Got Authority?

[KevinG]

In the "Highest Authority" thread a claim was made by an Evangelical Christian that they had authority from God to judge who is and who is not Christian.

I would like any Evangelical to elaborate on this idea. When did God give Evangelicals (or any one Evangelical) the authority to judge others "Christianity"?

FYI - The idea that the LDS priestood was conferred upon us by the power of God is recorded in our doctrines, but no where in our doctrines do I see where we claim authority to declare others "Christian" or not.

[Vance]

From what I understand, they claim that the authority comes to them through the Bible. It will be interesting to see if someone can provide an explanation that doesn't involve circular logic (or some other fallacy).

Edited October 14, 2011 by Vance

[diglot]

In the "Highest Authority" thread a claim was made by an Evangelical Christian that they had authority from God to judge who is and who is not Christian.

I would like any Evangelical to elaborate on this idea. When did God give Evangelicals (or any one Evangelical) the authority to judge others "Christianity"?

FYI - The idea that the LDS priestood was conferred upon us by the power of God is recorded in our doctrines, but no where in our doctrines do I see where we claim authority to declare others "Christian" or not.

Did an evangelical really say in another thread that (s)he has the "authority from God to judge who is and who is not Christian"?

That is bizarre. I am an evangelical and I do not claim that prerogative. I think it is presumptuous, arrogant, and ultimately irrelevant.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that any evangelical who claims such a prerogative does so on the notion that they can interpret the Bible correctly. In other words, they think they know what the Bible says a "Christian" is, and if someone does not live up to this standard then they are not a Christian.

Thinking about it, I guess this type of attitude is quite prevalent amongst my fellow evangelicals. Many seem to think that if you disagree with certain Church creeds then you are not a "Christian".

Edited October 15, 2011 by diglot

[Mudcat]

In the "Highest Authority" thread a claim was made by an Evangelical Christian that they had authority from God to judge who is and who is not Christian.

Hi DG,

You seem to know what EV said such a thing. I am curious as well, to see the quote that spurred such an OP.

I would like any Evangelical to elaborate on this idea. When did God give Evangelicals (or any one Evangelical) the authority to judge others "Christianity"?

Hopefully, I won't sound duplicitous here, but there is certainly a Scriptural precedent that we can judge if a person is Christian (not just EV's, mind you) by the fruit they produce. IOW, if they walk, talk, act and so forth like a follower of Christ and also profess they are a follower of Christ, then their is no good reason not to treat them as such.

FYI - The idea that the LDS priestood was conferred upon us by the power of God is recorded in our doctrines, but no where in our doctrines do I see where we claim authority to declare others "Christian" or not.

I think the same precedent I have stated actually does apply to the LDS view. If you know a fellow that doesn't walk, talk or act like a Christian and furthermore doesn't claim to be a Christian. Do you feel you would be out of line with your beliefs if you said something like.... "Hey this guy isn't a Christian." Correct me if I am wrong here.

In the thread you are referring to, I made a statement to the effect.. that it doesn't really matter what judgement we render upon another, it is only Christ's own judgement of us that does matter.

Mudcat

[diglot]

Hopefully, I won't sound duplicitous here, but there is certainly a Scriptural precedent that we can judge if a person is Christian (not just EV's, mind you) by the fruit they produce. IOW, if they walk, talk, act and so forth like a follower of Christ and also profess they are a follower of Christ, then their is no good reason not to treat them as such.

Hmm, interesting. That never popped into my head while writing my previous response.

But couldn't you say that a Buddhist who is producing good fruit is also a Christian?

Edited October 15, 2011 by diglot

[Mudcat]

But couldn't you say that a Buddhist who is producing good fruit is also a Christian?

I don't think you could. The Buddhist would not give Christ the glory for their fruit, whereas the Christian would.

[diglot]

I think in large part this all depends on what you mean by saying "Christian."

After thinking about it some more, I would say that I do not think I would equate "Christian" and "non-Christian" with "righteous" and "unrighteous" (or "saved" and "unsaved" if you prefer).

