What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[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.

I would agree. I think for those who actually hold this view, there are better ways of getting about a discussion.

My thought on the matter, would seem more to the effect of..

Supposing, if as an LDS, your beliefs actually were wrong about Joseph Smith and everything that has come along with the CoJCoLDS since then was also incorrect. Also, supposing some other Christian view (take your pick) were correct in their beliefs. Do you think, there would be enough correct belief left within what you hold to be true to still have a saving faith in Christ?

That's rhetorical, just offering an alternate way of going about something. Though I might start a thread with something like that one of these days.

[ERayR]

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.

And of course you get to define which church is the "body of Christ, the church". Why am I not surprised at your guile.

[bluebell]

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.

The LDS position matches, kind of ironically i guess, Martin Luther's words on the subject.

"Works are necessary for salvation, but they do not cause salvation;"

I believe the promiment LDS scholar Hugh Nibley put it this way-"work we must, but the lunch is free."

LDS believe that works are necessary for salvation, but not sufficient for salvation. They don't contribute to God's grace, they give us access to it.

Think of it this way-do you believe that your faith in Christ contributes to His grace? Could He save you without you having faith in Him? Would He save you without you having faith in Him?

If He doesn't need your faith to save you, why can't you be saved without it?

Answering these questions will allow you to understand how LDS can believe that works (like repentance) also are necessary but do not add to the grace of Christ.

Edited August 18, 2012 by bluebell

[danielwoods]

The LDS position matches, kind of ironically i guess, Martin Luther's words on the subject.

"Works are necessary for salvation, but they do not cause salvation;"

I believe the promiment LDS scholar Hugh Nibley put it this way-"work we must, but the lunch is free."

LDS believe that works are necessary for salvation, but not sufficient for salvation. They don't contribute to God's grace, they give us access to it.

Think of it this way-do you believe that your faith in Christ contributes to His grace? Could He save you without you having faith in Him? Would He save you without you having faith in Him?

If He doesn't need your faith to save you, why can't you be saved without it?

Answering these questions will allow you to understand how LDS can believe that works (like repentance) also are necessary but do not add to the grace of Christ.

Thanks. I think I understand what you are saying.

The difference then, is in my view that God reaches down to our level before we are even thinking about him, and draws us to himself. "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us"

I don't think repentance would be considered a work (like doing good works before men), rather a change of mind or attitude.

Sorry if my posts are short. Typing on my phone.

[ERayR]

Thanks. I think I understand what you are saying.

The difference then, is in my view that God reaches down to our level before we are even thinking about him, and draws us to himself. "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us"

I don't think we have any real differences here either. Would have to have a clearer understanding of what this means to you.

[bluebell]

Thanks. I think I understand what you are saying.

The difference then, is in my view that God reaches down to our level before we are even thinking about him, and draws us to himself. "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us"

LDS wouldn't necessarily disagree with this.

I don't think repentance would be considered a work (like doing good works before men), rather a change of mind or attitude.

Sorry if my posts are short. Typing on my phone.

LDS don't view repentance as just a change of mind or attitude, which is probably why we would tend to catagorize it as a work.

If sin is moving away from God, then repentance is the act of moving back toward Him. The worse the sin the further one has moved away from God, so the more intense the journey back. (Repentance for adultery, for example, is a much bigger process than repentance for yelling at your sister.) If the sin required actions to committ, then it'll probably require actions to repent of.

Recognizing the sin and wanting to change is a very important step, but it's not the only step in LDS belief. Feeling godly sorrow for the sin and trying to provide restitution (such as confessing if you lied to someone, and telling them the truth, returning a stolen item, or apologizing for a wrong committed, for example) are also important steps in the repentance process. Sincerely trying not to committ the sin again is also important.

PS-if you are typing on your phone that you are doing awesome. It takes me forever to type anything on my phone.

[CV75]

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 pretty much accept anyone's good faith definition of "Christian". I think it is good to find common ground among the beliefs (even if not the faith) of those who call ourselves "Christian." There is a lot of good that can be done with that commonality.

I suppose your reference to the "real issues" must come down to those points of LDS belief that would disqualify Mormons from calling ourselves "Christian" or prevent Mormonism from being "Christian." I think there have been many threads that explore such topics one by one. What is the most salient disqualifying belief for you (while at the same time basing it on a NT definition of "Christian"--as opposed to a definition derived from a complex synthesis of NT beliefs)?

I think your definition of a Christian is acceptable, but more prescriptive than mine.

Edited August 18, 2012 by CV75

[harfad]

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

I call it equivocating, not giving a straight answer.

