What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Storm Rider]

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, that is how we "give" the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but whether one receives it another matter.

[harfad]

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?

I would say they are Christians if they claim to be; and more importantly, if they strive to live by his commandments. If somebody tells me that they are Christians, I take their word for it that they are, even if they have a flawed understanding of Christ or his doctrines. But if somebody tells me that he is a Christian; but then he lies, cheats, steals, bears false witness, commits adultery, is abusive to his family or others, etc., then I would say that he is a Christian in name only. He would not be recognized by the Master as his disciple unless he repented, and put those things right. "Depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matt. 7:23) are the words Jesus used to reject them.

[harfad]

ERayR,

You wrote:

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.

As you have correctly pointed out, the phrase "body of Christ" is used in the NT to refer to Christ's true Church. And since by definition a Christian is part of Christ's Church, your question amounts to saying that "a Christian is somebody who is a Christian," which is not a very helpful definition. A more interesting consideration, however, is how that Church, or "body of Christ," is actually defined in the Bible:

“That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

“And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

“Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

“Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?” (1 Cor. 12:25-30)

“He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

“For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

“Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” (Eph. 4:10-14)

That seems to point to a more interesting question of what the true Church is, and how it can be recognized.

[harfad]

Harfad, that is how we "give" the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but whether one receives it another matter.

Since, as you have correctly pointed out, there is no way knowing if somebody has received the gift of the Holy Ghost or not, I think it is best to err on the side of caution, and assume that everyone who has been given the gift has received it, rather than make guesses about whether they have or not.

[KevinG]

Since, as you have correctly pointed out, there is no way knowing if somebody has received the gift of the Holy Ghost or not, I think it is best to err on the side of caution, and assume that everyone who has been given the gift has received it, rather than make guesses about whether they have or not.

In my experience it is much more productive to use the scriptures to guide ourselves than it is to use them to define others.

[Dogmatic]

Instead of a declaration of there really being more than one God in existence we see Jesus and the NT writers identifying Jesus as that God whilst in no way removing the Father as that God as well.

One way in which John does this is through the use of the ‘I am’ statements. Again a couple of examples;

Isaiah 41:4

Who has performed and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, am the first; And with the last I am He.

John 13:18-20

I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, 'He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.' I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he.

Notice the similar context. In Isaiah the I am He statement is associated with God’s knowledge of history and future events.

Jesus them makes a prediction about the future so that when it takes place his disciples will recognise that Jesus is the ‘I am He’ of Isaiah – he is the only one true God in existence.

Or in John 8:58 we read

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then they took up stones to cast at him.

The Jews recognised the connection Jesus was making by referring to himself as the ‘I am.’ They were going to stone Jesus. Again and again we see them going to stone him, why would this be if it wasn’t that He was claiming the divinity that was due to God alone. If there are lots of other gods out there what is wrong with Jesus claiming to be God?

I'm REALLY REALLY curious - does it ever occur to you that the gospel and the scriptures are simple and straight forward? Doesn't it seem odd to you that a jailer, a eunuch and many others can pick up the gospel in a few hours and be baptized but the gospel as you present it much twist, cross-reference and explain away plain and simple truths so it will "fit"?

Does it ever occur to you that the doctrine that was created and added by creeds isn't actually scripture? Is it hard for you to overlook the condemnation verses for those who change or add to the Bible?

Is it hard to believe in a book that you can't actually read but has to have cliff notes to be able to interpret it the way you're told to?

Does it ever occur to you that it's strange that the OT tells you how many steps you can take, what food you can eat, how to treat a women, how to marry and so on but somehow leaves out the part that there are three personages or whatever that manifest as God? Isn't it kind of weird that God forgot that part and had to have Constantine get that straightened out for us?

Does it ever occur to you that all this twisting and recreating that you're doing is actually what is creating a Christ/God that isn't actually in the Bible?

Or that when you quibble about "what Christ do Mormons believe in" that it's actually the one that's in the Bible?

I'm just wondering if you ever consider these things or if you just think it's natural and you're grateful that someone figured out how to teach and explain to everyone how to read the Bible in concepts that aren't there.

[bluebell]

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

Not a problem as it doesn't matter in the least.

[Dogmatic]

1) I derive my theology from the Bible not men

I'm curious how you reconcile this with being an Orthodox Creedal Christian. By very definition it is theology derived from men through councils resulting in creed which are canonized.

[djholmess]

I'm curious how you reconcile this with being an Orthodox Creedal Christian. By very definition it is theology derived from men through councils resulting in creed which are canonized.

Canonised Creed? Such as? If you read over my posts in this thread I have demonstrated why I believe each of the things I believe from biblical texts.