Regarding the person mentioned in the opening post who thinks they have "authority from God to judge who is and who is not Christian." I would be interested in how exactly they are defining "Christian." Do they mean it merely in the sense of whether someone belongs or doesn't belong to a specific religious tradition, or are they using it in the sense of a synonym for "righteous/saved/going-to-heaven-when-they-die".

Edited October 15, 2011 by diglot

[Franktalk]

If we are to spread the good Word are we to teach the good Word? I think we are. But a problem comes up when we read scripture without the Holy Ghost. Interpretations can be all over the place for the same verses. So the conflict arises from a "proper" teaching of scripture. Where I may say that in Luke he is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem separate from end times others, preterist may say that the destruction of Jerusalem is the fulfillment of end time prophecy. If this is considered critical to the person then I can see where one person may declare the other as filled by Satan because of their interpretation. Obviously a person filled with Satan is not a Christian in that light. So using this logic one may form an opinion that they can judge another as to their closeness to Jesus. And of course at some point they can draw a line and say that anyone on the other side of that line is not a Christian.

I use a different approach. I ask someone if they love God. I look into their eyes. If I see confusion when I ask that question then I know they have no personal relationship with Christ. That is one level. Then I talk about living a good life. If I see fear in their eyes then I know they are not following the commandments. But this is a moment and each moment can bring a change of heart. I do not know the heart of someone so how can I judge. And if someone is just starting out on the road to faith why are they any less a Christian in the eyes of God. I think He knows the end from the beginning so He will treat that person as a friend no matter if they have just started on the path. I prefer to call others confused rather than nonChristian. But I also know that I am confused as well. So how can I judge?

[ldsfaqs]

Thinking about it, I guess this type of attitude is quite prevalent amongst my fellow evangelicals. Many seem to think that if you disagree with certain Church creeds then you are not a "Christian".

Should make you think that maybe the group you belong to aren't actually the representatives of Christ nor his doctrines on earth.

[One Clear Voice]

In the "Highest Authority" thread a claim was made by an Evangelical Christian that they had authority from God to judge who is and who is not Christian.

I would like any Evangelical to elaborate on this idea. When did God give Evangelicals (or any one Evangelical) the authority to judge others "Christianity"?

FYI - The idea that the LDS priestood was conferred upon us by the power of God is recorded in our doctrines, but no where in our doctrines do I see where we claim authority to declare others "Christian" or not.

Most people are very Passionate about there religions and beliefs as people claim we (LDS) are. Sometimes those emotions supercede the truth.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

I have already answered your question in that other thread.

While you as a Mormon don't claim to judge who is a "Christian" and who is not, you do claim to judge who is in a true church and who is not. For me as an orthodox Christian, there is no difference. No one who is not part of the true church of Jesus Christ is a Christian, and all Christians are part of the true church. The true church is not a single denomination or institutional religion, but is the body of Christ, composed of all genuine believers in Jesus Christ who have accepted the biblical gospel and united themselves through baptism and church fellowship to other believers in that gospel. By this definition any religion or individual who is outside that communion of believers in the biblical Christ and gospel is outside the church. In that sense, they are not Christians. I and all other members of the body of Christ have not only authority from God but a responsibility from God to know, affirm, and defend the essential standards (doctrinal and behavioral) of the church, and to reach out in love to those outside the church with the truth. We derive this authority from being his adopted children and disciples, commissioned by Jesus Christ to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19). Teachers and other leaders in the body of Christ have a special responsibility in this regard.

In the "Highest Authority" thread a claim was made by an Evangelical Christian that they had authority from God to judge who is and who is not Christian.

I would like any Evangelical to elaborate on this idea. When did God give Evangelicals (or any one Evangelical) the authority to judge others "Christianity"?

FYI - The idea that the LDS priestood was conferred upon us by the power of God is recorded in our doctrines, but no where in our doctrines do I see where we claim authority to declare others "Christian" or not.

[shalamabobbi]

We derive this authority from being his adopted children and disciples, commissioned by Jesus Christ to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19)

Except that that commission was not given to anyone other than to the apostles to whom He spake on that particular occasion. They presumably gave it to others but we don't have those records.

There is no Biblical precedent for your assumed authority nor any Biblical example where scripture by itself is sufficient to send laborers into the vinyard.

This is a fabrication.

