What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[harfad]

Jesus was also going to the "evil place" to preach to the spirits there. One could argue that that's where the thief was; therefore, the thief was indeed with Jesus in the spirit world, as Jesus had promised.

Not according to D&C 138 he didn't!

[Zakuska]

Interesting that Paul is not talking about Eternal life, but resurrection of the dead. He hadn't died yet, so he was looking forward to that. Which in no way disagrees with the passage from John, who is talking about the assurance we have as believers.

Intresting that John uses "Eternal life" and "ressurection of the dead" pretty interchangably.

eg.

John 5:29

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.

John 11

25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

So too... Paul is reffering to the same thing.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Zakuska

[djholmess]

From the entry on Paradeisos in Kittel and Friedrich's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."

Identification of the Paradise of the first age with that of the second necessarily carried with it the further idea that Paradise exists now in hidden form. This hidden Paradise is first mentioned in Eth. En. Throughout apocalyptic it is the present abode of the souls of the departed patriarchs,²⁴ the elect and the righteous,25 and Enoch and Elijah, who were translated thither during their lifetime.²⁶ Whereas according to the older view sheol received the souls of all the dead, only the ungodly were now sought in sheol and the righteous in Paradise, → I, 147, 11–16. Hell. ideas about the future life played a normative part in this reconstruction of the concept of the intermediate state (→ n. 13). It should be noted, however, that both old and new ideas were still current in the NT period. Either Hades or Paradise (→ I, 147, 22–30) is here the abode of the souls of the righteous after death. This duality is important for an understanding of the statements about what happened to Jesus between Good Friday and Easter Day, → 771, 37 ff

I want to add a couple of verses into the conversation where the NT does talk about where followers of Christ do go after they die.

For clarity sake I first want to make it known the any LDS who do not know; evangelicals typically see a clear distinction between 'Heaven' now where God dwells now and the future eternal state-the new Heavens and Earth talked about in revelation after the return of Christ. Followers who die now go to heaven to be with God, after the resurrection upon Christ's return followers will live in the new Heavens and Earth with God in their resurrected bodies.

So our concept of what the 'Bosom of Abraham' or 'Hades/Sheol for the righteous' or 'paradise' is not heaven in the sense of the eternal state where saints dwell with God in resurrected bodies but heaven in the sense of going to dwell with God awaiting the return of Christ and the beginning of the eternal state.

This going to dwell with God now does not come from Jewish concepts of 'Bosom of Abraham' or Hades/Sheol but from NT revelation about what happens to believers after they die.

Philippians 1

If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

Paul's understanding of what would happen to him once he died is that he would be with Christ. Where is Christ? Well LDS would say the Celestial Kingdom, evangelicals would say heaven.

2 Corinthians 5

⁶ So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, ⁷ for we walk by faith, not by sight. ⁸ Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Again Paul teaches that to be away from the body is to be with the Lord obviously this being ‘at home with the Lord’ must be the same place that the Lord is in – Heaven.

So when Jesus says to the thief on the cross ‘today you will be with me in paradise’ where does the NT present believers as going once their bodies die? – heaven. As has already been discussed the NT usage of the word ‘paradise’ in 2 Corinthians 12:3 and Revelation 2:7 provides further evidence that paradise is in heaven with God.

Edited August 18, 2012 by djholmess

[djholmess]

What exactly do you mean by "No Drop Outs"?

Zakuska, you asked the above question in relation to Romans 8

²⁹ For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. ³⁰ And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

This is often called the ‘golden chain of redemption.’ Look at the relationship between the bolded words and the bolded and italicised words. ‘Those whom he foreknew he also predestined. So anyone that was foreknow by God was predestined. Similarly those who were predestined were called and then the called were justified and the justified were glorified. The text does not say ‘some of those he foreknew he predestined.’ The ‘those’ who were foreknown are the same ‘those’ who were predestined and called and justified and glorified.

There are no dropouts in the golden chain of redemption all those who God foreknew he will eventually glorify. Specifically in relation to our previous discussion I brought this up because you and others had been talking about justification like it is something you can gain and lose and gain again (which would be right if it was based on man’s actions). Romans 8 does not allow such a possibility – justification is something God does and everyone who is justified is glorified. There is not a group of people who were justified lose their justification and are then not glorified.

