What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[bluebell]

Perhaps they've been at work. Maybe they will show up tonight.

Definitely could be. Even if not them then others who hold their same views would be nice as well.

[CASteinman]

I don't think that the New Testament actually defines the word "Christian". I am hard pressed to think of any words that it defines. It generally seems to just use words with the assumption that they will be understood.

[altersteve]

Honestly, the word "Christian" hardly means anything anymore. That's why I simply answer by saying I call myself a disciple of Jesus Christ (or at least that's what I try to be) and that I pray that Christ accepts me as one of His disciples and that that's all that matters. If some evangelical doesn't accept me as a fellow disciple of the Savior he claims to worship, then it's something he'll have to explain to Christ Himself one day when he stands before Him at the judgment bar, and it's therefore something that's between him and the Lord only. AKA, not my problem.

Edited August 1, 2012 by altersteve

[Storm Rider]

We need to give this more time or at least until some of our non-LDS participants present their case as to what the NT says about beinga Christian or a disciple of Christ.

In any personal discussion when another brings up this issue of who is and who is not a Christian, I always ask them to prove it by the Bible. They have never been able to. Some are honest enough to admit it and then still state we are not Christian. Others admit that it is simply a follower of Christ and move. Some are even comfortable acknowledging LDS as Christian.

Great thread.

[djholmess]

I don't think that the New Testament actually defines the word "Christian". I am hard pressed to think of any words that it defines. It generally seems to just use words with the assumption that they will be understood.

I agree. Even if you substitute the word Christian with disciple there is nowhere in the NT where an exhaustive definition is given. So if we take the term 'follower of Jesus' or 'disciple of Jesus' and come to the NT seeking to understand who does or doesn't fall into these categories we need to look at the entire presentation of the NT regarding 1) who Jesus is and 2) what do his followers do/look like/believe.

In the time of the apostles we could have just asked them or one of the eye witnesses. Today we don't have any apostles or eye witnesses instead we have the NT and it is here where we can find our answer to the question of what makes someone a Christian or disciple or sheep or believer or whatever other word you want to pick from the NT that is used to describe a follower of Jesus.

Obviously the NT is a large document and provides a vast array of verses and chapters detailing who Jesus is and what he has done, therefore to cover all these things would take a very long time.

In an LDS - Evangelical context however I think that a clear dividing line is apparent when the following three things are examined.

1) The monotheistic background to the NT found in the OT - there is only one God

2)The NT presentation that the Father is God

3) The NT presentation that Jesus is God

The Holy Spirit is obviously essential from an evangelical perspective however for the context of an LDS-Evangelical discussion the Father and Jesus are enough to see the differences.

[djholmess]

So lets look at number 1 from my previous post:

1) The monotheistic background to the NT found in the OT - there is only one God

Clearly the Jesus and the NT writers seem themselves as continuing the faith of the OT prophets. The OT is quoted over 250 times in the NT, all the OT books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon are quoted. Jesus himself quotes from 24 different OT books.

As I’m sure most of you know frequently the NT writers refer to the OT to ‘back up’ their arguments or to show that what is happening through them is a fulfilment of an OT prophecy.

Therefore what the OT says about who God is, is an essential background to properly understanding the NT message.

As Joseph Smith has said, ‘It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God’ (Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, pages 1-11).

One of the characteristics of God that I think He clearly presents in the OT which is foundational to correctly understanding the NT is God’s uniqueness – the fact that He is the only real God in existence, He is one of a kind.

This is found throughout the OT but a couple of examples are Deuteronomy and Isaiah;

Deuteronomy 4:35&39

Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightiest know that the Lord [Jehovah] he is God[elohim] ; there is none else beside him... know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord [Jehovah] he is God [elohim ] in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Moses clearly presents Jehovah God as the only God in existence in heaven and earth – there is no other God. This leads to the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 ‘hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord!’ No Prophet of God in the OT ever contradicted this.

[djholmess]

Now a few examples from Isaiah; they are all from chapters 40-48 where God is challenging men with their false Gods to realise the truth about His existence as the only real God.