No one takes this authority unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron.

That is Biblical.

While you as a Mormon don't claim to judge who is a "Christian" and who is not, you do claim to judge who is in a true church and who is not.

While that is so it does not have the effect that you impose upon it because all men will be judged according to the intents of their hearts and with what they know. And the possibility exists in LDS theology for someone to receive the technical details of church membership (authoritative baptism) after mortality.

Your views don't allow this do they? What happens to good people who don't hear of God or Christ living in America during the time of Christ's ministry? Are they Christian or not Christian? Are they saved or damned?

[zerinus]

Hopefully, I won't sound duplicitous here, but there is certainly a Scriptural precedent that we can judge if a person is Christian (not just EV's, mind you) by the fruit they produce. IOW, if they walk, talk, act and so forth like a follower of Christ and also profess they are a follower of Christ, then their is no good reason not to treat them as such.

That criteria strictly speaking was given to identify a false prophet from a true one, not a false Christian from a true one. The question here is, what are the signs by which you identify such a claimant—either a true or false claimant. A claimant is someone who acts like a prophet—either a true prophet or a false one. That identifies anyone who positions himself as a spiritual teacher of mankind, in the Christian context, as acting in the role of a prophet, and therefore could either be a true prophet or a false one. Someone who claims to be a Christian, and just minds his own business does not fall into that category, and therefore that criteria cannot be applied to him.

I think the same precedent I have stated actually does apply to the LDS view. If you know a fellow that doesn't walk, talk or act like a Christian and furthermore doesn't claim to be a Christian. Do you feel you would be out of line with your beliefs if you said something like.... "Hey this guy isn't a Christian." Correct me if I am wrong here.

If someone doesn’t claim to be a Christian, then of course he isn’t one, and he most likely would be offended if you called him one. But if someone identifies himself as a Christian, then in my opinion he is one—unless he starts acting the role of a prophet, and turns out to be a false one, his fruits testifying against him.

[KevinG]

I see the conversation has passed me by a bit. Let me just say the original comments about "judging" were made in a coversation about "are Mormons Christian". The original claim was quite simply that Rob had the authority to judge who is Christian by the authority of God.

The qualifiers as to judging by works and judging who is part of an orthodox tradition of Christianity were not included at that time.

While I'm sure Rob can justify his claims sufficiently to his own satisfaction I think it is very un-christian to claim others do not follow Christ. This is doubly true for knowing others hearts.

[Vance]

While you as a Mormon don't claim to judge who is a "Christian" and who is not, you do claim to judge who is in a true church and who is not.

And that is because we, alone, are the "true and living Church" as declared by the Lord.

For me as an orthodox Christian, there is no difference.

Not sound logic. The Baptist Church is separate and distinct from the Methodist Church, etc. They are separate Churches under the umbrella of "Christianity", but they are not part of a single Church.

It is like saying that only the "Sunnis" are Muslims. The other groups of Muslims aren't Muslims?

Your argument is silly.

No one who is not part of the true church of Jesus Christ is a Christian, and all Christians are part of the true church.

Also untrue. You are NOT a part of the true Church of Jesus Christ, and yet you still claim to be a Christian. Your own claim defeats your own argument.

If you can show me in your canon a statement of the Lord indicating that the particular sect to which you belong is the true Church, I would sure like to see it. "Sola Scriptura" demands it must be in there, somewhere, BEFORE you can claim it.

The true church is not a single denomination or institutional religion, but is the body of Christ, composed of all genuine believers in Jesus Christ who have accepted the biblical gospel and united themselves through baptism and church fellowship to other believers in that gospel.

Nah, even the New Testament congregations were under the authority of the Apostles.

By this definition any religion or individual who is outside that communion of believers in the biblical Christ and gospel is outside the church.

Well, strictly speaking, you are outside, and yet you claim to be a Christian. You, again, defeat yourself.

In that sense, they are not Christians.

See above.

I and all other members of the body of Christ have not only authority from God but a responsibility from God to know, affirm, and defend the essential standards (doctrinal and behavioral) of the church, and to reach out in love to those outside the church with the truth.

Nice bald assertion there!

And I will assert that you don't have any authority.

