What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Vance]

Like I said I'm not expecting you to be convinced by me - its the word of God that is equipped to convict people of true or false beliefs.

Yeah, yeah yeah!

I have studied the Bible for 30+ years and I don't find anything in there that conflicts with Mormonism.

SO!!

By the standard YOU have provided I am doing just fine as far as doctrine is concerned.

Thank you very much.

[KevinG]

As I have been happy to say I do not believe I can be faithful to the word of God and accept Mormons as Christians.

On that basis:

Does Mormonism deny love for God? I would say yes Mormonism denies love for the true God.

Does Mormonism deny love for fellow man? In a biblical context yes.

1 John 4

⁷ Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

If as I believe you don't know the true God then you cannot love because love is of God. As a practical example; I believe the Bible clearly teaches that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ as their saviour will be condemned to hell. It would be a very loving thing to warn someone who is going to hell that they need Jesus. Mormonism teaches that Jesus has atoned for the sins of the world and that all men will be resurrected - only apostates will go to hell.

Your ignorance of Mormon doctrine and bigotry are noted.

[djholmess]

Your ignorance of Mormon doctrine and bigotry are noted.

Can you explain how I am a bigot?

bigot [ˈbɪgət]n

a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

n·tol·er·ant (n-tlr-nt)

adj.

Not tolerant, especially:

a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/intolerant

I certainly disagree with your beliefs but I don't see how I have been intolerant of them.

[Vance]

Mormonism teaches that Jesus has atoned for the sins of the world and that all men will be resurrected

There you go again, telling us what we believe. HOW UN CIVIL of you.

BTW, the Bible teaches that Jesus atoned for the sins of the world,

1 Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

And that all men will be resurrected,

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

- only apostates will go to hell.

CFR!!!

Edited August 7, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

Can you explain how I am a bigot?

bigot [ˈbɪgət]n

a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

n·tol·er·ant (n-tlr-nt)

adj.

Not tolerant, especially:

a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

http://www.thefreedi....com/intolerant

I certainly disagree with your beliefs but I don't see how I have been intolerant of them.

You are intolerant of us being Christians.

[KevinG]

Can you explain how I am a bigot?

bigot [ˈbɪgət]n

a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race

n·tol·er·ant (n-tlr-nt)

adj.

Not tolerant, especially:

a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

http://www.thefreedi....com/intolerant

I certainly disagree with your beliefs but I don't see how I have been intolerant of them.

Very good. Now look up irony.

Edited August 7, 2012 by KevinG

[djholmess]

Well, since I have read the Bible as much as (if not more than) you, I have ALL the authority from the Bible that the Bible can give.

AND, with that authority, I hereby declare your teachings to be false.

Now, prove that I don't have as much authority from the Bible as you do.

Reading the Bible doesn’t give YOU authority the BIBLE is the authority – that’s what I have been saying.

Sorry, but you can't show that JS was speaking as a prophet during the King Follet discourse.

To quote myself

So JS was addressing a great number of LDS at an official conference. JS then himself goes on to say firstly that he wants prayers to set forth the truth.

“I want your prayers and faith that I may have the instruction of Almighty God and the gift of the Holy Ghost, so that I may set forth things that are true and which can be easily comprehended by you, and that the testimony may carry conviction to your hearts and minds of the truth of what I shall say.”

Then he boldly puts his very identity as a prophet on the line if he fails to teach the character of God in what he is about to say

“My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is; and if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you, then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say anything against the man of God or the servants of God again. But if I fail to do it, it becomes my duty to renounce all further pretensions to revelations and inspirations, or to be a prophet; and I should be like the rest of the world—a false teacher”

And then he says what he is about to teach if proven by the Bible

“What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.”

But even if I was to accept that he wasn’t speaking as a prophet then I would still be forced to conclude that he was a false teacher, and as a false teacher claiming to be a prophet he would therefore also be a false prophet.

It was a funeral, not a conference.

