What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Vance]

This verse isn't talking about being born again, its talking about being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, there is a difference.

Actually, they are the same thing.

But lets imagine they are the same thing for a moment. You didn't answer my question. Paul says in Romans 3

None is righteous, no, not one;

¹¹ no one understands;

no one seeks for God.

¹² All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good,

not even one.”

Yes, Paul is quoting rhetoric from Psalms. It doesn't mean what you think it means. You will notice that both times it is quoted in Psalms it is prefaced with "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

So, why do you take these statements as being absolute rather than as a rhetorical device?

Presumably repenting and being baptized are things someone must understand and are good things right? Yet Paul says no one understands and no one seeks for God and no one does good - not even one.

See above.

So how does anyone repent and be baptized?

Through the exercising of faith.

I agree with your first sentence, God does not justify the ungodly, that is the message of the parts of the Bible you quoted earlier. However this is not what Paul is saying.

So, (your understanding of) what Paul saying is contradicting the rest of the Bible. I would think that would be a clue to you.

Paul is saying God justifies the ungodly who trust in God to justify them.

Nay, Paul is saying that the ungodly can have hope of justification IF they will be obedient to the gospel (and become godly).

There is a vast difference between ungodly men and ungodly men who have recognised their ungodliness and look to God for salvation rather than anything they could do themselves to become godly.

They are the same in that neither one does anything. Both are indolent saps. And both end up without salvation or justification.

But again assuming you are right, what level of godliness is required to be justified, I am unsure what the LDS teaching on this is?

Just let the words of Jesus be your guide.

[Vance]

Ok to be as clear as possible. As per Romans 4:5 God justifies the ungodly-that means they are ungodly when they are declared righteous.

Does it really? Why must this verse be taken so literal and other (conflicting) verses be disregarded?

The only ungodly people God justifies are those who 'do not work but trust in him who justifies the ungodly'.

So, they put their trust in someone they haven't obeyed? That doesn't sound like trust to me. Can you really have trust in God while disobeying Him?

I don't think so.

So if you think/hope you are justified, 'declared righteous' by any other means than a faith that trusted in God to justify you when you were ungodly then you are not justified.

So, you are discounting those who put their trust in God by obeying His word?

As a result of the New Cevenant/New Birth (see Jermeiah 31:29-31 and Ezekiel 36:25-27) a man/woman is changed to enable them to have faith and do good works, to be 'Godly'.

God doesn't force anybody to change.

The first response of this born again person is faith in the God who justifies the ungodly, that faith is counted for righteousness (just like Abrahams).

Nah, the first response is to repent from wrong doing and become obedient.

But now this born again believer is enabled by God to do good works that spring from their faith.

Even "heathens" are capable of good works. Even non-Christians are capable of good works.

Good works that are not seeking justification and are not nessecary for salvation but that are out of a love for God and a delight in glorifying Him. This is the plain order in Ephesians 2.

As opposed to those described in Romans 2. You know that "patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life", thing.

Men who were 'dead in trespass' and sin are 'made alive' in Christ and saved by grace through faith apart from any good works.

There is no such thing as "faith apart from any good works".

You keep confusing "the works of the law" of Moses with the good works of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

These so saved people are saved in order to do the good works God has prepared for them to do.

"Saved" people don't get "saved" until AFTER they are dead. Good works occurs BEFORE then.

The order is essential.

Yes, it is. Evangelicals (confused by the words of Paul and ignoring all others including Jesus) get it mixed up.

Being judged righteous/worthy by God is a future event rather than a past event and so good works take the wrong focus-rather than trusting the God who justifies the ungodly it seems you want to do your own godly works and thus miss out on the salvation offered in Christ.

Being saved by God is a future event rather than a past one, so good works take the right focus by exercising faith in Christ (a work), repenting of our sins (a work), being baptized (a work), receiving the gift of Holy Ghost (a grace), enduring to the end (patient continuance in well doing) (a work).

Edited August 13, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

Mormons mix this up.

Then so does Jesus,

". . . but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

And so does Paul,

"(God) Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:"

Good company I think.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Vance

[Zakuska]

What exactly in the Romans 4:19-21 makes you think Paul was talking about Abraham actually impregnating his wife?

It seems clear to me that Paul is saying Abraham's faith was such that he was fully persuaded that what God had promised to do (give him a son) God was able to do. What makes this faith so great is that Abraham was old and near dead and that Sarah's womb was barren. That is why Paul says in verse 22 (immediately following on from verse 21), "That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.”

Paul doesn't say, 'that is why his faith and action of impregnating Sarah was counted to his as righteousness' Where do you get this idea from - I don't see it anywhere in Romans 4.

Does some one need to explain to you how the Birds and Bees work DJ? Just who do you think impregnated Sarah? God?

Verse 21 makes it clear that Abraham beleived God would opened sarah Womb and make the barren tree fertile. But God was no Honey bee. That was Abrahams Job. Abraham was "strong in Faith" and he was Faithful and fufilled his part.

Would she have become pregnant if Abraham would have laughed as she did ignored her for the next full year, and then what would he tell God?!

"Well you were supposed to impregnat her Lord."

Just what do you think God would have said? "Abraham, Oh yea of little faith, DO I have to explain to you about how the birds and bees work?"

Edited August 14, 2012 by Zakuska

[Flyonthewall]

This verse isn't talking about being born again, its talking about being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, there is a difference.