Isaiah 43:10

“Ye are my witness, saith the Lord, And my servant whom I have chosen: That ye may know and believe me, And understand that I am he: Before me there was no God formed, Neither shall there be after me.”

Before God there was no God formed and there shall be none after Him. The clear message that God is communicating is that He is the only God.

If you try to twist this and say ‘well technically gods could be formed during God’s existence’ then you miss the entire point of the passage and the thrust of Gods words in this verse.

Isaiah 44:6&8

Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God ...Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

This time the all knowing God declares that He knows of no other Gods.

Isaiah 45:5

I am the Lord, [Jehovah], and there is none else, there is no God [Elohim] beside me.

Again the God of the OT, (Jehovah or Elohim or Adonai all used to refer to God) declares that there is no God beside Him

[Storm Rider]

This just makes me laugh. Have you ever read where Jesus said, "Come follow me, but if you do so you must believe these exact doctrines, if not you cannot come"? Or maybe something like, "You may be saved if you believe in me, but you must also believe in the following doctrines"? None of this happened. None of this occurred and it is fallacy to create some kind of absolute list of doctrinal beliefs in order to be recognized as a Christian.

Jesus taught the gospel, people believed and followed him; those are his disciples. There was discussion of doctrinal requirements. What we heard from the Savior is: repent and be baptized; love God; love your neighbor; don't judge others; and, if you love me, keep my commandments.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. What you think about me, my family, my church, and God is irrelevant. Call me heretic, non-Christian, apostate, sinner, but when He calls I will come and I will be joined by the saints. I hope you are there also.

[djholmess]

This just makes me laugh. Have you ever read where Jesus said, "Come follow me, but if you do so you must believe these exact doctrines, if not you cannot come"? Or maybe something like, "You may be saved if you believe in me, but you must also believe in the following doctrines"? None of this happened. None of this occurred and it is fallacy to create some kind of absolute list of doctrinal beliefs in order to be recognized as a Christian.

Jesus taught the gospel, people believed and followed him; those are his disciples. There was discussion of doctrinal requirements. What we heard from the Savior is: repent and be baptized; love God; love your neighbor; don't judge others; and, if you love me, keep my commandments.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. What you think about me, my family, my church, and God is irrelevant. Call me heretic, non-Christian, apostate, sinner, but when He calls I will come and I will be joined by the saints. I hope you are there also.

You have missed my point. Jesus said all those things in the monotheistic background where Jehovah was worshipped as the one true God.

Understanding this is therefore essential when it comes to addressing what Jesus claimed about himself. I planned to get to this later (my point 3) but look at John 8:23-24.

You are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 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.

Can you see the parallel to the verses from Isaiah that I quoted above. To be a believer in Jesus you must believe that he is the one true God of the OT. The God that said there are no other Gods beside Him.

Edited August 1, 2012 by djholmess

[Gervin]

This just makes me laugh. Have you ever read where Jesus said, "Come follow me, but if you do so you must believe these exact doctrines, if not you cannot come"? Or maybe something like, "You may be saved if you believe in me, but you must also believe in the following doctrines"? None of this happened. None of this occurred and it is fallacy to create some kind of absolute list of doctrinal beliefs in order to be recognized as a Christian.

Jesus taught the gospel, people believed and followed him; those are his disciples. There was discussion of doctrinal requirements. What we heard from the Savior is: repent and be baptized; love God; love your neighbor; don't judge others; and, if you love me, keep my commandments.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. What you think about me, my family, my church, and God is irrelevant. Call me heretic, non-Christian, apostate, sinner, but when He calls I will come and I will be joined by the saints. I hope you are there also.

I think you've come close to hitting the nail on the head; it is Christ and Christ alone that saves. Not Christ + doctrinal requirements or Christ + the right church. If there was a discussion of doctrinal requirements as you suggest then it was probably along the lines of "don't get hung up on doctrinal requirements" as evidenced by Christ's example of not being doctrinally correct. If we allow ourselves to come face to face with Christ through faith then we realize there's no reason to add conditions to our faith.