To put it in Jesus words from John 10

²⁷My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.....²⁹ My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

The Father has given Jesus sheep to him – these sheep are those who hear Jesus voice and follow him. Of those who hear Jesus and follow him no one is able to snatch them out of the Fathers hand all will be given eternal life (what Jesus is talking about in the context) there will be no drops outs.

Jesus sheep hear his voice and follow him, Jesus the good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (v15), all the sheep who the Shepherd lays down his life for are given eternal life (v28). All those whom he called he justified, all those whom he justified he glorified. There are no drop outs in Jesus or Paul.

I know the conversation has moved on but I wanted to answer your question. I had originally brought up justification as one of the reasons why I believe JS was a false prophet. That LDS believe justification is 1)based on mans obedience and 2) can be lost due to future disobedience demonstrate that JS did not teach a biblical gospel but a false one.

As Paul says in Philippians 3 the true followers of Jesus do not seek to establish their own righteousness but rely on the righteousness that comes from God.

“For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ ⁹ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith”

[Calm]

So you think it is OK for Evangelicals to quote from the Bible (OT and NT) to tell Mormons why they aren't Christians; but it is not OK for Mormons to do the same?--Or do you think it is OK for Evans to do it while they think they are on the winning side; but as soon as they appear to be losing the argument, it suddenly becomes unprofessional and unreasonable?

Mudcat plays fun and fair games, not dull, one sided ones. I think you have misread him.

You know, it is impossible to find a picture of real cats playing in mud...

Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Mudcat]

So you think it is OK for Evangelicals to quote from the Bible (OT and NT) to tell Mormons why they aren't Christians; but it is not OK for Mormons to do the same?--Or do you think it is OK for Evans to do it while they think they are on the winning side; but as soon as they appear to be losing the argument, it suddenly becomes unprofessional and unreasonable?

Hi Harfad,

My own thought on the matter is a bit of a contrast to either of the options you have presented.

It's fairly apparent that many EV's would utilize the Bible to establish a notion that LDS aren't Christians this sort of thing happens quite a lot. In fact there is a micro industry related to the "countercult" that exists in the nonLDS Christian community.

I have a friend who is a Oneness Pentecostal who gets worked up about his beliefs, more than once he has told me I was damned and going to hell because I believe in the Trinity and didn't get baptized in "Jesus name" and he uses the Bible to try an enforce his position. It makes conversation difficult on occasion but it's nothing I get bent out of shape about. I merely point that out, to let you know that LDS aren't isolated on this topic.

I don't actually see the inverse of that situation with LDS using the Bible to establish an idea that EV's aren't Christian very much though. I think you have to get a bit deeper in discussion with an LDS to get to the notion that even though LDS feel other Christians are "Christian" they think different things about nonLDS Christians and this is done more from an appeal to Scriptures and teachings that are distinct to LDS.

With EV's view of Christianity, it's either Heaven of Hell, in or out, saved or damned and certainly there are lot's of EV's that think LDS are not saved. I don't neccessarily share that view. I think it's very likely there are LDS who aren't saved and I also think it's likely that there are EV's that aren't.. same for the Catholics, Pentecostals, take your pick. There are plenty of folks who are hanging there hat on a conversionless sort of belief that they most likely inherited rather than a real tranformation that the Holy Spirit has worked upon them. IMO it's just dust. A person can't know what Christ would have them do until they literally know Christ.

LDS seem to have more of a sliding scale.. nearly everyone get's in but only the worthy believers get to live in the best part that has all the amenities. It's an entirely different paradigm. "Christian" has a different connotation altogether. To be analogous, it's like calling someone who lives in New York a New Yorker yet recognizing that there is a big difference between the kid in an East Harlem slum who is just as much a New Yorker as Donald Trump.

As far as the Bible and it's uses in discussions with people who profess differing sorts of Christian beliefs, I don't see it so much as a dandy launching pad for polemics as some do. A discussion between two Christian polemicists of different stripes, who both utilize the Bible generally degenerates into something the looks like a civilized sort of gang fight that denegrates the verses of the Bible into so many beer bottles or rocks to be hurled at an oponent. Not very classy, IMO.

Rather I see it as the best arbitrative instrument we have been given by God to help us settle such issues. People are entrenched in their own beliefs and it's difficult to get people out of their shell, I am guilty of that myself. We get hung up in our own desire to be the person who holds the better belief. But I think if you can actually get two people that have different beliefs together and both are willing to explore God's word, with the common goal of seeking God's truth rather than vindication for their own particular position, they are more likely to get where God want's them to be.

