someone who isn't following Christ isn't a Christian.

And IF that isn't correct, then you will find yourself outside of your restrictive definition of "Christian" at the last day. How would that make you feel?

It reminds me of this;

1 Ne. 14:3 . . . that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; . . .

[mrmendoza]

I believe being a Christian requires someone to rely completely on Christ's atonement for the payment of sins. Any addition of works required to get to heaven with God or gain favor with God nullifies that faith in Christ because it would mean you're relying on your own efforts. Without this faith, Christ's atonement is not applied and sins are paid for in hell.

If that is how we're supposed to follow Christ, and if someone believes in something contradictory to it, then they aren't following Christ. Someone who isn't following Christ isn't a Christian. However, if Mormon teachings are the right teachings, then I wouldn't be a Christian because I wouldn't be following Christ. Two contradictory belief systems can't both be following Christ.

Were all their beliefs about following Christ correct? If not, why do we need to take their beliefs about following Christ into account when we define Christian?

'Christian' means follower of Christ. The Bible define following Christ. What's the problem here?

I'm not saying only one group can be Christian. Two groups could disagree on issues like end times theology and what type of songs to sing in church and still both be Christian because those issues aren't foundational to following Christ. I'm just saying two groups with different foundations can't both be following Christian.

Which is a higher priority, avoiding potentially divisive language or clarity and consistency when it comes to what we say about following Christ? Of course, we shouldn't try to offensive or anything. But avoiding divisiveness shouldn't be the highest priority. Christ did say the world would hate Christians and the gospel would divide people.

Really? Someone could use some Old Testament passages to justify genocide, but that doesn't mean the Bible would be compatible with that view. Just because there's a wide variety of ways the Bible has been interpreted does not mean it's compatible with those beliefs.

I was trying to relate this back to the question about 'Christian.' How on earth would having a particular view of Christian "monopolize" the term?

2. 'That's just how it is' doesn't explain why it's that way. It doesn't explain why we should rely on "most people" for the definition rather than relying on the Bible.

3. No, no it doesn't take in all commers. Read my 3rd question again. It lists 1-2 uses that these definitions do not take into account.

I had a realy great rebuttle for this post, but when I hit the print post button, it got all messed up and I lost the whole thing, so I'll condense it down this way. akboy, your an idiot, and you're wrong!

Mike

[Akboy]

I will say this more slowly and even more clearly.

Since the apostacy does not mean that all beliefs are false there is nothing to take into account.

That means that some things they got right, I would even venture to say that they got most things right. So if they go most things right then there is nothing to 2nd guess when it comes to defining what a Christian says. You are trying to lead us on a wild goose chase and it wont work.

Then what did God mean when he told JS the churches were an abominations and corrupt? If they got most things right, couldn't one of the churches just been reformed. Why was there need for a complete restoration?

The Mormon doctrines on salvation, faith, grace and the atonement, all foundational issues to following Christ, are significantly different from traditional doctrines on those issues. How can both groups get "most things right" when they're so different in these areas?

"why do we need to take their beliefs about following Christ into account when we define Christian?"

We don't you are conflating the issue here. Being a Christian is not about how we follow Christ. It is taht we express a belief in Christ. You are still missing the issue here.

I'm not making stuff up here. The FARM article says "The only definition of the word Christian that accounts for its use through the centuries . . ." Isn't the Catholic and Baptist definitions of Christian part of Catholic and Baptist beliefs?

The term 'Christian,' in greek, means 'follower of Christ.' It doesn't mean 'one who expresses belief in Christ.' I've always stuck with the Biblical definition. If anyone is trying to redefine the term, it's the people who insist on broadening it because that's not what it originally meant.

Your "if" is a very big "if". Is relying on Christ's atonement a completely passive endeavor? How exactly does the Bible define "following Christ" in your opinion? Did Christ preach a passive belief?

'Following Christ' involves having a genuine faith in Christ. Not a passive faith that doesn't change the person. Yes, it is a very big "if". So what?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then what did God mean when he told JS the churches were an abominations and corrupt? If they got most things right, couldn't one of the churches just been reformed. Why was there need for a complete restoration?

The Mormon doctrines on salvation, faith, grace and the atonement, all foundational issues to following Christ, are significantly different from traditional doctrines on those issues. How can both groups get "most things right" when they're so different in these areas?

Lets look at the actuall source AKboy. CFR that God told JS that the churches were an abomination. Nothing has ever been said about a "complete resotration". CFR

[ERMD]

'Following Christ' involves having a genuine faith in Christ. Not a passive faith that doesn't change the person. Yes, it is a very big "if". So what?

Where does the Bible state the following Christ means having a genuine faith in Christ?

Where does the Bible define "genuine faith"?

You say that people can't claim to be Christian, but must do something else, yet this "something else" is quite nebulous, it appears.