[djholmess]

Objections;

In the previous thread that spawned this thread someone quoted a number of OT passages (Deut 10:17, Joshua 22:22, Dan 11:36) that speak of God being the 'God of gods' as if this somehow demonstrates that God is in actual fact just one God among many gods.

To interpret these verses in this way clearly contradicts the verses I have quoted in my previous posts and misses two important things

1) The verses above from Isaiah are from the mouth of God about Himself. ‘God of gods’ is being used as a title for God in the passages – it is not being used to demonstrate that there are other real gods in existence who are ruled over by God.

2) The context of these verses negate the interpretation that the authors are in some way saying there are other Gods in existence. E.g. One of the verses quoted Psalm 136

Verse 2 says, ‘O give thanks unto the God of gods’

Yet verse 4 says ‘To him alone who doeth great wonders’

Verse ‘to him that by wisdom made the heavens’

And on and on, there is no room for ‘other gods who are real gods’

I have also seen Psalm 82:1 offered as a verse that teaches there are many ‘gods’

‘God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.’

But yet again this ignores the context. The gods are clearly judges over the people who as verse 2 describes ‘judge unjustly.’ Then in 3-4 these unjust judges are commanded to defend and deliver the poor and needy.

Even if you ignored this and did interpret it to be speaking about actual ‘gods’ in the LDS sense of there being other Gods it would still contradict LDS beliefs as I understand them because the other Gods are not supposed to have anything to do with our world – let alone be the ones judging unjustly among the people.

[djholmess]

I think you've come close to hitting the nail on the head; it is Christ and Christ alone that saves. Not Christ + doctrinal requirements or Christ + the right church.

You are right that the real Jesus Christ is the only saviour. The point you are missing is that Jesus himself taught specific things about his own identity that are essential to following Him rather than following a idea you have thought up in your head. The all important question is 'which Jesus are you following' the Jesus who presents his own identity in the NT or the Jesus presented by the LDS church - I believe they are different Jesus’

Jesus Himself acknowledges that there will be false Christ’s

²⁴ For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect

So how do you know if you are following the real one? As I was leading up to in my previous posts the real one spoke in the context of the monotheistic Jewish religion, affirmed the teachings of the OT and presented Himself as the one true God of the OT. If your Jesus isn’t that Jesus then you follow a false Jesus – even if you think you are obeying other commands of his.

[rodheadlee]

26 ¶ And God said, Let ^aus ^bmake ^cman in our ^dimage, after our ^elikeness: and let them have ^fdominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Who is US?

[djholmess]

26 ¶ And God said, Let ^aus ^bmake ^cman in our ^dimage, after our ^elikeness: and let them have ^fdominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Who is US?

The NT revelation of God would suggest that the us is a reference to Father, Son and Spirit. Who do you think it refers to?

Edited August 1, 2012 by djholmess

[volgadon]

Moses clearly presents Jehovah God as the only God in existence in heaven and earth – there is no other God. This leads to the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 ‘hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord!’ No Prophet of God in the OT ever contradicted this.

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.

[theplains]

I with Paul ask EVs, "Who are Evangelicals to judge another mans servant, and decide who is and isn't a servant of Christ?

Would you consider Jehovah's Witnesses as "Christians" when their Jesus is Michael the Archangel? Would

Muslims also be Christians when they accept the teachings of Jesus but he is only a man?

Basically, is there the possibility that one can follow a false Christ and still claim to believe he is the true one?

Thanks,

Jim

[theplains]

We need to give this more time or at least until some of our non-LDS participants present their case as to what the NT says about beinga Christian or a disciple of Christ.

I don't have an NT reference but I think it means you act much like Christ that people regard you as a little "Christ".

They were first called "Christians" in Antioch ... not sure why.

If this is what it means, then I cannot say that I am a Christian because I am not like Christ in many ways. But today

the term Christian has applied to what one thinks rather than focusing on what one does ... in my opinion. I do not

know what theology Mother Theresa entirely had, but I know she was acting like Christ in the way she cared and

loved those around her. If I go by her standard, I do not love people the way I should. And those non-Mormons who

show hatred with some anti-LDS signs at certain LDS events are definitely not acting Christ-like.

