What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[volgadon]

Yes but we know that the person means a specific area...'there is no bathroom' said in a resturant would rightly be intrepreted 'there is no bathroom in the resturant'

Moses defines where there is 'no other God' for us - the heavens and the earth.

It could also mean there is no bathroom for you.

[djholmess]

Isn't it amazing that the very people that put so much emphasis on grace and the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, are the very ones to deny it's sufficiency.

You misunderstand. I believe part of the sufficiency of Gods grace is to give someone a correct understanding of the truth of who Jesus is and what the gospel is. Therefore when somone believes the things I listed a few posts ago I can only conclude that Gods grace is yet to have any salvific effect on them because their beliefs are way off the truth.

[djholmess]

It could also mean there is no bathroom for you.

So show me from the context how it means that?

[KevinG]

Wow. Christ's grace is not sufficient for those who don't interpret the Bible like evangelical protestants.

You saw it here first people!

[KevinG]

So show me from the context how it means that?

[djholmess]

Wow. Christ's grace is not sufficient for those who don't interpret the Bible like evangelical protestants.

You saw it here first people!

Once again you are misrepresenting me. I said God's grace gives the correct understainding not that the correct understanding gets Gods grace. So Gods grace is not only sufficient to save but to also give a correct understanding of truth.

[KevinG]

Once again you are misrepresenting me. I said God's grace gives the correct understainding not that the correct understanding gets Gods grace. So Gods grace is not only sufficient to save but to also give a correct understanding of truth.

...and that correct understanding is your but not ours because we don't interpret the Bible the same way you do. See how that works?

[volgadon]

So show me from the context how it means that?

Look a few verses earlier.

19 and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, thou be drawn away and worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath allotted unto all the peoples under the whole heaven. 20 But you hath the LORD taken and brought forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be unto Him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.

[djholmess]

...and that correct understanding is your but not ours because we don't interpret the Bible the same way you do. See how that works?

My understanding is only 'correct' if it reflects the actual meaning of what God, through the inspired author, meant to communicate. As yet I have seen no evidence that the list of things I laid out previously is actually taught in the Bible. You all are very quick to say you can't be disqualified from being Christians but somewhat slower to actually demonstrate what you believe is actually taught in the Bible

[djholmess]

Look a few verses earlier.

19 and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, thou be drawn away and worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath allotted unto all the peoples under the whole heaven. 20 But you hath the LORD taken and brought forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be unto Him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.

So are you ascerting that the 'all the host of heaven' refers to other real Gods?

[bluebell]

You all are very quick to say you can't be disqualified from being Christians but somewhat slower to actually demonstrate what you believe is actually taught in the Bible

To be fair (and i know you are juggling a lot of responses right now), you have been somewhat slower to actually demonstrate that believing 100% correct doctrine is a prerequiste for receiving the grace of Christ or for being a follower of Christ is actually taught in the bible.

[thews]

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.

According to D&C 132:4, if I reject the everlasting covenant ("everlasting" being the operative word), then I am damned and cannot enter God's glory. I do reject polygamy/polyandry and LDS doctrine, so, from a Christian perspective, according to LDS doctrine, am I damned?

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.4?lang=eng

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting ^acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye ^bdamned; for no one can ^creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

[Vance]

My understanding is only 'correct' if it reflects the actual meaning of what God, through the inspired author, meant to communicate.

Ok.

As yet I have seen no evidence that the list of things I laid out previously is actually taught in the Bible.

And when the evidence is presented and you reject it, then what?

You all are very quick to say you can't be disqualified from being Christians but somewhat slower to actually demonstrate what you believe is actually taught in the Bible

Why waste our time? You wouldn't believe it anyway.

[volgadon]

So are you ascerting that the 'all the host of heaven' refers to other real Gods?

Yes, that is what the text is saying.

[bluebell]

So are you ascerting that the 'all the host of heaven' refers to other real Gods?

One thing that you may not understand is that LDS use the term God in different ways.

We use it refer to an actual Being-God the Father.

We use it to refer to the Godhead (what you would call 'the Trinity')-God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost being 'one' God.

We also use it as a title though, much the way the title 'President' is used. Just like the President of the U.S. and the president of the debate team at your local high school can both legitimately use the title, it does not at all imply that they are the same in authority, ability, or prestige.

