A FARM article on 'Christian'

[Daniel Peterson]

Good grief, Akboy. You say you're writing a book?

I hope it's better than what we're seeing here on this thread.

And I hope you'll resist the temptation to tell others what they believe and what their texts mean.

How can a church be a reliable source of truth or a good example of following Christ when their creeds are an abomination and their professors corrupt?

I give you now a corrupt text:

1: And seeing the multitudes, he went up a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

2: And he opened his taught them, saying,

3: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs ccvbn is the kingdom of heaven.

4: Blessed they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5: Blessed are the meek: for they inherit the earth.

6: Blessed are bbjvf which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7: Blessed are the merciful: they shall obtain mercy.

8: Blessed are the pure in heart: for shall see God.

9: Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be wetyq the children of God.

10: Blessed are they jjklyu are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11: Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12: Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they hjk prophets which were before you.

13: Ye are the salt of the : but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14: Ye are the light of the world. A city puytttt is set on an hill cannot be hid.

15: Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it 98765 light unto all that are in the house.

16: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see good works, and glorify your Father 76234 is in heaven.

17: Think not that I qwbm come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall ////// men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye vcbvdgh in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21: Ye have heard that it was ????? by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry 9087 his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememthberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24: Leave there thy qift before the alstar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

25: Agree with thine adversary quickly, wiles thou art in the way with him; least at any time the adversary deliver thee to judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26: Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost say what????.

27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of 12old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Ooo slip out the back, Jack Make a new plan, Stan You don't need to be coy, Roy Just listen to me Hop on the bus, Gus You don't need to discuss much Just drop off the key, Lee And get yourself free

30: And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

31: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32: But I say unto you, hooooooo! whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall ymarry her that is divorced committRomneylosesinIowaeth adultery.

33: Again, ye have heard that it hath been 87y66 by them of old thyme, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne Great White Throne in Zion National Park:

3590076522: Nor by the good green earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36: Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black nor, for that matter, blonde or lime green.

37: But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evilknievel.

38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eyore, and a tooth for a tooth:

39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also 00987125.

40: And if any Stan the man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41: And whosoever shall compel thee to a mile, go with him twain.

42: Give to him that ASCII thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and njklyyt hate thine enemy.

44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that cruise you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and prosecute you;

45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust and the rain in Spain falleth mainly on the plain.

46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the Republicans the same?

47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the rascally Republicans so?

48: Be ye therefore perfectamente, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfectamente.

Corrupt though every verse of the above passage is, I don't think you could seriously argue that it's not a reliable source of truth or a good guide to following Christ.

.

[ERMD]

I already stated that in my words. 'Following Christ' involves having a genuine faith in Christ. Not a passive faith that doesn't change the person. I believe justification by grace is a key part of that genuine faith. You asked for Bible passages that support that view, so I posted the link. Again, 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.

You keep throwing out terms, but you are either unwilling or unable to define them.

What is your definition of "genuine faith"? Providing a link to verses that discuss justification by grace does not define "genuine faith".

What do you consider to be the "fundamentals of following Christ"? Specifically. As in 1...2...3...4...etc.

This is going round and round and getting nowhere.

[Akboy]

Good grief, Akboy. You say you're writing a book?

I hope it's better than what we're seeing here on this thread.

And I hope you'll resist the temptation to tell others what they believe and what their texts mean.

I give you now a corrupt text:

Corrupt though every verse of the above passage is, I don't think you could seriously argue that it's not a reliable source of truth or a good guide to following Christ.

Could you respond to my questions in post 55?

You keep throwing out terms, but you are either unwilling or unable to define them.

What is your definition of "genuine faith"? Providing a link to verses that discuss justification by grace does not define "genuine faith".

What do you consider to be the "fundamentals of following Christ"? Specifically. As in 1...2...3...4...etc.

This is going round and round and getting nowhere.

I'm unwilling because it would derail the thread. We could easily have a full thread discussing what genuine faith is, but that's not what this thread is about. Again, 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. So how can Mormons and Evangelicals both be Christians?

I don't think Wikipedia counts.

I can give you a lot more.

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

Are you saying those etymological sources are wrong?

[ERMD]

I'm unwilling because it would derail the thread. We could easily have a full thread discussing what genuine faith is, but that's not what this thread is about. Again, 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. So how can Mormons and Evangelicals both be Christians?

You use terms and then refuse to define them and run and hide behind a "derail the thread" excuse? Give me a break!

