LDSGuy Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 We often hear that Mormons aren't Christians because we don't practice Biblical Christianity. I think the biggest and most obvious problems with that term is that Christians for the first couple of centuries did not have a Bible, and therefore could not be considered "Biblical" Christians. Now you might argue that Mormons don't practice "Historic" Christianity, but which Historic Christianity don't we practice? Would that be Primative Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Evangelical Christianity, etc? Please feel free to ask more related questions to this thread with responses, because obviously I did not exhaust the topic.
Rob Bowman Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) By "biblical Christianity" we evangelicals (who are the ones who typically use the term) mean Christian doctrine and practice that is consistent with the Bible. By this definition, it is not necessary for the first Christians to have had a complete "Bible" to have been "biblical" Christians. But it should be noted that Christians in the second century had essentially the same Scriptures that we have in the Bible today. They had the full slate of scriptures in the Old Testament, and they had the four Gospels, Paul's epistles, and most if not all of the other New Testament writings.We also often use the term "historic" Christianity to mean the basic Christian beliefs and practices that have dominated most of Christian history and are shared by the three major streams of Christianity--Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Edited January 12, 2012 by Rob Bowman
thesometimesaint Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Rob Bowman:Except that the Bible, as the Christians today know it, didn't exist until long after the deaths of the early Christians. Further NO where in the Bible is the term Trinity, or any of the necessary conditionals.
Lightbearer Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Personally I have always believed that the book of Acts is the best key to true Primitive Christianity. Unfortunately the Bible was never intended as a guide to organizing a church, rather it is a collection of written scriptures that came from a people that had a church that was organized and led with current revelation for their time. In other words the apostles led the Church not with the Bible (which only consisted of the Old Testament at the time) but with revelation from God. That is how I have always viewed the true christianity of the Bible. By the second century revelation had ceased in the church and thus the apostasy was complete when the apostles left the scene. All that was left was the written word and that is why the church was corrupted. The question is can someone take up a collection of books (the Bible) and announce that revelation has ceased and yet claim to be the Biblical Christianity that Christ intended. To me historical christianity is only a dead form of the primitive christianity that Peter and Paul preached and tried to establish.
Thunderfire Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Except that the Bible, as the Christians today know it, didn't exist until long after the deaths of the early Christians. Further NO where in the Bible is the term Trinity, or any of the necessary conditionals.I do not necessarily agree with the concept of "biblical christianity" in the way it is used to divide people instead of bringing them together. When refering to the 1st Century church, it is correct that they did not have the bible as we know it, yet they were the ones writing the bible we now use. So the bible did exist in their minds as they wrote the passages and we are the beneficiaries of their writings. Just splitting hairs here...
LDSGuy Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Christians for most of the first century did not have a set of scriptures to call their own. We know that Paul used the Old Testament (Torah and writings of the prophets) to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Christians scriptures came into being starting with the letters of Paul about 15 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Most of the Christian canon was decided upon in later councils in the 4th and following centuries. I know that by Biblical Christianity what is meant is an adherence to the Christian doctrine as it was written down by the Apostles. However, that doctrine was not written down until at least 15-40 years after the death of Christ. So the first Christians depended on the Old Testament to prove the Messiahship of Jesus, and the Apostles to provide ongoing revelation and teaching. I think that the ideal of a cessation of revelation to a first century Christian would have sounded foreign since up until the end of the first century they were receiving revelation on a regular basis. Which is also why it made it easier for them to accept other Christian writings as authoritative (i.e. The Shepherd of Hermas, etc). If we are to believe in "Historic Christianity" then in necessitates that we believe in ongoing revelation and scripture as they did in the first century. A century in which many of the followers of the Apostles knew and heard them.
altersteve Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 By "biblical Christianity" we evangelicals (who are the ones who typically use the term) mean Christian doctrine and practice that is consistent with the Bible.The problem is that Latter-day Saints believe that their doctrine and practice is, in fact, consistent with the Bible, if the Bible is properly understood. So accusing Latter-day Saints of not being "biblical Christians" doesn't get anybody anywhere.