I would be interested in how you make a case for there being a difference. This was what Jesus told Nicodemus as to what it means to be born again...by water AND the spirit.

But lets imagine they are the same thing for a moment. You didn't answer my question. Paul says in Romans 3

Presumably repenting and being baptized are things someone must understand and are good things right? Yet Paul says no one understands and no one seeks for God and no one does good - not even one. So how does anyone repent and be baptized?

I view Paul's words as a literary vehicle to illustrate a point...the point he was making that the Jews were no better than the Gentiles...simply look at verse 9.

Verses 12 - 18 refer to "they" and "their". Who is the "they", and whose is the "their"? Perhaps we should look back on the original citation for a clue..."The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

I think Paul illustrated his point nicely.

I agree with your first sentence, God does not justify the ungodly, that is the message of the parts of the Bible you quoted earlier. However this is not what Paul is saying. Paul is saying God justifies the ungodly who trust in God to justify them. There is a vast difference between ungodly men and ungodly men who have recognised their ungodliness and look to God for salvation rather than anything they could do themselves to become godly.

I think we are closer to agreement on this than you might be willing to admit. There is a difference between ungodly men and ungodly men who have recognized their ungodliness and look to God for salvation...it is their faith. Not the faith without works kind of dead faith, but the faith that includes effort on the part of the holder to actually DO, to get up and follow.

But again assuming you are right, what level of godliness is required to be justified, I am unsure what the LDS teaching on this is?

Ahh, there it is...I have heard many traditional Christians wanting us to quantify salvation, or in this case, justification. When have we done enough? It's like asking When can I stop following Christ?

A starting point would be to be baptized by one having authority, and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Repent when you sin, and keep the commandments.

[thews]

As I explained earlier, it does not say one will be damned for rejecting D&C 132, but for rejecting the new and everlasting covenant, i.e., the fullness of the gospel.

This is what D&C 132:4 states:

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?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 ^bdamned; for no one can ^creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

This is a condition by God, that states anyone who rejects it (which includes polygamy) is damned. It doesn't state anything about the fullness of the gospel as you assert. Do you have any supporting evidence to back up your opinion? In a nutshell, anyone who rejects Mormon doctrine is damned per D&C 132:4... do you agree?

Of course one will be damned for rejecting that, probably in the most literal way possible.

Ok thanks. If a Christian rejets Mormon doctrine, they are damned... thanks for answering the question.

[altersteve]

This is a condition by God, that states anyone who rejects it (which includes polygamy) is damned. It doesn't state anything about the fullness of the gospel as you assert. Do you have any supporting evidence to back up your opinion?

Yes. Did you not read what I said earlier in this thread at all? Once again, the new and everlasting covenant is defined in D&C 66:2 as the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and we learn in D&C 132:4 that those who reject this new and everlasting covenant will not be permitted to enter into God's glory.

In a nutshell, anyone who rejects Mormon doctrine is damned per D&C 132:4... do you agree?

If by "Mormon doctrine" you mean the new and everlasting covenant, then yes.

[djholmess]

Does some one need to explain to you how the Birds and Bees work DJ? Just who do you think impregnated Sarah? God?

Verse 21 makes it clear that Abraham beleived God would open sarah Womb and make the barren tree fertile. But God was no Honey bee. That was Abrahams Job.

Would she have become pregnant if Abraham would have laughed as she did ignored her for the next full year, and then what would he tell God?!

Well you were supposed to impregnat her Lord.

Just what do you think God would have said? "Abraham, Oh yea of little faith, DO I have to explain to you about how the birds and bees work?"

I'm not denying that Abraham was the father of Isaac what I am saying is that the physical process that produced Isaac is not the topic of the verses you quoted. Paul doesn’t mention Abraham having sex with his wife as the thing he is commending Abraham for. Paul was commending Abraham for the faith that he had in what God said would happen, would happen. Even though he was nearly dead and his wife was barren Abraham believed God when God said he would have a son. Abraham's belief is what Paul is commending not Abrahams act of having sex with Sarah - you are twisting the text and reading something into Paul that he in no way says or suggests.

If you are going to take this approach to add things to Pauls words why not go even further. In order to have sex with Sarah, Abraham had to survive from the point God told him about his future son until the point Isaac was conceived. So Abraham's next breath was part of Abraham's work of impregnating his wife - so was he counted righteous because he took a breath? Abraham's next meal also kept him alive and enabled his to impregnate Sarah - so was he counted righteous because he eat some food? You could go even further; in order to stay alive Abraham had to defecate - so was he counted righteous because he defecated?

No, Abraham wasn't counted righteous because of these things. Paul specifically limits the reason for why Abraham was counted his righteous - "his faith was counted to him as righteousness." When you say it was really because Abraham went in and impregnated Sarah you are adding something to Pauls words that is not there.

[Storm Rider]

This thread has wandered far from the topic. Please start new threads to deal with these other topics.

I am reminded of a saying by J. Kenneth Grider, "All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ."

What a blessing it is to know Jesus Christ even though it pains the zealots and those who rant and rave about what a "true" Christian is and must believe. I will continue to walk where the Spirit leads me and join all saints in singing praises to our King. Would that the all Christians could focus on what the Savior offers us and be willing to accept others as they are accept by the Father. Until that great day where we all come to a unity of the faith, may each of us begin each day open to the challenge of emulating the example of Christ Jesus and allowing the Holy Spirit to be concerned about bringing all people to a knowledge of truth.

