New Testament Christians

[Calm]

The latest installment of Mormon Scholars Testify is Thomas Alexander. He makes an observation that I find useful.

Mormons are Christians because they believe in and try to practice New Testament Christianity. The LDS Church’s prophet, Joseph Smith, restored New Testament Christianity and some aspects of Old Testament practice.

He then goes on to use "New Testament Christians" as another term for LDS.

Since they are New Testament Christians rather than traditional Christians, Mormons do not believe in un-biblical doctrines like Trinitarianism

I vote that we start using this term to describe our faith in comparison to "traditional Christians" or "historical Christians", etc.

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2781/thomas-g-alexander

[Vance]

I vote that we start using this term to describe our faith in comparison to "traditional Christians" or "historical Christians", etc.

Sounds good to me.

[KevinG]

How about "Book of Mormon" Christians?

[Calm]

Christ organized his church first in Israel so I think that has priority, plus more people have read the NT so will understand what we mean.

Hmm....what about Testament Christians?

Edited September 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

He then goes on to use "New Testament Christians" as another term for LDS.... I vote that we start using this term to describe our faith in comparison to "traditional Christians" or "historical Christians", etc.

And here I thought that the New Testament was so ambiguous, susceptible to so many different interpretations, like kids "interpreting" the clouds in the sky as looking like anything from bunnies to bobsleds, that no version of Christianity can claim to be "New Testament" Christianity. Indeed, I thought the "New Testament" itself, as a specific collection of scriptural books, was the decision of apostates in the fourth century who chose the winners and excluded the losers based on their own corrupt understanding of "Christianity."

[Vance]

Indeed, I thought the "New Testament" itself, as a specific collection of scriptural books, was the decision of apostates in the fourth century who chose the winners and excluded the losers based on their own corrupt understanding of "Christianity."

It is. But, fortunately, they weren't able to scrub all of the things that point away from their apostate views, and the New Testament Christianity that shines through their apostasy aligns better with LDS theology than any other.

[Calm]

And here I thought that the New Testament was so ambiguous, susceptible to so many different interpretations, like kids "interpreting" the clouds in the sky as looking like anything from bunnies to bobsleds, that no version of Christianity can claim to be "New Testament" Christianity. Indeed, I thought the "New Testament" itself, as a specific collection of scriptural books, was the decision of apostates in the fourth century who chose the winners and excluded the losers based on their own corrupt understanding of "Christianity."

I suppose we could be more precise and call it Apostolic Christianity or even Christ's Christianity, though I would have thought it would have been clear enough that we are talking about the Christianity as practiced by NT Saints.

Edited September 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

My point is that a religious tradition that actually views the New Testament as the primary revelatory foundation of Christianity has a better claim to being called "New Testament Christianity" than a religious tradition that views the New Testament as having been so corrupted and distorted that it cannot be the decisive authority for determining what Christians should believe and do.

Of course, anyone can call themselves anything they like.

As to your suggestions, please tell me how you would feel or react if I claimed that evangelicalism is "Christ's Christianity"? I'm guessing that at least some if not many Mormons here would take offense. But if that's what you believe, then you should stick by it.

I suppose we could be more precise and call it Apostolic Christianity or even Christ's Christianity.

[Calm]

My iPad lacks smileys.

Add-on: I thought the whole 'voting' thing was a giveaway...as if just voting would ever make someone something....

My personal preference has been and will continue to be LDS Christian where appropriate and LDS elsewhere.

Edited September 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[Vance]

calmoriah,

My point is that a religious tradition that actually views the New Testament as the primary revelatory foundation of Christianity has a better claim to being called "New Testament Christianity" than a religious tradition that views the New Testament as having been so corrupted and distorted that it cannot be the decisive authority for determining what Christians should believe and do.

The fact that they "view" it that way doesn't make it true. Rather than letting the New Testament speak for itself they force their dogmatic presumptions into the text and exercise all that is contrary.

The foundational principle of the New Testament Church is revelation from God NOT the New Testament. By the way, revelation as a foundational principle happens to be the same for The Church of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately for evangelicals, they deny this principle in practice.

Of course, anyone can call themselves anything they like.

Yup.

