What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[djholmess]

Yes, a bishop comes to know the will of God the same way a prophet does, and the same way the rest of us do: by revelation. And yes, a bishop can (and does) receive revelation from God on how to lead the ward they preside over.

So do Bishops stand up and say, 'thus saith the Lord...' and give new doctrinal revelations from God in the same way an OT prophet would and in the same way JS did?

[altersteve]

So do Bishops stand up and say, 'thus saith the Lord...' and give new doctrinal revelations from God in the same way an OT prophet would and in the same way JS did?

I never said they give new doctrine. I said they receive revelation on how to lead their ward, just as Thomas S. Monson receives revelation on how to lead the Church.

[ERayR]

So do Bishops stand up and say, 'thus saith the Lord...' and give new doctrinal revelations from God in the same way an OT prophet would and in the same way JS did?

So you think that being a prophet requires on to expound new doctrine? You have just eliminated all the biblical prophets except Adam.

[djholmess]

I never said they give new doctrine. I said they receive revelation on how to lead their ward, just as Thomas S. Monson receives revelation on how to lead the Church.

So then one difference between a prophet and a bishop is that a prophet can receieve new doctrineine while a Bishop can't - would that be true?

From http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/prophet?lang=eng

A person who has been called by and speaks for God. As a messenger of God, a prophet receives commandments, prophecies, and revelations from God. His responsibility is to make known God’s will and true character to mankind and to show the meaning of his dealings with them. A prophet denounces sin and foretells its consequences. He is a preacher of righteousness. On occasion, prophets may be inspired to foretell the future for the benefit of mankind.

and http://www.lds.org/topics/bishop?lang=eng

A man who has been ordained and set apart as the presiding high priest for a ward, or congregation. He has overall responsibility for ministering the temporal and spiritual affairs of the congregation.

It seems to me that there are is quite a difference between someone who has responsibility for ministering to a congregation and someone who speaks for God, receiving commandments, prophecies and revelations.

All I was saying a number of posts ago was that evangelicals also make such distinctions. Elders/Pastors of churches do not claim to receive commandments, prophecies and revelations from God, rather they seek to explain, teach and apply revelations that God has already given through the prophets and apostles.

So it seems to me if someone was not claiming to have received a new commandment, prophecy or revelation from God, but was explaining a previous revelation falsely they would fall under the biblical category of a false teacher.

But if someone was claiming to be able to do the things that make a prophet a prophet (receive commandments, prophecies and revelations) and yet he turned out to be false then he would class as a false prophet.

I don't understand why there is so much opposition to the definition of a prophet.

[Vance]

I guess I mistakenly thought we would at least share a somewhat similar defination of what a prophet is compared to a teacher.

You are just trying to come up with a definition that you exclude everybody on your side from being a "prophet". So you have to keep moving the goal posts.

As I said above, but to be clear, my understanding of a prophet is someone who claims to brings new and direct revelation from God.

Another move of the goal posts. The problem with this move is that it now does not include all of those that should be considered prophets, either true or false.

So we see such statements as 'Thus saith the Lord...' on the lip of OT prophets who then go on to give a message that they have recieved directly from God. Similarily JS regularily claimed to be speaking direct revelations given to his by Jesus e.g. D&C 84:1 'A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith....'

See above.

There is no question that Joseph Smith was a prophet. This is just a red herring.

I have visited a number of different evangelical church/denominations and have many friends from different denominations and I have never heard of a pastor/minister claiming to have new revelation from God.

So? That doesn't exclude them from being a false prophet.

Pastors/teachers are rather men who are called to teach and explain the scriptures to their churches.

Sorry, taking upon themselves the mantle of authority is a characteristic of a false prophet.

They do not seek to teach new revelation but rather explain the revelation that God has already given.

And if they haven't received a revelation from God on what the Bible actually means then they are false prophets for claiming to "know" the truth when in fact it hasn't been revealed to them. Thus they are false prophets.

If the above is not similar to how LDS see the the functional difference between prophets compared to people who teach/lead local gatherings e.g. a ward Bishop?

??????????

[zerinus]

I guess I mistakenly thought we would at least share a somewhat similar defination of what a prophet is compared to a teacher. As I said above, but to be clear, my understanding of a prophet is someone who claims to brings new and direct revelation from God. So we see such statements as 'Thus saith the Lord...' on the lip of OT prophets who then go on to give a message that they have recieved directly from God. Similarily JS regularily claimed to be speaking direct revelations given to his by Jesus e.g. D&C 84:1 'A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith....'