Maybe I was wrong but from http://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

It says ;

“The King Follett Sermon, one of the classics of Church literature, was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith at the April 7, 1844, conference of the Church in Nauvoo, Illinois. Some twenty thousand Saints were assembled. The account of the talk noted that it was the funeral sermon for Elder King Follett, a close friend of the Prophet’s who had been killed in an accident on March”

That reads to me like the sermon was presented at the conference and that the topic of the sermon was a funeral sermon for Elder King. Not to mention 20,000 people at a funeral seems like a bit too many.

[djholmess]

CFR!!!

Ok then I am willing to be corrected. Can you explain to me on what basis you believe someone would be sent to hell?

[Vance]

Reading the Bible doesn’t give YOU authority the BIBLE is the authority – that’s what I have been saying.

Ok, so you don't have any authority to say what the Bible is really teaching.

GOT IT!!!

But even if I was to accept that he wasn’t speaking as a prophet then I would still be forced to conclude that he was a false teacher, and as a false teacher claiming to be a prophet he would therefore also be a false prophet.

We just established that you have no authority to make that judgement. Besides, it is rather OBVIOUS that you don't really understand what the Bible actually teaches.

Maybe I was wrong but from http://www.lds.org/e...sermon?lang=eng

It says ;

“The King Follett Sermon, one of the classics of Church literature, was given by the Prophet Joseph Smith at the April 7, 1844, conference of the Church in Nauvoo, Illinois. Some twenty thousand Saints were assembled. The account of the talk noted that it was the funeral sermon for Elder King Follett, a close friend of the Prophet’s who had been killed in an accident on March”

So, I was correct. And you were not.

That reads to me like the sermon was presented at the conference and that the topic of the sermon was a funeral sermon for Elder King. Not to mention 20,000 people at a funeral seems like a bit too many.

He was more popular than you. Go figure.

[KevinG]

Ok then I am willing to be corrected. Can you explain to me on what basis you believe someone would be sent to hell?

http://www.lds.org/s...=eng&query=hell is a good starting place.

Suffice it to say not believing in DJholmess particular Evangelical influenced interpretation of the Bible is not sufficient to send someone to hell.

Edited August 7, 2012 by KevinG

[bluebell]

Just like you asked me, how can the Holy Spirit guide you in your beliefs if you are not open to be corrected? Aren't you asking me to keep an open mind that I might be wrong about some beliefs? Are you willing to do the same thing?

Yes.

That's not what I said. You quoted a verse of Jesus telling the disciples the Holy Spirit would help them remember His teachings. Since you were not there to hear the teachings in the first place, the HS couldn't help you remember them. I said the teaching that the HS helps teach us truth IS in the bible, but you shouldn't use THAT verse to support the idea since Jesus wasn't talking to us.

Maybe you didn't read the whole verse.

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.

Besides, Jesus isn't ever talking directly to us in the bible, is He? Isn't every teaching of His that's in the bible, spoken to a literal person or people who are present with Him in the moment?

Ultimately, it's based on what's in the Bible. Scholarship and study are just tools. It doesn't matter how much studying someone does if their teachings are not supported by the Bible.

It seems pretty obvious that the bible is just ambiguous enough for people to use it to support a million different teachings.

I'm guessing that david koresh, for example, believed that his teachings were very much supported in the bible. Catholics believe their teachings are supported in the bible. You believe your's are. LDS believe their's are. The bible was used extensively by Southerners before (and after) the civil war to support the institution of slavery.

I completely agree with what you're saying in theory but the real world application shows that such statements are practically worthless when it comes to discussions about who's doctrine is correct.

I've never said, believed or heard that God loves me any more than people of other faiths.

I apologize if i misconstrued your beliefs. I've just never heard an Evangelical who believed that I, as a mormon, was a beloved child of God just as they are, loved by Him as much as they are. I'm sure there are some out there, i've just never heard that from them.