As to your suggestions, please tell me how you would feel or react if I claimed that evangelicalism is "Christ's Christianity"?

I would feel nothing and react by saying "nothing new there!" It is a common apostate claim, so I would expect it from you.

I'm guessing that at least some if not many Mormons here would take offense.

Nah, We have heard all that before.

But if that's what you believe, then you should stick by it.

I will refrain from making a comment about making money.

Please do so - and refrain from other personal comments about other posters. -Ares

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ares

[Hamba Tuhan]

As to your suggestions, please tell me how you would feel or react if I claimed that evangelicalism is "Christ's Christianity"?

I would personally find it odd if, as an evangelical, you didn't think/claim that you were in possession of 'Christ's Christianity.'

[Storm Rider]

I like the term proposed, New Testament Christian. This would not negate the use of LDS, but in discussion with others, it will certainly clarify our position more easily.

Stretching our position out of whack is so common; Rob, why do you fall to that position so often? The LDS Church teaches that the Bible is the word of God just as the Book of Mormon is the word of God. That is where you should begin your diatribes. It is then easier to offer your opinion AFTER you start with the truth. Begin with truth, then proceed to your opinion; it is easy once you start doing so.

[Calm]

I think we have just as much right to call ourselves "New Testament Christians" as anyone else has the right to call themselves "biblical Christians".

but in discussion with others, it will certainly clarify our position more easily.

A lot of people do not understand that we think of ourselves as a restoration, not a innovation. Using New Testament does underline that concept.

Edited September 28, 2011 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

Hamba,

You wrote:

I would personally find it odd if, as an evangelical, you didn't think/claim that you were in possession of 'Christ's Christianity.'

I agree; that would be odd. And I do think so.

[zerinus]

The latest installment of Mormon Scholars Testify is Thomas Alexander. He makes an observation that I find useful.

He then goes on to use "New Testament Christians" as another term for LDS.

I vote that we start using this term to describe our faith in comparison to "traditional Christians" or "historical Christians", etc.

http://mormonscholar...mas-g-alexander

I would rather call it "biblical Christians". It is not just the New Testament that backs up Mormonism, but the whole of the Bible. Therefore "biblical Christians" would be a more appropriate term in my opinion.

[zerinus]

And here I thought that the New Testament was so ambiguous, susceptible to so many different interpretations, like kids "interpreting" the clouds in the sky as looking like anything from bunnies to bobsleds, that no version of Christianity can claim to be "New Testament" Christianity. Indeed, I thought the "New Testament" itself, as a specific collection of scriptural books, was the decision of apostates in the fourth century who chose the winners and excluded the losers based on their own corrupt understanding of "Christianity."

That is not what I believe about the New Testament, or about the rest of the Bible for that matter. Any Mormons who told you that didn't know what they were talking about. The Bible is not complete. Things have gone missing from it, and scribal errors have occurred in it; but that doesn't mean that it is so ambiguous or unreliable that it is impossible to obtain correct gospel doctrine from it, or to use it effectively to refute the Church's detractors. Those who think otherwise simply don't know their scriptures well enough to be able to have confidence in using it effectively, therefore they try to compensate for their lack of self-confidence by undermining the efficacy of the Bible. That, however, is not the official position of Mormonism. The official position, stated by the Lord Himself, places the Bible on the same standing as the modern scriptures of the Church:

.

D&C 42

:

.

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

You can't get any more authoritative than that I am afraid.

[zerinus]

My point is that a religious tradition that actually views the New Testament as the primary revelatory foundation of Christianity has a better claim to being called "New Testament Christianity" than a religious tradition that views the New Testament as having been so corrupted and distorted that it cannot be the decisive authority for determining what Christians should believe and do.

As I said, that is not the correct position of Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is a second witness to Jesus Christ. The primary witness still remains the NT.

Edited September 28, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

My iPad lacks smileys.

Add-on: I thought the whole 'voting' thing was a giveaway...as if just voting would ever make someone something....

My personal preference has been and will continue to be LDS Christian where appropriate and LDS elsewhere.