From the section of one of my posts you quoted above it is clear that I laid out why I believe Jesus to have claimed to be the God of the OT, the great 'I AM.'. Not in a 'crisis crossed' way but in a way that a Jew versed in the OT (his audience btw) who had ears to hear would have understood.

Regarding the eunuch, as I have said in other posts in this thread saving faith is a belief in the death and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sin and a trusting in God to justify through Jesus's death. That is saving faith, however saving faith is accompanied by good works such as a growth in knowledge and understanding of God. So when Mormons make claims about what God is (exalted man) or who Jesus is (literal spirit child of the Father) or what how one is justified (through a person's own faithful obedience) or that they follow a false prophet (JS) then I see no reason to believe that the faith they claim to have is real.

Again if you look back over this thread (I know it's long) I have discussed each of these-some more than others obviously.

About Gods nature as one God yet a plurality of persons-Father, Son and Spirit, summarised by the doctrine of the Trinity. For your objection that God didn't reveal this in the OT to make sense you would have to assume God MUST fully and exhaustively reveal who he was and what his nature/character was to the first human he encountered. What makes you think God must reveal himself this way?Can't he progressively reveal who He is as he works out his plan of redemption?

Either way your objection can equally be laid at the LDS door as well. I have yet to be shown where God lays out that he is an exalted man who has an exalted wife/wives, that we are his spirit children and that our God is just one in a vast array of other Gods.

Further, as LDS believe Jesus is Jehovah and the Father is Elohim doesn't this make the OT usage of these terms confusing at best and even deceptive at worst. There is another thread taking about this. I haven't been posting in it but it certainly doesn't seem like there is a clear picture of the difference between Jesus and the Father presented in the OT from the LDS perspective.

We both believe that God has progressively revealed who he is-we just disagree on what this revelation is and what it says.

[harfad]

bluebell,

You wrote:

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.

What problem do you have with defining a Christian as the Bible does, as a disciple of Jesus Christ (Acts 11:26)?

[harfad]

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?

You wrote:

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.

Everyone who thinks he is a Christian is included, and everyone who thinks, or asserts, that he is not a Christian is excluded. What is wrong with that criterion for determining inclusion and exclusion?

[harfad]

In my experience it is much more productive to use the scriptures to guide ourselves than it is to use them to define others.

I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. It might be helpful of you would clarify.

[Hestia]

I call it equivocating, not giving a straight answer.

Since you are new we'll give you a break, but don't harass other posters especially when they are stating their opinions on matters. I think bluebell made a good point about misunderstanding what was said.

[Rob Bowman]

harfad,

You wrote:

Everyone who thinks he is a Christian is included, and everyone who thinks, or asserts, that he is not a Christian is excluded. What is wrong with that criterion for determining inclusion and exclusion?

Perhaps nothing. So, you are disagreeing with those Latter-day Saints here who have stated that one must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, who died and rose from the dead to redeem people from their sins?

[Rob Bowman]

harfad,

You wrote:

What problem do you have with defining a Christian as the Bible does, as a disciple of Jesus Christ (Acts 11:26)?

I'm confused as to what your position really is. In another post you assert that anyone who wants to call himself a Christian is one. In this post you are apparently arguing that someone must be a disciple of Jesus Christ to qualify as a Christian. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Vance]

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."

Interesting verse. It goes well with this one.

1 Tim 2:4 (God) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

[Vance]

Believing as John is using the term is the same as trusting Christ for our salvation, not simply believing as you pointed out.

Yeah, but do you trust Him enough to obey Him?

The difference we seem to encounter isn't simply semantics because if it was we would agree once the various definitions were understood.

The problem with Evangelicals is that they confuse the works of the law of Moses (which Paul as talking about as being unnecessary), with the works of righteousness (Which Jesus, Paul and others clearly recognized as necessary) .

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.

See above.

It seems to me that the LDS combine works with grace to achieve salvation.

So, did Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, John and others.

Where the EV position is that works are simply a by product or fruit of saving faith and don't contribute to the grace.

And that is where they get it wrong.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Vance

[harfad]

Perhaps nothing. So, you are disagreeing with those Latter-day Saints here who have stated that one must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, who died and rose from the dead to redeem people from their sins?

Not quite. What I am saying is that if he thinks that he is a Christian, and says that he is a Christian, then in his own mind he must qualify for that definition, and I respect his choice of identifying himself as such. Look at it this way, a Hindu wouldn't call himself a Christian, he would call himself a Hindu. Likewise a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Bahai, a Jainist, an atheist etc. would not call themselves Christian; they would call themselves Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Bahai, Jainist, atheist etc. So if somebody makes a consciouis decision to identify himself as a Christian, that means that he is none of the above, but somebody who in his own mind at least qualifies for being called a Christian, and I respect his choice of what he wishes to identify himself as.

