What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[KevinG]

Jews accept half of Christian doctrine,

Bwahahahahaha! I think you got that backwards.

[Akboy]

If you don't want people to assume you believe you are speaking for God, you have to preface such declarations with 'it's my opinion that...'

Would a preface like 'I believe . . .' work for that purpose? Like I said, there's a big difference between my beliefs and someone who looks at a verse in English and says 'To me, this verse means . . .' We have to make a distinction between educated exegesis and just opinions.

When you have interfaith discussions, of course you'll disagree on beliefs and sources of authority. I thought it was implied that basically everything that's said in an interfaith discussion has an implied preface of 'I believe . . .'

My beliefs are based on the authority of the institution which teaches them, and the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Your's are based on your opinion (and the opinions of other men) about what the scriptures mean, right?

And the reason you trust that institution is because of the Holy Ghost, right? So it's basically all based on receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost?

You realize Protestants also look to the Holy Ghost for guidance, right? What makes your witness of the Holy Ghost more reliable than ours?

Informed opinion, but still opinion. If it WASN'T opinion, then all of protestantism would agree with each other, right? Since each denomination has done exactly what you stated and yet still fight over whether or not baptism is necessesary for salvation, and should be by immersion or sprinkling, for example.

Exegesis isn't all equal. Some approaches don't give enough attention to historical data from the period. Or some let one idea dominate their interpretations.

Plus, some denominations disagree on non-critical stuff like structure of the church or eschatology. Some denominations are separated more by cultural differences than doctrinal differences. That doesn't mean they disagree on foundational issues.

Even though that's exactly the church that Christ Himself set up?

Christ set up the church, but he never said anything about apostolic succession or priesthood authority, and neither did any of the other NT authors.

I know what you mean, however. I don't think you should pretend anything-and that includes pretending that you know what God thinks about my religion.

A. I have faith that my understanding of the gospel is the correct one.

B. That gospel teaches that people who do not follow it are not accepting Christ's payment for their sins, so they pay for their own sins.

C. The Protestant gospel and LDS gospel teach very different things about grace and how we follow Christ.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C. How can I believe that my gospel is the correct one without also believing that contradicting gospels are wrong? It feels like you're saying 'You can believe whatever you want, but you're not allowed to make any logical conclusions about those beliefs.'

If we're both working on the same math problem and I come up with an answer of 42 and you come up with an answer of 24, we can't both be right. One of us must be wrong. How can I believe my answer is correct without saying you're answer is wrong? Do you realize the difficult position we're in?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Akboy

[Zakuska]

Christ set up the church, but he never said anything about apostolic succession or priesthood authority, and neither did any of the other NT authors.

Thats false.

Eph 4

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Have all Saints come into a Unity of faith and been raised to the stature of the fulness of Christ? So then we still need Apostles and Prophets in the church.

A. I have faith that my understanding of the gospel is the correct one.

Which is your opinion.

B. That gospel teaches that people who do not follow it are not accepting Christ's payment for their sins, so they pay for their own sins.

Again false. Those who sin without knowing the Gospel, their sins aren't counted against them because Christs atonement cover that. Notice what Paul says to Timothy...

1 Tim 1:13

13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Now on he other hand, those who have had their eyes opened and been touch by the holy Ghost and learn the Gospel and then turn from it. Those are they who are in danger of paying for their own sins.

C. The Protestant gospel and LDS gospel teach very different things about grace and how we follow Christ.

I'm glad you phrased it "Protestant Gospel" which indeed is a different Gospel.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C. How can I believe that my gospel is the correct one without also believing that contradicting gospels are wrong? It feels like you're saying 'You can believe whatever you want, but you're not allowed to make any logical conclusions about those beliefs.'

If we're both working on the same math problem and I come up with an answer of 42 and you come up with an answer of 24, we can't both be right. One of us must be wrong. How can I believe my answer is correct without saying you're answer is wrong? Do you realize the difficult position we're in?

Protestants seem to arogantly think they have the Teachers answer sheet to the test.

[volgadon]

Regarding 1 Corinthians 8:4-5 it is clear that Paul in no way means ‘there be gods many, and lords many’ to actually teach the existence of other Gods.

⁴ As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

⁵ For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

⁶ But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So Paul is talking about food that is offered to an idol at Corinth in some kind of pagan ritual. Some of the believers in Corinth had converted out of these pagan religions and so were having difficulties because it was obviously difficult not to eat such meant (maybe it was sold in the market place of something). Either way Paul’s teaching is clear.