[djholmess]

I would be interested in how you make a case for there being a difference. This was what Jesus told Nicodemus as to what it means to be born again...by water AND the spirit.

This is something it does seem LDS are confused about - or haven't thought through fully.

You quoted Acts 2:38

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Notice when the Holy Spirit is received, after an act of man that turns to Christ in faith, repentance and baptism.

So if I was to ask you can you tell me when the gift of the Spirit is given what would be your answer? Probably something like, ‘’it comes after faith, repentance and baptism.’ Ok, but then how does this square with your claim that Jesus is talking about the same thing in John 3. Talking about being born again Jesus said John 3:7

Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit

Just as you do not know where the wind comes from or where it goes so too you do not where being born again comes from or where it goes. How then can you say that someone is born of the Spirit after faith, repentance and baptism? Jesus said no one knows where it comes from so who are you to say you know where it comes from?

Similarly look at Ephesians 1:13

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

According to Paul when is someone sealed with the Holy Spirit? Similar to Peter it is after hearing the gospel and responding in belief/faith.

But wait, look at what John says in 1 John 5:1

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God

Everyone who believes [present tense] that Jesus is the Christ has been [past tense] born of God. So which comes first; believing or being born of God? Being born of God comes first. That is why John can say anyone who is currently believing has in the past been born of God. Take this truth back to the first time belief wells up in the heart of someone, John’s statement is still true, prior to that act of faith they had been born of God.

Can you see we are talking about two different concepts? Receiving the Holy Spirit happens after faith. Being born again happens before faith. There is a distinction.

I view Paul's words as a literary vehicle to illustrate a point...the point he was making that the Jews were no better than the Gentiles...simply look at verse 9.

Verses 12 - 18 refer to "they" and "their". Who is the "they", and whose is the "their"? Perhaps we should look back on the original citation for a clue..."The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

I think Paul illustrated his point nicely.

Paul is indeed trying to make a point but I think you are missing the scope of his point.

⁹ What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, ¹⁰ as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;

¹¹ no one understands;

no one seeks for God.

¹² All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;

no one does good,

not even one.”

¹³ “Their throat is an open grave;

they use their tongues to deceive.”

“The venom of asps is under their lips.”

¹⁴ “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”

¹⁵ “Their feet are swift to shed blood;

¹⁶ in their paths are ruin and misery,

¹⁷ and the way of peace they have not known.”

¹⁸ “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Paul has been labouring from Romans 1:18 up to this point to demonstrate that all men are sinners and thus in need of the gospel – this is the foundation of his statement in Romans 3:23 ‘for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are justified by his grace as a gift.’ The scope of Pauls point takes in all mankind – this is what he is addressing in this paragraph, not the people origionally referred to by the OT verses.

Romans 3:9-18 forms the conclusion of this argument where Paul summarises using OT verses the completeness of all of mans sinfulness – Paul is not trying to explain the context and meaning of each of these verses. They are spread all over the OT and yet Paul draws them together to form a literary paragraph (he doesn’t treat OT passages like this normally).

Rather he is simply using these verses to summarise the charge that he has already made that ALL men; Jews and Gentiles are under sin. You have tried to say that the ‘they’ refers back to the ‘they’ referred too in the original OT passage but this is not the application Paul makes.

Notice how the group identified in verse 9 flows down the rest of the passage within the ALL who are under sin ‘none is righteous...all have turned aside.’ The ‘their’ in verse 13 continues this reference to the same group as does they ‘they’ and the rest of the references through to verse 18. Paul has constructed 3:9-18 in order to make a summary paragraph that as a whole describes the nature of the ‘ALL’ who are under sin.

So I think my question still remains unanswered. How can these people who are described by Paul as ‘no one seeks for God’ cause themselves to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit? As we seen above this indwelling/receiving comes after faith but how can they have faith if none of them understand and seek for God?

I think we are closer to agreement on this than you might be willing to admit. There is a difference between ungodly men and ungodly men who have recognized their ungodliness and look to God for salvation...it is their faith. Not the faith without works kind of dead faith, but the faith that includes effort on the part of the holder to actually DO, to get up and follow.

Honestly I don't think we are. You see we don't even agree on what faith is. My defination of saving/living faith is one that does not work but trusts in God to justify apart from works. Faith itself does not include 'work' or 'effort' rather it is a trusting/believing/relying on the grace and gift of another.

It seems that when you read James saying 'faith without works is dead' you then equate living faith with works. Living faith = effort/work

James does not go so far as to actually say this however. A faith that is not accompanied with works is dead - I agree. But for this to be even true faith and works must be seperate enteties in James mind.

So saving/living/justifying faith is accompanied by works and that is how other people can see if that claim of faith is real - by the works (because people can't see whats in the heart).

However the reverse is also true. Works without living faith are dead works. Paul very clearly identifies what real faith is; it is a giving up of working for justification and a relying on God to justify the ungodly. This is true living faith and as James rightly says this living faith will produce and be acompanied by good works. However if you do not have such a faith then your 'good works' are 'dead works' because in thinking your works in anyway play a part in your justification they are in vain.

Ahh, there it is...I have heard many traditional Christians wanting us to quantify salvation, or in this case, justification. When have we done enough? It's like asking When can I stop following Christ?

A starting point would be to be baptized by one having authority, and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Repent when you sin, and keep the commandments.