You state that EV and LDS systems contradict each other on the "fundamentals of following Christ" but refuse to state what those fundamentals are.

You're trying to have it both ways. It doesn't work. It's obvious that your entire point is to make a case that members of the LDS Church are not/cannot be Christian. Provide specifics to back up this poorly veiled assertion.

[David Bokovoy]

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.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5546&version=kjv

http://bible.heartlight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5546

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian#cite_note-2

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

Yes. And as Walker correctly stated, I already gave it.

Here's the full reference: G. Schneider, "Christianos," Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3; Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider eds. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1994), 478.

This source states that in the Bible, the name Christian "presupposes that confession of Christ constituted the characteristic feature of Jesus' adherents... [who are] reproached for the name of Christ." Since we confess the name of Christ in the title of our Church and you, amongst others, reproach us for our use of the name, we qualify as Christians according to the biblical definition.

I know that's not what your sources say, but as an academic work, the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament trumps your sources including wikipedia. So if you disagree with this definition, I would suggest that rather than arguing with us, you should consider writing a letter to Eerdmans Publishing Company and petition that the editors alter their entry.

Best of luck.

[David Bokovoy]

This has been my whole point. Since the bible doesn't give a defintion of a Christian to mean anything more than a person who confesses Jesus. I am glad you made this post. It is much better than what I could do.

Not true. All of the responses to this issue that you and others have provided throughout this thread have been absolutely clear, to the point that any reasonable person without an ax to grind could never disagree, despite what wikipedia has to say.

[Vance]

And another smack, this time to the other side of the head!

Will it take?

Stay tuned!!!

[WalkerW]

And another smack, this time to the other side of the head!

Will it take?

Stay tuned!!!

"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! ...You get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!"

[Akboy]

Yes. And as Walker correctly stated, I already gave it.

Here's the full reference: G. Schneider, "Christianos," Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3; Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider eds. (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI, 1994), 478.

This source states that in the Bible, the name Christian "presupposes that confession of Christ constituted the characteristic feature of Jesus' adherents... [who are] reproached for the name of Christ." Since we confess the name of Christ in the title of our Church and you, amongst others, reproach us for our use of the name, we qualify as Christians according to the biblical definition.

Could you post the paragraph that quote appears in? I'd like to the see the context.

You use terms and then refuse to define them and run and hide behind a "derail the thread" excuse? Give me a break!

You state that EV and LDS systems contradict each other on the "fundamentals of following Christ" but refuse to state what those fundamentals are.

You're trying to have it both ways. It doesn't work. It's obvious that your entire point is to make a case that members of the LDS Church are not/cannot be Christian. Provide specifics to back up this poorly veiled assertion.

No, no I am not trying to say the LDS Chruch is not Christian. I would be posting a lot more verses if I was.

Do you believe the LDS fundamentals of following Christ are compatible with the Evangelical fundamentals of following Christ? How many times has that issue been discussed on this forum? What's the point of going over it all again when it's not even the focus of this thread?

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Akboy, let us cut through the theological red tape, step off the doctrinal merry-go-round, and quit dancing around the theological mulberry bush.

Simple question deserves a simple answer.

Do you agree with the article that you are questioning as to the broad term and definition of Christian and that Mormon's are Christians by this broad definition?

We will even do the old middle school note passing will you go out with me routine:

Check here for Yes:

Check here for No:

[Akboy]

Akboy, let us cut through the theological red tape, step off the doctrinal merry-go-round, and quit dancing around the theological mulberry bush.

Simple question deserves a simple answer.

Do you agree with the article that you are questioning as to the broad term and definition of Christian and that Mormon's are Christians by this broad definition?

We will even do the old middle school note passing will you go out with me routine:

Check here for Yes:

Check here for No:

No, I don't.

[Daniel Peterson]

Akboy:

A word to the wise, from somebody who's spent much of his career writing about religious faiths other than his own: If your summaries of others' beliefs meet constant and continuous resistance from those others, resistance that grows more and more vocal as you persist in repeating your summaries, you might want to rethink what you're doing. You're probably not getting things right. If you care about getting things right, you will listen to others.

[Akboy]

Akboy:

A word to the wise, from somebody who's spent much of his career writing about religious faiths other than his own: If your summaries of others' beliefs meet constant and continuous resistance from those others, resistance that grows more and more vocal as you persist in repeating your summaries, you might want to rethink what you're doing. You're probably not getting things right. If you care about getting things right, you will listen to others.