1) We (believers) know that an idol is nothing

2) for there is no other God but one

3) Yes there are those called gods – ‘called’ by the worshipers of the idols, not real gods

4)But to us we know there is but one God

5) through whom are all things

6) Therefore even meat offered to an idol is ok to eat because the idol is nothing and the meat is part of the ‘all things’ which are through God

Pauls very argument is based on monotheism, its amazing that you can twist this verse and think it teaches the opposite. I would have thought it was very clear that the ‘gods many and lords many’ refers to the so ‘called’ gods – the idols that are nothing.

You claim that "called" implies non-existence. Was Eve not really a woman? Was Jesus not really Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace?

[Akboy]

Thats false.

Eph 4

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Have all Saints come into a Unity of faith and been raised to the stature of the fulness of Christ? So then we still need Apostles and Prophets in the church.

It all depends on how you define those spiritual gifts. Are you trying to impose your definition of those terms on me?

Again false. Those who sin without knowing the Gospel, their sins aren't counted against them because Christs atonement cover that. Notice what Paul says to Timothy...

1 Tim 1:13

13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Now on he other hand, those who have had their eyes opened and been touch by the holy Ghost and learn the Gospel and then turn from it. Those are they who are in danger of paying for their own sins.

Paul was talking about his personal story. There's nothing in that passage that suggests a general doctrine of ignorance protecting people from the wages of sins. All have sinned and the wages of sin is death.

Protestants seem to arogantly think they have the Teachers answer sheet to the test.

Isn't that what faith is? Doesn't faith mean you believe your answers are the right ones? I believe the answer to the math question is 42. Am I supposed to say I also believe your answer of 24 is also right?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Akboy

[Darren10]

Correct, we don't believe non-Christians will be taught the gospel in the next life. We believe people who aren't following the gospel will face eternal punishment, eternal destruction, eternal fire along with the devil and his angels.

Thank you. So Mormons are going to hell, correct?

[Darren10]

Christians don't believe in Mormon doctrine and that's where the definition of "Christian" differs from Mormon doctrine. Jews accept half of Christian doctrine, but Christians aren't claiming Jews are Christians. To state that Mormonism is Christian, would imply that Christians accept Mormon doctrine, which they reject. I fyou consider the entire doctrine of the Mormon faith, the only common doctrine would be the bible. Since Joseph Smith changed the bible with the JST, that makes all of Mormon doctrine exclusive to the LDS faith. If you then state that the KJV is the "official" bible of the LDS faith, I would ask why? Why would a Mormon accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith, yet reject the JST? In a nutshell, it's not the label of who is or isn't "Christian" by definition, but what is a "Mormon" by definition and what doctrine that label encompasses. I've heard the arguments claiming Catholics are defined as a "Christian" faith, yet differ from other Christian faiths, but the doctrine is the same. When I was growing up Mormons were proud to be defined as "Mormon" by definition... why, when the entire Godhead is different, three distinct personages vs. Jesus is God in man, is the definition supposedly the same? It's not the same, the doctrine is not the same, and the foundation for Mormon doctrine was that God told Joseph Smith that all Christian religions were wrong. Doesn't these not so subtle differences warrant a different definition under the umbrella of what "Christianity" encompasses?

In your opinion, which part(s) of Mormon doctrine does Christianity share with LDS doctrine?

Hmmmm...from your 666th post ...hmmmmmmmm.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Darren10

[Calm]

Hmmmm...from post, "666"...

[Storm Rider]

Christians don't believe in Mormon doctrine and that's where the definition of "Christian" differs from Mormon doctrine. Jews accept half of Christian doctrine, but Christians aren't claiming Jews are Christians. To state that Mormonism is Christian, would imply that Christians accept Mormon doctrine, which they reject. I fyou consider the entire doctrine of the Mormon faith, the only common doctrine would be the bible. Since Joseph Smith changed the bible with the JST, that makes all of Mormon doctrine exclusive to the LDS faith. If you then state that the KJV is the "official" bible of the LDS faith, I would ask why? Why would a Mormon accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith, yet reject the JST? In a nutshell, it's not the label of who is or isn't "Christian" by definition, but what is a "Mormon" by definition and what doctrine that label encompasses. I've heard the arguments claiming Catholics are defined as a "Christian" faith, yet differ from other Christian faiths, but the doctrine is the same. When I was growing up Mormons were proud to be defined as "Mormon" by definition... why, when the entire Godhead is different, three distinct personages vs. Jesus is God in man, is the definition supposedly the same? It's not the same, the doctrine is not the same, and the foundation for Mormon doctrine was that God told Joseph Smith that all Christian religions were wrong. Doesn't these not so subtle differences warrant a different definition under the umbrella of what "Christianity" encompasses?

