What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[KevinG]

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?

There was a time machine under the water that transported him to a 21st century Protestant Bible camp. He learned the doctrines thoroughly and was zapped back to the pool before re-surfacing. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. It's a mystery.

[Vance]

Years back when the Board changed format we were asked to give suggestions about threads to archive. I suggested that this thread

http://www.mormondia...rinity-trinity/

on the topic of the Trinity be saved for the benefit of future generations

Comments by the poster "rhinomelon" (whatever happened to that guy) were especially cogent and did a very good job of representing Christian thought on the topic. Enjoy.

Is this one, like so many others, that can be summarized as, "the trinity is a mystery that can't be explained in human terms, BUT Mormons are wrong!"????????

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[bluebell]

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.

Not until Christ declares there is no more time for you to accept it, will you be damned. Until then, declared what you will about how you will feel in the future, you are NOT considered damned by the mormon church.

I mean, if someone asked Paul a week before his vision whether or not he would EVER accept Christ, what do you think he would have said? People change, even people who swear they never will.

Hope that's clear enough for you.

[bluebell]

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.

I don't know that they deny its sufficiency so much as put limits on it that are never taught in the NT.

[Zakuska]

I don't know that they deny its sufficiency so much as put limits on it that are never taught in the NT.

Yes. Thats probably a better way of putting it and expresses my thoughts better.

[Gervin]

Is this one, like so many others, that can be summarized as, "the trinity is a mystery that can't be explained in human terms, BUT Mormons are wrong!"????????

You act as if your church doesn't have more than its fair share of mysteries. I posted the link as an encouragement for people to read, learn and, perhaps, dialogue. [edited out the snarky remark as I see that you are actually on the link. I hope you find it useful and benign in the characterization of LDS beliefs]

Edited August 3, 2012 by Gervin

[djholmess]

Yes, that is what the text is saying.

Ok, so the below was addressed to the Jewish people right?

Deuteronomy 4:

19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. ²⁰ But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day.

So included in the 'things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven' is the 'host of heaven' right?

So if you take the host of heaven to be actual gods then to be consistent you must accept that Moses is saying God has given these 'other gods' to the peoples for them to 'bow down and serve them.' Then in verse 20 Moses is bringing in a contrast with the 'But' the Lord took Israel for his own inheritance so that they would bow down and serve him.

Maybe you will be consistent and say that this verse does indeed teach that God allowed the other peoples of the earth to worship these 'gods' of yours, however I doubt you will.

That is the first reason why I don't think it makes any sense to think 'host of heaven' refers to real gods.

A second reason is that there is absolutely no reason to think this is what it means. Moses is talking about the sun, moon and stars, how then does 'real gods' fit into this list? You have not given an actual reason why you interpret 'host of heaven' to actually mean 'real gods.'

Rather it is much more natural to see 'host of heaven' as a summary statement for all the heavenly bodies - the sun moon and stars. Further this phrase comes up again in the same context

e.g.

Deuteronomy 17:3

and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden,

[bluebell]

You act as if your church doesn't have more than its fair share of mysteries. I posted the link as an encouragement for people to read, learn and, perhaps, dialogue. Obviously, you aren't the target audience.

I miss Rhinomelon-he was always great to discuss protestant beliefs with.

[Vance]

You act as if your church doesn't have more than its fair share of mysteries.

Yes, and we use the fact that you don't believe in those mysteries to exclude you from being a Christian, right?

I posted the link as an encouragement for people to read, learn and, perhaps, dialogue. Obviously, you aren't the target audience.

I read it before and found it very interesting. I also encourage people to read it.

But from the third post we get,

Unfortunately, there are two stumbling blocks preventing us from currently obtaining a perfect understanding of God's Triune nature.

The first obstacle is our limit of understanding, as Paul says, we "see as through a glass, darkly".

The second obstacle is that God is unique, which necessarily means that there is nothing for us to compare Him to, by way of analogy. So any attempts of "God is like a/an..." is doomed from the start, having fatal flaws, always being limited.

In short, it is a mystery that can't be explained.