That's not to say that I don't mind healthy debate. But to me, this works out better if goes more like two guys playing chess in the park instead of some sort of eristic quarrel.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited August 18, 2012 by Mudcat

[CV75]

If I understand you correctly, your point is that Jesus didn't use the word "paradise" but used a different word, presumably an Aramaic word, that was then translated in the Greek Gospel of Luke as PARADEISOS. Assuming Jesus was not speaking to the thief in Greek -- a reasonable assumption -- I would agree that Jesus is not likely to have used the Greek word PARADEISOS. By the way, notice that English versions are not "translating" the Greek word but only transliterating it, since paradise is simply an Anglicized spelling of PARADEISOS.

In any case, your redaction of Joseph's statement with all of those bracketed words is more creative than informative as to what Joseph meant. Again, Joseph challenged the learned men of his day to search the Greek text of Luke to see if they could find anything corresponding to "paradise." That challenge proves that Joseph was denying that the Greek text of Luke said "paradise."

Sorry for the delay; the site was offline.

I agree it’s creative and I have to laugh at myself for that. But I also think at some level it gets to the gist of the issue. I think Joseph meant there is nothing in the original (Aramaic) that would subsequently mean “paradise.” Studying the Greek could not possibly bear this out, and he was inviting those who do to ‘knock themselves out.”

At any rate, I don’t see how the New Testament definition of “Christian” hinges on what Joseph meant in this case.

[CV75]

I think Joseph was talking about meaning not etymology. But if your point is that Joseph made a mistake about a Greek word, that's fine with me. Maybe he did. But that change the fact that the essence of his argument was accurate. English "paradise" as understood by Christians of the early 19th century does not mean the same thing as the Greek paradiseos as understood by first century Jews. I think you've already agreed with this.

Sorry for the delay; the site was offline.

I wasn’t thinking about Joseph making a mistake, but perhaps he did. I do agree with your more compelling argument about the changing meanings of words. I can’t fully appreciate the opposing view that bases its argument for the New Testament definition of “Christian” by arguing that Joseph Smith was wrong--just seems like a flimsy foundation.

[Storm Rider]

Rather I see it as the best arbitrative instrument we have been given by God to help us settle such issues. People are entrenched in their own beliefs and it's difficult to get people out of their shell, I am guilty of that myself. We get hung up in our own desire to be the person who holds the better belief. But I think if you can actually get two people that have different beliefs together and both are willing to explore God's word, with the common goal of seeking God's truth rather than vindication for their own particular position, they are more likely to get where God want's them to be.

That's not to say that I don't mind healthy debate. But to me, this works out better if goes more like two guys playing chess in the park instead of some sort of eristic quarrel.

Regards,

Mudcat

It is very difficult to have a conversation about the Bible if the conversation begins with, "You are a Mormon and your are not Christian and are condemned to hell". That tends to go over like the proverbial lead balloon.

For LDS, you are correct, we believe heaven to be a place of many mansions. It is not a single house where you are in or out. We believe that all, LDS and those who are not, may enter into Exaltation. Exaltation is not the exclusive glory for LDS; it is for all that have submitted their will to God; that have lived the truth that they were given and found. In this belief, there is mercy and justice for those who were denied the opportunity to receive any sacrament that is believed required to enter the Kingdom of God.

[CV75]

So what we have is a Greek mistranslation in the Manuscripts we do have.

Sorry for the delay; the site was offline.

I agree with that idea, but I also agree that I misspoke in my first post.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

At any rate, I don’t see how the New Testament definition of “Christian” hinges on what Joseph meant in this case.

I don't think it does, either. But the issue of the meaning of Luke 23:43 was raised, and I simply pointed out an interesting and important problem for Mormons to consider with regard to that verse.

[Rob Bowman]

Let me ask the Mormons here a question directly pertinent to the topic of the thread. I would like to know if you would accept the following definition of the term Christian:

A Christian is someone who has repented of his sins, trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, confesses that Jesus Christ died for his sins and rose from the grave, has been baptized as a follower of Jesus Christ, has received the gift of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost), and is a member of the body of Christ, the church.

I am not proposing this as an exhaustively precise definition, but as a heuristic model definition that will help us get at some of the real issues in this debate.