Pahoran Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 By "biblical Christianity" we evangelicals (who are the ones who typically use the term) mean Christian doctrine and practice that is consistent with the Bible.I'm sure most of us realise that.However, the enormous risk that this entails -- and which I am not altogether convinced that many EV's (particularly those who believe in some concept of the Bible as "its own infallible interpreter") even believe exists as a risk, much less make any effort to guard against or mitigate it -- is that a student may read into the Bible the kind of Christianity he expects to find there; and being altogether satisfied with the result of his investigation, troubles not to look any farther.By this definition, it is not necessary for the first Christians to have had a complete "Bible" to have been "biblical" Christians. But it should be noted that Christians in the second century had essentially the same Scriptures that we have in the Bible today. They had the full slate of scriptures in the Old Testament, and they had the four Gospels, Paul's epistles, and most if not all of the other New Testament writings.And how do you know that they understood them the same way as you do?We also often use the term "historic" Christianity to mean the basic Christian beliefs and practices that have dominated most of Christian history and are shared by the three major streams of Christianity--Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.Here is what Cardinal Newman, a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, had to say about that:And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.... To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.Regards,Pahoran 3
Rob Bowman Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 saint,Perhaps you missed what I actually said. I don't know. In any case, your comment doesn't connect with my answer at all.As for your assertion about none of the "conditionals" of the Trinity appearing in the Bible, that is simply false. The Bible clearly teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus Christ is God, that the Holy Spirit is God, that the Father is personally distinct from the Son Jesus Christ, etc. I think what you mean is that nothing that you would agree distinguishes the LDS view of the Three from the orthodox view of the Three appears in the Bible. In my view, as you probably know, the most obvious difference is that the Bible teaches that the Three are one God, not three Gods, as the LDS religion teaches.Rob Bowman:Except that the Bible, as the Christians today know it, didn't exist until long after the deaths of the early Christians. Further NO where in the Bible is the term Trinity, or any of the necessary conditionals.
Rob Bowman Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 LDSGuy,You are really splitting hairs here in a way that doesn't in any clear way present an objection to the concept of biblical Christianity. You claim to be a Latter-day Saint Christian, but for the first few years of the Restoration no one used that term. Does that matter? No. The term still is meaningful. Any faith must have a period of formation during which its fundamental concepts are explicated.I'm disinclined to launch into whole discussions of such questions as whether we should believe in "continuing revelation." Ironically, though, by your own standards your argument for this claim is anachronistic. No one, so far as we know, between AD 30 and 50 articulated the notion of revelation continuing after the death of the apostolic band. Does this matter? No. Is it an argument against your view? No. But it shows that rejecting a doctrine because Christians prior to AD 50 or so didn't have NT scriptures is fallacious.Christians for most of the first century did not have a set of scriptures to call their own. We know that Paul used the Old Testament (Torah and writings of the prophets) to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Christians scriptures came into being starting with the letters of Paul about 15 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Most of the Christian canon was decided upon in later councils in the 4th and following centuries. I know that by Biblical Christianity what is meant is an adherence to the Christian doctrine as it was written down by the Apostles. However, that doctrine was not written down until at least 15-40 years after the death of Christ. So the first Christians depended on the Old Testament to prove the Messiahship of Jesus, and the Apostles to provide ongoing revelation and teaching. I think that the ideal of a cessation of revelation to a first century Christian would have sounded foreign since up until the end of the first century they were receiving revelation on a regular basis. Which is also why it made it easier for them to accept other Christian writings as authoritative (i.e. The Shepherd of Hermas, etc). If we are to believe in "Historic Christianity" then in necessitates that we believe in ongoing revelation and scripture as they did in the first century. A century in which many of the followers of the Apostles knew and heard them.
Rob Bowman Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Steve,You wrote:The problem is that Latter-day Saints believe that their doctrine and practice is, in fact, consistent with the Bible, if the Bible is properly understood. So accusing Latter-day Saints of not being "biblical Christians" doesn't get anybody anywhere.Claiming is one thing, showing is another.
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 By "biblical Christianity" we evangelicals (who are the ones who typically use the term) mean Christian doctrine and practice that is consistent with the Bible. By this definition, it is not necessary for the first Christians to have had a complete "Bible" to have been "biblical" Christians. But it should be noted that Christians in the second century had essentially the same Scriptures that we have in the Bible today. They had the full slate of scriptures in the Old Testament, and they had the four Gospels, Paul's epistles, and most if not all of the other New Testament writings.We also often use the term "historic" Christianity to mean the basic Christian beliefs and practices that have dominated most of Christian history and are shared by the three major streams of Christianity--Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.There is only one truly biblical Christianity around, and that is Mormonism.