So, given that no trinitarian really knows what it is, why do you think you can say with confidence that the LDS understanding is, in reality, wrong?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[djholmess]

There was a time machine under the water that transported him to a 21st century Protestant Bible camp. He learned the doctrines thoroughly and was zapped back to the pool before re-surfacing. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it. It's a mystery.

That my beliefs are '21st century Protestant' beliefs is your ascertion - I believe I hold the same beliefs as 1st century believers.

[djholmess]

Yes, and we us the fact that you don't believe in those mysteries to exclude you from being a Christian, right?

I read it before and found it very interesting. I also encourage people to read it.

But from the third post we get,

In short, it is a mystery that can't be explained.

So, given that no trinitarian really knows what it is, why do you think you can say with confidence that the LDS understanding is, in reality, wrong?

That's easy. The trinity is meant to simple be a summary of three biblical doctrines that are clearly taught.

1)Monotheism - one God

2) Three persons are all identified as God

3) The three persons are co-eternal and equal in attributes.

So any trinitarian is happy to say how these three fit together is a mystery, but that doesn't mean they aren't true.

When LDS present beliefs that contradict all three of these truths then I see no reason to think they know the Biblical God or are Christian.

[Vance]

Ok, so the below was addressed to the Jewish people right?

Deuteronomy 4:

19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. ²⁰ But the Lord has taken you and brought you out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be a people of his own inheritance, as you are this day.

So included in the 'things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven' is the 'host of heaven' right?

So if you take the host of heaven to be actual gods then to be consistent you must accept that Moses is saying God has given these 'other gods' to the peoples for them to 'bow down and serve them.'

Not at all, in fact, he is saying just the opposite. What part of "beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see. . . all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them" is so difficult to understand?

He is SPECIFICALLY saying they are NOT to be worshiped. So what you claim "to be consistent" is in fact INCONSISTENT!!!!

[djholmess]

Not at all, in fact, he is saying just the opposite. What part of "beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see. . . all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them" is so difficult to understand?

He is SPECIFICALLY saying they are NOT to be worshiped. So what you claim "to be consistent" is in fact INCONSISTENT!!!!

Like I said at the start of my post he is saying that to the Jews, we're agreeded on that. But he then specifically says about the sun moon and heavenly hosts is that he has given them to the poeples. If heavenly hosts is gods then Moses is saying the 'gods are for the peoples' but the Lord is for the Jews.

[Vance]

That's easy. The trinity is meant to simple be a summary of three biblical doctrines that are clearly taught.

1)Monotheism - one God

2) Three persons are all identified as God

3) The three persons are co-eternal and equal in attributes.

And LDS doctrine is consistent with those three things. And so, by that definition we are trinitarian. So now what?

So any trinitarian is happy to say how these three fit together is a mystery, but that doesn't mean they aren't true.

Ok.

When LDS present beliefs that contradict all three of these truths

WARNING!!! WARNING!!!!

ENTERING STRAW MAN CONSTRUCTION ZONE

WARNING!!!!!! WARNING!!!!!

. . . then I see no reason to think they know the Biblical God or are Christian.

LDS doctrine is consistent with those three things.

So, now you have a real problem!

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[volgadon]

So if you take the host of heaven to be actual gods then to be consistent you must accept that Moses is saying God has given these 'other gods' to the peoples for them to 'bow down and serve them.' Then in verse 20 Moses is bringing in a contrast with the 'But' the Lord took Israel for his own inheritance so that they would bow down and serve him.

Maybe you will be consistent and say that this verse does indeed teach that God allowed the other peoples of the earth to worship these 'gods' of yours, however I doubt you will.

This verse does indeed teach that God alloted other gods for the nations of the world to worship. You, OTOH, would have it that God gave the sun, moon and stars only to the nations, but not to Israel. A friend of mine in highschool joked that he'd stake a claim on the sun, and then have everything pay him royalties.

[bluebell]

That my beliefs are '21st century Protestant' beliefs is your ascertion - I believe I hold the same beliefs as 1st century believers.