[Storm Rider]

Let me ask the Mormons here a question directly pertinent to the topic of the thread. I would like to know if you would accept the following definition of the term Christian:

A Christian is someone who has repented of his sins, trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, confesses that Jesus Christ died for his sins and rose from the grave, has been baptized as a follower of Jesus Christ, has received the gift of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost), and is a member of the body of Christ, the church.

I am not proposing this as an exhaustively precise definition, but as a heuristic model definition that will help us get at some of the real issues in this debate.

I think your definition is restrictive. I would probably use "A Christian is someone who repentsof his sins, trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, confesses that Jesus Christ died for his sins and rose from the grave". Some Christian churches do not believe that baptism is needed. None of us is in a position to determine if one has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

Thanks for your comment. What about being a member of the body of Christ?

I think your definition is restrictive. I would probably use "A Christian is someone who repentsof his sins, trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, confesses that Jesus Christ died for his sins and rose from the grave". Some Christian churches do not believe that baptism is needed. None of us is in a position to determine if one has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Flyonthewall]

I would say a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God, and Redeemer of the world, and tries to follow His teachings as they understand them to be.

"Redeemer of the world" implies that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, and ascended to heaven.

[Storm Rider]

Storm Rider,

Thanks for your comment. What about being a member of the body of Christ?

I didn't address that because it can complicate and restrict the definition unnecessarily. imho, if someone is willing to follow Christ they enter the body of Christ when they seek to follow or to be a disciple of Christ. They may be at the very beginning of the journey, but they are there.

[bluebell]

John wrote, "¹³ These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 Jn. 5:13)

We disagree about what the author of this verse meant when he wrote 'believe'.

From other verses in the NT, it seems clear to me that it can't mean the dictionary definition of simply accepting that something is true, because we know that the devils believe in Christ and they are most definitely not saved.

When the entire NT is taken together, it seems to show very clearly that saving belief is faith in Christ plus action-faith in Christ AND following Him.

Assurance of eternal life with God gives us peace and John here is telling us that we have it already.

If we have faith in Christ and are trying to follow His commandments, then yes, we have that assurance. Simply believing that Jesus is the Son of God alone does not give anyone eternal life.

We don't strive for it, we don't work for it. We have it.

We have it as we follow Christ and strive to be like Him. We don't have it if we are not striving (which is just another way to saying 'trying' to do so).

The actions we do as a result of having this peace in our hearts are what other people see as righteous actions. God changes our will to match his. We don't strive to change, he changes us from the inside out.

Of course we strive to change. We can only become new creatures through Christ, but we have to want to become them.

Jesus Himself said that we should strive for eternal life.

Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Consider our earthly nature. Did we strive to become human or did God create us that way?

Our spiritual nature is exactly the same way. We are a new creation in Christ. We didn't strive to become a new creation, God did it, just as he created our human nature.

If we didn't strive to become new creatures then we never would have acceped Christ and repented of our sins. It is the desire to have a relationship with Christ that propells us to to have faith in Him in the first place.

You get too hung up on semantics. There is nothing evil about the word 'strive' just as their is nothing evil about the word 'attain' that you had so many issues with earlier.

[bluebell]

That's not what "attain" means, though. It means succeed, achieve, accomplish; to gain something with effort. Is that what Paul is saying?

It can mean receive. It just depends on how it is used.

Definitions of 'attain' are:

achieve - reach - gain - obtain - get - win - acquire

(get and received are synonyms). Of course, since Paul wasn't speaking in english and didn't use the word 'attain' here (if he even wrote this epistle at all), any argument over semantics is probably going to be difficult for either side to win.

[bluebell]

Let me ask the Mormons here a question directly pertinent to the topic of the thread. I would like to know if you would accept the following definition of the term Christian:

A Christian is someone who has repented of his sins, trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, confesses that Jesus Christ died for his sins and rose from the grave, has been baptized as a follower of Jesus Christ, has received the gift of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost), and is a member of the body of Christ, the church.

I am not proposing this as an exhaustively precise definition, but as a heuristic model definition that will help us get at some of the real issues in this debate.

I'm stealing Storm Rider's answer because it's exactly what i think as well-

"I would say a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God, and Redeemer of the world, and tries to follow His teachings as they understand them to be."