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?

Yes, this is what you had said, 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.

You made that comment after LDS had attempted in this thread (apparently successfully) to find a scriptural definition of the word Christian that is authentic enough to call into question the evangelicals' use of the biblical data to exclude Mormonism from that definition. In other words, it is OK to use the Bible to define the meaning of Christian as long as it works in favor of evans, and against Mormonism; but as soon as Mormons start using that same methodology to silence the evs, it suddenly becomes unfashionable. That sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

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?

Thank you. I hope you found my explanations helpful.

[bluebell]

You made that comment after LDS had attempted in this thread (apparently successfully) to find a scriptural definition of the word Christian that is authentic enough to call into question the evangelicals' use of the biblical data to exclude Mormonism from that definition. In other words, it is OK to use the Bible to define the meaning of Christian as long as it works in favor of evans, and against Mormonism; but as soon as Mormons start using that same methodology to silence the evs, it suddenly becomes unfashionable. That sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

I think you've misunderstood mudcat. He's married to a mormon and is one of the least judgmental Evangelicals that i've ever had the privilige to know.

[harfad]

I think you've misunderstood mudcat. He's married to a mormon and is one of the least judgmental Evangelicals that i've ever had the privilige to know.

I am sure he is a very fine individual! But can you find any flaw in the logic of my argument?

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

None of us is in a position to determine if one has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

In your understanding, are there certain requirements or conditions that must be met in order to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

[bluebell]

I am sure he is a very fine individual! But can you find any flaw in the logic of my argument?

Well, i did not interpret his words to mean what you have claimed they meant so in that way yes, i fail to see the logic of your argument against him.

I took him as saying that it is futile and maybe even silly to attempt to use the bible as a dictionary to define Christianity in a way that excludes mormons.

Since I created the OP specifically because an Evangelical in another thread claimed that we needed to use the NT exclusively to define the word and i felt that such an attempt would be futile (because the NT doesn't ever define the word Christian, other than that it was applied to Christ's disciples), i have no problem with Mudcat's initial post and find absolutely nothing to disagree with.

[Mudcat]

I call it equivocating, not giving a straight answer.

Yes you have said that before, I am familiar with term.

Yes, this is what you had said, in post #990:

I don't see an issue with the post, you'll have to be more specific. What is it, in particular with post #990 that you find issue with and why?

You made that comment after LDS had attempted in this thread (apparently successfully) to find a scriptural definition of the word Christian that is authentic enough to call into question the evangelicals' use of the biblical data to exclude Mormonism from that definition. In other words, it is OK to use the Bible to define the meaning of Christian as long as it works in favor of evans, and against Mormonism; but as soon as Mormons start using that same methodology to silence the evs, it suddenly becomes unfashionable. That sounds a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

I think you are presuming I have read the entirety of the thread, when I have not nor do I plan to. My initial post was a response to the original post and the conversations I have had so far are based upon what I have said and what others have said to me. But on your assumed premise, bold mine, you charge me with hypocricsy. The fact that you have already charged me with duplicity, notwithstanding.

I don't make much of it though, in the sense of taking offense over it. However, if someone were looking for a flaw in your logic, it would be rooted in your faulty assumptions and your lack of specifity on your objections.

Thank you. I hope you found my explanations helpful.

Your welcome. I find your explanations insightful to your personality but I don't find them very revealing to what they would explain.

All the best,

Mudcat

Edited August 19, 2012 by Mudcat

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell and Storm Rider,

Here is Storm Rider's statement, which bluebell affirmed:

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.

Does it matter if someone says he believes that Jesus is the Son of God but holds to a false understanding of what this means? For example, there are people who profess to be Christians and who affirm that Jesus is "the Son of God," but they say this means only that he is the human Messiah; in their view, it does not mean that he is divine, or even preexistent. Are they Christians according to the above definition, even though they define "Son of God" in a way that you would regard as false?

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

And of course you get to define which church is the "body of Christ, the church". Why am I not surprised at your guile.

Your comment is false, groundless, and offensive. I am not claiming that I get to define which church is the body of Christ. I am simply asking if Mormons here would agree that true Christians are part of the body of Christ. Would you care to answer the question? You may define "body of Christ" and "church" to comport with LDS beliefs.

[bluebell]

bluebell and Storm Rider,

Here is Storm Rider's statement, which bluebell affirmed:

Does it matter if someone says he believes that Jesus is the Son of God but holds to a false understanding of what this means? For example, there are people who profess to be Christians and who affirm that Jesus is "the Son of God," but they say this means only that he is the human Messiah; in their view, it does not mean that he is divine, or even preexistent. Are they Christians according to the above definition, even though they define "Son of God" in a way that you would regard as false?

