What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[djholmess]

By that definition, Paul was a polythiest

"as there be Gods many, and Lords many"

This has been talked about in this thread before. Paul is referring to idols who are CALLED gods by the idolators - doesn't make them actual gods. If he really did mean what you think he means then he would indeed be a polytheist.

Edited August 5, 2012 by djholmess

[Robert F. Smith]

The Shema is a lousy verse if you wanted to prove that only one God exists. That isn't even how it was understood for much of its history and misses the actual point of the verse.

The LDS Shema' is at D&C 76:1.

[Calm]

They are not speaking of two different people, but of different attributes or charateristics of the same person.

And you don't have to be right in your perception of someone to still be talking about the same person as someone who knows them very well and perceives them as accurately as anyone can.

IOW, we may or may not be mistaken in our beliefs about Christ, but they are still beliefs about Christ, and not some random stranger or phantom of our imagination.

[Robert F. Smith]

What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

And I don't mean, what are the doctrines that someone must believe to be saved. I mean, how does the NT define who a Christian is?

KJV translation of term first used of followers of Christ in Antioch, Syria ca. 43 A.D. (Latin christianus/christiani > Greek christianoi, christianous Acts 11:26, 26:28, christianos 1 Peter 4:16; Didache 12:4; Pliny the Younger, Letters, 10.96).[1] This was the Gentile equivalent of the Jewish term “the sect of the Nazarenes” (Greek nazōraioi, Syriac nṣrn’ Acts 24:5). Cf. other terms for early Christians: Greek hoi pistoi, Syriac mhimnin “believers” (Acts 5:14); adelphoi, Syriac ’ḥyn “brethren” (Acts 6:3); hoi hagioi, Syriac qdišin “saints” (Acts 9:13).[2]

Alma 46:13-16, “True believers in Christ” so called by those “who did not belong to the church,” “because of their belief in Christ who should come” and Alma 48:10, “called by their enemies the cause of Christians.”

[1] LDS “Bible Dictionary,” 635.

[2] M. Wilkins, “Christian,” in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:925-926.

[djholmess]

And *you* have the "correct understanding", correct? Do Mormons? Do any nontrinitarian Christians? My father grew up Lutheran (converted to mormonism when he was 20) yet never accepted the Holy Trinity because it never made sense to him. Was he never a Christian? Was God's grace not upon him even as a Lutheran? Do Catholics have a "correct knowledge" of God? Do they pray to the same God when they invoke saints into their prayers? (I say absolutrely yes they do but I'd like to know wha you think).

If your father was a Luthern and left the church to become a Mormon then I'm sorry but I would have to conclude Gods salvific grace had never been at work in him.

1 John 2:19

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

As I believe Mormons are not true followers of Christ joining the LDS church can only seen as sign that the person was not of us in the first place.

Do Catholics have a correct knowledge of God? Well if they hold to all the official Catholic beliefs then I can't see that they do. At the very least their view of the gospel is wrong so anyone that thinks they are saved by doing what Rome says you must do cannot be a born again Christian.

The correct understanding of any passage is the understanding of the truth that the author meant to communicate. I may have it, you may have it but whoever has it should be able to show how any passage actually means what they think it means.

[Zakuska]

This has been talked about in this thread before.

Yes it has... and you failed miserable explaining it there too.

Paul is referring to idols who are CALLED gods by the idolators - doesn't make them actual gods. If he really did mean what you think he means then he would indeed be a polytheist.

Paul not only refers to IDOLS (called god by Idoliters) but to "heavenly beings" who the scripture itself and God himself refers to as "gods" and commands them to worship him.

For your definition of monotheism to stick then these beings who God himself refers to as gods can't exist. But they do exist and the scriptures can't be broken!

How else can they fall down and worship him, sing praises to him? And why does God want "non-existant" beings to worship him in the first place?

Edited August 5, 2012 by Zakuska

[djholmess]

Even the theologically-loaded "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" writes that the OT "has no special term for 'eternity' that can be contrasted with 'temporality.' The Hebrew word most often used to express 'eternity' is olam. It is the same word that expresses duration of time, and it designates 'ETERNITY' only in such statement as 'from olam' and 'until olam' (Ps. 90:2).

You are welcome to criticise LDS doctrines as unbiblical, but please research words a little bit more.