That is not accurate. A prophet declares to the people what God wants them to hear, and does so by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. He does not always have to say “thus saith the Lord” etc. The Bible does not always make a distinction between a teacher and a prophet:

John 3:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Acts 13:

1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

And interestingly, neither does the Book of Mormon, e.g.:

Mosiah 18:

26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the agrace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the bknowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.

There is a difference between teaching what is in the Bible academically, and doing so ecclesiastically. The way a college teacher teaches what is in the Bible, and the way a pastor does are different. The pastor pretends to declare authoritatively the will of God. He declares that if you do this and that you will be saved; or if you don't do one thing or another you will be damned. That is acting the role of a prophet, not an academic or scholar.

I have visited a number of different evangelical church/denominations and have many friends from different denominations and I have never heard of a pastor/minister claiming to have new revelation from God. Pastors/teachers are rather men who are called to teach and explain the scriptures to their churches. They do not seek to teach new revelation but rather explain the revelation that God has already given.

“Called” by whom? Unless they are called of God, they have no authority to make those declarations. See explanation given above.

If the above is not similar to how LDS see the the functional difference between prophets compared to people who teach/lead local gatherings e.g. a ward Bishop?

The difference between the bishop and the Prophet is one of jurisdiction and keys of priesthood authority, not between having authority from God, and not having any authority at all. Bishops, priests, teachers, and elders in the LDS Church have been called with a holy calling, and given priesthood keys and authority declare the word of the Lord by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. They are prophets in their own right; and if they live up to their privileges, they can declare the word of God with power and authority from God (as one having authority), as taught in Mosiah 18:26. They do what the Evangelical pastor does, or pretends to do; except that they do so with a divine calling and appointment, by the spirit of prophecy and revelation, which the pastor doesn't.

Edited August 21, 2012 by zerinus

[Dogmatic]

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?

Do those people in turn follow the teachings of Christ as they find them in the Bible? Christ said "Come, Follow Me". Do you believe that every soul that has and will live is required to understand scripture in precisely the way you understand it in order to be a Christian or to be a disciple of Christ? If so, I would say that you are even more guilty of misunderstanding than the "heathen" that you attempted to describe above.

The Gospel of Christ is SIMPLE. It is not a complicated construct meant to confound and confuse. Those who make it so are literally working against the Gospel itself.

Do you imagine Christ in the judgement seat equivocating over cultural and historic misunderstandings and then condemning those who could not read or did not have access to the scriptures yet had heard of Christ and believe and considered themselves a Christian and attempted to live their lives according to their understanding?

[Dogmatic]

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.

I am not doubting that you believe them. However, are you now claiming that you have found and determined all these things individually and independently of all of the justification texts and without having creedal trinity taught and explained to you? That you figured all this out on your own and then found out that over time it has been called the trinity?

Or is it a concept that you were taught (creedal) and have now been taught and have studied the justification texts enough that you believe in it?

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' date=' 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.

[/quote']

I'm pretty sure nobody is questioning that Jesus is the God of the OT.

Regarding the eunuch' date=' 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.

[/quote']

Do you even understand what faith is? Because according to how you just defined it, faith is doing that which you can prove - which is literally NOT faith.

If I tell you that I have faith that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God yet you believe that he is a false prophet, you believe that you are the judge of my faith? What you think, what you believe you have discovered in the Bible, however entitled you feel by your 'knowledge' in no way gives you any power, authority, right, claim, or qualification to tell ME or anyone else HOW THEY HAVE TO BELIEVE, to judge whether their faith is real or to determine for them their salvation. What you are stating is patently AGAINST the Gospel and AGAINST Christ. Perhaps it would serve you to take a macro look at the Gospel and the Bible instead of such a scrutinizing and microscopic view so you are able to see the broader truths of it.

The Gospel is SIMPLE. It is not a complicated and twisted construct that one must become a scholar of in order to understand it or to know how to apply the teachings in it.

About Gods nature as one God yet a plurality of persons-Father' date=' 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?

[/quote']

I never forced anything on God, I take Him at His word. It is you and others however who have determined to defy the simple logic presented and to twist it via literary justification into such a complex web that it takes pages and pages to document it, extensive study to even comprehend it and then - it still doesn't make sense and must be explained via allegory. All this is accomplished to justify the egoist and allow them to isolate all others in an attempt to claim Christianity for their own. All of which is decidedly un-Christian.