LDS believe there are other real 'gods' (the small g is very important). There are other beings who can legitimately use the title of 'god'. We do NOT believe there is more than one God the Father or more than one Godhead.

[Vance]

deleted

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[bluebell]

According to D&C 132:4, if I reject the everlasting covenant ("everlasting" being the operative word), then I am damned and cannot enter God's glory. I do reject polygamy/polyandry and LDS doctrine, so, from a Christian perspective, according to LDS doctrine, am I damned?

http://www.lds.org/s.../132.4?lang=eng

If you continue to reject it, then yes, theoretically.

However, because LDS do not believe that you must accept it in this life, we do not believe you or others like you are damned.

[thews]

Sigh. There is obviously a reading comprehension problem.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand your opinion.

The point that is being made is that Christianity by definition is following Christ.

Do you mean Jesus Christ in the New Testament, or the "restored" words of Jesus Christ per LDS doctrine? They are not the same.

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 see this argument of what constitutes falling under the umbrella of what constitutes a "Christian" faith, which is different than what defines a "Christian" by definition. Is this the case?

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.

The only one to deny salvation is God... I fail to understand your point. This discussion is what constitutes a "Christian" by definition IMO. How would you define someone who rejects Mormon doctrine and follows Jesus Christ? How owuld you define someone who accepts the Mormon doctrine of Joseph Smith?

[KevinG]

My understanding is only 'correct' if it reflects the actual meaning of what God, through the inspired author, meant to communicate. As yet I have seen no evidence that the list of things I laid out previously is actually taught in the Bible. You all are very quick to say you can't be disqualified from being Christians but somewhat slower to actually demonstrate what you believe is actually taught in the Bible

That's quite an accusation for someone who has received many good answers. At the same time your belief system shuts God up after the counsel of Nicea and sets you up as the authority on what the scriptures actually mean. Sorry I receive revelation from a living god through scriptures, prophets and direct revelation. I know I am saved by the grace of Christ and your theology doesn't change that.

[thews]

If you continue to reject it, then yes, theoretically.

However, because LDS do not believe that you must accept it in this life, we do not believe you or others like you are damned.

Ok, thanks. When given the chance to reject it, I did, on this earth, and would do so again in the afterlife. So, by using the above logic, those who reject Mormon doctrine and call themselves "Christians" are damned. Is this the case between other Christian faiths? If so, please give an example.

[KevinG]

According to D&C 132:4, if I reject the everlasting covenant ("everlasting" being the operative word), then I am damned and cannot enter God's glory. I do reject polygamy/polyandry and LDS doctrine, so, from a Christian perspective, according to LDS doctrine, am I damned?

http://www.lds.org/s.../132.4?lang=eng

If you have not been called to practice polygamy you don't need to worry.

[KevinG]

Ok, thanks. When given the chance to reject it, I did, on this earth, and would do so again in the afterlife.

So don't bother with proxy ordinances for you. Got it!

[Vance]

According to D&C 132:4, if I reject the everlasting covenant ("everlasting" being the operative word), then I am damned and cannot enter God's glory. I do reject polygamy/polyandry and LDS doctrine, so, from a Christian perspective, according to LDS doctrine, am I damned?

That is a nice word game you got going on there.

Not very honest but, hey, what ever floats your boat.

[KevinG]

Ok, thanks. When given the chance to reject it, I did, on this earth, and would do so again in the afterlife. So, by using the above logic, those who reject Mormon doctrine and call themselves "Christians" are damned. Is this the case between other Christian faiths? If so, please give an example.

Don't feel left out. Those who reject correct doctrine knowingly and call themselves Mormons are damned too! At least until they repent of their errors. You know repentance and forgiveness. That's what the atonement is all about.

Now can we get back to the original accusation that Mormons aren't Christian and stop deflecting with silly attempts to make us look as intolerant and narrow minded as those who would damn believers in Jesus Christ because their interpretation of the Bible isn't exactly like yours?

Edited August 3, 2012 by KevinG

[bluebell]

You misunderstand. I believe part of the sufficiency of Gods grace is to give someone a correct understanding of the truth of who Jesus is and what the gospel is.

So you believe that the second someone says they accept Christ and are saved, they automatically know, through the Grace of Christ, the gospel as exactly you espouse it?

For example in this scriptural example in Acts 8:

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

After being baptized, did the Eunuch immediately understand the Trinity as you demand it MUST be understood to be saved?