What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Vance]

The answer is simple. The LDS Church claims that through it alone Christ's precepts and commandments have been restored . . .

True.

and are being faithfully kept.

By some, yes.

Do you deny that this is the LDS Church's claim?

See above.

For example, the LDS Church claims that one cannot be validly baptized except in the LDS Church;

True.

. . . baptisms performed in a Baptist or Assemblies of God or Presbyterian or Orthodox or Methodist church are not valid.

True.

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.

Not exactly, but we have had this discussion before and it didn't do any good then either.

The "Gift of the Holy Ghost" can only be given by the laying on of hands by one in authority, that is true. But one of the Holy Ghost's gift of a spiritual confirmation or witness of truth that the Holy Ghost may give to whomever He chooses has no such requirement.

Nice attempt to conflate the two though. You get an anti-Mormon +1 for your effort.

These claims are basic to the LDS religion.

See above.

But hey, what do a few falsehoods and strawmen amount to, right?

Edited August 22, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

I'm not avoiding that point. I'm simply making a preliminary point, at least for now, concerning what the text says.

Translation: I avoid addressing fatal flaws in my own theology, so here is a distraction so I can attack something Mormon for diversionary purposes.

A pattern is starting to become obvious.

[KevinG]

Translation: I avoid addressing fatal flaws in my own theology, so here is a distraction so I can attack something Mormon for diversionary purposes.

A pattern is starting to become obvious.

I take issue with your use of "starting".

It's been painfully obvious for some time.

[Vance]

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).

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you, as a supposed person of knowledge of things Mormon, are just now figuring that out?

I guess you have never studied D&C 138.

It doesn't mean that people can meet the requirements in this life in a traditional Christian church context.

Correct. They can't receive the proper baptism in a "traditional Christian church" IN THIS LIFE as you know.

For example, according to Mormonism one cannot obey Christ's command to be baptized in a Baptist or Lutheran or Pentecostal church.

See, you did know that.

You set forth what you claimed were the conditions for salvation.

Ok.

I am asking if these can be met in a traditional Christian church.

Not all of them. But since the true Church can and does prevail against the gates of the world of the dead and since it does provide for all of the requirements to be met for the dead, all is not lost.

I realize that Mormon theology creates all sorts of loopholes to support the hypothetical possibility of almost anyone making it to the celestial kingdom.

Yeah, we provide ALL the opportunity to hear about and accept Christ and meet the requirements for the highest heaven.

Whereas, Evangelicals just condemn all who have never heard of Christ to hell for eternity.

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.

Is this an example of your "Fallacy of the complex question"?

Edited August 22, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

I take issue with your use of "starting".

It's been painfully obvious for some time.

Well, I was trying to be soft and cuddly about it. But alas, you were not caught unaware.

[Gervin]

Whereas, Evangelicals just condemn all who have never heard of Christ to hell for eternity.

CFR

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Whereas, Evangelicals just condemn all who have never heard of Christ to hell for eternity.

This is not entirely true now. When I served my mission in the 90's that seemed to be the case or the thought.

[Vance]

This is not entirely true now. When I served my mission in the 90's that seemed to be the case or the thought.

So, they are changing now?

Well, when you compare their (older?) theology with ours, theirs is cold and heartless and obviously un-Christ like. I have fully expected them to slowly change to become more like us. I wouldn't be surprised, that in the end, there will be a Non-Mormon Christian church that will co-opt a lot more of our theology.

I mean, what are they going to change now that it is OBVIOUS that the Thief did NOT go to heaven. That is a major monkey wrench into their cheap salvation works.

[Vance]

CFR

http://voiceoftheshe...jecting-christ/

I have heard that those in the remotest parts of the earth who never had a chance to hear the gospel either get a chance to accept or reject Jesus after death, or they are accepted on their good heart apart from faith in Christ. The problem with the former view is that Scripture says it is appointed for a man to die once, then comes judgment, and the problem with the latter position is that Jesus Himself clearly stated that no one comes to the Father but through Him.

. . .

They are not without excuse because they have rejected the message of salvation through repentance from sin and faith in Jesus Christ, they are without excuse because what is evident of God in creation has condemned them.

Edited to add,

http://C***.org/questions/about-god/why-would-god-allow-sincere-heathen-go-hell

Why would God allow a sincere heathen to go to hell?

Sincerity is not what saves people. Only the sacrifice of Christ, and trusting in what he has done on the cross, can save a person from the righteous judgment of God. Galatians 2:21 says "If righteousness comes by the law, then Christ died needlessly." In other words, making us righteous before God is not by our effort, or sincerity. It's by the work of God himself in the person of Christ on the cross.

