"Restored Christianity"

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

The following texts come to mind:

Exodus 20:16

Proverbs 18:13

Matthew 7:12

The earliest Christians, or followers of Jesus, were called disciples. Later on they were identified by other names. Have a look at this article I wrote about what it means to be a Christian, and tell us what you think.

[Ambrose]

I think a simple asterisk can do wonders.

Like the word "marriage," "Christian" has, for centuries, a traditional definition tied to the traditional trinitarian formula, a formula that Latter-day Saints usually reject. Thus, Mormons cannot not be properly defined as Christian in a traditional theological sense. However, a simple asterisk can solve this problem. Mormons are Christian*.

Similarly Fundamentalist Mormons can be defined as Mormon*.

*=in a general/loose understand, and not in the traditional sense.

Problem solved.

Oh yeah, and SSM is marriage*. Now traditional marriage can be preserved while allowing homosexual couples to be married*.

These linguistic games remind me of the Arian controversies. Those moderately Arian wanted creeds that were intentionally ambiguous, allowing both the Nicene Fathers and the Arians to read their respective theologies into the creeds. Why was that dangerous?

[USU78]

I think a simple asterisk can do wonders.

Like the word "marriage," "Christian" has, for centuries, a traditional definition tied to the traditional trinitarian formula, a formula that Latter-day Saints usually reject. Thus, Mormons cannot not be properly defined as Christian in a traditional theological sense. However, a simple asterisk can solve this problem. Mormons are Christian*.

Similarly Fundamentalist Mormons can be defined as Mormon*.

*=in a general/loose understand, and not in the traditional sense.

Problem solved.

Oh yeah, and SSM is marriage*. Now traditional marriage can be preserved while allowing homosexual couples to be married*.

Yeah . . . we figured where you were going with this.

Mormon is to Christian as "X" is to marriage, "X" being homosexual "marriage,"

thus linking the abomination of homosexual "marriage" to the abomination of Mormonism.

We get it.

We know what you meant.

You were not unclear.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

The following texts come to mind:

Exodus 20:16

Proverbs 18:13

Matthew 7:12

Would you like to clarify?

[zerinus]

I think a simple asterisk can do wonders.

Like the word "marriage," "Christian" has, for centuries, a traditional definition tied to the traditional trinitarian formula, a formula that Latter-day Saints usually reject. Thus, Mormons cannot not be properly defined as Christian in a traditional theological sense.

I think you have misstated the above. If you substitute

[LeSellers]

CFR that the early-day Saints accepted "Christians" as a term to refer to themselves.

1 Peter 4:16.

16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

I don't see it as you imagine it.

Recall the call for reference was that they "accepted" the term "Christian", not that they "tolerated" it, which is what Peter is saying.

It is as if he'd written, "If they keep calling you a 'Christian', confound them because you are more honorable than are they who abuse you."

This passage may, but only "may" (it is not a slam dunk, fer shure), indicate that Peter accepted the term, but it lacks one thing that would be obvious had it been a truly accepted name: the utter lack of any corroborative passages.

"Saint" appears 61 times in the New Testament, without counting the one in Matt 27:52.

"Disciple" is in Acts~Revelation 31 times.

"Follower" is there 8 times, but only 3 that refer to people in the same way as "Saints" applies.

Of the "way" and similar terms were difficult to identify and this was getting tedious, so I didn't try to categorize them, either. However, the word "way" does show up 49 times, although a very large number is of the "road" or "highway" variety.

In sum, it is clear that the preferred term is "Saint". "Christian" is only a distant fifth choice, if it even merits mention, which is doubtful to the n^th degree. (One wonders why you all are so hung up on it with its difficult provenance.)

I have read in a dozen old commentaries (and seen on this very forum by one who shares your disdain for all things LDS) that the term was originally a pejorative. Some believe it was calling the Saints "little Christs", but I can't fathom how that would be the case. The way I read it is a bit more complex, but it would have been much more effective a way to belittle those who accepted Jesus as their Savior and King:

"Christ" ("Messiah", "Anointed [One]") was ordinarily a Jewish title essentially equivalent to "Crown Prince" or "King". It is in this sense that we use it to name Jesus. However, in the eyes of both the Jews and the Romans, Jesus failed His title. To call someone a "Christian" would have been to say he was a follower of a charlatan, a loser. (Please, this is my interpretation of their words and is not my view at all, as one uncharitable reader once posited. Do not ever try to claim that I, Lehi, believe Christ failed His mission, for this is not my position at all, and would be, first, a blatant lie, and, second, proof near positive of an inability to read the English language.)