I agree that the Trinity is a very important doctrine, but I don't believe someone has to have an accurate understanding of it to be saved. I've been involved in children's ministry for many years and it's fairly common for kids younger than 7 years old to get saved, and I seriously doubt they understand the doctrine.

If i am taught the doctrine, can i reject it as a heresy and still be saved?

Okay, I'll try this a different way. Lucifer was an angel of light before the fall and there's no indication he lost that form since then. The other angels who fell probably also kept their form. Lucifer is now the prince of the power of the air, the father of lies and a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. So he has the power and will to deceive many people, and has a history of doing so.

Agreed.

So isn't it possible Satan could appear to someone in order to deceive them? He could also bring along another fallen angel to appear along with him. Is there any reason to believe Satan wouldn't or couldn't do that? Is it possible?

If you are speaking about Joseph Smith's vision, there are some important things to realize.

First-the scriptures teach that satan can imitate an 'angel of light'. No where do they teach that he can imitate Jesus or God the Father.

Second-Jesus taught that satan could not cast himself out (it's interesting how this argument of 'it was all done by satan' has always existed to bring doubt upon the true gospel of Christ). Read JS's story of everything that transpired before the first vision to understand why this is important.

If Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light, why couldn't he disguise a deception as a witness of the Holy Ghost? Is it possible?

It is always possible to be deceived by Satan-the bible is clear about that. We must always be on guard against him.

Does the bible say it's possible for satan to imitate a witness of the Spirit though? Can satan bring peace to a person's soul or cause someone's heart to burn within them?

Can satan do miracles or deceive if it is done in the name of Jesus?

[KevinG]

Back to the original discussion - it seems to me tha adding conditions like the perfect theological understanding of who Christ is to "follower of Christ" denies the power of the atonement?

I disagree with many of the Evangelical beliefs about Christ but I have never argued they do not believe in Jesus Christ.

The woman with an issue is a great example. She didn't go about getting Christ's blessing in a traditional way but instead had faith that she would be healed if she could just touch the hem of his garment. Her faith in Christ healed her despite her not having a perfect knowledge of His practices and doctrines.

[Sleeper Cell]

By biblical scholars I take it you mean Jewish teachers of the OT law right? If so I don't understand how that in anyway negates the word of God commending the Bereans and giving us their example.

I never said it did. You completely missed my point. My point was that the Bereans and the top Biblical scholars read the same scriptures and came to different conclusions.

This does not mean that one should not read and study the scriptures daily. It certainly does not mean that one should not use the scriptures to test the words of anyone who claims to be a prophet. On the other hand, this is not an infallible test. Even if one believes the Bible (as we have it) is infallible, human reasoning is not.

[Vance]

Ok then I am willing to be corrected. Can you explain to me on what basis you believe someone would be sent to hell?

Define what you mean by hell?

In the Greek there are two words that are translated to the English word "hell".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&t=KJV

Hades (the world of the dead) => hell

And,

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1067&t=KJV

Geenna (the place of the future punishment) => hell

[Calm]

This does not mean that one should not read and study the scriptures daily. It certainly does not mean that one should not use the scriptures to test the words of anyone who claims to be a prophet.

Atheists/agnostics, Jews and Mormons still have the highest levels of religious knowledge, followed by evangelical Protestants, then those whose religion is nothing in particular, mainline Protestants and Catholics. Atheists/agnostics and Jews stand out for high levels of knowledge about world religions other than Christianity, though they also score at or above the national average on questions about the Bible and Christianity. Holding demographic factors constant, evangelical Protestants outperform most groups (with the exceptions of Mormons and atheists/agnostics) on questions about the Bible and Christianity, but evangelicals fare less well compared with other groups on questions about world religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. Mormons are the highest-scoring group on questions about the Bible.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1745/religious-knowledge-in-america-survey-atheists-agnostics-score-highest

[Vance]

WOW!!!!

Mormons are the highest-scoring group on questions about the Bible.

