What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Why the poop are you bringing up this rather unimportant (meaning with regards to this thread and the topic at hand) scripture up?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[bluebell]

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.

Who pointed this out?

[volgadon]

Why the poop are you bringing up this rather unimportant (meaning with regards to this thread and the topic at hand) scripture up?

Consider the source.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Consider the source.

Affirmative.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Looks like you learned nothing since your long term suspension last year.Try reading more of that verse to see what it actually is talking about.

[Vance]

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

Your attempt to equate the "everlasting covenant" to only polygamy/polyandry didn't go unnoticed.

[Calm]

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

I count him as one of four Protestant posters over the years who have really helped me understand Protestant doctrine better as well as how LDS beliefs are seen by nonLDS.

[Vance]

I count him as one of four Protestant posters over the years who have really helped me understand Protestant doctrine better as well as how LDS beliefs are seen by nonLDS.

Could that be because he shared his beliefs without being judgmental about what others believe, and claiming they weren't Christians and going to hell?

[Calm]

That and he was very articulate and was a gentleman and everything else one could want in a discussion partner. He didn't debate, he taught, discussed and tried to understand on his end.

[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 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

2) Three persons are all identified as God

From the LDS Bible Dictionary,

When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him. All mankind are his brethren and sisters, he being the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim. Many of the things that the scripture says were done "by God" were actually done by the LORD (Jesus). Thus the scripture says that “God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1: 1), but we know that it was actually the LORD (Jesus) who was the creator (John 1: 3, 10), or as Paul said, God created all things by Christ Jesus (Eph. 3: 9). The Holy Ghost is also a God and is variously called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit of God, etc.

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

2 Nephi 9:8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

Lest there be any confusion.

[thews]

Your attempt to equate the "everlasting covenant" to only polygamy/polyandry didn't go unnoticed.

My point was that the "everlasting covenant" includes polygamy/polyandry. If I reject this covenant as a Christian, based upon Deuteronomy 5:21 as a commandment of the Lord, am I then damned per the doctrine of Joseph Smith per D&C 132:4? That's the question.

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 ^b; for no one can ^c this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+5%3A21&version=NIV

²¹ “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My point was that the "everlasting covenant" includes polygamy/polyandry. If I reject this covenant as a Christian, based upon Deuteronomy 5:21 as a commandment of the Lord, am I then damned per the doctrine of Joseph Smith per D&C 132:4? That's the question.

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

http://www.biblegate...:21&version=NIV

You are not even trying dude. You are going to get banned. And I will alert the mods. Please read the whole verse an try to understand what is being talked about in those verses. You are severely misrepresenting them.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

From the LDS Bible Dictionary,

2 Nephi 9:8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

Lest there be any confusion.

I reject the part about being equal in attributes. There is nothing in the bibleor the BoM that says anything close to them being equal in attributes.

[bluebell]

I reject the part about being equal in attributes. There is nothing in the bibleor the BoM that says anything close to them being equal in attributes.

Jesus claimed in the bible that if you had seen Him you had seen the Father.

Attributes is just another word for Characteristics. What characteristics does God have that Christ doesn't? Can they be 'one' if they aren't 'the same'?

(Just trying to understand your statement better).

[Akboy]

I think so.

Then just assume everything you hear from an evangelical or protestant has a preface of 'I believe . . .' because that's exactly what they're saying. They're just sharing their beliefs with you. They're not trying to impose their beliefs on you. Can you give them the benefit of the doubt?

I think that's a normal implication, unless its the goal of one person to change the other person's beliefs (and maybe i'm wrong in assuming that has ever been your goal. If so i apologize).

So if I'm talking with someone who I believe isn't following Christ's gospel, and if I at least respect the great commission, what am I supposed to do?

Ultimately, yes. I believe very much in John 12:26-

"26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Christ Himself said that the Holy Ghost was sent to 'teach us all things'. I believe Him.

What? That's completely taken out of context. Christ was talking to His disciples there. They probably weren't taking notes when Christ was giving His sermons and explaining parables. So the HG was sent to them to help them remember what Christ said. You were not there, so you would have no way to remember something you didn't personally hear. Yes, the HG does help teach us things, but you certainly can't use that verse to say that.