Nominee Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 ...the Bible teaches that the Three are one God,The Bible does not teach this; you teach this because it is how you interpret what the Bible says. 4
Pahoran Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 There is only one truly biblical Christianity around, and that is Mormonism.I agree with you; however, that is a faith position, and it is not reasonable to simply use "Biblical Christianity" as a synonym for "Mormon Christianity" and expect everyone to accept that as the starting point for the discussion. Mr Bowman could quite legitimately object that such a usage smuggles our assumptions into the terms of the discussion, and thus begs the question.........Oh well, never mind.Regards,Pahoran
LDSGuy Posted January 13, 2012 Author Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) LDSGuy,You are really splitting hairs here in a way that doesn't in any clear way present an objection to the concept of biblical Christianity. You claim to be a Latter-day Saint Christian, but for the first few years of the Restoration no one used that term. Does that matter? No. The term still is meaningful. Any faith must have a period of formation during which its fundamental concepts are explicated.I'm disinclined to launch into whole discussions of such questions as whether we should believe in "continuing revelation." Ironically, though, by your own standards your argument for this claim is anachronistic. No one, so far as we know, between AD 30 and 50 articulated the notion of revelation continuing after the death of the apostolic band. Does this matter? No. Is it an argument against your view? No. But it shows that rejecting a doctrine because Christians prior to AD 50 or so didn't have NT scriptures is fallacious.That fact that revelation continued after Christ ascended to the Father is confirmation of continuing revelation (i.e. Peter's dream about eating the meat of unclean animals, the gospel being preached to the gentiles, etc).I've been thinking about something... It seems that the ideal of the Bible as the ultimate authority really took off with Martin Luther (obviously there were others). Up until that point the priesthood was the authority, and the scriptures a guide. Now, obviously the priesthood had departed from the guidebook, but this also relfects the ancient Isrealites. Now the ultimate authority on earth was the priesthood, and the Law (Torah) was the guide for the priesthood and the people. Most of Christendom sees the Bible as the ultimate authority, but then the problem arises as how to interpret its doctrines and how to apply them. Yes there are areas of common ground to which all Christians hold. Mormons hold to those core doctrines as well about Christ, His divinity, and mission. So in that sense we are "Biblical Christians." Our ultimate authority, however, is not the Bible. It is instead the priesthood and God working through that priesthood with the scriptures as our guides. Just as it was in ancient times. It seems that when the actual authority is lost that people replace it with the guidebook, but the guidebook teaches of authority. Ancient Jews did this with the Torah when the priesthood was lost due to the scattering of Israel, and thus having no Levites to administer (this didn't stop them from acting as priest even without authority). Their religion moved from priesthood focused to Torah focused. Christianity took much of the same course. Edited January 13, 2012 by LDSGuy
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I agree with you; however, that is a faith position, . . .It is not a "faith position". It is a biblical position that can be proved using the same methodology of Bible exegesis that Rob recognizes and accepts.. . . and it is not reasonable to simply use "Biblical Christianity" as a synonym for "Mormon Christianity" . . .I did no such thing, and in fact I do not recognize the term "Mormon Christianity".Mr Bowman could quite legitimately object that such a usage smuggles our assumptions into the terms of the discussion, and thus begs the question...I have no idea what you are talking about here; and by the sound of things, apparently you don't either.
Pahoran Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 It is not a "faith position". It is a biblical position that can be proved using the same methodology of Bible exegesis that Rob recognizes and accepts.I did no such thing, and in fact I do not recognize the term "Mormon Christianity". I have no idea what you are talking about here; and by the sound of things, apparently you don't either.I'm sorry I offended you, Zerinus. I thought you would recognise that using "Biblical Christianity" as a synonym for his favoured version of Christianity is what Mr Bowman does, and that the question-begging to which I was referring is actually a rather indispensable feature of his own argument.IOW, I was using a little bit of Socratic irony there, and it was not aimed at you.Regards,Pahoran
3DOP Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 We often hear that Mormons aren't Christians because we don't practice Biblical Christianity. I think the biggest and most obvious problems with that term is that Christians for the first couple of centuries did not have a Bible, and therefore could not be considered "Biblical" Christians. Now you might argue that Mormons don't practice "Historic" Christianity, but which Historic Christianity don't we practice? Would that be Primative Christianity, Catholic Christianity, Protestant Christianity, Evangelical Christianity, etc? Please feel free to ask more related questions to this thread with responses, because obviously I did not exhaust the topic.Hi LDS Guy.Biblical Christianity is a code word for Evangelicalism. Why do you care? If you are right as LDS, just ignore the rest of us. Take your faith and run, run, run with it. Mickey Mantle doesn't need recognition from the Little Leagues. Hit the ball 500 feet and walk around the bases!For the record, as I have said many times, I understand you to be Christians from my Catholic perspective. True, my church says you need to be rebaptized if you join us. But your church makes me be baptized again if I join you. That doesn't mean that either of us are calling the other devils. We just don't think the other has valid sacraments/ordinances. That doesn't mean that I think your beliefs are less credible than an Evangelical who has been accidentally baptized validly (from my perspective). I have been seeing these kinds of posts from LDS for well over ten years now. It makes it seem like some LDS don't really believe they have the one true church! LDS in general seem to care disproportionately to its importance what an EvangeIical thinks about them. Why? I don't get it. Evangelicalism is such a provincial, American thing. I could never believe something so obviously local could be for the whole world. From the deepest depths of my soul, I truly couldn't give a blank blank blank what an Evangelical thinks about my faith. Any member of the one true church shouldn't lose one minute of sleep over what Bible Christianity Boy says in the office or the internet. 4
Lance in TX Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 We often hear that Mormons aren't Christians because we don't practice Biblical Christianity.I would say mainstream Christianity practices "Creedal Christiantiy" (or "4th Century Christianity") instead of "Biblical Christianity".I would also say we practice "1st Century Christianity". 1
Nominee Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) Romans 12:55 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.add: I should clarify that 3DOP's post asking why LDS (belonging to the one true church) should care what those of another faith say or do ~pained me. My answer is because as an LDS I am a Christian and therefore I care about all God's children, my brothers and sisters. I am concerned with the salvation of every living soul, not just my own. Edited January 13, 2012 by Nominee
Lance in TX Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 The problem is that Latter-day Saints believe that their doctrine and practice is, in fact, consistent with the Bible, if the Bible is properly understood. So accusing Latter-day Saints of not being "biblical Christians" doesn't get anybody anywhere.Exactly... This is why saying "Biblical Christians" causes so many problems. The interpretation of the Bible is changed when you look at it with 1st and 4th (Creedal) century eyes. This is what the fighting (and there was a LOT of fighting) during the time of the Nicea council was all about.