In your opinion, which part(s) of Mormon doctrine does Christianity share with LDS doctrine?

My you do make some broad leaps of logic. So according to you, to be a Christian one must accept the same doctrines i.e. without any disagreement. Could you please provide a single reference that demonstrates that EV accept the Eucharist as taught by the Catholic Church; or the doctrine of Marian adoration; or even of Apostolic Succession; that you use the same Bible (remember the EV's took away a entire Apocrypha from the Bible). Surely there must be something that demonstrates that the two groups are perfectly aligned; if not, one is Christian and the other is not. Who gets to decide which one is Christian and the other is going to hell?

As far as what the foundation of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is; please get this, read it slow enough that it sinks in: THE FOUNDATION OF THE LDS CHURCH IS JESUS CHRIST. This the entire purpose of the Book of Mormon; to bring all to knowledge of the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, Savior, Redeemer, and Lord. Repeat this until you understand it and never attempt to say anything differently.

[Calm]

When I was growing up Mormons were proud to be defined as "Mormon" by definition...

Since Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, Mormons can managed to be proud to be defined as Mormon as much as they choose to be proud to be defined as Christian. We don't have to choose one or the other, being both, much like I can claim pride in being a woman and a human being at the same time without causing a ripple of surprise.

[thews]

That's your opinion. You don't speak for God though, do you?

If you don't want people to assume you believe you are speaking for God, you have to preface such declarations with 'it's my opinion that...'

I'm not speaking for God and it isn't my opinion that Christian doctrine is different than Mormon doctrine, It is a fact the doctrines and theology are different.

[thews]

In my opinion, because "Mormon doctrine" is "Christianity," they share 100% of their doctrines. Your opinion is obviously different. But it is only your opinion.

So let me get this straight... because you accept Mormonism as Christianity, "Christianity" by definition accepts the doctrine of Joseph Smith?

[thews]

My you do make some broad leaps of logic. So according to you, to be a Christian one must accept the same doctrines i.e. without any disagreement.

That's not the point I was making. By definition, a "Christian" faith is based on the doctrine of the bible. Judaism rejects the New Testament and warrants a different definition because the base doctrine is different. Christianity rejects the Book of Mormon, POGP, BofA and the JST, making all doctrine different between the LDS faith and the Christian faith.

Could you please provide a single reference that demonstrates that EV accept the Eucharist as taught by the Catholic Church; or the doctrine of Marian adoration; or even of Apostolic Succession; that you use the same Bible (remember the EV's took away a entire Apocrypha from the Bible). Surely there must be something that demonstrates that the two groups are perfectly aligned; if not, one is Christian and the other is not. Who gets to decide which one is Christian and the other is going to hell?

I don't wish to delve into what constitutes going to hell in different Christian faiths. You're choosing arguments on how Christian faith differ without acknowledging the core doctrine each uses. Mormons believe that rejecting Mormon doctrine will damn the person, so if I, being born and baptized a Mormon, reject the doctrine of Joseph Smith and choose to be a Christian, am I (based on Mormon doctrine) going to hell?

As far as what the foundation of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is; please get this, read it slow enough that it sinks in: THE FOUNDATION OF THE LDS CHURCH IS JESUS CHRIST.

OK... read this slow: Jesus Christ in the Godhead is defined differently in Mormonism compared to Christianity. I believe that Jesus Christ is God... they are one. You could argue "son of God" in the bible and how it's interpreted, but it's clearly defined by Joseph Smith as two distinct personages, leaving no room for interpretation. When the theology of heaven (in three parts) is also clearly defined in the LDS faith (exclusive), to then claim that "restored" doctrine of Jesus Christ is shared by Christians is false, because Christians reject the doctrine of Joseph Smith, which defines what a "Mormon" is.

This the entire purpose of the Book of Mormon; to bring all to knowledge of the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, Savior, Redeemer, and Lord. Repeat this until you understand it and never attempt to say anything differently.

That's fine if you're a Mormon and accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith, but if you're not a Mormon and reject the doctrine of Joseph Smith, the "knowledge" you speak of is not true. We're talking about a definition of the word "Christian" and what it encompasses, and not what is supposedly the same between Mormonism and Christianity, as the differences are not subtle.