Yet there is a problem with this. In Romand 5:1 Paul says

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul talking to the Church in Rome says to them that they have already been justified. This is why traditional Christians want to understand how LDS quantify justification - because Paul does; 'by faith.' Paul and his audience had already been justified. So if Paul sees it as something that has happened in the past for the Romans can't you tell me what exactly they needed to have done in order for Paul to confidently say they have already been justified?

Edited August 14, 2012 by djholmess

[Vance]

This is something it does seem LDS are confused about - or haven't thought through fully.

Actually, it is the Evangelicals that are confused. They totally neglect the words of Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John and the OT prophets in their misunderstanding of a few of Paul's words.

They put a few of Paul's words, that they misunderstand, in preeminence to the words of Jesus (and all others).

Notice when the Holy Spirit is received, after an act of man that turns to Christ in faith, repentance and baptism.

So if I was to ask you can you tell me when the gift of the Spirit is given what would be your answer? Probably something like, ‘’it comes after faith, repentance and baptism.’ Ok, but then how does this square with your claim that Jesus is talking about the same thing in John 3. Talking about being born again Jesus said John 3:7

You are conflating the witness of the Holy Ghost with the Gift of the Holy Ghost that is given to those that are baptized by proper authority.

The problem is your misunderstanding, not LDS doctrine.

Just as you do not know where the wind comes from or where it goes so too you do not where being born again comes from or where it goes.

Projection.

How then can you say that someone is born of the Spirit after faith, repentance and baptism?

Again, conflating the Gift of the Holy Ghost with the witness of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus said no one knows where it comes from so who are you to say you know where it comes from?

No, Jesus was speaking to a specific named person.

Similarly look at Ephesians 1:13

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

This is referring to the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Notice that the Ephesians were members of the Church, and had accepted the Gospel and been baptized, (as were the Saints addressed in Romans).

According to Paul when is someone sealed with the Holy Spirit? Similar to Peter it is after hearing the gospel and responding in belief/faith.

YUP!!! That is when the Gift of the Holy Ghost is given.

But wait, look at what John says in 1 John 5:1

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God

Everyone who believes [present tense] that Jesus is the Christ has been [past tense] born of God.

Ah, yes, that Evangelical NIV again. Shall we look at some of the other translations?

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)

Everyone who believes that Yeshua is The Messiah is born from God, and everyone who loves him who begot, loves also the one who is begotten of him.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)

Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and everyone that loves him that begat loves him also that is begotten of him.

American King James Version

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loves him that begat loves him also that is begotten of him.

American Standard Version

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Douay-Rheims Bible

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him.

Darby Bible Translation

Every one that believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God; and every one that loves him that has begotten loves also him that is begotten of him.

English Revised Version

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Webster's Bible Translation

Whoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten by him.

Weymouth New Testament

Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God; and every one who loves the Father loves also Him who is the Father's Child.

World English Bible

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. Whoever loves the Father also loves the child who is born of him.

New Jerusalem Bible

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and whoever loves the father loves the son.

Sorry, but your argument is VERY weak.

So which comes first; believing or being born of God?

You can't really "believe in your heart" or be converted without the witness of the Holy Ghost. And you can't really be converted until you have heard the Gospel.

Can you see we are talking about two different concepts? Receiving the Holy Spirit happens after faith. Being born again happens before faith. There is a distinction.

You almost have it right.

True conversion (or belief, or faith) comes with the witness of the Holy Ghost. But the Gift of the Holy Ghost comes after baptism. If you would study Acts you would see that.

[Zakuska]

I'm not denying that Abraham was the father of Isaac what I am saying is that the physical process that produced Isaac is not the topic of the verses you quoted. Paul doesn’t mention Abraham having sex with his wife as the thing he is commending Abraham for. Paul was commending Abraham for the faith that he had in what God said would happen, would happen. Even though he was nearly dead and his wife was barren Abraham believed God when God said he would have a son. Abraham's belief is what Paul is commending not Abrahams act of having sex with Sarah - you are twisting the text and reading something into Paul that he in no way says or suggests.

"Faith" is the key word there. What did Abrahams "strong faith" as Paul calls it, consist of?

A beleif accompanied by a work.

James 2

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Faith isn't faith without works.

Even Martin Luther, the Father of the Protestant revolution knew how faith works. (See my Tag line).

If you are going to take this approach to add things to Pauls words why not go even further. In order to have sex with Sarah, Abraham had to survive from the point God told him about his future son until the point Isaac was conceived. So Abraham's next breath was part of Abraham's work of impregnating his wife - so was he counted righteous because he took a breath? Abraham's next meal also kept him alive and enabled his to impregnate Sarah - so was he counted righteous because he eat some food? You could go even further; in order to stay alive Abraham had to defecate - so was he counted righteous because he defecated?

I fail to see how any of these relate to what God said. God by telling Abraham he would have a son introduced sex into the equasion.

No, Abraham wasn't counted righteous because of these things. Paul specifically limits the reason for why Abraham was counted his righteous - "his faith was counted to him as righteousness." When you say it was really because Abraham went in and impregnated Sarah you are adding something to Pauls words that is not there.