[Zakuska]

Zakuska, you asked the above question in relation to Romans 8

This is often called the ‘golden chain of redemption.’ Look at the relationship between the bolded words and the bolded and italicised words. ‘Those whom he foreknew he also predestined. So anyone that was foreknow by God was predestined. Similarly those who were predestined were called and then the called were justified and the justified were glorified. The text does not say ‘some of those he foreknew he predestined.’ The ‘those’ who were foreknown are the same ‘those’ who were predestined and called and justified and glorified.

There are no dropouts in the golden chain of redemption all those who God foreknew he will eventually glorify. Specifically in relation to our previous discussion I brought this up because you and others had been talking about justification like it is something you can gain and lose and gain again (which would be right if it was based on man’s actions). Romans 8 does not allow such a possibility – justification is something God does and everyone who is justified is glorified. There is not a group of people who were justified lose their justification and are then not glorified.

To put it in Jesus words from John 10

The Father has given Jesus sheep to him – these sheep are those who hear Jesus voice and follow him. Of those who hear Jesus and follow him no one is able to snatch them out of the Fathers hand all will be given eternal life (what Jesus is talking about in the context) there will be no drops outs.

Jesus sheep hear his voice and follow him, Jesus the good Shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (v15), all the sheep who the Shepherd lays down his life for are given eternal life (v28). All those whom he called he justified, all those whom he justified he glorified. There are no drop outs in Jesus or Paul.

I know the conversation has moved on but I wanted to answer your question. I had originally brought up justification as one of the reasons why I believe JS was a false prophet. That LDS believe justification is 1)based on mans obedience and 2) can be lost due to future disobedience demonstrate that JS did not teach a biblical gospel but a false one.

As Paul says in Philippians 3 the true followers of Jesus do not seek to establish their own righteousness but rely on the righteousness that comes from God.

“For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ ⁹ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith”

AH, Yes the good old Heresy of fate rears its ugly head.

If we take this heresy to its illogical ends, it makes God responsible for our sins by creating us in the first place, pre-knowing that we would commit murder, adultury, etc etc. It makes him complicant in those attrocities by allowing them to happen.

Besides... Paul said...

Titus 2:11

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to ALL MEN."

[harfad]

Hi Harfad,

My own thought on the matter is a bit of a contrast to either of the options you have presented.

It's fairly apparent that many EV's would utilize the Bible to establish a notion that LDS aren't Christians this sort of thing happens quite a lot. In fact there is a micro industry related to the "countercult" that exists in the nonLDS Christian community.

I have a friend who is a Oneness Pentecostal who gets worked up about his beliefs, more than once he has told me I was damned and going to hell because I believe in the Trinity and didn't get baptized in "Jesus name" and he uses the Bible to try an enforce his position. It makes conversation difficult on occasion but it's nothing I get bent out of shape about. I merely point that out, to let you know that LDS aren't isolated on this topic.

I don't actually see the inverse of that situation with LDS using the Bible to establish an idea that EV's aren't Christian very much though. I think you have to get a bit deeper in discussion with an LDS to get to the notion that even though LDS feel other Christians are "Christian" they think different things about nonLDS Christians and this is done more from an appeal to Scriptures and teachings that are distinct to LDS.

With EV's view of Christianity, it's either Heaven of Hell, in or out, saved or damned and certainly there are lot's of EV's that think LDS are not saved. I don't neccessarily share that view. I think it's very likely there are LDS who aren't saved and I also think it's likely that there are EV's that aren't.. same for the Catholics, Pentecostals, take your pick. There are plenty of folks who are hanging there hat on a conversionless sort of belief that they most likely inherited rather than a real tranformation that the Holy Spirit has worked upon them. IMO it's just dust. A person can't know what Christ would have them do until they literally know Christ.

LDS seem to have more of a sliding scale.. nearly everyone get's in but only the worthy believers get to live in the best part that has all the amenities. It's an entirely different paradigm. "Christian" has a different connotation altogether. To be analogous, it's like calling someone who lives in New York a New Yorker yet recognizing that there is a big difference between the kid in an East Harlem slum who is just as much a New Yorker as Donald Trump.

As far as the Bible and it's uses in discussions with people who profess differing sorts of Christian beliefs, I don't see it so much as a dandy launching pad for polemics as some do. A discussion between two Christian polemicists of different stripes, who both utilize the Bible generally degenerates into something the looks like a civilized sort of gang fight that denegrates the verses of the Bible into so many beer bottles or rocks to be hurled at an oponent. Not very classy, IMO.