[thews]

Since Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, Mormons can managed to be proud to be defined as Mormon as much as they choose to be proud to be defined as Christian.

By what metric are you using to define Mormonism as a subset of Christianity? Your opinion? Mormon doctrine defines all Christian faiths as wrong. If Mormons define themselves as "Christian" being the "one true church", that would leave no room to differentiate the two vastly different religions. What would you call a Christian who rejects Mormon doctrine by definition?

We don't have to choose one or the other, being both, much like I can claim pride in being a woman and a human being at the same time without causing a ripple of surprise.

You're just making the bucket big enough to encompass your definition. Jews believe in God and Christians believe in God, so in that bucket they are the same. Make the bucket smaller to define the doctrine each religion uses and they are different enough to warrant a different definition, as what they believe in is completely different. My point isn't to state which is correct, but what each definition accepts and rejects. Because a person accepts the bible and the doctrine of Joseph Smith, it defines them as "Mormon". To universally imply that all "Christians" accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith isn't true, as the "restored" doctrine of Jesus Christ is something only Mormonism encompasses.

[Storm Rider]

That's not the point I was making. By definition, a "Christian" faith is based on the doctrine of the bible. Judaism rejects the New Testament and warrants a different definition because the base doctrine is different. Christianity rejects the Book of Mormon, POGP, BofA and the JST, making all doctrine different between the LDS faith and the Christian faith.

First, there is not a doctrine of the Bible. There is your interpretation of the Bible only. Each church interprets the Bible in their own way. Today there are over 36,000 different Christian denominations/churches and each interprets the Bible differently.

Second, "Christianity" does not accept or reject any text because "Christianity" is not an organization. Do you accept the Apocrypha as part of the Bible? Why not? Catholics do. In fact, the Apocrypha was in the Bible and Protestants took it out i.e. they took away from the words of the Book. According to your doctrine those churches would be damned for doing so; if you believe in your interpretation of the Bible. Yes or no?

I don't wish to delve into what constitutes going to hell in different Christian faiths. You're choosing arguments on how Christian faith differ without acknowledging the core doctrine each uses. Mormons believe that rejecting Mormon doctrine will damn the person, so if I, being born and baptized a Mormon, reject the doctrine of Joseph Smith and choose to be a Christian, am I (based on Mormon doctrine) going to hell?

According to LDS doctrine, if you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, regardless of church affiliation, you would be saved in kingdoms of Heaven. You would not be damned and you would not be condemned to hell. This is what Jesus taught and what LDS believe.

Who defines what are "core doctrines"? The Bible Answer Man, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Southern Baptist Convention? Which one gets to define what is the core doctrine? To me, and to Jesus, if we believe his words in the New Testament; Jesus is the core doctrine, the gate, the intermediary to God. At no time, NO TIME, did he declare specific doctrines that must be believed in other than Him as Son of God, Redeemer and Savior. That is what the Jesus taught in the Bible. Who exactly is empowered to say which doctrines are greater than Jesus Christ?

OK... read this slow: Jesus Christ in the Godhead is defined differently in Mormonism compared to Christianity. I believe that Jesus Christ is God... they are one. You could argue "son of God" in the bible and how it's interpreted, but it's clearly defined by Joseph Smith as two distinct personages, leaving no room for interpretation. When the theology of heaven (in three parts) is also clearly defined in the LDS faith (exclusive), to then claim that "restored" doctrine of Jesus Christ is shared by Christians is false, because Christians reject the doctrine of Joseph Smith, which defines what a "Mormon" is.

Read this even more slowly because you still don't get it: JESUS IS THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIGHT. There is no clarification in the Bible that demands that we believe that Jesus and the Father are one. LDS pray to God the same way that Jesus prayed to God. You are not really saying that he prayed to himself are you? Jesus prayed that we would be one that same as he and the Father are one; are you saying he wants us all mashed up in one body or do you think there may be another interpretation to that scripture. We actually can be one as Jesus and the Father are one; in spirit, in desire, in thought, in action. Never confuse your interpretation to be THE interpretation; it is just one of over 36,000 different ones.

That's fine if you're a Mormon and accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith, but if you're not a Mormon and reject the doctrine of Joseph Smith, the "knowledge" you speak of is not true. We're talking about a definition of the word "Christian" and what it encompasses, and not what is supposedly the same between Mormonism and Christianity, as the differences are not subtle.

We accept the doctrines and teachings taught by Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was just a prophet like all other prophets; he was one of many; nothing more and nothing less.