Nice strawman. Thats not what I said at all. I have constantly said his Faith consisted of a "beleif AND a work". You on the other hand eleminate the "faith perfecting work" from the equation. the "beleif" without the work isn't faith. Even you yourself have said as much in this very thread. So when Paul says that "his[Abrahams's] faith was counted to him as righteousness." Paul wasn't just refering to a beleif. He was speaking of a "perfected Faith" (or in EV speak, a "living Faith")

Which included the act of impregnating Sarah.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

This is what D&C 132:4 states:

http://www.lds.org/s...dc/132?lang=eng

This is a condition by God, that states anyone who rejects it (which includes polygamy) is damned. It doesn't state anything about the fullness of the gospel as you assert. Do you have any supporting evidence to back up your opinion? In a nutshell, anyone who rejects Mormon doctrine is damned per D&C 132:4... do you agree?

Ok thanks. If a Christian rejets Mormon doctrine, they are damned... thanks for answering the question.

I would consider "till death do us part" damned compared to "eternal family".

[Zakuska]

Actually, it is the Evangelicals that are confused. They totally neglect the words of Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John and the OT prophets in their misunderstanding of a few of Paul's words.

They put a few of Paul's words, that they misunderstand, in preeminence to the words of Jesus (and all others).

I agree. And so would the father of their movement.

People are so foolish as to separate faith from the object to which faith is attached and bound on the ground

that the object is something external.

Yes, it must be external so that it can be perceived and grasped by the senses and thus brought into the heart,

just as the entire Gospel is an external, oral proclamation.

In short, whatever God effects in us He does through such

external ordinances. No matter where He speaks – indeed, no matter for what purpose or

by what means He speaks – there faith must look and to it faith must hold.

We have here the words, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” To what do they refer but to

baptism, that is, the water comprehended in God’s ordinance? Hence it follows that

whoever rejects baptism rejects God Word, faith, and Christ, who directs us and bind us to

baptism.

– Martin Luther, Large Catechism, IV, 30-31

Edited August 14, 2012 by Zakuska

[coolrok7]

(Bluebell, thread op, post # 1)

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? . . .

Doctrine, what a Christian believes is what makes one a Christian Bluebell. Even a Mormon General Authority teaches that spiritual development is tied very closely to a knowledge of the scriptures, the emphasis being on their other so-called “Scripture”:

Elder Boyd K. Packer pointed out that “spiritual development is tied very closely to a knowledge of the scriptures, where the doctrines are taught.” (ENSIGN, May 1983, p.67.) And nowhere else is the doctrine taught so clearly, so dramatically, or so effectively as in the Book of Mormon. Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated that God “has placed in our hands the most effective, compelling and persuasive missionary tool ever given to any people in any age. The name of this tool is the Book of Mormon.” (In Conference Report, Apr.1961, p.38) (The Ensign, J.E. Jenson, Aug.1984, p.19)

Third, how important is the Book of Mormon? Joseph Smith called it “the keystone of our religion.” (History of the Church, 4:461.) “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations,” he said, “and where is our religion? We have none.” (History of the Church, 2:52.). . .(The Ensign, President Ezra Taft Benson, Nov. 1984, p.6)

Dr. Stephen E. Robinson gives his perspective of the term “Christian” as a Mormon—Note that he states that “it is not defined in any of these passages”:

What is a Christian? The term is found three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16), but it is not defined in any of these passages. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary the term Christian may be defined in a number of ways, but the most common is “one who believes or professes or is assumed to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth as taught by him: an adherent of Christianity: one who has accepted the Christian religious and moral principles of life: one who has faith in and has pledged allegiance to God thought of as revealed in Christ: one whose life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.” The second most common meaning is “a member of a church or group professing Christian doctrine or belief. (Are Mormons Christians?, p.1)

Biblical terminology used such as the term “Christian”, being discussed here, are in the above verses listed by Robinson that Luke used in the book of Acts and Peter in 1 Peter:

And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. . . . (11:26b)

[King Agrippa uses the term that Paul acknowledged. Peter also used the term in the following way]

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. (Acts 26:28; Note Paul’s response vs. 29a) And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, . . .

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. (1 Peter 4:16)

Dr. Robinson goes on to explain his reasoning in answering the question of his book in part on the following basis:

It is not my purpose in these pages to prove, or even argue, that the LDS church is true or that its doctrines are correct, even though I believe both of those propositions. I will attempt to show why the arguments used to exclude Latter-day Saints from the “Christian” world are flawed. The operating principle behind most of my arguments will not be rectitude but equity—what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That is if Augustine or Luther or John Paul II can express opinions or insist on beliefs that differ from the Christian mainstream and yet still be considered Christians, then Joseph Smith or Brigham Young cannot be disqualified from bearing the title when they express the same or similar opinions. . . .

When the charge is made that “Mormons aren’t Christians,” the very first impression created in the mind of the average individual is that Latter-day Saints don’t believe in Jesus Christ. Most often those who make this charge intend that their uninformed hearers or readers will get this impression. Yet in the arguments offered to support the assertion the only issue that really matters is never even raised: Do the Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ? Do they accept him as Lord?