As stated above, check your source about what was called an abomination and corrupt.

[Vance]

The Mormon doctrines on salvation, faith, grace and the atonement, all foundational issues to following Christ, are significantly different from traditional doctrines on those issues.

"traditional doctrines"?

As defined by whom? The Catholics? The Anglicans? The Orthodox? The Baptists?

What makes you think that what you believe is "traditional doctrines"?

[Akboy]

Lets look at the actuall source AKboy. CFR that God told JS that the churches were an abomination. Nothing has ever been said about a "complete resotration". CFR

History of the Church 18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)

[David Bokovoy]

Alrighty, this is getting silly. Let

[ERMD]

I don't want this to get into who's interpretation of 'grace' is right. The point is 'Christian' in greek means 'follower of Christ.' It doesn't mean 'one who claims to follow Christ.' Two belief systems that contradict each other on the fundamentals of following Christ can both claim to follow Christ, but they can't actually both be following Christ.

Your link addresses justification by grace. How does this define what one must DO to follow Christ?

How about in your own words stating plainly what one must DO to follow Christ?

[WalkerW]

Alrighty, this is getting silly. Let

[WalkerW]

(2) are specifically reproached by other Christians such as Akboy for our confessed belief in the name, clearly members of the Church of Jesus CHRIST of Latter-day Saints fall perfectly into the biblical definition of the term, perhaps even more so than Catholics and/or Evangelicals (though I wouldn't deny that either of these two groups are Christians either).

From my perspective, we really should thank our fellow Christians such as Akboy who help us reach this expanded biblical usage of the term Christian via their reproach for our confessed belief in Christ:

Oh, the irony.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

History of the Church 18 My object in going to ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)

[Vance]

"traditional doctrines"?

As defined by whom? The Catholics? The Anglicans? The Orthodox? The Baptists?

What makes you think that what you believe is "traditional doctrines"?

What does that have to do with my overall point?

It has everything to do with it. If "traditional doctrines" is the standard by which you are going to judge, then "traditional doctrines" must first be established. All of the groups I mentioned above (and more) claim to have the true "traditional doctrines". So a mere claim to having "traditional doctrines" is insufficient to make it so.

So again, what makes you think that what you believe is "traditional doctrines"?

And why do you suppose that your "claim" (or whatever) is sufficient to stand in judgment of others?

[Vance]

Wow!! Nothing like a great big slap up the side of the head to facilitate clearer thinking.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Alrighty, this is getting silly. Let

[WalkerW]

Wow!! Nothing like a great big slap up the side of the head to facilitate clearer thinking.

[Akboy]

Alrighty, this is getting silly. Let

[WalkerW]

But what does Christianos mean? What is the etymology of the word? As SeattleGhostWritter said earlier, it means 'a follower of Christ.' Of course, I shouldn't just take his word for it, so I double checked that.

http://www.biblestud...546&version=kjv

http://bible.heartli...cgi?number=5546

http://en.wikipedia....ian#cite_note-2

They all agree the term means a follower of Christ. Do you have an etymology source that says otherwise?

I don't think Wikipedia counts.

According to who?

Uh, volume 3 of The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament published by Eerdmans...like he said...

I believe justification by grace is a key part of that genuine faith.

Now we are getting into your theological interpretations. Does your view of grace fit the cultural context:

"The fact that one and the same word can be used to speak of a beneficient act and the response to a beneficent act suggests implicitly what many moralists from the Greek and Roman cultures stated explicitly: Grace must be met with grace; favor must always give birth to favor; gift must always be met with gratitude. An image that captured [the idea of grace] for the ancients was the picture of three goddesses, the three "Graces," dancing hand in hand in a circle...from [many] ancient witnesses, we learn that there is no such thing as an isolated act of grace. An act of favor and its manifestation (the gift) initiate a circle dance in which the recipients of favor and gifts must "return the favor," that is, give again to the giver...Only a gift requited is a gift well and nobly received. To fail to return favor for favor is, in effect, to break off the dance and destroy the beauty of the gracious act." (David DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture, 2000)

Or how about your "genuine faith":

"It is worth noting at this point that faith (Lat. fides; Gk pistis) is a term also very much at home in patron-client and friendship relations...in one sense, faith meant "dependability." The patron needed to prove reliable in providing the assistance he or she promised to grant. The client needed to "keep faith" as well, in the sense of showing loyalty or commitment to the patron and to his or her obligations of gratitude. A second meaning in the more familiar sense is "trust": the client had to trust the goodwill and ability of the patron...while the benefactor would also have to trust the recipients to act nobly and make a grateful response." (Ibid.)

It fits ours: "For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace." (D&C 93:20; emphasis mine)

I'm not judging. I'm not here to say Mormons aren't Christians.

Which, as has been shown, is absurd.