We derive this authority from being his adopted children and disciples, commissioned by Jesus Christ to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19).

He wasn't talking to you. Your claim is without merit.

As an aside, IF Matt 28:19 is a source of authority, then you have no more authority than me nor any other person who has read it.

You still could not have the authority to exclude others that have the same authority as you. So clearly, you don't have authority to declare who is or is not a Christian.

Teachers and other leaders in the body of Christ have a special responsibility in this regard.

Sorry, but you can't demonstrate that at all. By the very nature of your claim to authority, you CAN'T have authority to be a "teacher or other leader" OVER any other Christian.

Your argument is logically unsound, and your claim to authority is without basis.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Vance

[KevinG]

It is like saying that only the "Sunnis" are Muslims. The other groups of Muslims aren't Muslims?

Your argument is silly.

Yet it does not prevent millions of Muslims from killing each other over that distinction. Even silly arguments like Rob's are dangerous when people are willing to demonize others over them. That is why I find his claims disturbing.

[KevinG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-FmZacGJIE&NR=1

[Vance]

Yet it does not prevent millions of Muslims from killing each other over that distinction. Even silly arguments like Rob's are dangerous when people are willing to demonize others over them. That is why I find his claims disturbing.

Unfortunately, it has been, (and still is) used to justify Christians killing fellow Christians as well.

It fosters the evils of division and contention rather than the godliness of unity and charity. The fruits of anti-Mormonism are exposed.

[mfbukowski]

DaddyG,

I have already answered your question in that other thread.

While you as a Mormon don't claim to judge who is a "Christian" and who is not, you do claim to judge who is in a true church and who is not. For me as an orthodox Christian, there is no difference. No one who is not part of the true church of Jesus Christ is a Christian, and all Christians are part of the true church. The true church is not a single denomination or institutional religion, but is the body of Christ, composed of all genuine believers in Jesus Christ who have accepted the biblical gospel and united themselves through baptism and church fellowship to other believers in that gospel. By this definition any religion or individual who is outside that communion of believers in the biblical Christ and gospel is outside the church. In that sense, they are not Christians. I and all other members of the body of Christ have not only authority from God but a responsibility from God to know, affirm, and defend the essential standards (doctrinal and behavioral) of the church, and to reach out in love to those outside the church with the truth. We derive this authority from being his adopted children and disciples, commissioned by Jesus Christ to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19). Teachers and other leaders in the body of Christ have a special responsibility in this regard.

I think it is clear, especially with the recent controversy, that Evangelicals are clearly starting to see that we ARE indeed Christian, and those with your point of view will eventually disappear.

I think you are clearly fighting a losing battle. The more the absurdity of your position is shown- the more "you" (those against the truth) make us into a caricature - as for example in the Broadway plays, etc- the more chance we have to show how wrong you are.

Every step you take against us moves us two steps forward in publicity and opportunity to show how wrong you are.

Please keep it up. It just lessens the time it will take for others to see how wrong you are.

[mfbukowski]

Hopefully, I won't sound duplicitous here, but there is certainly a Scriptural precedent that we can judge if a person is Christian (not just EV's, mind you) by the fruit they produce. IOW, if they walk, talk, act and so forth like a follower of Christ and also profess they are a follower of Christ, then their is no good reason not to treat them as such.

And I think you would agree that there are EV's who do not always act as a "Christian" would either, just as Mormons don't act as a Mormon should, etc.

The thread for example saying that Mormons say Christians are "atheists" is just another attempt to sow discord, and we know where discord comes from- it is not from Christ.

[KevinG]

The whole "Mormons are not Christian" argument dovetails nicely with why our church is trying to get people to use our full name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

If evangelicals would use our proper name it would sound much sillier to say "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christian" or even better "Saints aren't Christian".

[mfbukowski]

The whole "Mormons are not Christian" argument dovetails nicely with why our church is trying to get people to use our full name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

If evangelicals would use our proper name it would sound much sillier to say "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christian" or even better "Saints aren't Christian".

Great point! When I joined the church 30+ years ago, I always thought it was weird that we allowed people to call us "Mormons", because the name was so obscure and had practically nothing to do with the beliefs- except of course the BOM. It was like calling people who believed in the Bible "Joshuas" or something.