In my view, a person is a Christian if they meet the terms i stated and believe themselves to be.

I'm not sure how it's possible for someone to believe that Jesus is the Redeemer of the world, but only a human Messiah, but if they were adamant about being a Christian and holding that view, i wouldn't argue with them. I don't think it would serve any purpose to do so.

Edited August 19, 2012 by bluebell

[Flyonthewall]

bluebell and Storm Rider,

Here is Storm Rider's statement, which bluebell affirmed:

Does it matter if someone says he believes that Jesus is the Son of God but holds to a false understanding of what this means? For example, there are people who profess to be Christians and who affirm that Jesus is "the Son of God," but they say this means only that he is the human Messiah; in their view, it does not mean that he is divine, or even preexistent. Are they Christians according to the above definition, even though they define "Son of God" in a way that you would regard as false?

Believes Jesus is the Son of God? check.

Believes Jesus is the Redeemer of the world? Not sure what you mean by "human" Messiah, but sounds close enough.

Tries to follow the teachings as they understand them? Not really mentioned in your description.

I would not understand how they could believe Jesus to be the Son of God and Redeemer of the world if He is not divine, but if they claim to be following the teachings of Jesus as they understand them, who am I to say they are not a follower of Christ?

There are those that worship by handling poisonous snakes...I know the scriptural passage they base that on...don't agree with it and think they are misguided, but still Christian.

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

You wrote:

In my view, a person is a Christian if they meet the terms i stated and believe themselves to be.

I'm not sure how it's possible for someone to believe that Jesus is the Redeemer of the world, but only a human Messiah, but if they were adamant about being a Christian and holding that view, i wouldn't argue with them. I don't think it would serve any purpose to do so.

Christadelphians, for example, and other groups that call themselves Biblical Unitarians, believe that Jesus is only a human Messiah but also believe that he died to redeem the world from sin.

I'm not sure how useful it is to require someone to affirm that Jesus is the Son of God as a criterion for being a Christian, only then to say that it doesn't matter what they think it means to be "the Son of God." In other words, the definition appears then to be merely a matter of agreeing to say certain words, not a matter of holding to certain actual beliefs. The belief that Jesus was a mere man through whom God redeemed the world is not the same as the belief that Jesus was a divine being who became a man to redeem the world. The fact that these two beliefs can be articulated using the words "the Son of God" does not change the fact that they are two different, contrary beliefs.

As to whether it would serve any purpose to argue with them about being Christians, that is a different matter again. If someone is adamant in claiming to be a Christian there probably is no value in trying to talk them out of that claim. And no, I don't do this with Mormons. If you are adamant and insistent that you are a Christian, I'm not going to try to convince you to stop calling yourself one. That is not what I am trying to do here. Rather, I am trying to inject some clarity into the discussion about the whole matter of defining the term Christian.

[Rob Bowman]

Flyonthewall,

You wrote:

I would not understand how they could believe Jesus to be the Son of God and Redeemer of the world if He is not divine, but if they claim to be following the teachings of Jesus as they understand them, who am I to say they are not a follower of Christ?

I have explained to bluebell what those people believe. They simply define "Son of God" to exclude divinity.

You ask, "who am I to say they are not a follower of Christ?" That's an interesting question. Let me ask some similar ones. Who are you to say that they do not have authority from God? Who are you to say that they are not validly baptized? Who are you to say that their church is not a true church? Generally speaking, Mormons do claim to be able to say these things, don't they?

You wrote:

There are those that worship by handling poisonous snakes...I know the scriptural passage they base that on...don't agree with it and think they are misguided, but still Christian.

I'm not sure what relevance this has. No one is suggesting that we define Christian such that it excludes all misguided ideas. The point is that any definition of the term Christian, to have any usefulness, must make it reasonably clear what is included and what is excluded.

[Storm Rider]

I would agree. I think for those who actually hold this view, there are better ways of getting about a discussion.

My thought on the matter, would seem more to the effect of..

Supposing, if as an LDS, your beliefs actually were wrong about Joseph Smith and everything that has come along with the CoJCoLDS since then was also incorrect. Also, supposing some other Christian view (take your pick) were correct in their beliefs. Do you think, there would be enough correct belief left within what you hold to be true to still have a saving faith in Christ?

That's rhetorical, just offering an alternate way of going about something. Though I might start a thread with something like that one of these days.