Also, appealing to sincerity is an appeal to what is in the person; that is, it is an appeal to some so-called good quality (sincerity) in someone. But this would mean that God was showing favoritism based upon what was in the person. God does not do this (Rom. 2:11). Besides, the Bible says that our hearts are desperately wicked and deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9) and that no one does good (Romans 3:12). So, sincerity can never be good enough to warrant forgiveness of sins. This is why everyone needs the gospel of Jesus.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Vance

[Gervin]

So you found a 2007 blog quoting someone named A.W. Pink as evidence that "Evangelicals just condemn all who have never heard of Christ to hell for eternity." In reality, you can name one evangelical. Your obsession (love?) of Bowman and all-things-traditional Christian appears to send you over the top, as in your alleged broadbrush of all Evangelicals.

Your second example says nothing of those who haven't heard of Christ, your definition of a sincere heathen notwithstanding.

[Vance]

So you found a 2007 blog quoting someone named A.W. Pink as evidence that "Evangelicals just condemn all who have never heard of Christ to hell for eternity." In reality, you can name one evangelical. Your obsession (love?) of Bowman and all-things-traditional Christian appears to send you over the top, as in your alleged broadbrush of all Evangelicals.

Your second example says nothing of those who haven't heard of Christ, your definition of a sincere heathen notwithstanding.

I add another link to the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Doesn't that sound official?

Edited to ask, are you really going to quibble over the definition of "heathen"?

heathen

1. A pagan; a Gentile; one who worships idols, or is unacquainted with the true God. In the Scriptures, the word seems to comprehend all nations except the Jews or Israelites, as they were all strangers to the true religion, and all addicted to idolatry. The word may now be applied perhaps to all nations, except to Christians and Mohammedans.

Is it the exclusion of "Mohammedans" that causes you grief?

Edited August 22, 2012 by Vance

[Gervin]

I add another link to the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Doesn't that sound official?

Read closer - I referenced it: "Your second example says nothing of those who haven't heard of Christ, your definition of a sincere heathen notwithstanding."

"Edited to ask, are you really going to quibble over the definition of "heathen"?"

Only if you try to make the claim that CARM speaks for all Evangelicals.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Gervin

[Vance]

Read closer - I referenced it: "Your second example says nothing of those who haven't heard of Christ, your definition of a sincere heathen notwithstanding."

I asked, "Doesn't that sound official?"

[Vance]

What this highlights is the FACT that the Bible is INSUFFICIENT to come to a unity of "Christian" doctrine.

[Gervin]

I asked, "Doesn't that sound official?"

As in, "this is the official position of all Evangelicals?"

No.

[Vance]

Any way, your CFR has been addressed.

[Gervin]

Any way, your CFR has been addressed.

It's been addressed to the best of your ability and shows that when it comes to making wholesale statements about Evangelical beliefs you simply haven't a clue. Thank you.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Gervin

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As in, "this is the official position of all Evangelicals?"

No.

Well there is no official position of all Evangelicals as they all believe something different.

What Vance has demonstrated is that some with in the EV community still hold to a rather heartless belief. I am glad you and Rob do not.

Edited August 22, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Vance]

So you found a 2007 blog quoting someone named A.W. Pink as evidence that "Evangelicals just condemn all who have never heard of Christ to hell for eternity."

So, you have a problem with his argument. And that is my problem how exactly? After all, he got it ALL from the Bible.

In reality, you can name one evangelical.

Nah, more than one.

Your obsession (love?) of Bowman and all-things-traditional Christian appears to send you over the top, as in your alleged broadbrush of all Evangelicals.

I don't have a problem with Evangelicals, I have a problem with Evangelical anti-Mormons.

[Vance]

It's been addressed to the best of your ability and shows that when it comes to making wholesale statements about Evangelical beliefs you simply haven't a clue. Thank you.

Apparently it is not as simple as you are implying.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savn.htm

Most Fundamentalists and many other Evangelicals continue the Restrictivist beliefs taught by traditional Christianity. They believe that each verse in the Bible is without error (as originally written). They are compelled to follow the writings of Paul and the author of the Gospel of John. Those authors appear to have written consistently that only believers reach Heaven. Non-believers will go to Hell.

And,

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_salvation.htm#VIIIB

Many people believe the Bible says clearly and unequivocally that salvation is only possible for those people who believe in Christ as Savior and Son of God. To the objection that this seems "mean-spirited" of God, they point out that all men stand condemned because of their own sin, and God does not "owe" salvation to anyone. He has graciously offered atonement for sin to those who put their faith in Christ.