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' date=' 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.

[/qoute']

All of those things are very clearly revealed. They do not require conjecture and scholastic mastery. They are all available in the Book of Mormon and other scriptures as you are well aware. That you deny them is of no matter to me or others. Because the BOM denies nothing of the Bible and expands and clarifies on its teachings, LDS members do not need them to be clarified in the Bible though having faith in those teachings does clarify many of the things in the Bible which are unclear without that knowledge.

I really don't care whether you believe the further teachings of the gospel or not. This discussion has nothing to do with them and by my understanding, there is a gentlemen's agreement to not use all of our scripture to interpret the Bible. If you want to be accommodated, do not introduce things that require the striking of the accommodation for the things being discussed here can be easily demonstrated in our texts. We are accepting limiting our knowledge and information to accommodate your denial of it. It is very poor form to then begin to beat us about the head with the handicap we have accommodated you with.

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

I don't believe that at all.

I testify that God has clearly revealed it and has provided us all with it. He has confirmed this to me through the Spirit. I don't require you to agree with my Faith and I have not challenged your Faith.

What is at question here because you introduced it, is the logic and logical fallacies involved in the trinity doctrine. I have no seen you claim Faith by confirmation of the spirit in it. I have only seen you claim it based on reading and conclusions. Disagreeing on a construct you find in words is quite different that disparaging the Faith and Belief one has based on spiritual experience.

This entire thread is discussing what the term "Christian" means. The first several pages define it by the words of Christ, therefore it should not be an issue. However, not being willing to accept those who profess a belief in Christ, evangelicals and some others wish to usurp Christ's own definition and re-create it for their own claiming that one cannot follow Christ unless they accept a convoluted construct of man's making which completely redefines the nature of Christ.

Acceptance or denial of the trinity DOES NOT make one a Christian. Accepting Christ and his teachings as presented in scripture, following His teachings and doing all you can to live those teachings is what being a Christian is.

What are those called who attempt to deny others the light of Christ? Do you even realize what you're doing when you deign to tell me that I'm not a Christian even when He is the center-point of my life? You'll tell yourself that you're "saving me from corruption" but you have no authority to do so.

I claim Christ in my heart. I defy you to claim otherwise. Yet I happily allow you to claim Christ through your trinitarian construct. Whether you accept the trinity or not has absolutely no bearing on how you serve Christ, how you follow His teachings or how "Christian" you are.

I accept anyone who claims to follow Christ as they understand Him and His gospel even if it looks foreign to me. All Christians accept and follow Christ according to their understanding. It is Christ who will judge their heart, not you and not me.

[CASteinman]

There is no checklist about how this calling is recieved/confirmed but generally there are three things that should be met;

1) The man should apsire to be an elder/pastor. So it should be something he feels God is leading him towards and something God has gifed him to be able to do. Discerning both of these is typically done within the context of a local congregation - e.g others who know the man can encourage him that he has been giifted with gifts relating to teaching/wisdom/leadership (or discourage).

2) The man meets the qualifications set out by the NT for elders.

3) The man is approved and appointed as an elder by the other elders over the congregation.

This appears to be an extra-biblical list.

[Rob Bowman]

Dogmatic,

You wrote:

Do those people in turn follow the teachings of Christ as they find them in the Bible? Christ said "Come, Follow Me". Do you believe that every soul that has and will live is required to understand scripture in precisely the way you understand it in order to be a Christian or to be a disciple of Christ? If so, I would say that you are even more guilty of misunderstanding than the "heathen" that you attempted to describe above.

The Gospel of Christ is SIMPLE. It is not a complicated construct meant to confound and confuse. Those who make it so are literally working against the Gospel itself.

Do you imagine Christ in the judgement seat equivocating over cultural and historic misunderstandings and then condemning those who could not read or did not have access to the scriptures yet had heard of Christ and believe and considered themselves a Christian and attempted to live their lives according to their understanding?

It would help me understand your complaint here more if I knew what your own beliefs were. I apologize, but I don't recall previous exchanges with you and don't know if you are LDS or not. From the tone of your remarks I'm guessing that you are LDS, but if that is not the case my response to you may not be entirely on point.