You just proved my point. In the context of Psalm 90:2 from olam and until olam does designate eternity. Yet this is the very thing JS sought to refute. He must therefore be a false prophet.

From the Dictonairy of Biblical Languages th Semtic Domains

6409 עֹולָם (ʿô∙lām): adv. [oth n.masc.]; ≡ Str 5769; TWOT 1631a—1. LN 67.78–67.117 everlasting, forever, eternity, i.e., pertaining to an unlimited duration of time, usually with a focus on the future (Ge 3:22); 2. LN 67.78–67.117 ancient, old, i.e., existing for a long time in the relative past (1Sa 27:8; Ps 119:52); 3. LN 67.78–67.117 lasting, for a duration, i.e., an undetermined duration of time without reference to other points of time, with a focus of no anticipated end, but nevertheless may have limits (Nu 25:13; Jer 18:16), note: for MT text in 2Ch 33:7, see 6409

Edited August 5, 2012 by djholmess

[Storm Rider]

It is unfortunate that so many attempt to bandy about a doctrine of the Trinity that even Apologists admit is incomprehensible. Many are modern modalists without really knowing that their beliefs conflict with Trinitarianism and are firmly confined to heresy.

As far as the context of this discussion, some Christians have created a new definition in order to declare that a true Christians must believe in specific doctrines in order to be a real Christian. What is actually meant by this is that a true Christian must belong to the Catholic traditions as defined in the 4th century. Protestants are relatively ignorant of the logic used; however, in that they think they believe in the same doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church they jump on to their bandwagon without undestanding that in so doing they condemn themselves as heretics.

At no point does Jesus Christ demand a doctrinal belief about himself other than that he is the Messiah. This has been repeated ad nauseum, but to no avail. The one shining area of redemption is that LDS have only to answer the call of God. It is too easy (at least for me) to get caught up in these petty arguments. Frankly, I find the caliber of typical discussions to be so baseless and without foundation that my frustration gets to the point of anger talking with them. So seldom do I find one that actually knows Christian history and doctrine sufficiently to make a discussion enjoyable. Why would anyone argue about the definition of being a follower of Jesus Christ when the Bible so clearly conflicts with their position? It is untenable.

It would much more worthwhile to just admit the facts: 1) this is my definition of a Christian, and 2) this is why. Unfortunately, we get a diatribe about Joseph Smith being a prophet? How in the heck did we go from what Jesus said about being his follower to attempting to define who is and who is not a prophet? Worse, what does it have to do with the topic?

[djholmess]

It would much more worthwhile to just admit the facts: 1) this is my definition of a Christian, and 2) this is why. Unfortunately, we get a diatribe about Joseph Smith being a prophet? How in the heck did we go from what Jesus said about being his follower to attempting to define who is and who is not a prophet? Worse, what does it have to do with the topic?

Joseph Smith has everything to do with it. As I stated in my long post Jesus warns us very strongly about false prophets (Matt 24). Joseph fails the test of a true prophet (Deut 13).

Do you believe someone can be a Christian; a follower of Jesus Whilst also follloweing a false prophet? I do not, so with regard to the OP one of the reasons why I do not see Mormons as Christians is that as I see it they follow a false prophet.

Edited August 5, 2012 by djholmess

[Calm]

Do Catholics have a correct knowledge of God? Well if they hold to all the official Catholic beliefs then I can't see that they do. At the very least their view of the gospel is wrong so anyone that thinks they are saved by doing what Rome says you must do cannot be a born again Christian.

I always find it amazing when someone proclaiming the ultimate right to be Christian proceeds to so blithely dismiss not only the largest Christian church in existence, but even the one with the ties that go the farthest back according to his own historical beliefs.

The absurdity of that stance astonishes me. How can one claim traditional or historical beliefs as one's own when one rejects the source that crafted those beliefs?

Edited August 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[djholmess]

At no point does Jesus Christ demand a doctrinal belief about himself other than that he is the Messiah.

Ok, them can you please explain what Jesus meant in John 8:24

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

What does it mean to believe that 'I am he'?

[Akboy]

Yes.

If that's true, then Joseph Smith's sermon doesn't make sense.

it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. . . . It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us

What is that saying? You say God was God on the other earth. Yet Smith talks about how God CAME TO BE God. So when did God become God? When was He a man like us? Are we gods right now?

Was Jesus Christ God when He dwelt on this earth?