[harfad]

I'm confused as to what your position really is. In another post you assert that anyone who wants to call himself a Christian is one. In this post you are apparently arguing that someone must be a disciple of Jesus Christ to qualify as a Christian. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Since in my vocabulary (derived from the Bible) Christian and a diciple of Jesus Christ are synonyms (Christian=disciple of Jesus), then if somebody identifies himself as a Christian, then I take it as a given that they consider themselves to be a diciple of Jesus---until and unless their actions betrays them as being hypocrites, and no disciples of Jesus Christ (i.e. by their fruits ye shall know them).

[harfad]

Since you are new we'll give you a break, but don't harass other posters especially when they are stating their opinions on matters. I think bluebell made a good point about misunderstanding what was said.

Maybe I am missing something, but I didn't know I was harrassing anybody. Disagreements are going to arise in a discussion. I wouldn't have called that harassment.

[coolrok7]

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. . . .[post #816]

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. [post #1037]

Thanks for explaining your reasoning for the thread Bluebell. The issue of the 40+ pages (54 pages now) the discussion of doctrine and how it relates to defining “Christian”. Teaching from others that is not Christian should not be imported into what is there (Mormon doctrine from Joseph Smith in particular).

Mormons believe they are justified in defending their claims concerning Joseph Smith and their belief in him as a true “Prophet of God” which is their prerogative. They would not be the only ones to have this problem in defending their founders teaching as well while claiming the distinctive of being God’s only “true church” or “organization”.

Your statement appears to be a common Mormon talking point but is not sufficient to say that one cannot properly define what it means or to arrive at a proper conclusion.

The definition of a Christian is simple, the basic meaning is being a follower of Jesus Christ (what a Christian is, is based on the doctrine believed as distinguished between what a Muslim, Buddhist, etc. believe for example).

This has both eternal benefits and not so good consequences for not choosing to follow/believe/have faith in Jesus Christ to be saved one from an eternal punishment (or outer darkness, the Mormon concept being redefined from the Biblical one) which Mormons and others dispute.

I would agree that determining who is a Christian to the satisfaction of everyone (will probably never happen this side of eternity) is often debated, but that doesn’t mean one can’t come to a proper conclusion (Biblically speaking) even though some will disagree.

There is such a thing as sound doctrine which would include a proper belief in the Biblical Jesus, Gospel, and Spirit. Not the one’s of others religious belief systems (a redefining of God) of Who He is which is not actually being God in the flesh:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . .And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (John 1:1-3, 14-15)

The truthfulness of Christianity/what Christianity is, who can be considered Christian is based on what is said in the testimony of eyewitnesses, written down concerning Jesus (the way, the truth, and the life) in regards to Old Testament prophetical fulfillment, that which first century Christians had, way before what Joseph Smith taught that is different much later down the passage of time:

Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.” (Luke 24:44-49)

The Bible I see is clear enough in the context of doctrine as is sufficient for salvation but there are those who insist on the Bible not being sufficient (by either adding to or taking away from what is there already):

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

The rub of the whole thing is the reason behind the question of the thread concerning the definition of the term, “Christian”. On the surface it can appear that Mormonism could be a valid application of the term based on the terminology used but in the end it doesn’t measure up to the standard of the Old/New Testament.

We do not worship the Bible, as we’re often accused of, but the God Whose Word is sufficiently contained in the Bible. This is what the discussion is all about from the non-Mormon perspective.

Those not Mormon have been challenged (we’ve taken up that challenge):

THE DIVINE MISSION OF JOSEPH SMITH

CHURCH STANDS OR FALLS WITH JOSEPH SMITH.

Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an imposter cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures. (Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.188, 1954 edition)

We are concerned in light of the above and following admonition (not in a condescending way but in a genuine concern for people in their relationship to God and each other):

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. (1 Peter 3:15-16)

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:14-16)

Those that don’t agree (myself included) are giving what we believe are valid Biblical reasons why Mormonism is not justifiable doctrinally speaking (in that it has a false founding purported to be of God which leads to unbiblical teaching), as the faith was “delivered unto to the saints” of the first century and passed on by “faithful men” (Polycarp being an example, reportedly a disciple of John the apostle), “who can teach others”:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3)

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

Here is some of what Ignatius wrote:

...to Polycarp, bishop of the Smyrnaeans…So approving am I of your godly mind, which is as it were, grounded upon an unmovable rock, that my praise exceeds all bounds…Do not let those who appear to be trustworthy yet who teach strange doctrines baffle you. Stand firm, like an anvil…Grace will be…always…with Polycarp (Ignatius. Letter to Polycarp. In Holmes M.W. The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations. Baker Books, Grand Rapids (MI), 2004, p. 194-201).