You posit that there is some doctrine that is greater than the belief in Jesus Christ; that these doctrines are so much greater that if not believed in Jesus cannot possibly save you. I reject that doctrine of man as drivel and believe that nothing is greater than Jesus. He said to "come follow me", "if ye love me, keep my commandments".

You want the definition of 4th century Christianity to define all of Christianity. This definition denies Christianity to the first Apostles; not one of them taught the doctrines you profess; not one. They all taught Jesus crucified, the Way and the Light. I will take their words every day over those of men. I will accept all those who try to follow Jesus as Lord and Savior as a fellow disciple of Christ. Why don't you join us on the Way to return to him.

[Flyonthewall]

The core doctrine of the LDS church is:

Jesus is the Son of God, Savior of Mankind and Redeemer of the world. He lived, died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Now, I would like somone to point out what about this is sooooo different from the "Christian" doctrine that requires us to be excluded from being Christian.

I have had one person say that we may say the same things but we mean something different...if that is the case please point out what term we use and how your meaning is different.

[Deborah]

So let me get this straight... because you accept Mormonism as Christianity, "Christianity" by definition accepts the doctrine of Joseph Smith?

Sigh. There is obviously a reading comprehension problem. The point that is being made is that Christianity by definition is following Christ. Since Mormons follow Christ they are by definition Christians as is anyone who follows Christ, whether they do it exactly the same or not. Christ is much more magnanimous than many of his purported followers.

I would posit that those who are so uncharitable to deny his salvation to someone who never heard of Christ that that person is not a Christian.

[Vance]

Well American Protestant Evangelicals typically don't use terms like 'authority.'

Of course they don't!!! Why would they want to talk about something that they don't have and know very little about?

What am I missing about the concept?

Nearly everything.

What's the difference between having 'authority' and studying the Bible for 'teaching, rebuking, correcting, training in righteousness and every good work'?

One is sanctioned by God to represent Him, the other is no different than a Pharisee.

Kind of like the difference between Saul and Paul, so to speak.

[Vance]

What do Evangelicals believe will happen to the person who God decided would be born in the Amazon rain forest and live a life where they never even hear the name of Jesus Christ, let alone have an opportunity to have faith in Him?

God told the 21st Century American Protestant Evangelicals that those people are going to hell.

Oh, wait.

Have you actually heard any evangelical or protestant claim to speak for God?

I guess we are back to opinion.

[djholmess]

I'm very glad and appreciate your ability to accept that your understanding of our beliefs on this issue was wrong.

Now, perhaps this is a good time to focus on one of my previous questions, which was, now that you know that mormons believe in the virgin birth, what else do we believe about Jesus that means we believe in a different one?

I already posted a list previously but to summarize when someone who says they are followers of the Jesus of the NT and yet believes:

-That Jesus has not eternally existed as God (The God, not a god) but rather is the literal offspring of the Father as a spirit child and as the only begotten son of God in the flesh.

-That Jesus is just one being of God among a number of others; polytheism

-That Jesus didn’t create all things; including the angels (Satan) and spirits of men

In a wider sphere I would also add

-That Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

-That faithful obedience to commands are necessary to receive the grace of God for exaltation.

Then I must conclude that such a person cannot be a Christian in the light of what I believe the NT presents to us about who Christ is and what it means to follow him.

[Vance]

I'm not speaking for God . . .

True!

and it isn't my opinion that Christian doctrine is different than Mormon doctrine,

To be more accurate you should say, "and it is my opinion that, what in my opinion is Christian doctrine is different than Mormon doctrine."

It is a fact the doctrines and theology are different.

It is a fact that what you think is Christian doctrine and theology are different. But that is your opinion still.

[bluebell]

I'm not speaking for God and it isn't my opinion that Christian doctrine is different than Mormon doctrine, It is a fact the doctrines and theology are different.

It's not your opinion that LDS doctrine is different than non-LDS doctrine, but it IS your opinion that that difference means mormons cannot be Christian.

[bluebell]

I already posted a list previously but to summarize when someone who says they are followers of the Jesus of the NT and yet believes:

-That Jesus has not eternally existed as God (The God, not a god) but rather is the literal offspring of the Father as a spirit child and as the only begotten son of God in the flesh.

-That Jesus is just one being of God among a number of others; polytheism

-That Jesus didn’t create all things; including the angels (Satan) and spirits of men

In a wider sphere I would also add

-That Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

-That faithful obedience to commands are necessary to receive the grace of God for exaltation.