John 3:16-18 is probably the strongest statement in the Bible that salvation is possible only by faith in Christ as the Son of God:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

(NIV, John 3:16-18)

The apostle Paul stated a similar position, though not worded quite as strongly:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

(NIV, Romans 3:21-25)

There are many other Bible verses, especially in John, that imply that faith in Christ is a condition of salvation (John 5:24, John 6:28-29, John 6:47, John 9:35, John 11:25-26, John 12:36, John 20:31, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:20, Galatians 3:26).

And from that last one we also get this,

In the past, some Christian churches taught that all non-Christians were condemned, and even Christians of other denominations were likely condemned. However, world travel and instant communication have brought people of different religions closer together and have forced a reevaluation of old beliefs that other religions were invalid, obsolete, or even the work of the devil. If we take John 3:16-18 as the sole criterion for salvation, then all non-Christians, children who die young, and the mentally disabled will be automatically condemned to hell. Many people find that inconsistent with the New Testament's portrayal of God as a loving Father. In addition, it seems inconsistent with the Bible's portrayal of God as all-powerful to believe He is somehow unable to save anyone He finds worthy, regardless of religious affiliation.

So, Evangelical doctrines, they are a changing.

[Dogmatic]

Steve,

zerinus had written:

I asked him:

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

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.

I'm not able to spend a lot of time on the computer as of late so I apologize for not answering your previous questions to me in a more expedient manner. I'm interjecting at this point because others have adequately addressed your questions. I want to affirm what they are answering with and add a few things to it.

First though, to one of your previous observations: You don't know about my background or faith. I would like to explain some of that to you: I was born LDS and raised as an active member while living in Missouri. I quit attending when I was 14 due in large part to exposure to anti-Mormon information my friends were feeding me. For the next 20 years I bounced around to many, many churches while living in Missouri, Tennessee, Hawaii and while in the military. For extended periods of time I attended (this list will be incomplete): several baptist churches, numerous evangelical churches, church of christ, catholic churches, protestant churches and even a pentecostal church where my girlfriends dad was the pastor.

Here is what I learned - Every single one of those churches focused on ONE THING - Justification. They would justify God, justify Christ, justify the Gospel, justify the things they were teaching, justify why you should keep coming to their church and not the one down the street. I could never understand why they didn't just teach from the scriptures by reading them. Every one of them had to try to explain things that were missing or explain how this word here correlated to this word way back here which meant this word way up here means this. As I matured, I eventually realized that they did it because they know they're missing information. Several times I watched people (my friends) ask their pastor a question that I knew the answer to. Their pastor would pick out scriptures from all over the place to try to formulate some answer and they could never come up with something adequate that made sense.

So there is Key #1 - the LDS doctrine is the ONLY one I've seen that MAKES SENSE

Being an instructional manual, the scriptures should provide plain information that a reader can understand. If you read and read and you cannot figure out what something means that you've heard, been taught or are wondering about, there is a problem with your instruction manual. A manual that is meant to save the world should be complete and should not require scholars to interpret and explain it to us.

Key #2 - LDS Doctrine is clear in their scriptures and provides answers in a way that the reader can understand and interpret - it does not require scholars

Christ and several apostles make it clear in the Bible that the Gospel is simple. Therefore, the Gospel should be simple and the lay person should be able to understand it. This unequivocally negates anything which requires extensive study, picking things apart, conjecture, or in depth explanations.

Key #3 - LDS Doctrine is laid out in the scriptures, it does not require extensive reanalysis to understand

When one accepts the Gospel and accepts Christ, that person is "converted to Christ" we all know that this phrase means a change of heart. One is not converted to Christ simply by reading, they are literally changed in their heart. I have seen this in myself and in many people. Ergo, the scriptures are not meant for the mind in the scholastic sense. The scriptures are meant to speak to the heart. Analytic study of the Gospel and the scriptures is using them for the wrong purpose. This is not to mean the scriptures are to be ignored, they are meant to feed the soul. The study and understanding of the stories in them strengthens and renews conversion. When the brain or natural man tries to dissect the scriptures to 'prove' them it is an exercise in futility and leads the other way. This is actually something that it took me years to understand but the understanding of it was critical for me. Once I quit trying to prove everything or essentially looking for negatives and accepted the scriptures into my heart, that is when things changed for me.