I distinctly dislike "LDS Christians," because it implies a lack of confidence in the "Christianity" of Mormonism--as if there were "non-Christian" LDS too. If there are no "non-Christian" LDS, why should I need to tell people that I am a "Christian" LDS? There is no question mark over the "Christianity" of Mormonism that such a "corrective" measure should be needed. When people ask me of what religion I am, I tell them that I am a Mormon. I don't add anything else to it. If it happened that they expressed doubt about my Christianity, then I will have the pleasure of explaining to them why they are wrong.

Edited September 28, 2011 by zerinus

[LeSellers]

I vote that we start using this term to describe our faith in comparison to "traditional Christians" or "historical Christians", etc.

I vote (as if my vote meant anything) that we use the title Jesus gave us: "Saints".

Lehi

[LeSellers]

As I said, that is not the correct position of Mormonism. The Book of Mormon is a second witness to Jesus Christ. The primary witness still remains the NT.

Actually, the Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ, not the second such witness. And I believe the primary witness of Christ is the Holy Ghost.

Where the New Testament falls in this sequence is an open question: it rather depends on when one reads it. A former Taoist might get his New Testament witness long after the witness from the Book of Mormon.

Lehi

Edited September 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[Ahab]

The latest installment of Mormon Scholars Testify is Thomas Alexander. He makes an observation that I find useful.

He then goes on to use "New Testament Christians" as another term for LDS.

I vote that we start using this term to describe our faith in comparison to "traditional Christians" or "historical Christians", etc.

http://mormonscholar...mas-g-alexander

I'm not sure what you like about the term. The "New" part or the "Testament" part, or maybe what you think when you think of the term as a whole?

Our Lord refers to the testament/covenant he restored for us as "the new and everlasting covenant", so I think that would be a bit better than a reference to a part of the Bible.

To me, the term "New Testament" would tend to imply that we consider that part of the Bible to be whole foundation for our belief in Christ, but it's only a part of the whole.

Our true foundation is Jesus Christ, both as a person and the revelation he gives to us to guide us, so if we're going to refer to our Church as anything it should be The Church of Jesus Christ.

I think the "Of Latter-day Saints" part is okay, too, though, although I would prefer that we left that part off. I know we are latter-day saints, and I know that term was intended to distinguish us from the former day saints, but to me it's just an add-on that doesn't really need to be there, as if to imply our foundation is also US in these latter days, in addition to Jesus Christ. Kinda weird.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Ahab

[zerinus]

I'm not sure what you like about the term. The "New" part or the "Testament" part, or maybe what you think when you think of the term as a whole?

I think that she was trying to make a distinction between "traditional" Christianity and LDS. The point is that those kinds "Christians," some of whom have taken it upon themselves to advise us that we are not Christians, like to claim their authority from the Bible--implying that Mormonism is not biblical. The truth of the matter, however, is exactly the opposite. It is their version of Christianity that is not biblical; whereas Mormonism is. Therefore in my opinion calling Mormonism "biblical Christianity" is the best counterargument. Then the burden is on them to prove that their version of Christianity is more biblical than ours, at which of course they will fail--provided that one knows one's Bible (and other LDS scripture) well enough to be able to make the point--which appears to be a rare commodity among many Mormons.

Edited September 28, 2011 by zerinus

[altersteve]

I think that she was trying to make a distinction between "traditional" Christianity and LDS. The point is that those kinds "Christians," some of whom have taken it upon themselves to advise us that we are not Christians, like to claim their authority from the Bible--implying that Mormonism is not biblical. The truth of the matter, however, is exactly the opposite. It is their version of Christianity that is not biblical; whereas Mormonism is. Therefore in my opinion calling Mormonism "biblical Christianity" is the best counterargument. Then the burden is on them to prove that their version of Christianity is more biblical than ours, at which of course they will fail--provided that one knows one's Bible (and other LDS scripture) well enough to be able to make the point--which appears to be a rare commodity among many Mormons.

Why does the burden have to be on them and not on us?

[zerinus]

Why does the burden have to be on them and not on us?

Because they brought the accusation first.

[altersteve]

Because they brought the accusation first.

Well, no they didn't. Traditional Christianity was around before Mormonism. Then we showed up and claimed, "We're more biblical than you." By definition, the burden would be on us to prove it.

Edited September 28, 2011 by altersteve