I know you believe in the Holy Ghost, but you have plainly declared that you trust the exegisis of men more than His witness.

You (general, protestant 'you', not you personally) ridicule LDS for our reliance upon the Holy Ghost. You refuse to ask God for wisdom or guidance in regards to your beliefs. You constantly quote the verse in the OT about how the heart cannot be trusted whenever an LDS person even talks about receiving a witness of the Holy Ghost and claim over and over again that scripture trumps such a witness every time.

No, I'm fine with asking God and the HG for wisdom and guidance, but not as a way to test a whole movement, certainly not with the problems with the LDS Moroni 10:4-5 prayer.

That prayer says to 'If you pray with a sincere heart about these things, you will receive a witness that they are true.' So I'm supposed to test truth by praying with the expectation of a positive answer? How do I know it's not a placebo? A placebo effect is generated by your expectations, not by anything you take.

There are many examples of incredibly powerful placebo effects. One guy had his cancer go into regression after he took a sugar pill. Someone else was having dental surgery and their only painkiller was a sugar pill. Some people even reported negative side effects from drugs when they didn't actually take any drugs. In many cases, people experience powerful physical and mental results simply because they expect a result.

God certainly knows humans are open to these kinds of reactions. So why would He design a test of truth based on people expecting a positive result?

I realize that. But some denominations in the protestant family disagree about foundational issues, right?

I served a mission in N. California and had a lot of experiences talking to protestant leaders and members-the dislike between some protestant churches is deep and very much doctrinal. And heated.

I'm sure there are disagreements. Honestly, I haven't studied every single denomination. So I couldn't really give you an estimation on how many agree on a given issue. But I did go to a Christian college. The school accepted a wide range of denominations, yet I saw no sign of foundational disagreements. Part of that might be due to the fact that the school is in the north west US where we don't have the history the south has with denominations.

Were the apostles wrong to continue what He had set up then?

But Matthias did follow Christ around. He heard Christ preach and saw His miracles.

All things we don't disagree on.

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.

Of course, I wasn't expecting you to agree on A or B. Those are both 'I believe' statements. But what's wrong with C? Are you saying the Protestant and LDS gospels are similar? What is your understanding of the LDS gospel?

What I'm saying is, you can believe whatever you want, but unless you also believe you speak for God, you can't use your beliefs to judge my relationship with Christ.

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. If you believed someone's gospel was leading them to destruction, what would you say to them? Would it do any good for you to call them a Christian? Would you not 'judge' someone simply because they sincerely believe they are following the right gospel? Seriously, I would like to know what you would do if you were in my position?

No, we can't both be right. But thankfully Christ doesn't treat our attempts to follow His gospel as a math problem we have to either get 100% correct or we go to Hell.

If Christ's grace truly is sufficient to save us in our weaknesses and sins, then that MUST include our weakness of understanding as well. Christ never demanded perfect understanding of His doctrine before offering His grace in the NT. I have no idea why you believe He would demand such now.

I wouldn't say you need to be 100% correct, but you should be at least heading in the right general direction.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Akboy

[KevinG]

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

Orthodox or heterodox?

[KevinG]

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

No damnation for disobeying the commandment to practice polygamy is only for those commanded to practice polygamy. Please study Section 132 in its entirety. You are sorely lacking comprehension of LDS beliefs you are trying to argue against.

[KevinG]

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.

Unless you really don't understand us. So far your "arguments" demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of LDS doctrines and practices.

[Flyonthewall]

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.

So are you saying that Jesus Christ IS God the Father? There is no difference between God the Father and God the Son? When the scriptures state Jesus is the Son of God, then Son doesn't really mean Son? What meaning have you attributed to "Son"? When the scriptures say Jesus is the Son of God, we believe it.

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

If Jesus is God, and Jesus has a God, what does that mean? Do the scriptures not mean what they say? This is in the NT, so the NT must teach polytheism.

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

We believe John 1:3 just as it is written. Can you provide a reference where Jesus created the angels and Satan?

In a wider sphere I would also add

-That Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

Well if you don't beleive he was a prophet of God, then we must be talking about different people.