zerinus Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 I'm sorry I offended you, Zerinus. I thought you would recognise that using "Biblical Christianity" as a synonym for his favoured version of Christianity is what Mr Bowman does, and that the question-begging to which I was referring is actually a rather indispensable feature of his own argument.IOW, I was using a little bit of Socratic irony there, and it was not aimed at you.Regards,PahoranTake my word for it, I really do not understand what you are talking about, or how your comment relates to my post.
Rob Bowman Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Nominee,You wrote:The Bible does not teach this; you teach this because it is how you interpret what the Bible says.The Bible says many times that there is one God that made and rules the world, and never says that there are three Gods that do so. So yes, I plead guilty to interpreting "one God" to mean "one God" rather than meaning "three Gods." I have no problem agreeing enthusiastically that I do so. But your insinuation is that I am somehow going beyond the Bible by drawing the conclusion that "one God" means "one God." I plead innocent on that count. In any case, to "interpret" the Bible's words about "one God" to mean "one God" seems far more plausible than to interpret them to mean three Gods.
Nominee Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Nominee,You wrote:The Bible says many times that there is one God that made and rules the world, and never says that there are three Gods that do so. So yes, I plead guilty to interpreting "one God" to mean "one God" rather than meaning "three Gods." I have no problem agreeing enthusiastically that I do so. But your insinuation is that I am somehow going beyond the Bible by drawing the conclusion that "one God" means "one God." I plead innocent on that count. In any case, to "interpret" the Bible's words about "one God" to mean "one God" seems far more plausible than to interpret them to mean three Gods.Rob: You wrote:...the Bible teaches that the Three are one God,To this I responded:The Bible does not teach this; you teach this because it is how you interpret what the Bible says.In what way did I insinuate that you went beyond the Bible? I also interpret "one God" to mean "one God;" however, I do not interpret "one God" to be made by combining three individuals.
Rob Bowman Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 LDSGuy,My intention in this thread was simply to respond to the objection in your opening post that the term "Biblical Christianity" is somehow dubious on the grounds that the earliest Christians didn't have a complete Bible. That objection presupposed a misunderstanding of the term, as I explained.You wrote:That fact that revelation continued after Christ ascended to the Father is confirmation of continuing revelation (i.e. Peter's dream about eating the meat of unclean animals, the gospel being preached to the gentiles, etc).Everyone agrees that revelation continued after Christ ascended. But I think we all agree it did not continue indefinitely. Your own religion teaches that God withdrew the priesthood from the earth and left it in spiritual darkness for well over a millennium until the Restoration in the 19th century. Therefore, neither one of us believes in continuous revelation. The issue is whether the cessation of new revelations through living apostles or prophets after the end of the first century AD was a bad thing, as your religion teaches. I don't think it was.You wrote:I've been thinking about something... It seems that the ideal of the Bible as the ultimate authority really took off with Martin Luther (obviously there were others). Up until that point the priesthood was the authority, and the scriptures a guide.That would not be historically correct. The Scriptures were the normative authoritative communication from God and the catholic priesthood, which had a totally different meaning than it does in LDS theology, was the sacramental seal of the ecclesiastical authority responsible for preserving the sound teaching permanently expressed in the Scriptures. The catholic priesthood was not a vehicle for continuing or new revelation. Thus, since the Scriptures are revelatory and the priesthood was not, Luther was quite right to argue that the Scriptures take precedence over the teachings and practices of the priesthood.
Recommended Posts