SMACK!!! (That is going to hurt some of the posters here.)

Edited August 7, 2012 by Vance

[Calm]

Mormons are also the ones who read their Bible most often save for Pentecostals:

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/54-protestants-catholics-and-mormons-reflect-diverse-levels-of-religious-activity?q=mormon+bible

[Vance]

Mormons are also the ones who read their Bible most often save for Pentecostals:

http://www.barna.org...?q=mormon bible

That is interesting considering that the Sunday School curriculum only calls for studying the Bible 2 out of every 4 years.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

BTW, there are still two outstanding CFRs for djholmess,

Normally you (Vance) are accusing me of getting my understanding of Mormonism from anti Mormon sites.

and

. . . only the Bible can warn anyone that they may be headed towards such condemnation.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Vance

[bluebell]

I know LDS bring up James 1:5 often to support their idea of receiving a witness of the Spirit and specifically on whether JS was a prophet. However I think this misses the context of the passage. At the very least you would have to admit that there is nothing in the context of James 1:5 that is dealing with knowing if someone is a false prophet or not.

Needing to know whether or not someone spoke for God does, very much, fits the context of needing wisdom. The context does not specify that only certain questions will be answered.

Passages like Deuteronomy 13 & 18, Galatians 1 and as a specific example Acts 17:10-11

¹⁰ And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

¹¹ These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Of course scripture study is necessary. LDS do not claim otherwise. We very much believe in the necessity of scripture study. We believe it is a commandment of God to study our scriptures every single day. And not just to study-but to feast upon them and to ponder them.

But scripture study without the guidance of God through the Spirit cannot reveal God's truth to anyone-scripture study alone cannot tell someone if a person is a true or false prophet and the bible does not teach that scripture study alone will give someone that knowledge.



I believe this is the way that the Bible consistently sets out how Gods people are to test anyone's claim to be a prophet - by searching the scriptures to see if what they say accords with what has already been given by God.

If you leave God's revelation out of the equation, you'll never come to the truth of the matter-as the Jews, who study the scriptures diligently yet still deny the divinity of Christ, have proven.

The people during Christ's time also serve as a warning about the weakness of relying upon the scriptures alone to discern truth. They studied the scriptures, yet still crucified the Lord.

I agree no mortal is infallible. However I do not think that the prophets spoke simply in their own power but as 2 Peter 1:21 says

²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

LDS believe the same.

Prophets were/are mortal men though. Not every word or thought they utter is 'prophecy'.

I have never heard that about Moses, where does he say those things?

Moses includes bats in the list of unclean birds in Lev. 11:19 and Deut. 14:18. Lev. 11:20 is where he teaches that fowls which creep on all fours are unclean.

This

This is where I disagree, granted Smith presented himself as a prophet of the God of the Bible. However as I read Smith the God he claims to know and represent is to far removed from the God I see in the Bible. I can only conclude that Joseph Smith did not know the God of the Bible and that therefore he was leading people away from the true God and after a different God instead.

What makes me say this? Well I already gave one example regarding JS rejecting that God has been God for eternity – but that he instead was once a man who progressed to the position of being a God. Honestly I think that is enough to reject Smith as a prophet.

I know it isn’t ‘doctrinal’ in the sense that LDS use the term but you see nowhere do I see such a distinction made in the Bible. Joseph Smith stood up claiming to be a prophet of God and taught 20,000 people the things of the King Follett Sermons. Based on these teachings I must conclude he was a false prophet.

Now if he had of started his sermon ‘not I am not sure about this, really I am just guessing so do not accept what I am saying as me speaking as a prophet’ then I would be willing to give him some slack in this sermon. But as I demonstrated in my previous post he said quite the opposite.

He stood up and taught 20,000 people doctrine, which other people attempted to quote and publish years later. The words of JS as they were spoken could be considered doctrine. The words of the rememberance of that occassion cannot be.