The upshot if all of this is: I reject your reference, as it is, at the very best and only by an extreme of charity, ambiguous, and most likely wholly irrelevant to your position.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

There is also a Biblical definition, which is not the same as the Apostate one; and that is what the Mormons have in mind when they refer to themselves as Christian.

While the gist of your argument is sound, I am forced to apply the same sauce to our gander as I apply to their goose:

There is no "biblical definition" of "Christian". The word only appears thrice in the Bible, and in none of those places does the inspired writer give any indication of what the word actually means. Especially, there is no indication that the definition hangs on the acceptance of a specific set of beliefs other than the very general "follower of Christ", which indication is vague in the extreme

[zerinus]

While the gist of your argument is sound, I am forced to apply the same sauce to our gander as I apply to their goose:

There is no "biblical definition" of "Christian". The word only appears thrice in the Bible, and in none of those places does the inspired writer give any indication of what the word actually means.

Your judgment is very much in error. The Bible does define what is a Christian. Here is the reference:

Acts 11

:

26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the

disciples

were called

Christians

first in Antioch.

Did you get that? A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ. And the meaning of disciple is very clear. A disciple is someone who follows and emulates his master, and obeys the master's instructions without question.

[Reuben Dunn]

Rather than "Restored Christian" which begs the question "Restored from what?" How about Orthodox Christian? Since we follow the original teachings of Christ, and not the diluted unorthodox dogma of Protestant/Catholic Christianity.

Just a thought.

[hagoth7]

Rather than "Restored Christian" which begs the question "Restored from what?"...

Isn't there considerable value in fielding such a question? Repeatedly?

[selek]

Rather than "Restored Christian" which begs the question "Restored from what?" How about Orthodox Christian? Since we follow the original teachings of Christ, and not the diluted unorthodox dogma of Protestant/Catholic Christianity.

Just a thought.

It's too likely to be confused with the already existing Orthodox Churchs now extant in Greece, much of Eastern Europe, Northern Africa and parts of Asia.

Nice try, tho.

[LeSellers]

Acts 11

:

26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the

disciples

were called

Christians

first in Antioch.

Did you get that? A Christian is a disciple of Jesus Christ. And the meaning of disciple is very clear. A disciple is someone who follows and emulates his master, and obeys the master's instructions without question.

Sorry, I don't read it that way.

The definition of "disciple" is never clearly spelled out, either, in the way I would expect, and as we see when our critics assail us on the definition. Recall, I wrote that the mythical definition of "Christian" (and now "disciple"). "Especially, there is no indication that the definition hangs on the acceptance of a specific set of beliefs other than the very general 'follower of Christ'".

So I do not see the definition you claim. It just is not there.

Lehi

[zerinus]

Sorry, I don't read it that way.

The definition of "disciple" is never clearly spelled out, either, in the way I would expect, and as we see when our critics assail us on the definition. Recall, I wrote that the mythical definition of "Christian" (and now "disciple"). "Especially, there is no indication that the definition hangs on the acceptance of a specific set of beliefs other than the very general 'follower of Christ'".

So I do not see the definition you claim. It just is not there.

Lehi

Wrong again. The meaning of disciple is very clearly spelled out in the Bible. Here are the reffs:

John 8

:

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him,

If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed

John 13

:

35 By this shall all men know that ye are

my disciples, if ye have love one to another

.

John 15

:

8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye

bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples

.

Matthew 7

:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that

doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven

.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Luke 6

:

46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

John 14

:

15

If ye love me, keep my commandments

.

* * *

21 He that

hath my commandments, and keepeth them,

he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 15

:

10 If ye

keep my commandments,

ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

[mfbukowski]

Rather than "Restored Christian" which begs the question "Restored from what?" How about Orthodox Christian? Since we follow the original teachings of Christ, and not the diluted unorthodox dogma of Protestant/Catholic Christianity.

Just a thought.

There's a whole lot of those- Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox etc.

The idea is to be distinctive and yet convey that there was an apostasy and that the church was restored.

[mfbukowski]

Isn't there considerable value in fielding such a question? Repeatedly?

That's what I like about it. Just mentioning those words becomes a missionary discussion.