Think about this from another direction. Say I'm interviewing an anti-Mormon and I ask him why he says Mormons aren't Christians. He answers with something like 'Mormons aren't Christian because they teach a works-based salvation and don't believe Christ is God.' Of course I know that's not true, but how do I respond to it? Do I just listen to it or do I challenge him? Could I say something like, 'What about when Mormons say (BLANK) about salvation?'

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Think about this from another direction. Say I'm interviewing an anti-Mormon and I ask him why he says Mormons aren't Christians. He answers with something like 'Mormons aren't Christian because they teach a works-based salvation and don't believe Christ is God.' Of course I know that's not true, but how do I respond to it? Do I just listen to it or do I challenge him? Could I say something like, 'What about when Mormons say (BLANK) about salvation?'

Here is the problem that everyone is seeing - except for you.

You do not believe that Mormon's are Christian, or ought to be considered Christian. Even though you had clarified and agreed that the broad definition of Christian does include Mormons because it is based on the definition that any person who claims that they follow Christ are thereby considered Christian.

Yet, you turn around and are playing theological double speak.

Now, I would ask why do you not consider Mormon's Christians? By what Standards do you not include Mormons under the broad definition that we have labored so diligently in beating to China? If they are not considered Christians, according to your answer, then how do you personally define the meaning of what a Christian is and is not? And, how do we know that your definition is based on a valid and credible assurance that it follows the nature of the term of what the etymological meaning is? One, that I shall remind you of, in which you personally agree and acknowledge is true and proper.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not true. All of the responses to this issue that you and others have provided throughout this thread have been absolutely clear, to the point that any reasonable person without an ax to grind could never disagree, despite what wikipedia has to say.

Well then I will say I thank you again for this.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5546&version=kjv

http://bible.heartlight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5546

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian#cite_note-2

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

According to who? The etymology says nothing about confessing the name or Christ or claiming to follow Christ, it's just 'follower of Christ.' So who is trying to redefine the term?

I already stated that in my words. 'Following Christ' involves having a genuine faith in Christ. Not a passive faith that doesn't change the person. I believe justification by grace is a key part of that genuine faith. You asked for Bible passages that support that view, so I posted the link. Again, 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.

I see, so you just don't agree with this definition of waht a Christian is? WEll we don't care if you agree with it. It is the definition that we use and you need to deal with that instead of trying to dodge the issue.

How can a church be a reliable source of truth or a good example of following Christ when their creeds are an abomination and their professors corrupt?

Who here has said anything about "a church being a reliable source of truth or a good example of following Christ when their creeds are an abomination and their professors corrupt?"

Tell me how you have arrived at that conclusion? I think you have not understood what has been written. You dodged my comments entierly and you continue to trumpit you tired worn out point.

If other churches creeds are an abomiantion and their professors are corrupt, how does that translate in to "every thing they teach is false and is not reliable"?

Sure, God told JS the creeds were an abomination, but that's not much better. How can a church be a reliable source of truth or a good example of following Christ when their creeds are an abomination and their professors corrupt?

Okay, true, it wasn't called a complete restoration. But it was still restoration. If they got most things right, couldn't one of the churches just been reformed.

So JS asks to see which church is God's church and he was told what exactly?

That none of them were His church that they were wrong and specifically that the creeds were an abomination. That is miles apart from "God saying that the churches are an abomination".

Point 2

It is not called a complete restoration, which you acknowledge, and say "it is sill a restoration". Well that changes things just a bit doesn't? You argue an all or nothing approach with regards to the apostacy and the restoration. We look at that actual sources and they paint a different picture and all you say is " It was still a restoration" as if that some how makes your point. I dont get it

You have failed to address the issue I raised. I bolded it for your convenience.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you believe the LDS fundamentals of following Christ are compatible with the Evangelical fundamentals of following Christ?

This has nothing what so ever to do with "who is and who is not a Christian". That is not a requirement to being a Christian. If you believe it is have fun trying to show the biblical definition for it.

[Vance]

Now, I would ask why do you not consider Mormon's Christians? By what Standards do you not include Mormons under the broad definition that we have labored so diligently in beating to China? If they are not considered Christians, according to your answer, then how do you personally define the meaning of what a Christian is and is not? And, how do we know that your definition is based on a valid and credible assurance that it follows the nature of the term of what the etymological meaning is? One, that I shall remind you of, in which you personally agree and acknowledge is true and proper.

Now what do we think the odds are that he will respond with something like this; "but Mormons don't confess the "real" or "biblical" Jesus"?

