What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Glenn101]

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)

Who is going to argue with the Master (Jesus) himself???? Not me.

Glenn

Edited August 20, 2012 by Glenn101

[volgadon]

Coolrok, why the ellipsis in the Milton R. Hunter quote?

[KevinG]

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

Pick whatever interpretation will make the discussion interesting.

(However I was building on your point that we are not in a position to judge others worthiness or the depth of their Christianity.)

[Rob Bowman]

harfad,

No one denies that if a person "thinks he is a Christian, and says that he is a Christian, then in his own mind he must qualify for that definition." All that amounts to saying is that if someone thinks he is a Christian then he thinks he is a Christian. Such an observation does not illuminate the issue one bit.

Like you, I respect the right of people to identify themselves in any way they choose. Likewise, I think all people have the right to express their convictions as to whether certain beliefs are compatible with their self-identification. Sunni Muslims have every right to say that a certain sect is not a legitimate form of Islam. Members of the LDS Church have every right to say that specific groups that don't share the LDS Church's views should not be called Mormons. The point is that people disagree about these things and have the right to express their differing opinions and to try to persuade others of those opinions.

[Rob Bowman]

Glenn,

You wrote:

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.

What Jesus said is obviously true and extremely important for all of us to take seriously. However, Jesus was not offering a definition of the term disciple. He was stating how others would know that the people professing to follow Jesus were truly his disciples. Those who were faithful disciples of Jesus would be known, or recognized, as Jesus' disciples by the fact that they loved one another just as Jesus loved them. Love is evidence that a person is Christ's disciple.

Also, we shouldn't understand Jesus' statement here to mean that love is the only criterion or characteristic that distinguishes genuine disciples from others. After all, Jesus also warned about false prophets who would claim to speak and act in his name (Matt. 7:21-23). This means that individuals who issue false revelations in the name of Jesus thereby prove that they are not really his disciples.

[Glenn101]

Also, we shouldn't understand Jesus' statement here to mean that love is the only criterion or characteristic that distinguishes genuine disciples from others. After all, Jesus also warned about false prophets who would claim to speak and act in his name (Matt. 7:21-23). This means that individuals who issue false revelations in the name of Jesus thereby prove that they are not really his disciples.

I would not argue the point about false prophets speaking in the name of Jesus being false disciples also. However, we are not talking about that. We are talking about people who are striving to follow the Christ. The test for that is very clear and is not one that any one religion that claims to be followers of Christ have the right to add to or subtract from.

Glenn

[Rob Bowman]

Glenn,

You wrote:

I would not argue the point about false prophets speaking in the name of Jesus being false disciples also. However, we are not talking about that. We are talking about people who are striving to follow the Christ. The test for that is very clear and is not one that any one religion that claims to be followers of Christ have the right to add to or subtract from.

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. What about people who are following false prophets and who mistakenly think that by doing so they are striving to follow Christ?

[Vance]

Glenn,

You wrote:

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. What about people who are following false prophets and who mistakenly think that by doing so they are striving to follow Christ?

The warning about false prophets is significant because it implies the existence of true prophets.

That begs the question, What about people who are following true prophets that other people mistakenly think are false prophets?

Edited August 20, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

The warning about false prophets is significant because it implies the existence of true prophets.

Of course there are true prophets. However, there are not true prophets in every generation. Even from the LDS perspective, there were no prophets to lead the church from the second through the eighteenth centuries.

That begs the question, What about people who are following true prophets that other people mistakenly think are false prophets?

Well, of course, people who are following true prophets are doing the right thing, and people who mistakenly view those true prophets as false prophets are in error. Likewise, people who are following false prophets are in error, and people who correctly view those false prophets as false prophets are doing the right thing.

[Tacenda]

What are the signs of a true prophet since I'm already aware of the signs of a false prophet?

[coolrok7]

(Volgadon)

Coolrok, why the ellipsis in the Milton R. Hunter quote?

I can guarantee you that it is nothing sinister (it never is). Here is the context which is why I always try to give the address for what I quote (I was illustrating the point I was making which is a General Authority making a point I can agree with):

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)

In fact, the New Testament contains the glorious teachings and a brief account of the life 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.

[volgadon]

I can guarantee you that it is nothing sinister (it never is). Here is the context which is why I always try to give the address for what I quote (I was illustrating the point I was making which is a General Authority making a point I can agree with):

I have the book, which is why I was surprised that you dropped those words.