Do they believe that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man cometh unto the Father but by him? These crucial questions are never asked. (1991, p.viii, p.111)

It is not that they don’t have a belief in Jesus (which is not at all my intent to imply), it is the specific doctrine of Joseph Smith concerning Jesus in, “The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” along with the twisting of Biblical teaching that others (myself included) don’t recognize as original apostolic teaching:

Those who deny the validity. . .of original understanding. . .“The denial of a scheme wholesale is not heresy, and has not the creative power of a heresy,” said Belloc. “It is of the essence of heresy that it leaves standing a great part of the structure it attacks. On this account it can appeal to believers. . . .Wherefore, it is said of heresies that ‘they survive by the truths they retain.’”. . .For that reason, it is crucial to recognize a heresy for what it is and to root it out, for “heresy originates a new life of its own and vitally affects the society it attacks. The reason that men combat heresy is not only, or principally, conservatism. . .it is much more a perception that the heresy, in so far as it gains ground, will produce a way of living and a social character at issue with, irritating, and perhaps mortal to, the way of living and the social character produced by the old orthodox scheme. (The Tempting of America, Robert Bork, intro. P.11)

Hence not recognizing it as being Christian but heretical as we are considered heretical here at a 1984 BYU Devotional (this is not to say that individual Mormons cannot be Christian but the system of belief is not):

I wonder how many of us are aware of one of the great religious phenomenon of the ages, one that is now sweeping through Protestant Christianity, as only one other thing has ever done in the whole Christian Era. . . .let me first identify the original heresy that did more than anything else to destroy primitive Christianity.

This first and chief heresy of a now fallen and decadent Christianity- and truly it is the father of all heresies-. . .pertains now to the nature and kind of being that God is. . . .a spirit essence called the Trinity. . . .The adoption of this false doctrine about God effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy. . . .

This second heresy-and it is the prevailing delusion and mania that prevails to this day in the great evangelical body of Protestantism-is the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, without the works of the law. . . .It is the doctrine that we may be born again simply by confessing the Lord Jesus with our lips while we continue to live in our sins. (Bruce R. McConkie, addressing a Mormon audience)

The underlined above is not what is taught! Confession of sin brings about forgiveness. Also the nature of God is spirit (John 4:24), he’s not a man to begin with as we are. Jesus became a man, took on a flesh nature to suffer death for a spirit cannot die as death is the separation of the spirit from the body.

[bluebell]

Doctrine, what a Christian believes is what makes one a Christian Bluebell. Even a Mormon General Authority teaches that spiritual development is tied very closely to a knowledge of the scriptures, the emphasis being on their other so-called “Scripture”:

The OP stemmed from another Thread, where a poster said that we must use the NT to define who is or isn't a Christian. No one is denying that doctrine is important. The issue was what does the NT specifically say about who is or isn't a Christian though, which is why I worded the OP the way i did.

I think the consensus after 40 pages is that the NT is not clear enough, on it's own, for anyone to prove their definition of who is a Christian to those that disagree with them.

Edited August 14, 2012 by bluebell

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is what D&C 132:4 states:

http://www.lds.org/s...dc/132?lang=eng

This is a condition by God, that states anyone who rejects it (which includes polygamy) is damned. It doesn't state anything about the fullness of the gospel as you assert. Do you have any supporting evidence to back up your opinion? In a nutshell, anyone who rejects Mormon doctrine is damned per D&C 132:4... do you agree?

Ok thanks. If a Christian rejets Mormon doctrine, they are damned... thanks for answering the question.

Thews,

you are already tired. This is worthless and I fail to see how this has any correlation to the thread at hand.

[KevinG]

Thews,

you are already tired. This is worthless and I fail to see how this has any correlation to the thread at hand.

It has everything to do with the thread at hand. It is another verse in the evangelical hymn that seeks to find the elusive exclusionary clause that can condemn Mormons as non-Christian even though our fundamental belief is in God the Father, His Son and our Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

It is the song that treats us to such absurd phrases as "not the real Jesus" and "Works based salvation".

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

There was a LOT of mischief going on while the Apostles were alive. THAT is what most of the epistles were to address.

Yes, and none of it seems to have had anything to do with worries that apostates were already hard at work revising Paul's letters.

You wrote:

You missed my whole point.

That could be. Feel free to explain it to me.

You wrote:

Well, if you are going to exaggerate why didn't you go for broke and just claim 1000X?

Daniel Wallace, a leading scholar in the field, used that very number in his debate with Bart Ehrman. No one, not even the agnostic Ehrman, ridiculed Wallace or tried to argue that his statement was an exaggeration.

But what do they know? Now if only you had been there to set Wallace straight.

[thews]

Thews,

you are already tired. This is worthless and I fail to see how this has any correlation to the thread at hand.

The correlation Mola, is what defines salvation per different religions. I've been told "damned" doesn't really mean damned when it comes to D&C 132:4, but it's only opinion. If we're to discuss the differences in doctrine/theology, I don't see why this is out of bounds. The way I understand it, Christians can be saved from being "damned" by accepting Mormon doctrine. It is a condition for salvation per Mormon doctrine, unless "damned" doesn't mean hell, eternal darkness, etc. Can you define how I, as a Christian, can be saved from being "damned" if i also reject Mormon doctrine? ... please give me a reference. Thanks.

[danielwoods]

The OP stemmed from another Thread, where a poster said that we must use the NT to define who is or isn't a Christian. No one is denying that doctrine is important. The issue was what does the NT specifically say about who is or isn't a Christian though, which is why I worded the OP the way i did.

I think the consensus after 40 pages is that the NT is not clear enough, on it's own, for anyone to prove their definition of who is a Christian to those that disagree with them.

It's not been on the basis of the NT that people here disagree.

Here's one example:

Is baptism required for salvation? Yes, because it is a commandment.

Do we need baptism for salvation? No, we don't. We need only Christ's atonement to work on us.

Does work = faith? No.

Do you have a credible claim to faith without any works? No.