Both the Father and the Son have eternally been God. The Son humbled Himself and took the form and appearance of a man, but He was still God at the same time.

Nothing beyond what has been presented has been revealed to us so it is impossible to answer your question outside pure speculation.

It is our critics that draw conclusions and present them as facts when the details have not been revealed.

We may speculate but do not draw hard conclusions without further revelation, that will be given in God's own time. We leave it open ended so that when further truth is revealed it is not rejected because it does not fit with a pre-conceived notion.

According to Smith in that quote, this issue is part of "the first principle of the gospel," so it must be pretty important. Why would God leave such a big part of the the first principle of the gospel up to pure speculation? Isn't that what continued revelation is for? This issue has obviously caused a lot of confusion and arguments for decades, yet God remains silent on it?

[Zakuska]

I always find it amazing when someone proclaiming the ultimate right to be Christian proceeds to so blithely dismiss not only the largest Christian church in existence, but even the one with the ties that go the farthest back according to his own historical beliefs.

The absurdity of that stance astonishes me. How can one claim traditional or historical beliefs as one's own when one rejects the source that crafted those beliefs?

AMEN!

[djholmess]

I always find it amazing when someone proclaiming the ultimate right to be Christian proceeds to so blithely dismiss not only the largest Christian church in existence, but even the one with the ties that go the farthest back according to his own historical beliefs.

The absurdity of that stance astonishes me.

Size and historic ties do not make a Church right, faithfulness to the revelation of God does. To me it seems absurd that Catholics think some of their beliefs align with biblical,beliefs e.g. Bodily assumption of Mary, Mary as a Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix.

Obviously this is not the focus of this thread but I hope you can at least see I an seeking consistency-I will judge any organisation that claims to be a Church, LDS or Catholic by the same standard-the word of God.

[Zakuska]

Ok, them can you please explain what Jesus meant in John 8:24

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

What does it mean to believe that 'I am he'?

To beleive that he (Jesus) was/is the Messiah.

John 8

25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.

That is who he claimed to be from the beginning afterall.

[Akboy]

I always find it amazing when someone proclaiming the ultimate right to be Christian proceeds to so blithely dismiss not only the largest Christian church in existence, but even the one with the ties that go the farthest back according to his own historical beliefs.

The absurdity of that stance astonishes me. How can one claim traditional or historical beliefs as one's own when one rejects the source that crafted those beliefs?

The Catholic church did not craft my beliefs. No, part of the problem was the Catholic church was crafting their own beliefs. Popes through the centuries have added new doctrines or practices. The Catholic church of the 1600's and today is not the same church led by the disciples, which it seems everyone here agrees with.

I may agree with some traditional and historical beliefs, but tradition and history are not the source of my beliefs. I don't care how big a church is. If they follow "another gospel," one different than the one I believe in, why should I care what they say? The point is to follow Christ, not the biggest church.

I've never heard a Protestant or Evangelical proclaim 'the ultimate right to be Christian.' You don't like us putting words in your mouth and we don't want words put in our mouth.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Akboy

[Zakuska]

Size and historic ties do not make a Church right, faithfulness to the revelation of God does. To me it seems absurd that Catholics think some of their beliefs align with biblical,beliefs e.g. Bodily assumption of Mary, Mary as a Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix.

Obviously this is not the focus of this thread but I hope you can at least see I an seeking consistency-I will judge any organisation that claims to be a Church, LDS or Catholic by the same standard-the word of God.

Correction... Your personal interpretation of the word of God.

[Calm]

Size and historic ties do not make a Church right, faithfulness to the revelation of God does. To me it seems absurd that Catholics think some of their beliefs align with biblical,beliefs e.g. Bodily assumption of Mary, Mary as a Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix.

Obviously this is not the focus of this thread but I hope you can at least see I an seeking consistency-I will judge any organisation that claims to be a Church, LDS or Catholic by the same standard-the word of God.

Where was Christianity for all those years then when there were only the Catholic and Greek and other Orthodox and Coptic and a few other faiths that do not hold solely to those doctrines Evangelicals claim are core, necessary and sufficient outside of which one risks damnation?

[Storm Rider]

Joseph Smith has everything to do with it. As I stated in my long post Jesus warns us very strongly about false prophets (Matt 24). Joseph fails the test of a true prophet (Deut 13).