[harfad]

No one denies that if a person "thinks he is a Christian, and says that he is a Christian, then in his own mind he must qualify for that definition." All that amounts to saying is that if someone thinks he is a Christian then he thinks he is a Christian. Such an observation does not illuminate the issue one bit.

No, I am going further than that. I am saying that if he is self-identifying as a Christian, then in my book he is a Christian—unless he proves by his actions (fruits) that he is a hypocrite, and not a true disciple of Jesus Christ. I think you are playing with words here. You are trying to identify the word Christian with your particular brand of Christianity, whereas Christianity itself is a very broad “church” (small c), and you do not really have the right to define what it means (or should mean) to everyone else out there who wants to be called a Christian. The most you can do is to state what your particular brand of Christianity is, or what Christianity means to you, not what it should mean to everyone else. Christianity has become so broad and fractured that you cannot impose your definition of it on everybody else.

Like you, I respect the right of people to identify themselves in any way they choose. Likewise, I think all people have the right to express their convictions as to whether certain beliefs are compatible with their self-identification.

Not really. If their self-identity as a Christian is incompatible your self-identity (theologically), so be it. They have as much right to their self-identity as you do, for the reasons explained above. Trying to impose your particular self-identity theologically on everyone else can rightly be seen as a hostile act. The most you could do is to apply the criterion recommended by Jesus in the NT—to judge them by their “fruits”. If their fruits are good, that means that they are true disciples, otherwise they are not.

Sunni Muslims have every right to say that a certain sect is not a legitimate form of Islam. Members of the LDS Church have every right to say that specific groups that don't share the LDS Church's views should not be called Mormons. The point is that people disagree about these things and have the right to express their differing opinions and to try to persuade others of those opinions.

You are confusing a generic word like Christian, with a non-generic name like Mormon. The point is that when you mention the word Mormon, 99% of the time the rest of the world is going to think of the LDS Church, not FLDS or RLDS or something else. A lot of the time those people don't even want to be called “Mormon” for exactly the same reasons—they don't want to be confused with us. Therefore to identify those others as “Mormons” amounts to a deliberate act of deception and misrepresentation which neither side really wants. That is not true of the word Christian. When you mention the word Christian, nobody is going to think automatically that you are a Catholic, or Methodist, or Baptist etc. If they wanted to know they would have to ask. That is not true of the word Mormon.

As far as the Sunni Islam is concerned, I don't think that they would go so far as to deny Muslims of other sects the right to call themselves Muslims altogether. They may declare them heretics, or gone astray, etc., but they wouldn't say that they aren't Muslims at all. The forth century Christians didn't declare the Arians not to be Christians; they just considered them heretics or gone astray.

[harfad]

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. What about people who are following false prophets and who mistakenly think that by doing so they are striving to follow Christ?

In that case then you would first have to determne whether they are indeed following a false prophet or not; and that is also done in the same way, by examining their "fruits".

[djholmess]

What are the signs of a true prophet since I'm already aware of the signs of a false prophet?

I know this sounds simple but one sign of a true prophet is that they are not a false prophet.

What I mean is that we are given clear tests that would indicate if someone is a false prophet - for someone to be a true prophet they would have to not fail those tests.

For example;

In Deuteronomy 13:1-3 we read

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, ² and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ ³ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams.

A false prophet is someone who seeks to lead the people of God after a God/Gods who are not the God that revealed himself to the people of Israel. It would seem reasonable to assume therefore that a true prophet leads his followers towards the God that did reveal himself to Israel.

If you accept that the subsequent OT prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah etc) were true prophets and that the Apostles (Peter, John Paul etc) were true apostles who furthered the revelation God is making of himself. Then a true prophet would be someone who faithfully leads his followers after the God revealed in the Bible.

Based on this an interesting idea comes out; namely that a prophet/apostles authority in part rests on his faithfulness to previous revelation. This is something that is very apparent in the NT where we see writers such as the Apostle Paul (who had been commissioned by the resurrected Jesus) repeatedly quoting the OT to demonstrate that what he was saying was consistent with what had already been revealed. Notice as well how the Bereans are commended in Acts 17:11 for searching the scriptures to see if Pauls’ teachings really were of God.

In Deuteronomy 18:20-22 we read of another test

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ ²¹ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— ²² when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously

So again a false prophet is someone who speaks a prediction that does not come to pass. A true prophet must therefore be someone (when he speaks a prophecy in the name of the Lord) who’s predictions always come true.