Does Christ have a checklist of stuff for us to accomplish in order to attain the Celestial Kingdom? I do not believe so. I have never envisioned the white throne judgment where He sits there with a clipboard and a file on each individual.

Will Christ look into our hearts and souls to see if we have grown and developed to a point that He judges us to be properly prepared to attain Celestial glory? Yes.

It is these subtleties that are difficult to verbalize because it is such a slight difference. But it is this slight difference that makes evangelicals believe we are not Christians (as far as the works and grace thing is concerned). And because of the hate factor, they go even further to make it a HUGE difference.

This isn't from the NT, but somewhere else. According the NT alone, Christ imputes to us his righteousness, based solely on our willingness, nothing else. We don't "attain" anything according to the NT, it is a gift of God, it always has been, and always will be.

My only point is that the NT is quite clear, when read by itself, in context. If this thread demonstrates anything, it demonstrates how mixing the NT with another body of ideas can make the ideas of the NT cloudy, and not clear.

[bluebell]

This isn't from the NT, but somewhere else.

Yes it is.

• Suffer it to be so now … to fulfil all righteousness, Matt. 3:15
  
• teach all nations, baptizing them, Matt. 28:19
  
• Jesus came … and was baptized of John, Mark 1:9
  
• He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Mark 16:16
  
• Jesus also being baptized, Luke 3:21
  
• rejected the counsel of God … being not baptized, Luke 7:30
  
• Except a man be born of water … he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, John 3:5
  
• Repent, and be baptized every one of you, Acts 2:38
  
• commanded them to be baptized, Acts 10:48
  
• be baptized, and wash away thy sins, Acts 22:16
  
• saved us, by the washing of regeneration, Titus 3:5
  
• baptism doth also now save us, 1 Pet. 3:21
  

According the NT alone, Christ imputes to us his righteousness, based solely on our willingness, nothing else. We don't "attain" anything according to the NT, it is a gift of God, it always has been, and always will be.

It is a gift given only when specific conditions are met. If that wasn't true, then everyone would already be saved.

My only point is that the NT is quite clear, when read by itself, in context. If this thread demonstrates anything, it demonstrates how mixing the NT with another body of ideas can make the ideas of the NT cloudy, and not clear.

You have failed to make your point.

Edited August 15, 2012 by bluebell

[danielwoods]

Yes it is.

• Suffer it to be so now … to fulfil all righteousness, Matt. 3:15
  
• teach all nations, baptizing them, Matt. 28:19
  
• Jesus came … and was baptized of John, Mark 1:9
  
• He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, Mark 16:16
  
• Jesus also being baptized, Luke 3:21
  
• rejected the counsel of God … being not baptized, Luke 7:30
  
• Except a man be born of water … he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, John 3:5
  
• Repent, and be baptized every one of you, Acts 2:38
  
• commanded them to be baptized, Acts 10:48
  
• be baptized, and wash away thy sins, Acts 22:16
  
• saved us, by the washing of regeneration, Titus 3:5
  
• baptism doth also now save us, 1 Pet. 3:21
  

It is a gift given only when specific conditions are met. If that wasn't true, then everyone would already be saved.

You have failed to make your point.

A gift is has only one requirement, otherwise it's not a gift. That being the willingness to accept it.

If it's something we "attain" then it's something we have earned, making it no longer a gift.

Conflating salvation with sanctification is another example of clouding the issue by bringing in ideas from another source.

As has been asked before, was the thief on the cross saved just as anyone else? The NT when read by itself seems to imply that he was.

[Flyonthewall]

This is something it does seem LDS are confused about - or haven't thought through fully.

There does seem to some confusion on this, but it is definately not from the LDS side of things. Jesus' words were clear and straight forward.

You quoted Acts 2:38

Notice when the Holy Spirit is received, after an act of man that turns to Christ in faith, repentance and baptism.

So if I was to ask you can you tell me when the gift of the Spirit is given what would be your answer? Probably something like, ‘’it comes after faith, repentance and baptism.’ Ok, but then how does this square with your claim that Jesus is talking about the same thing in John 3. Talking about being born again Jesus said John 3:7

Just as you do not know where the wind comes from or where it goes so too you do not where being born again comes from or where it goes. How then can you say that someone is born of the Spirit after faith, repentance and baptism? Jesus said no one knows where it comes from so who are you to say you know where it comes from?

I beleive Jesus is talking about the witness of the Spirit. It is not something that is easily described. Nicodemus wanted this "born again" thing quantified, laid out for him. Jesus simply told him that it can't be done. Like the wind, we can't see it, but we know it is there. Evangelists like to claim we simply rely on our feelings, but we know it is not.

Similarly look at Ephesians 1:13

According to Paul when is someone sealed with the Holy Spirit? Similar to Peter it is after hearing the gospel and responding in belief/faith.

No argument there. The Gift of the Holy Ghost comes after hearing the gospel and responding to it...repentance and baptism.

But wait, look at what John says in 1 John 5:1

Everyone who believes [present tense] that Jesus is the Christ has been [past tense] born of God. So which comes first; believing or being born of God? Being born of God comes first. That is why John can say anyone who is currently believing has in the past been born of God. Take this truth back to the first time belief wells up in the heart of someone, John’s statement is still true, prior to that act of faith they had been born of God.

Can you see we are talking about two different concepts? Receiving the Holy Spirit happens after faith. Being born again happens before faith. There is a distinction.