Do you believe someone can be a Christian; a follower of Jesus and a follower of a false prophet? I do not, so with regard to the OP one of the reasons why I do not see Mormons as Christians is that as I see it they follow a false prophet.

Do I think a prophet can overcome the saving grace of Jesus Christ? Never! There is nothing greater than Jesus Christ when it comes to the salvation of humanity. Do you believe Jesus is so weak that a false prophet can overcome his power to save the individual?

Go back to the verse you are quoting and read what it says. Mark 13:22 and Matthew 24:24 both warn of false prophets and indicate that even the elect may be deceived, but neither of them provide any indication or mention that if you follow a false prophet you are not a follower of Christ. Do you disagree?

Also, if there are false prophets there must necessarily be true prophets. Which true prophet do you follow?

[Zakuska]

The Catholic church did not craft my beliefs. No, part of the problem was the Catholic church was crafting their own beliefs. Popes through the centuries have added new doctrines or practices. The Catholic church of the 1600's and today is not the same church led by the disciples, which it seems everyone here agrees with.

I may agree with some traditional and historical beliefs, but tradition and history are not the source of my beliefs. I don't care how big a church is. If they follow "another gospel," one different than the one I believe in, why should I care what they say? The point is to follow Christ, not the biggest church.

I've never heard a Protestant or Evangelical proclaim 'the ultimate right to be Christian.' You don't like us putting words in your mouth and we don't want words put in our mouth.

There we have it AKBoy's Gospel is what saves. By his own admission anyone who doesn't beleive as he does is going to hell. Edited August 5, 2012 by Zakuska

[Akboy]

There we have it AKBoy's Gospel is what saves. By his own admission anyone who doesn't beleive as he does is going to hell.

If I sincerely believe someone is following a gospel other than the one taught in the NT, how am I supposed to treat them? How were the Galatians supposed to treat the Judaizers after Paul called them out for teaching 'another gospel'?

I am following my beliefs how I honestly believe I am supposed to follow them. Are you trying to impose your way of thinking on me?

Edited August 5, 2012 by Akboy

[djholmess]

Do I think a prophet can overcome the saving grace of Jesus Christ? Never! There is nothing greater than Jesus Christ when it comes to the salvation of humanity. Do you believe Jesus is so weak that a false prophet can overcome his power to save the individual.

Ah but you see your understanding of what the saving grace of Christ is comes from the revelation of Joseph Smith and the revelation and authority of the Chruch founded on Joseph Smiths revelation. When you read the Bible within your Mormon context with Mormon 'goggles' what you see and think about 'the saving grace of Jesus' is based on a false prophet.

A false prophet cannot overcome the grace of God but he can twist the understanding of how to seek that grace so that anyone following him does not know how to seek it.

[djholmess]

Go back to the verse you are quoting and read what it says. Mark 13:22 and Matthew 24:24 both warn of false prophets and indicate that even the elect may be deceived, but neither of them provide any indication or mention that if you follow a false prophet you are not a follower of Christ. Do you disagree?

So following a false prophet means you can still be a follower of Christ. In your understanding of what it means to follow Christ is it even not possible not to be a follower of Christ?

Edited August 5, 2012 by djholmess

[djholmess]

Where was Christianity for all those years then when there were only the Catholic and Greek and other Orthodox and Coptic and a few other faiths that do not hold solely to those doctrines Evangelicals claim are core, necessary and sufficient outside of which one risks damnation?

I'm sure within all those groups you could find real followers of Christ over the years. John Hus is a good example from within the later Catholic periods before the reformation. Also sticking with the Roman Catholic Church their doctrines have been developing over the last 1400 years, so only as they got further and further away from biblical truth has their doctrine become 'unchristian'

[volgadon]

CFR this please.

Here's an introductory level article that says otherwise.

http://www.answering..._monogenes.html

Isaac, as you'll note, was note a one and only son.

This has been talked about in this thread before. Paul is referring to idols who are CALLED gods by the idolators - doesn't make them actual gods. If he really did mean what you think he means then he would indeed be a polytheist.

The word "called" doesn't mean that they are make-believe.

You just proved my point. In the context of Psalm 90:2 from olam and until olam does designate eternity. Yet this is the very thing JS sought to refute. He must therefore be a false prophet.

From the Dictonairy of Biblical Languages th Semtic Domains

Please note the CHALOT reference. We aren't talking about eternity in a philosophical sense.