Before I studied the church, I thought that Mormons were people who worshiped some kind of weird American Indian saints, one of whom was named Mormon.

Quick- anyone reading this- are "Moravians" Christian? Are they orthodox or protestants, or is it an Islamic sect? What do know about what they believe?

I think sometimes it is hard for people born into the church to understand how little non-members know about Mormons- mostly because of that name.

Edited October 17, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

Regarding the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), you wrote:

Except that that commission was not given to anyone other than to the apostles to whom He spake on that particular occasion. They presumably gave it to others but we don't have those records.

I see no need for "records." The disciples to whom Jesus gave the commission went out and led more people to become disciples, who led more people to become disciples, who led more people to become disciples...you get the idea. Jesus didn't say anything about keeping records so as to be able to document the chain of disciple-making to the satisfaction of people in the 21st-century.

It really makes no sense to limit the Great Commission to the apostles. They were simply the foundational members of the first generation of that effort. Jesus said he would be with them in that disciple-making effort toward all nations "until the end of the age" (v. 20). This means that Christ continued to exercise his authority in heaven and earth (v. 18) by working through his disciples in every generation and that he will continue to do so until the end of the age. This passage, in fact, is clear evidence against the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy. Christ clearly expected to be working through disciples throughout the age, not just for seventy years or so.

You wrote:

There is no Biblical precedent for your assumed authority nor any Biblical example where scripture by itself is sufficient to send laborers into the vinyard.

This is a fabrication.

I didn't say that Scripture sends us into the vineyard; I said that Christ did.

No one takes this authority unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron.

That is Biblical.

That is taking the Bible out of context. Hebrews 5:1 is referring to the office of priest, not to the status of a disciple; and all disciples are called to make disciples, so that doing so is not taking authority to oneself but simply obeying what Christ commands disciples to do.

Other Mormons here have insisted that they acknowledge non-Mormon believers in Christ to be his disciples. Do you?

While that is so it does not have the effect that you impose upon it because all men will be judged according to the intents of their hearts and with what they know.

I agree with what you say here, so I have no idea why it would negate my point.

And the possibility exists in LDS theology for someone to receive the technical details of church membership (authoritative baptism) after mortality.

Your views don't allow this do they? What happens to good people who don't hear of God or Christ living in America during the time of Christ's ministry? Are they Christian or not Christian? Are they saved or damned?

What good people (cf. Rom. 3:9-20)?

[shalamabobbi]

What good people (cf. Rom. 3:9-20)?

Leaving aside the classification, what exactly do you imagine will happen to the Americans who did not hear the gospel or any others who did not hear the gospel in mortality?

[zerinus]

I see no need for "records." The disciples to whom Jesus gave the commission went out and led more people to become disciples, who led more people to become disciples, who led more people to become disciples...you get the idea. Jesus didn't say anything about keeping records so as to be able to document the chain of disciple-making to the satisfaction of people in the 21st-century.

It really makes no sense to limit the Great Commission to the apostles. They were simply the foundational members of the first generation of that effort. Jesus said he would be with them in that disciple-making effort toward all nations "until the end of the age" (v. 20). This means that Christ continued to exercise his authority in heaven and earth (v. 18) by working through his disciples in every generation and that he will continue to do so until the end of the age. This passage, in fact, is clear evidence against the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy. Christ clearly expected to be working through disciples throughout the age, not just for seventy years or so.

I didn't say that Scripture sends us into the vineyard; I said that Christ did.

That is taking the Bible out of context. Hebrews 5:1 is referring to the office of priest, not to the status of a disciple; and all disciples are called to make disciples, so that doing so is not taking authority to oneself but simply obeying what Christ commands disciples to do.

Other Mormons here have insisted that they acknowledge non-Mormon believers in Christ to be his disciples. Do you?

I agree with what you say here, so I have no idea why it would negate my point.

What good people (cf. Rom. 3:9-20)?

You have overlooked one thing though. By presuming to act in that capacity you are assuming the role of a prophet—either a true prophet or a false one, as the case may be. That makes you subject to the assessment: "by their fruits ye shall know them".