Then I must conclude that such a person cannot be a Christian in the light of what I believe the NT presents to us about who Christ is and what it means to follow him.

Why are these beliefs deal breakers? Does the NT present any specific beliefs a person MUST have in order to be considered a disciple of Christ?

I understand that YOU feel these are deal breakers but does the NT back you up on-not the doctrine-but the absolute NEED to believe the doctrine?

(as a side note-i find it incredibly ironic that you think believing that faith without works is dead means the person can't be saved, when that is specifically taught in the NT.)

[Vance]

By definition, a "Christian" faith is based on the doctrine of the bible.

And here I was thinking that it was based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. And that a Christian by definition is a follower of Jesus Christ.

Bibliolatry any one?

Christianity rejects the Book of Mormon, POGP, BofA and the JST, making all doctrine different between the LDS faith and the Christian faith.

Usurping authority to speak for Christ are you?

[quoteI don't wish to delve into what constitutes going to hell in different Christian faiths.[/quote

"different Christian faiths"???????????????????

What happened to "one Lord, one faith, one baptism".

Oh wait, that is a BIBLICAL doctrine, but apparently not a 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical one.

You're choosing arguments on how Christian faith differ without acknowledging the core doctrine each uses.

Funny you should say that, and just after saying "different Christian faiths".

Is this a clown show?

Mormons believe that rejecting Mormon doctrine will damn the person, so if I, being born and baptized a Mormon, reject the doctrine of Joseph Smith and choose to be a Christian, am I (based on Mormon doctrine) going to hell?

Not necessarily.

It is quite possible for a person to be born and baptized a Mormon and never really have enough knowledge to "reject Mormon doctrine".

OK... read this slow: Jesus Christ in the Godhead is defined differently in Mormonism compared to Christianity.

NO.

Jesus Christ in the Godhead is defined differently in Mormonism compared to WHAT YOUR OPINION IS OF WHAT IS Christianity

Notice the difference?

I believe that Jesus Christ is God... they are one. You could argue "son of God" in the bible and how it's interpreted,

Right, we are supposed to ignore all those verses that disagree with your interpretation. Right?

but it's clearly defined by Joseph Smith as two distinct personages, leaving no room for interpretation.

Which is consistent with these "few" verses in the Bible.

Eph. 1:2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

• • •

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

1 Thes. 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

• • •

3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

2 Cor. 1: 2 Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;

Col. 1: 2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

1 Thes. 3:11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.

• • •

13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

2 Thes. 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, aunto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:

2 Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom. 1: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom. 15: 6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

2 Cor. 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

Gal. 1: 3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Eph. 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Eph. 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philip. 1:2 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philip. 2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Col. 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

2 Thes. 2:16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

1 Tim. 1:2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

2 Tim. 1:2 To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Philem. 1:3 Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Pet. 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

2 Jn. 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

I could find a few more if you need them.

And here is a fun factoid,

In responding to the false teacher Noetus, Hippolytus [170 -236 AD]said:

"Father and Logos (Word, Christ) are two distinct persons."

"If again he (Jesus) alleges his own word when he said "I and the Father are one"

let him (Noetus) attend to the fact, and understand that he (Jesus) DID NOT SAY "I AND THE FATHER AM ONE, BUT ARE ONE." For the word "are" is not said of one person but it refers to two persons, and one power. He has himself made this clear, when he spoke to the Father concerning the disciples, “The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be made perfect in one, that the world may know that thou has sent me. What have the Noetians to say to these things? Are all one body in respect to substance, or is that we become one in power and disposition of unity of mind? A man therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit and that these therefore are three. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obey and the Holy Spirit who gives under-standing against the heresy of Noetus."

(Against the Heresey of Noetus).

OOPS!!! Another fine Christian thrown under the 21st Century American Protestant Evangelical anti-Mormon bus.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

By what metric are you using to define Mormonism as a subset of Christianity? Your opinion?

By what metric are you using to define Mormonism as outside of Christianity? Your opinion?

Mormon doctrine defines all Christian faiths as wrong.

Oh goodie, Another (insert derogatory name here) telling us what is Mormon doctrine, and getting it wrong. Gee, THAT rarely happens. /s

If Mormons define themselves as "Christian" being the "one true church",

Strange, I just did a search of all of LDS canon for the phrase "one true church" and I got zero, zilch, nada.

If you can't even accurately represent our beliefs but can only fabricate strawman representations, what good is it to try to dialogue with you?