Regards,

Jim

[Anijen]

Would you consider Jehovah's Witnesses as "Christians" when their Jesus is Michael the Archangel? Would

Muslims also be Christians when they accept the teachings of Jesus but he is only a man?

Yes I would consider Jehovah Witnesses to be Christian even though their doctrine is different than my own. No I would not consider Muslim to be Christian and they would not want that either. They believe Christ to be a great prophet and that he was born to a virgin. But they definitely do not believe him to be the son of God. So no, neither would I, or any Muslim consider them to be Christian.

Basically, is there the possibility that one can follow a false Christ and still claim to believe he is the true one?

In a very obscure way, if they believe that person to be the resurrected Christ then yes you would have to call them Christian, regardless if false or not. The Shia and Sunni have different doctrines and views, yet both are Muslim.

The bottom line is simple, you do not have to believe in the same theology as Evangelicals, Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, or LDS, all are considered Christian because they follow Christ in a way they believe to be right. The common denominator is Christ not individual ideology.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Anijen

[rodheadlee]

The NT revelation of God would suggest that the us is a reference to Father, Son and Spirit. Who do you think it refers to?

I'm not sure. Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, Jehovah (Who is Jesus Christ) possibly the Council of Heaven too.

[Akboy]

I think it's very dangerous to try to define a Biblical term or concept by referring to a modern dictionary definition. Do you use modern dictionaries when defining other Biblical issues? If not, then why would you use it for 'Christian'? It's far more reliable and accurate to use the etymological definition.

Christianos (the greek word) literally means "a follower of Christ."

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/christianos.html

So according to that, a Christian is someone who follows Christ, not just someone who claims to follow Christ.

[altersteve]

I think it's very dangerous to try to define a Biblical term or concept by referring to a modern dictionary definition. Do you use modern dictionaries when defining other Biblical issues? If not, then why would you use it for 'Christian'? It's far more reliable and accurate to use the etymological definition.

Christianos (the greek word) literally means "a follower of Christ."

http://www.biblestud...hristianos.html

So according to that, a Christian is someone who follows Christ, not just someone who claims to follow Christ.

Unlike other people, Latter-day Saints are fully capable of taking a person at their word when they claim to follow Christ.

[Akboy]

Unlike other people, Latter-day Saints are fully capable of taking a person at their word when they claim to follow Christ.

But should they just take people at their word? If you really believe someone isn't following Christ, is it compassionate to just let them be? What good does it do someone to say they're a Christian if they're not following Christ?

Jesus and Paul certainly didn't just take people at their word on issues of faith. They harshly rebuked people for beliefs or practices.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Akboy

[KevinG]

But should they just take people at their word? If you really believe someone isn't following Christ, is it compassionate to just let them be? What good does it do someone to say they're a Christian if they're not following Christ?

Jesus and Paul certainly didn't just take people at their word on issues of faith. They harshly rebuked people for beliefs or practices.

I know Christ. I worship Christ. I follow Christ. I am obedient to Christ. I am willing to be rebuked by Christ.

Akboy you are no Christ.

[Anijen]

a Christian is someone who follows Christ, not just someone who claims to follow Christ.

I disagree, too many times they also want to define follow. If some people do not follow the way another thinks he/she should follow they think it their duty to correct them.

Bottom line (again); it is not how you follow Christ it is that you choose to follow him that makes you a Christian.

There have been evil men who have followed Christ and were called Christian.

There have been very good men who have followed Christ and were called Christian.

The bottom line (once again) is you choose to follow Christ that makes you a Christian. If you choose to be a baptist that means you are a Christian that goes to the Baptist church. If you choose to be a Catholic that means you are a Christian that goes to the Catholic church.

The definition of Christian does not choose what Christian church you join.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Anijen

[Vance]

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.

volgadon,

Apparently youWE just don't get it. That verse MUST BE understood ONLY the way 21st century American Protestant Evangelicals understand it.