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

Explain what happened to people in the scriptures who were not faithful and disobeyed the commandments of God.

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.

You spend a lot of effort telling us the scriptures don't mean what they say, so I must conclude that according to you if we actually believe what the scriptures say, then we must not be Christian.

[KevinG]

I just love it when people try to interpret my sacred texts for me in order to prove I don't know them.

And being told I'm going to hell takes on a much more loving tone when prefaced with "I believe..."

[Ahab]

I wouldn't say you need to be 100% correct, but you should be at least heading in the right general direction.

What if you're not but you believe you are, and what if you're so set in your ways that you will absolutely not consider what really is the best choice as a valid option.

The description we have of heaven is 1 good place with 3 divisions within it... good, better, and best... with one place as the really bad place.

Even if you're off on some things, but you're not really evil, you'll still likely get to go to a good place, just not necessarily the best place.

[bluebell]

So if I'm talking with someone who I believe isn't following Christ's gospel, and if I at least respect the great commission, what am I supposed to do?

I don't know. If you don't believe you can speak for God on the subject, I honestly don't know what you should do about trying to fulfill the great commission.

What? That's completely taken out of context. Christ was talking to His disciples there. They probably weren't taking notes when Christ was giving His sermons and explaining parables. So the HG was sent to them to help them remember what Christ said. You were not there, so you would have no way to remember something you didn't personally hear.

And He was talking to the man who wanted his son healed when he said 'if thou canst believe. All things are possible to him that believeth.' Do you really think that's not mean for anyone else other than that man though?

Christ later taught in John 16-

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

One of the reasons the Holy Ghost came, according to this scripture, was to guide us to all truth. If only the apostles needed this, then the Holy Ghost would have little reason to come to anyone else, yet we know that He is offered to all who believe and want to follow Christ.

This is because He will guide all into the all truth-and not just the apostles.

Yes, the HG does help teach us things, but you certainly can't use that verse to say that

That's what the verses says, so i certainly can use it to say it.

No, I'm fine with asking God and the HG for wisdom and guidance, but not as a way to test a whole movement, certainly not with the problems with the LDS Moroni 10:4-5 prayer.

That prayer says to 'If you pray with a sincere heart about these things, you will receive a witness that they are true.' So I'm supposed to test truth by praying with the expectation of a positive answer?

No one but you has even mentioned that verse, but if you want to talk about it, we can.

It doesn't say to pray with an expectation it is true. It says to pray with a sincere heart and you will know they are true.

Think of it this way. It's like telling someone-if you really want to know that wyoming borders montana, go ask the geography professor and you'll find out it does. It's not any different than saying 'go ask the geography professor and you'll find out'.

How do I know it's not a placebo?

If you've ever felt the witness or power of the Holy Ghost when He teaches you something, you shouldn't have any trouble recognizing Him.

God certainly knows humans are open to these kinds of reactions. So why would He design a test of truth based on people expecting a positive result?

He didn't. He designed a test of truth based on the power of the Holy Ghost.

But Matthias did follow Christ around. He heard Christ preach and saw His miracles.

All apostles are called as special witnesses of Christ because of the things they have heard and the miracles they have seen.

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.

Of course, I wasn't expecting you to agree on A or B. Those are both 'I believe' statements. But what's wrong with C? Are you saying the Protestant and LDS gospels are similar? What is your understanding of the LDS gospel?

I said i don't disagree with them-which means, we agree.

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. If you believed someone's gospel was leading them to destruction, what would you say to them?

I tell the gospel as i know to be true, i'd explain why i believe it's true-why i feel i can speak for God on the topic, and then tell them to go and ask God themselves whether or not the things i've shared are true and then i'd promise them that through the power of the Holy Ghost they can find out.

Would it do any good for you to call them a Christian?

Absolutely.

I don't have to believe that someone doesn't have a real and personal relationship with Jesus Christ before I can teach them the gospel as i believe it. In fact, i believe that the message of the LDS church is one of adding to knowledge other people already have. Not one of first having to convince the person they have no knowledge of God's word or truth before they can be saved.

Would you not 'judge' someone simply because they sincerely believe they are following the right gospel? Seriously, I would like to know what you would do if you were in my position?