You've demonstrated what the King Follett discourse says as it has come down to us through the years. You have NOT demonstrated that that's what JS actually taught.

I am aware that Smith never got to look over it before his death – but again this is not a standard I think is necessary before I test the words of someone who claims to be a prophet.

You don't feel it is necessary to make sure that the words you are testing were actually the words of the prophet you are trying to discern? That's a pretty low standard you have set.

And I know how this particular sermon came together, however this hasn’t stopped the LDS Church leadership publishing the sermon a number of times in official publications so if they are happy to present it as JS teaching I am happy to test it with the word of God.

The LDS leadership is happy to present it as a part of the History of the church-which it is. They have never presented it as doctrine.

This is not the only reason; I could multiply quotes from Smith where I believe he teaches a concept of who God is that is so far from the biblical perspective to label him a false prophet (see a example below).

Further other reasons of a slightly nature for why I reject Smith as a prophet are;

-I believe he taught a false gospel (fails the test of Galatians 1)

-I believe some of his prophecies failed to happen (fails the test of Deuteronomy 18)

-I believe he was not qualified to be a leader in Gods church (fails the requirements of 1 Timothy 3)

Let's discuss these then.

What part of Galatians 1 did he fail? Which prophecies failed to happen? Which requirements did he fail in Timothy?

I do understand that my ‘arguments’ (I’m not arguing I’m just trying to explain) why I can’t accept Joseph Smith was a prophet don’t seem very convincing, we come from two very different perspectives.

I believe that the Bible; as the Holy Spirit inspired word of God, is the ultimate authority and rule of faith for followers of Christ. So as the Spirit speaks to me in and through the words of the Bible I believe my thoughts and feelings and ideas should be tested by the word of God – just as those of a prophet should. So when I talk to others about God I always base whatever I say around the word of God (hence all the Bible verses that are usually in my posts) as I do not believe I have any authority in and of myself, however if I am faithfully representing the word of God then that word itself has the very authority of God.

I realize this is what you believe.

Can i ask, how do you know the bible is the Word of God? How do you know it teaches truth?

I don’t want to put words in your mouth but in talking to Mormons it consistently seems to me that in practice ‘emotion and experience’ seem to be the ultimate source of authority for them.

The witness of the Holy Ghost is the ultimate source of authority for Mormons. Only someone who has never felt the Holy Ghost would equate what mormons are speaking about with 'emotion'.

It is their feelings and experiences that confirmed to them that JS was a prophet and it is through their feelings and experiences that they distinguish what is a witness of the Holy Ghost and what isn’t.

It is also the Book of Mormon.

[Zakuska]

Reading the Bible doesn’t give YOU authority the BIBLE is the authority – that’s what I have been saying.

Silly me. I thought People have Authority, not inanimate objects.

Matt 7

28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended athese sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Protestants teach as the Jewish scribes. By placing "all authority" in an Inanimate book/scroll they set it up as an Idol inplace of the living breathing God.

[Zakuska]

That is interesting considering that the Sunday School curriculum only calls for studying the Bible 2 out of every 4 years.

And then when you are teaching Gospel Doctrine and look out over the pews, all the blank stares from members who haven't did the reading assignments for the week can be seen.

The seminary program might help in this reguard too.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Zakuska

[Calm]

That is interesting considering that the Sunday School curriculum only calls for studying the Bible 2 out of every 4 years.

I wonder what we would be rated if we did study the Bible in conjunction more rather than focus on a different book every year.

[Calm]

And then when you are teaching Gospel Doctrine and look out over the pews, all the blank stares from members who haven't did the reading assignments for the week can be seen.

The seminary program might help in this reguard too.

I think people tend to read what they want to read rather than the assignments....I know I do.

[Zakuska]

I think people tend to read what they want to read rather than the assignments....I know I do.

Me too. Im all over the place. A chapter from Issaih. A book in the NT. Couple Chapters in the BOM.