In my comments to which you were taking such strong exception, I was responding to two Mormons who asserted that to be a Christian a person must believe that Jesus is the Son of God. What I wanted to know from them is if in their view this requirement is about some real content or idea, or if it is just about agreeing to the words "Son of God." I am not arguing that someone's theology or understanding of Scripture must agree precisely with mine on every fine point in order for that person to be a Christian. I am not even arguing in support of the definition the two Mormons proposed. I am simply trying to understand what they really mean by their proposed definition. This leads me to ask you if you agree or disagree with their definition. Can people be identified as "Christians" regardless of what they believe, or are there certain beliefs they must hold in order to be Christians? If so, is Jesus being the Son of God one of those beliefs, and if so what if anything must they understand by that title? These are legitimate questions about their definition. I'm not at all making anything more complicated than it already is. Instead I'm trying to understand what exactly they mean by what they say.

I don't understand your reference to my supposed description of the "heathen." I didn't use that word and have not said anything about people that might properly be described using that term.

The gospel of Christ is indeed simple, but the person of Christ is not a simple subject to understand. What one commentator said about the Gospel of John is applicable to the broader topic here: it is shallow enough for the beginner to wade in it safely, and deep enough for the most experienced swimmer to dive into it and never plumb the depths. Attempts to make Christian theology "simple" typically end up oversimplifying it and denying biblical truths.

Finally, the issue of who is or is not a Christian is not necessarily identical with who is or is not going to be saved. Again, it all depends on how one defines the term Christian. I do not think we will need to pass a theology exam in order to be granted entrance into the eternal kingdom of God. On the other hand, adhering to false doctrine on essential matters of who and what God is, what Jesus Christ has done for us, and how God expects us to respond can be and usually is symptomatic of something gone wrong or something amiss in a person's relationship with God.

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

It would help if you were a little more transparent in your motives. It is some times hard to tell especially for those of us who have failed at clairvoyance.

What? I have been very transparent about my intentions and motivations. Unlike you and most of the participants here, I use my real name; I have been candid about my occupation and research, and have more than once explained my motives for what I do. No, the problem is not that you can't tell what my motives are; the problem is that you will not accept that I am telling you the truth when I explain what my motives are.

In any case, individual motives are not supposed to be the issue here. We are supposed to be discussing issues, not personalities.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[zerinus]

Dogmatic,

You wrote:

It would help me understand your complaint here more if I knew what your own beliefs were. I apologize, but I don't recall previous exchanges with you and don't know if you are LDS or not. From the tone of your remarks I'm guessing that you are LDS, but if that is not the case my response to you may not be entirely on point.

In my comments to which you were taking such strong exception, I was responding to two Mormons who asserted that to be a Christian a person must believe that Jesus is the Son of God. What I wanted to know from them is if in their view this requirement is about some real content or idea, or if it is just about agreeing to the words "Son of God." I am not arguing that someone's theology or understanding of Scripture must agree precisely with mine on every fine point in order for that person to be a Christian. I am not even arguing in support of the definition the two Mormons proposed. I am simply trying to understand what they really mean by their proposed definition. This leads me to ask you if you agree or disagree with their definition. Can people be identified as "Christians" regardless of what they believe, or are there certain beliefs they must hold in order to be Christians? If so, is Jesus being the Son of God one of those beliefs, and if so what if anything must they understand by that title? These are legitimate questions about their definition. I'm not at all making anything more complicated than it already is. Instead I'm trying to understand what exactly they mean by what they say.

I don't understand your reference to my supposed description of the "heathen." I didn't use that word and have not said anything about people that might properly be described using that term.

The gospel of Christ is indeed simple, but the person of Christ is not a simple subject to understand. What one commentator said about the Gospel of John is applicable to the broader topic here: it is shallow enough for the beginner to wade in it safely, and deep enough for the most experienced swimmer to dive into it and never plumb the depths. Attempts to make Christian theology "simple" typically end up oversimplifying it and denying biblical truths.

Finally, the issue of who is or is not a Christian is not necessarily identical with who is or is not going to be saved. Again, it all depends on how one defines the term Christian. I do not think we will need to pass a theology exam in order to be granted entrance into the eternal kingdom of God. On the other hand, adhering to false doctrine on essential matters of who and what God is, what Jesus Christ has done for us, and how God expects us to respond can be and usually is symptomatic of something gone wrong or something amiss in a person's relationship with God.

In biblical terms, the simplest and most basic beliefs in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, provided it is accompanied with a commitment live by His precepts and keep His commandments. That was the key ingredient.

Romans 10:

8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 14:

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

. . .