Teddyaware posted something relevant yesterday that mostly seemed to get overlooked. He said in part (look for his post on page 9 or 10 to read it in its entirety):

"Christian of New Testamant times would have believed that, of necessity, the Church must be led by living Apostles and Prophets who have been given the power to seal in heaven what they seal on earth; they would have believed the canon of scripture is not full, adding to pre-existing scripture regularly without thinking it odd, and as as a corollary to that belief, they would have believed in the doctrine of continuous revelation to the Church through the apostolic leadership; they would have believed the leadership of the Church would be in possession of the Keys of the Kingdom to order and govern the Church by revelation; they would have believed that a vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles must be filled when one of the Twelve passes on; they would have continued to worship in the temple; they would have thought occasional visitations to Church leaders by God and angels was to be expected;..."

I know you believe that you hold the same beliefs and have a church that is the same as those/that of 1st century Christians, but does the NT description of the church and beliefs at that time actually support your assertion?

It seems clear that it doesn't.

Edited August 3, 2012 by bluebell

[Vance]

Like I said at the start of my post he is saying that to the Jews, we're agreeded on that. But he then specifically says about the sun moon and heavenly hosts is that he has given them to the poeples.

Yes, he has given them to all the people BUT NOT TO WORSHIP!!!!!!

If heavenly hosts is gods then Moses is saying the 'gods are for the peoples' but the Lord is for the Jews.

The heavenly hosts are gods and they are for the people, BUT NOT TO WORSHIP!!!!!!

Does that help?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[djholmess]

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?

I never said you must fully understand the trinity to be 'saved.' What I am saying is that you can't believe the things LDS typically believe about the Father, Son and Spirit and be Christian. People may get saved based on a limited or faulty understanding of who God is but the Spirit will lead them out of error as they grow. LDS beliefs are in my view so far from the truth that there is no reason what so ever to think someone holding to them is a Christian.

I'll try and get to some of those things on my list tomorrow!

[bluebell]

I never said you must fully understand the trinity to be 'saved.' What I am saying is that you can't believe the things LDS typically believe about the Father, Son and Spirit and be Christian. People may get saved based on a limited or faulty understanding of who God is but the Spirit will lead them out of error as they grow.

So, you can be saved while believing some things that are wrong about God, unless you are LDS?

[Vance]

I never said you must fully understand the trinity to be 'saved.' What I am saying is that you can't believe the things LDS typically believe about the Father, Son and Spirit and be Christian.

And you saying it doesn't make it true.

People may get saved based on a limited or faulty understanding of who God is but the Spirit will lead them out of error as they grow.

And yet JESUS clearly taught that ACTIONS are what brings salvation to people, not their beliefs.

But hey, what does He know about it?

LDS beliefs are in my view so far from the truth that there is no reason what so ever to think someone holding to them is a Christian.

Your 21st century American Protestant Evangelical blinders are obstructing your view.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Vance

[Gervin]

Yes, and we use the fact that you don't believe in those mysteries to exclude you from being a Christian, right?

I read it before and found it very interesting. I also encourage people to read it.

But from the third post we get,

In short, it is a mystery that can't be explained.

So, given that no trinitarian really knows what it is, why do you think you can say with confidence that the LDS understanding is, in reality, wrong?

I think your summation does a disservice to that particular discussion and I don't agree with your characterization that it is a "given" that "no trinitarian really knows what it is." There is plenty of food for thought about the Trinity - posts 31, 101, and 108 in the first few pages.

[Zakuska]

Like I said at the start of my post he is saying that to the Jews, we're agreeded on that. But he then specifically says about the sun moon and heavenly hosts is that he has given them to the poeples. If heavenly hosts is gods then Moses is saying the 'gods are for the peoples' but the Lord is for the Jews.

Bingo... but that doesn't negate the existance of the heavenly hosts who have been given to the people like Protestants think. These heavenly hosts (ie gods) actually DO exist.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Zakuska

[thews]

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

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

Please explain, as the definition of D&C 132:4 is straighforward.

[thews]

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

Are you asserting that D&C 132:4 only applies to those who are "called" to practice polygamy?

[thews]

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?

My input into this discussion isn't "silly" as you assert... this is a common (and very poor) debate tactic to claim I don't understand you. If I reject Mormon doctrine in D&C 132:4, I am damned... that was pointed out. So by my understanding, "Christians" who reject Mormon doctrine are damned per Mormon doctrine... is that correct?

Edited August 3, 2012 by thews