I would judge the truthfullness of their theology, but not their relationship with the Savior. I completely believe that a person can have a relationship with Him without being 100% correct in all their beliefs. That's how it worked in the NT and that's how I believe it still works.

I wouldn't say you need to be 100% correct, but you should be at least heading in the right general direction.

In my belief, if you WANT to have faith in Christ and follow Him, and you are TRYING to have faith in Christ and to follow Him, then regardless of what else you believe, you ARE heading in the right direction.

[Storm Rider]

You know what disgusts me? People who are taught the truth clearly and then they consciously ignore everything said in clarity and continue with their gibberish, misinformation, and misunderstanding of LDS doctrine. The Spirit is not in them and they obviously do not seek any aid for the Spirit for they are so full of themselves they cannot know Christ. It is sad to see.

[djholmess]

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.

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

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

Does that help?

So which is it? We're they given to worship or not?

BTW Vance 'the heavenly hosts are gods' is polytheism

n.

The worship of or belief in more than one god.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polytheism

So stop saying you are a monothesist

[Akboy]

I don't know. If you don't believe you can speak for God on the subject, I honestly don't know what you should do about trying to fulfill the great commission.

Thank you for being honest. You may not agree with Protestant tactics in interfaith communication, and neither do I in many cases, but can you see where we're coming from? We just believe some faiths and gospels are leading people down a wrong path and we believe the great commission is calling us to witness to them.

One of the reasons the Holy Ghost came, according to this scripture, was to guide us to all truth. If only the apostles needed this, then the Holy Ghost would have little reason to come to anyone else, yet we know that He is offered to all who believe and want to follow Christ.

This is because He will guide all into the all truth-and not just the apostles.

Earlier, you asked me something like 'If exegesis is so reliable, then why do so many Protestant churches disagree?' Well I have the same question about the Holy Ghost. If the HG is such a reliable test of truth and source of guidance to anyone who asks sincerely, then wouldn't Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, etc. all be in agreement? We're all sincerely praying to God and the HG asking for guidance. So why aren't we all getting the same answer?

No one but you has even mentioned that verse, but if you want to talk about it, we can.

It doesn't say to pray with an expectation it is true. It says to pray with a sincere heart and you will know they are true.

I've talked with LDS missionaries before. They asked me to read multiple passages in the BoM and pray the prayer. I prayed it and didn't feel anything.

No, I didn't say the verses want us to have an expectation they are true. I said the verses tell us to pray with the expectation of receiving a positive answer. It's just like you said, 'pray with a sincere heart and you will know they are true.' If you expect to 'know they are true,' then your mind could generate a placebo effect based on that expectation.

The Bible never tells us to 'pray about it and you will know it is true.'

I tell the gospel as i know to be true, i'd explain why i believe it's true-why i feel i can speak for God on the topic, and then tell them to go and ask God themselves whether or not the things i've shared are true and then i'd promise them that through the power of the Holy Ghost they can find out.

That's essentially what Protestant are doing. They proclaim the gospel as they know it to be true. They explain why they feel it is true. The don't expect anyone to drop to their knees, reject the LDS church and convert on the spot. No they're fully aware any real change take time and prayer.

In fact, i believe that the message of the LDS church is one of adding to knowledge other people already have. Not one of first having to convince the person they have no knowledge of God's word or truth before they can be saved.

It really bugs me when LDS say that to a Protestant. Are you adding to our knowledge of doctrines like the Trinity or salvation by grace alone, not by works? It certainly doesn't seem like it. If I made a thread on either of those issues, it would quickly become clear you don't want those doctrines in your church. It would be far more accurate to say 'The LDS church is one of adding to beliefs they already agree with and dismissing beliefs they disagree with.'

I would judge the truthfullness of their theology, but not their relationship with the Savior. I completely believe that a person can have a relationship with Him without being 100% correct in all their beliefs. That's how it worked in the NT and that's how I believe it still works.

You're assuming there's a distinction where there isn't one. When we talk about our gospel and salvation by grace alone, those beliefs are our theology of having a relationship with Christ. I don't think someone has to be 100% correct in all their beliefs. But if their theology of the relationship has a foundational problem, then the relationship won't be right.