If that is the case, then the devils are born again also. As James says,

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

The devils believe...by your definition, they are born again.

Paul is indeed trying to make a point but I think you are missing the scope of his point.

Paul has been labouring from Romans 1:18 up to this point to demonstrate that all men are sinners and thus in need of the gospel – this is the foundation of his statement in Romans 3:23 ‘for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are justified by his grace as a gift.’ The scope of Pauls point takes in all mankind – this is what he is addressing in this paragraph, not the people origionally referred to by the OT verses.

Romans 3:9-18 forms the conclusion of this argument where Paul summarises using OT verses the completeness of all of mans sinfulness – Paul is not trying to explain the context and meaning of each of these verses. They are spread all over the OT and yet Paul draws them together to form a literary paragraph (he doesn’t treat OT passages like this normally).

Rather he is simply using these verses to summarise the charge that he has already made that ALL men; Jews and Gentiles are under sin. You have tried to say that the ‘they’ refers back to the ‘they’ referred too in the original OT passage but this is not the application Paul makes.

Notice how the group identified in verse 9 flows down the rest of the passage within the ALL who are under sin ‘none is righteous...all have turned aside.’ The ‘their’ in verse 13 continues this reference to the same group as does they ‘they’ and the rest of the references through to verse 18. Paul has constructed 3:9-18 in order to make a summary paragraph that as a whole describes the nature of the ‘ALL’ who are under sin.

Paul's point was to convince the Jews that they were no better than the gentiles. They were in need of salvation just as much as the gentiles. The Law of Moses did not save the Jews. He used that passage of scripture, that points to a particular subset of people(fools), to illustrate a point. The role of the fools, would be played by the Jews in this illustration.

If, as you think Paul is saying, nobody seeks God, then all those scripture passages about seeking the Lord, are meaningless.

So I think my question still remains unanswered. How can these people who are described by Paul as ‘no one seeks for God’ cause themselves to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit? As we seen above this indwelling/receiving comes after faith but how can they have faith if none of them understand and seek for God?

Paul's point was to convince the Jews that they were no better than the gentiles. They were in need of salvation just as much as the gentiles. The Law of Moses did not save the Jews. He used that passage of scripture, that points to a particular subset of people(fools), to illustrate a point. The role of the fools, would be played by the Jews in this illustration.

If, as you think Paul is saying, nobody seeks God, then all those scripture passages about seeking the Lord, are meaningless.

Honestly I don't think we are. You see we don't even agree on what faith is. My defination of saving/living faith is one that does not work but trusts in God to justify apart from works. Faith itself does not include 'work' or 'effort' rather it is a trusting/believing/relying on the grace and gift of another.

It seems that when you read James saying 'faith without works is dead' you then equate living faith with works. Living faith = effort/work

James does not go so far as to actually say this however. A faith that is not accompanied with works is dead - I agree. But for this to be even true faith and works must be seperate enteties in James mind.

So saving/living/justifying faith is accompanied by works and that is how other people can see if that claim of faith is real - by the works (because people can't see whats in the heart).

However the reverse is also true. Works without living faith are dead works. Paul very clearly identifies what real faith is; it is a giving up of working for justification and a relying on God to justify the ungodly. This is true living faith and as James rightly says this living faith will produce and be acompanied by good works. However if you do not have such a faith then your 'good works' are 'dead works' because in thinking your works in anyway play a part in your justification they are in vain.

You seem to want to split faith apart from works while James say that you cannot. Living faith does not equal works, living faith = beleif + action.

James also says: "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" You seem to say "yes".

Yet there is a problem with this. In Romand 5:1 Paul says

Paul talking to the Church in Rome says to them that they have already been justified. This is why traditional Christians want to understand how LDS quantify justification - because Paul does; 'by faith.' Paul and his audience had already been justified. So if Paul sees it as something that has happened in the past for the Romans can't you tell me what exactly they needed to have done in order for Paul to confidently say they have already been justified?

Paul's audience in the Romans is "... all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...". Of course they have already been baptized for the remission of sin and received the Holy Ghost.

To remain justified, and be undefiled before God, you must keep yourselves unspotted from the world.

[bluebell]

A gift is has only one requirement, otherwise it's not a gift. That being the willingness to accept it.

That's not true. Haven't you ever seen those 'free gift with a purchase of 30 dollars or more' advertisements? A gift is a gift regardless of the requirements the giver places on it.

If someone gave you a car, but required that you take drivers ed and get a license before you could drive it, the car is just as much a gift as it would be otherwise.

Believing that Christ has declared that one must 1-have faith in Him, 2-repent of their sins, 3-be baptized, 4-receive the Holy Ghost, and 5-keep having faith and keep repenting for one's entire life in order to be saved does not negate the Atonement or mean that the person is 'earning' their salvation, any more than the person who had to get a driver's license has 'earned' their car.

If it's something we "attain" then it's something we have earned, making it no longer a gift.

Tha'ts not true either. The word 'attain' means the same thing as the words 'receive', 'get', 'gain', etc.

You can't make up your own definitions for words.

Conflating salvation with sanctification is another example of clouding the issue by bringing in ideas from another source.

We obviously disagree.

As has been asked before, was the thief on the cross saved just as anyone else? The NT when read by itself seems to imply that he was.

The bible does not ever specify if the eternal state of the thief on the cross, so i can't speak to that.

Edited August 15, 2012 by bluebell