Irenaeus records this about Polycarp:

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4). (Polycarp of Smyrna: The Heretic Fighter, online)

In the Martyrdom, Polycarp is recorded as saying on the day of his death, "Eighty and six years I have served him," which could indicate that he was then eighty-six years old or that he may have lived eighty-six years after his conversion. Polycarp goes on to say, "How then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour? Bring forth what thou wilt." Polycarp was burned at the stake for refusing to burn incense to the Roman Emperor (Date of martyrdom, Wikipedia)

A past Mormon General Authority Milton R. Hunter in his book, “The Gospel Through The Ages,” had this to say concerning the Bible (additional comments by others):

In fact, the New Testament contains. . .teachings. . .of. . .the Man of Galilee. This book, therefore will be our standard of judgment or the norm by which we measure the Gospel truths of all the dispensations. (p.91)

We appeal to the Bible to prove. . .truths received through the restoration. . .are in accord with its teachings. (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, p.1)

Take up the Bible, compare the religion of the Latter-day Saints with it, and see if it will stand the test. (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 16:46)

It is a common Mormon talking point that where the term Christian is Biblically used it is not “defined”. It is at this point where I see that Mormonism is trying to shoehorn itself into the definition.

It has never been a charge of mine that individual Mormons cannot be Christian (if they meet the standard which is the Bible). My point has always been that the system of belief which came through Joseph Smith (which Mormons are always defending which is the why of the length of this thread and others dealing with this issue) is not Christian but what the Bible warned about, the coming of false prophets in Jesus’ name.

[Vance]

I would agree that determining who is a Christian to the satisfaction of everyone (will probably never happen this side of eternity) is often debated, but that doesn’t mean one can’t come to a proper conclusion (Biblically speaking) even though some will disagree.

That is statement doesn't make a lot of sense.

The Bible I see is clear enough in the context of doctrine as is sufficient for salvation but there are those who insist on the Bible not being sufficient (by either adding to or taking away from what is there already):

If any thing, this thread has proven this statement to be in error.

The rub of the whole thing is the reason behind the question of the thread concerning the definition of the term, “Christian”. On the surface it can appear that Mormonism could be a valid application of the term based on the terminology used but in the end it doesn’t measure up to the standard of the Old/New Testament.

Actually, it does. It is just 21st Century American Protestant Evangelicals can't see the whole picture. Blinders impede them.

We do not worship the Bible, as we’re often accused of, but the God Whose Word is sufficiently contained in the Bible.

As stated above. This thread is proof of the falseness of that statement.

Those that don’t agree (myself included) are giving what we believe are valid Biblical reasons why Mormonism is not justifiable doctrinally speaking (in that it has a false founding purported to be of God which leads to unbiblical teaching), as the faith was “delivered unto to the saints” of the first century and passed on by “faithful men” (Polycarp being an example, reportedly a disciple of John the apostle), “who can teach others”:

You mean like saying the Thief went to heaven, even though the Bible is clear that he didn't?

Or like saying God is "immaterial" even though there is nothing in the Bible that shows that?

Or that Angels are different ontologically from men, even though the Bible clearly calls John the Baptist an angel?

It is a common Mormon talking point that where the term Christian is Biblically used it is not “defined”. It is at this point where I see that Mormonism is trying to shoehorn itself into the definition.

Nah, if anything, this thread has shown that it is 21st Century American Protestant Evangelicals that are trying to "shoehorn" Latter-Day Saints OUT of Christianity.

My point has always been that the system of belief which came through Joseph Smith (which Mormons are always defending which is the why of the length of this thread and others dealing with this issue) is not Christian but what the Bible warned about, the coming of false prophets in Jesus’ name.

And you have ALWAYS BEEN WRONG!

Nothing new here.

[bluebell]

I would agree that determining who is a Christian to the satisfaction of everyone (will probably never happen this side of eternity) is often debated, but that doesn’t mean one can’t come to a proper conclusion (Biblically speaking) even though some will disagree.

That's true.

Many hear have come to the proper conclusion (bibically speaking) about what a Christian is, but some, such as yourself, continue to disagree.

Edited-just realized i put 'mormon' instead of 'Christian'. It's been a long day.

Edited August 20, 2012 by bluebell

[Glenn101]

I have not read through all of the posts in this rather extended thread, but Jesus himself defined who his true disciples were, or how they could be recognized. Firstly, the phrase denoting the origins of the word: "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26)

Now, here is the way Jesus defines who a true disciple is: "34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:34-35)

With that definition, there are many LDS who are Christians, and maybe some who are not. There are many Catholics. Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. who are Christians and maybe some who are not. Having love one for another is the key that Jesus gave us as to how to recognize who His true disciples really are. No man has the right to alter that definition, unless by revelation. I have not heard of that happening.

Glenn

[CV75]

"34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:34-35)

I think that is a great description of disciples of Christ (first called Christians in Antioch). Here is a description of a Christian who is becoming perfect:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5: 43-48)