It may be meant to be a rhetorical question, but I think it is actually a very good question to pose and to discuss. I believe in Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of the Living God. I believe that he was born of the virgin Mary. I blieve that he is the only intermediary between me and God the Father. I believe in the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe that Jesus died on the cross to wash away the sins of mankind. I believe that he rose the third day. I believe that he returned to the Father and sits at his right hand. I believe that he will return one day. I believe that he is my Savior, Redeemer, Master, and Lord. Even if everything else that I know to be true about the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ on the earth were false, is Jesus big enough to save me or does my belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet of the restoration overpower the saving grace of Jesus?

[Storm Rider]

Does it matter if someone says he believes that Jesus is the Son of God but holds to a false understanding of what this means? For example, there are people who profess to be Christians and who affirm that Jesus is "the Son of God," but they say this means only that he is the human Messiah; in their view, it does not mean that he is divine, or even preexistent. Are they Christians according to the above definition, even though they define "Son of God" in a way that you would regard as false?

Hello Rob, I believe that if someone believe that Jesus is the Christ and also believe that Jesus can save him from his sins, then he is Christian. Does it matter if a Christian does not have a true understanding of Jesus Christ? I think it is important to understand that no one "understands" Jesus Christ. We may grasp certain aspects of the Savior, but each of his disciples is in a process of learning about our Savior. Some have a better understanding than others, but a lack of a complete understanding of Jesus is not powerful enough to overcome Jesus' saving grace.

I have quoted this before, but it bears repeating:

"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."

-

J. Kenneth Grider

Grider never said anything more true than this. Do you agree?

[Storm Rider]

I have explained to bluebell what those people believe. They simply define "Son of God" to exclude divinity.

You ask, "who am I to say they are not a follower of Christ?" That's an interesting question. Let me ask some similar ones. Who are you to say that they do not have authority from God? Who are you to say that they are not validly baptized? Who are you to say that their church is not a true church? Generally speaking, Mormons do claim to be able to say these things, don't they?

I think it is error to think that Jesus is not divine, but I also think that if they believe Jesus can save them from their sins they meet the test of being a Christian. No other religion in the world has a problem defining who is and who is not a Christian. Only Christians quibble among themselves about who gets to be in the club and who doesn't. I find that extremely amusing and very telling about those who think they guard the clubhouse gate. Thank God in Heaven that they are not the judge of gets into heaven and who doesn't. In truth, I think we will all be surprised.

I think Rob makes a very good point above. LDS need to be very clear in what we believe and not in what the perceived shortcomings of the beliefs, sacraments, rites of other churches. We know what is true; hold to that, but do not presume to know what God will judge of these others.

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall,

You wrote:

I have explained to bluebell what those people believe. They simply define "Son of God" to exclude divinity.

You ask, "who am I to say they are not a follower of Christ?" That's an interesting question. Let me ask some similar ones. Who are you to say that they do not have authority from God? Who are you to say that they are not validly baptized? Who are you to say that their church is not a true church? Generally speaking, Mormons do claim to be able to say these things, don't they?

Yes, we claim these things. We also believe that all people will be judged according to what they did according to what they know and understand.

I'm not sure what relevance this has. No one is suggesting that we define Christian such that it excludes all misguided ideas. The point is that any definition of the term Christian, to have any usefulness, must make it reasonably clear what is included and what is excluded.

This has every relevance, and yest there are some out there that are defining Christian so that it excludes ideas they do not agree with.

If someone sincerely believes something that is not correct, but they don't know any different, how can they be condemned or excluded if they act accordingly?

We believe all non-LDS churches are misguided to some extent, but they don't know or understand that they are. If they are acting in accordance with what they believe is correct, then they are following Christ to the best of their knowledge. I do not have the capability or the authority to say they are not. That judgement is Christ's alone.

[harfad]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

In your understanding, are there certain requirements or conditions that must be met in order to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

In Mormonism, the gift of the Holy Ghost is given following baptism "by one having authority," and the laying on of hands of those who, likewise, have the proper priesthood authority to do so.

[harfad]

Well, i did not interpret his words to mean what you have claimed they meant so in that way yes, i fail to see the logic of your argument against him.

I took him as saying that it is futile and maybe even silly to attempt to use the bible as a dictionary to define Christianity in a way that excludes mormons.

Since I created the OP specifically because an Evangelical in another thread claimed that we needed to use the NT exclusively to define the word and i felt that such an attempt would be futile (because the NT doesn't ever define the word Christian, other than that it was applied to Christ's disciples), i have no problem with Mudcat's initial post and find absolutely nothing to disagree with.

Thank you for your attempt to explain. I regret to inform you that I disagree both with him and you.