15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

Acts 2:

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The only declaration of belief that was required of the Jews was that Jesus was “the Christ”—i.e. The promised Messiah of the Old Testament, according to the prophecies of Moses (Deuteronomy 18:1; Acts 3:22—24; 7:37). No elaborate theology was required. Christ is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah. To believe that Jesus was “the Christ” meant to believe that He was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. The most essential requirement of discipleship was obedience to the commandments of the Master (and of His authorized servants, the Apostles). That was the key requirement, both during Jesus' lifetime as well as afterwards. “why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Jesus laments in one place (Luke 6:46); and in another place He declares:

Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

In biblical terms, the simplest and most basic beliefs in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, provided it is accompanied with a commitment live by His precepts and keep His commandments. That was the key ingredient.

Okay. Can someone do this in a traditional Christian church rather than in the LDS Church?

[altersteve]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Okay. Can someone do this in a traditional Christian church rather than in the LDS Church?

If you're asking if a non-LDS Christian can be saved, then yes.

[zerinus]

Okay. Can someone do this in a traditional Christian church rather than in the LDS Church?

Yes, they can:

D&C 137:

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

We are not judges of who will be saved and who will not; God is. We don't know what is in people's hearts, God does. We declare the word of the Lord; we don't determine who goes to heaven and who doesn't. There may be all kinds of reasons why someone may not join the LDS Church in their lifetime; but who may be potential heirs of the celestial kingdom. They may never hear of it. They may hear, but not receive a spritual witness, for various reasons. They may have been inculcated with prejudices which may be hard to get rid of. But God acknowledges all true believers in Him as part of His broader (spiritual) church, who are indeed heirs of salvation:

D&C 10:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the enter.

God acknowledges all true believers in Him as part of His Church. If somebody doesn't join the LDS Church, we don't judge them, God does. If He decides that they had a valid reason or excuse, their salvation is not affected, otherwise it might be. Knowing what I know, I wouldn't like to take any chances though!

Edited August 22, 2012 by zerinus

[Storm Rider]

Okay. Can someone do this in a traditional Christian church rather than in the LDS Church?

Rob, you know the teachings of the LDS Church; why would you think they could not?

[Vance]

It would help me understand your complaint here more if I knew what your own beliefs were.

Translation: I avoid addressing fatal flaws in my own theology, so what do you believe so I can attack it for diversionary purposes.

[Vance]

Which false prophets are you talking about. Luther, Calvin, John Knox, John Wesley? or the founders of the 30,000 some other Christian denominations?

Well, according to dj's latest definition, Luther and Calvin definitely qualify as false prophets. Both of them fabricated "new" doctrine that they attempted to retroject into the Bible.

Luther fabricated the priesthood of believers, and Calvin fabricated the TULIP.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Translation: I avoid addressing fatal flaws in my own theology, so what do you believe so I can attack it for diversionary purposes.

Your "translation" of what I said appears to correspond to my meaning about as well as the Book of Abraham corresponds to the Hor Book of Breathings.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

zerinus had written:

In biblical terms, the simplest and most basic beliefs in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation, provided it is accompanied with a commitment live by His precepts and keep His commandments. That was the key ingredient.

I asked him:

"Okay. Can someone do this in a traditional Christian church rather than in the LDS Church?"

You commented:

If you're asking if a non-LDS Christian can be saved, then yes.

In another post you asked:

Rob, you know the teachings of the LDS Church; why would you think they could not?

The answer is simple. The LDS Church claims that through it alone Christ's precepts and commandments have been restored and are being faithfully kept. Do you deny that this is the LDS Church's claim? For example, the LDS Church claims that one cannot be validly baptized except in the LDS Church; baptisms performed in a Baptist or Assemblies of God or Presbyterian or Orthodox or Methodist church are not valid. The LDS Church claims that one cannot receive the gift of the Holy Ghost apart from the laying on of hands by someone holding the LDS priesthood authority. These claims are basic to the LDS religion.

[altersteve]

The LDS Church claims that through it alone Christ's precepts and commandments have been restored and are being faithfully kept. Do you deny that this is the LDS Church's claim?

First of all, I didn't ask that question, Storm Rider did. And second, yes I deny that this is the claim of the Church. Christians throughout the world faithfully keep Christ's precepts and commandments of faith, hope, and charity, not just Latter-day Saints. It is the ordinances of the gospel that were restored by and offered solely through the Church, not Jesus' commandments.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I asked if someone can believe in Christ and live by his precepts and commandments in a traditional Christian church. You replied:

Yes, they can:

D&C 137:

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

This isn't really relevant. What it really amounts to saying is that people who don't meet the requirements in this life through no fault of their own will be given a chance to meet them in the afterlife (with the physical ritual obligations met by proxy). It doesn't mean that people can meet the requirements in this life in a traditional Christian church context. For example, according to Mormonism one cannot obey Christ's command to be baptized in a Baptist or Lutheran or Pentecostal church.