I'm thinking well over 9 to 1.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Now what do we think the odds are that he will respond with something like this; "but Mormons don't confess the "real" or "biblical" Jesus"?

I'm thinking well over 9 to 1.

Perhaps, I have seen this pattern here. We must have "true faith". Well what is true faith? What is the "real Jesus"? He gives the defintion to a word with out defining the other words that are used to define said word. It is pointless to debate that tactic.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Now what do we think the odds are that he will respond with something like this; "but Mormons don't confess the "real" or "biblical" Jesus"?

I'm thinking well over 9 to 1.

Yeah... I am gathering he loves to dance around the theological mulberry bush before hitching a ride on the doctrinal merrygoround.

[WalkerW]

I'm still wondering if he teaches "true" grace and "true" faith as it was understood in New Testament times. He never responded to my DeSilva quotes.

[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.

Ok, you've stated your views as to what you think being a Christian requires, and you seem to be saying that those that don't fit your personal views should not be intitled to be called Christian. Do I have that right? It also seems that you might be making a concesion that if your method of "following" Christ is not correct then you can't, or at least shouldn't call youself a Christian either! That's not to say that you have conceeded in any way that you think that you actualy may be doing it wrong, only that if you just happened to be wrong. Is this what your point is?

Two things to consider here. Since you've already defined what the term means,"follower of Christ" and then you have defined the definition,

'Following Christ' involves having a genuine faith in Christ. Not a passive faith that doesn't change the person. I believe justification by grace is a key part of that genuine faith.

What exactly do you want from us?

If you just want to point out why you think our views are incorrect, then get to the back of the line! You've not said anything that hasn't been said ad nauseum. We're just too thick headed to see it your way!

If you are expecting us to alter our views, just because you think that you've given us something better, then as Monty P was so fond of saying, you're confused, decieved, and ignorant!

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.

Actually, we don't rely on other people at all. If we did, to whom would we be reliant upon? The EVs? "Most" of them are like you and don't seem to think we should be called Christians at all! We call ourselves Christians because we are followers of Christ! That's all there is to it!

As far as some of your other comments about who might be considered Christians, I would have to say that I would not call someone a Christian if he denies any belief in Christ. I would not even think that he would want me to!

I know many agnostics who say that they might believe in something, but they're not sure enough to consider themselves Christians. There're many who posses what's called Judao-Christian values, but who are niether Jewish or Christian. I would just call them good people. (Who need to be taught about the Restoration!)

The problem is you have become one of the offenders for a word. You would seek to deny salvation to those who are puting their whole soul into trying to follow Christ, by saying trying isn't good enough, you have to be following Christ!

Just remember what the Lord says about people like you.

Mathew 7:

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Mike

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The problem is you have become one of the offenders for a word. You would seek to deny salvation to those who are puting their whole soul into trying to follow Christ, by saying trying isn't good enough, you have to be following Christ!

Just remember what the Lord says about people like you.

Mike

This is exactly the issue here. We say we are trying to follow Christ the best of our abilities, and whot doe EV's say to us? THat trying isn't good enough you have to follow Jesus? You just need to have "true faith".

[SeattleGhostWriter]

This is exactly the issue here. We say we are trying to follow Christ the best of our abilities, and whot doe EV's say to us? THat trying isn't good enough you have to follow Jesus? You just need to have "true faith".

Talk about speaking out of both sides of the mouth

EV: You are Mormon eh?

LDS: Yes

EV: You are not Christian because you believe that your works saves you. Do you not know that we are saved by grace and that confessing Christ as your Lord and Savior is the only way to Follow Christ?

LDS: So, following Christ does not constitute being a Christian by doing good things that he taught?

EV: We can't do good things, we just have to submit to Christ and Follow Him.

LDS: So, all I have to do is accept Christ and Follow Him?

EV: Right.

LDS: So, what about being obedient to what he requires?

EV: That is false, because all he requires is that we have faith and believe on his name and follow him.

LDS: So, I can't follow Christ by being a disciple and living a life that is Christ Like, but I have to follow him because I have to have Faith and and accept him as my Savior?

EV: That is not what I said. I said that you have to follow Christ, by being a disciple and being Christ like, but you can't do good works to save yourself because it is Christ that saves.

LDS: Sounds like you are really confused.

[Akboy]

I do want to respond to some of your guy's comments, but first I'd like to see the context of David Bokovoy's quote from the Exegetical Dictionary because the etymology is so crucial to the discussion.