[altersteve]

A false prophet is someone who seeks to lead the people of God after a God/Gods who are not the God that revealed himself to the people of Israel.

Joseph Smith never said, "Let us go after other gods." Deuteronomy 13:2 seems, to me, to be saying that if someone knowingly preaches a different God than the one taught in the Bible, then he is a false prophet. But Joseph Smith never did this. So he passes this test.

A true prophet must therefore be someone (when he speaks a prophecy in the name of the Lord) who’s predictions always come true.

He passes this test too. All of Joseph's prophecies came true, unless they were conditional and the conditions were met, in which case such prophecies were still, in a way, fulfilled.

Sorry, but God has given us a test for Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet: the Book of Mormon. Go ahead and prove that book to be false and then I'll believe you. But so far no one has been able to do that. So good luck.

Edited August 20, 2012 by altersteve

[Vance]

Well, of course, people who are following true prophets are doing the right thing, and people who mistakenly view those true prophets as false prophets are in error.

Yup!!! Even though those people are so convinced that the true prophets are false that they would NEVER EVER open up to the possibility that they are wrong.

It is also true, that there seems to be a pattern that the established orders (or orders as the case may be) reject the true prophets when they do arise.

Likewise, people who are following false prophets are in error, and people who correctly view those false prophets as false prophets are doing the right thing.

Not necessarily, both may be wrong but the false prophet may be more right than the detractors.

[Vance]

Could we consider someone who taught false doctrine that was inconsistent with the Bible to be a false prophet?

Someone, who, say for example, taught that the Thief went to heaven that first day with Jesus, when it is clear and obvious from the Bible that Jesus didn't go to heaven until three days later?

[djholmess]

Could we consider someone who taught false doctrine that was inconsistent with the Bible to be a false prophet?

Someone, who, say for example, taught that the Thief went to heaven that first day with Jesus, when it is clear and obvious from the Bible that Jesus didn't go to heaven until three days later?

Assuming you could prove such a statement was false, the person in question would have to claim to be a prophet in order to be classed as a false prophet surely?

[djholmess]

Not necessarily, both may be wrong but the false prophet may be more right than the detractors.

What are you trying to say by this? How can a false prophet (who is wrong if he is a false prophet) and someone who thinks the prophet is a false prophet (who would be right if he is a false prophet) both be wrong?

If we're talking about a true or false statement how can both be wrong. Surely a false prophet is either a false prophet or a true prophet?

[Vance]

What are you trying to say by this? How can a false prophet (who is wrong if he is a false prophet) and someone who thinks the prophet is a false prophet (who would be right if he is a false prophet) both be wrong?

Simple, anyone not authorized to speak for God but claims to do so could be considered a false prophet. So, multiple false prophets may exist at the same time, and all may accurately accuse the others of being false prophets. So, any accusations from the more false ones against the lesser false ones, would fit the scenario I proposed.

If we're talking about a true or false statement how can both be wrong. Surely a false prophet is either a false prophet or a true prophet?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a true prophet can't make mistakes. They are human, so yes, they make mistakes. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that a false prophet is 100% mistaken, which is another falsehood.

[Vance]

Assuming you could prove such a statement was false, the person in question would have to claim to be a prophet in order to be classed as a false prophet surely?

Can you show me where it is a requirement for a false prophet to claim to be a prophet?

[Somebodyz]

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...

cat playing in mud

[ERayR]

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.

OK I apologize. I was just going from past experience. I still would not agree with that definition. Take out must be a member of a church and I think we could agree. I do not think church membership is a prerequisite for being a Christian. If being a member of a church was required then, to me it would follow that one would have to have "the right" church. I think the true church( "right church") comes into play to be able to receive all the blessings God has waiting but not in being a Christian in the broadest sense.

Edited August 20, 2012 by ERayR

[ERayR]

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?

Rob, we all hold to some sort a false understanding of who Christ was and what it means to be a Christian. You, me and all the rest. If we didn't we would have attained perfection. That's why we study and come here to debate the merits of our own understandings. We are all somewhere between starting out and approaching near unto Christ. We are all to some extent taking our unique path along the road to Christ and redemption. All we should be doing is presenting our own view for the consideration of others. It is not our prerogative to try and block another's path but only to present a better one for them to choose.