Rather I see it as the best arbitrative instrument we have been given by God to help us settle such issues. People are entrenched in their own beliefs and it's difficult to get people out of their shell, I am guilty of that myself. We get hung up in our own desire to be the person who holds the better belief. But I think if you can actually get two people that have different beliefs together and both are willing to explore God's word, with the common goal of seeking God's truth rather than vindication for their own particular position, they are more likely to get where God want's them to be.

That's not to say that I don't mind healthy debate. But to me, this works out better if goes more like two guys playing chess in the park instead of some sort of eristic quarrel.

Regards,

Mudcat

It seems to me that you are equivocating. My response was prompted by the following comment you made in post #990:

IMO, I don't see the NT as a dictionary or a thesaurus, in the sense that it gives a tacitly clear definition of what a "Christian" is. I don't think that is what it was designed for. If God designed the NT to offer such a definition, then I don't imagine we would have much division on who is or who isn't a Christian.

I am still not clear whether it is possible (and legitimate) to determine whether someone (or some religion) is Christian with reference to the Bible or not. If yes, why do you object to Mormons applying that criteria? If no, why are you silent when Evangelicals apply that criteria? There seems to be some kind of double standards being applied here.

[harfad]

Let me ask the Mormons here a question directly pertinent to the topic of the thread. I would like to know if you would accept the following definition of the term Christian:

A Christian is someone who has repented of his sins, trusts in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, confesses that Jesus Christ died for his sins and rose from the grave, has been baptized as a follower of Jesus Christ, has received the gift of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost), and is a member of the body of Christ, the church.

I am not proposing this as an exhaustively precise definition, but as a heuristic model definition that will help us get at some of the real issues in this debate.

I like the biblical definition better: "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26).

[harfad]

Storm Rider,

Thanks for your comment. What about being a member of the body of Christ?

That would depend on how you defined the "body of Christ," wouldn't it?

[danielwoods]

We disagree about what the author of this verse meant when he wrote 'believe'.

From other verses in the NT, it seems clear to me that it can't mean the dictionary definition of simply accepting that something is true, because we know that the devils believe in Christ and they are most definitely not saved.

When the entire NT is taken together, it seems to show very clearly that saving belief is faith in Christ plus action-faith in Christ AND following Him.

If we have faith in Christ and are trying to follow His commandments, then yes, we have that assurance. Simply believing that Jesus is the Son of God alone does not give anyone eternal life.

We have it as we follow Christ and strive to be like Him. We don't have it if we are not striving (which is just another way to saying 'trying' to do so).

Of course we strive to change. We can only become new creatures through Christ, but we have to want to become them.

Jesus Himself said that we should strive for eternal life.

Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

If we didn't strive to become new creatures then we never would have acceped Christ and repented of our sins. It is the desire to have a relationship with Christ that propells us to to have faith in Him in the first place.

You get too hung up on semantics. There is nothing evil about the word 'strive' just as their is nothing evil about the word 'attain' that you had so many issues with earlier.

EV's use an anolgy saying that the difference between believing a chair will hold you and sitting in that chair is trust. Believing as John is using the term is the same as trusting Christ for our salvation, not simply believing as you pointed out. The difference we seem to encounter isn't simply semantics because if it was we would agree once the various definitions were understood.

The difference is more than just words. What appears to me to be the major difference between our to positions is the function of works as it relates to our salvation. It seems to me that the LDS combine works with grace to achieve salvation. Where the EV position is that works are simply a by product or fruit of saving faith and don't contribute to the grace.

[Mudcat]

It seems to me that you are equivocating. My response was prompted by the following comment you made in post #990:

Oh, I see. Well that's about as straight an answer as I can provide. Call it what you will.

I am still not clear whether it is possible (and legitimate) to determine whether someone (or some religion) is Christian with reference to the Bible or not. If yes, why do you object to Mormons applying that criteria? If no, why are you silent when Evangelicals apply that criteria? There seems to be some kind of double standards being applied here.

I really don't understand where you are going here.

Could you note some sort of objection I have made to LDS applying whatever criteria suits them?

Given the fact that I am an Evangelical, and I have offered my 2 cents on the topic I don't imagine I have been silent on the issue.

If you see some sort of double standard I am presenting, I don't know what you are talking about. Would you mind clarifying if possible?