You wrote:

We are not judges of who will be saved and who will not; God is. We don't know what is in people's hearts, God does. We declare the word of the Lord; we don't determine who goes to heaven and who doesn't.

I could and do say the same things, but again, this isn't relevant to my question. I am not asking you to judge who will be saved. You set forth what you claimed were the conditions for salvation. I am asking if these can be met in a traditional Christian church. According to LDS doctrine, I think it is clearly the case that the answer must be no.

You wrote:

There may be all kinds of reasons why someone may not join the LDS Church in their lifetime; but who may be potential heirs of the celestial kingdom. They may never hear of it. They may hear, but not receive a spritual witness, for various reasons. They may have been inculcated with prejudices which may be hard to get rid of.

Again, none of this is relevant. I realize that Mormon theology creates all sorts of loopholes to support the hypothetical possibility of almost anyone making it to the celestial kingdom. The question remains whether the conditions you specified as the normal conditions for making it to the celestial kingdom can be met in a traditional Christian church.

You wrote:

But God acknowledges all true believers in Him as part of His broader (spiritual) church, who are indeed heirs of salvation:

D&C 10:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the enter.

God acknowledges all true believers in Him as part of His Church. If somebody doesn't join the LDS Church, we don't judge them, God does. If He decides that they had a valid reason or excuse, their salvation is not affected, otherwise it might be. Knowing what I know, I wouldn't like to take any chances though!

I'd be interested to know if other Mormons here agree with your reading of D&C 10. I don't think your reading is correct. D&C 10 was delivered before the LDS Church was founded in 1830. From the LDS perspective, I would think it would be understood as saying that there were people living then who belonged to his church and would show this by affiliating with it when the time came. It is also possible that in 1828 Joseph Smith had not yet envisioned a formal church institution with priesthood orders and ordinances that could only be found in that one institution. In any case, I don't see any statement in this passage indicating that Christians who choose not to become LDS are still going to be saved into the celestial kingdom (a distinction that again Joseph had not yet introduced).

One more time, I'm not asking if LDS theology allows for various reasons or excuses that would allow many non-Mormons to make it. I'm asking if the normal conditions of salvation that you specified can be met in a traditional Christian church -- through its teachings, ordinances, evangelism, worship, fellowship, discipleship, and so forth.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

First of all, I didn't ask that question, Storm Rider did.

Oops, my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

You wrote:

And second, yes I deny that this is the claim of the Church. Christians throughout the world faithfully keep Christ's precepts and commandments of faith, hope, and charity, not just Latter-day Saints. It is the ordinances of the gospel that were restored by and offered solely through the Church, not Jesus' commandments.

I believe it is quite clear that in LDS doctrine baptism is commanded. For example:

“Upon the same principle do I contend that baptism is a sign ordained of God, for the believer in Christ to take upon himself in order to enter into the kingdom of God, ‘for except ye are born of water and of the Spirit ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God,’ said the Savior [see John 3:5]. It is a sign and a commandment which God has set for man to enter into His kingdom. Those who seek to enter in any other way will seek in vain; for God will not receive them, neither will the angels acknowledge their works as accepted, for they have not obeyed the ordinances, nor attended to the signs which God ordained for the salvation of man, to prepare him for, and give him a title to, a celestial glory; and God has decreed that all who will not obey His voice shall not escape the damnation of hell. What is the damnation of hell? To go with that society who have not obeyed His commands.

“Baptism is a sign to God, to angels, and to heaven that we do the will of God, and there is no other way beneath the heavens whereby God hath ordained for man to come to Him to be saved, and enter into the kingdom of God, except faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins, and any other course is in vain; then you have the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 4:554–55, quoted in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), chapter 7.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe it is quite clear that in LDS doctrine baptism is commanded. For example:

To enter the Celestial Kingdom it is a requirement. However, there are some examples were a person need not be baptized.

Such as little children that die before they are 8 and in instances were they would have accepted the gospel had they had the chance. But as I understand it that is why we do baptisms for the dead. Carry on.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Your "translation" of what I said appears to correspond to my meaning about as well as the Book of Abraham corresponds to the Hor Book of Breathings.

Oh, bless your heart.