Key #4 - The Gospel is for the soul to and not for the Natural Man

At its most basic level, the Gospel is about service. Christ tells us over and over that serving each other is the key to Christianity or to The Gospel. Religious practice should therefore be focused and centered on Service. The purpose of the Church, the purpose of worshiping on Sunday, the purpose of our life is service.

Key #5 - A Church that focuses on the Gospel will be built upon service

These 5 Keys are what brought me back to the LDS Faith. I'm not a strong member, I'm not extremely active. But after 20 years of searching and exploring - once I softened my heart and gained an understanding of the Gospel, FROM my heart, there literally was no other choice.

___________________________________________________________________________-

So, there you have it - that is my Faith.

Now, as to your other statements above:

You are attempting to present LDS Doctrine to those who live it when it is something that you do not even believe in and the feeling I get, is that you mock it.

You cannot claim to understand LDS Doctrine. You have already admitted your bias to it and you are presenting it from an analytical viewpoint attempting to disprove it. You are presenting from the natural man to those who have been converted in their hearts to that doctrine. Your stumbling block is that you are convinced that you are right and you look at LDS Doctrine as flawed and wrong and then try to prove it from the things you find. You attempt to challenge us with doctrine you believe to be flawed when we understand it in our hearts - and then you want us to try to explain it to you when you are coming at it from a rejection standpoint.

I have great respect for you that you are willing to engage but if your intent is to try to disprove Mormonism, you will fail. I have no idea if you have ever experience spiritual confirmation. I have. To deny it would be to condemn myself. I do not care whether some mortal man made mistakes, or even made many of them, 150 years ago. I do not know anyone other than anti-mormons who have studied or even see the books that anti-mormons quote from. Furthermore, I do not care what is in them. I have a testimony of the truthfulness of the LDS Scriptures and of the doctrine that is taught. I also have extensive experience with evangelicals and their defensiveness when their falsehoods are challenged - this is because of pride and money in my opinion. They take pride in "being right" and they find themselves in a position that, were they to deny their falsehoods en masse, there would be a financial impact to their spiritual leaders. This is simply my observation. Pride and Money are huge issues. Neither are issues in the LDS faith.

What you do not seem to be understanding is that LDS doctrine doesn't really have a "hell". Our understanding of the afterlife is completely different than yours - and it's all in the scriptures. Will non-mormons be allowed in heaven? OF COURSE! God's entire mission is to SAVE souls, not trick them or find ways to exclude them. There is the gospel and then there are ordinances that we are blessed to be able to partake of in this life. It's really not about the next life that we share the gospel - it's about THIS life and the lens through which you view it.

You consider LDS doctrine to be exclusive because your doctrine is exclusive. What that bias does not allow you to understand is that LDS Doctrine is inclusive of EVERY SINGLE SOUL. You cannot look at LDS doctrine through the lens of believing in something else. You have to leave your analytical mind and allow your heart to open up. Then you will be able to understand. We understand that that is a frightening proposition for you and we won't judge you for not doing it. But you must understand that it is you who is denying it and not allowing it because of your fears, pride, etc.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

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

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:

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:

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:

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.

Well, don't get any wrong ideas. Those who have had the opportunity to accept the Restored gospel in this life, and it has been explainte to them, but they have harden their hearts against it, will not get a second chance.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

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.

The question I asked is not whether there are loopholes or provisions in LDS theology for those who have not been baptized, but whether a person can enter the celestial kingdom through a traditional Christian church (including its gospel, teachings, baptism, worship, etc.). As you say, the LDS Church practices baptism for the dead. It does so not just for six-year-olds but for sixty-year-olds who believed in Jesus Christ, repented of their sins, were baptized in an evangelical church, lived exemplary moral lives, evangelized their neighbors and relatives with kindness and respect, but was not part of the LDS Church. Thus my question, as it seems clear that in LDS doctrine one cannot be saved to the celestial kingdom through a traditional Christian church, even if members of such a church can be saved in some other way (e.g., by in effect becoming a Mormon after death).

[Flyonthewall]

Well, don't get any wrong ideas. Those who have had the opportunity to accept the Restored gospel in this life, and it has been explainte to them, but they have harden their hearts against it, will not get a second chance.

Even then, we don't believe they spend eternity in outer darkness, or "hell" as traditional Christianity describes it.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You admit that at least most of what I said was, and I quote:

True....

By some, yes....

See above....

True....

True....

You then had to manufacture an "anti-Mormon" error where there was one, claiming:

The "Gift of the Holy Ghost" can only be given by the laying on of hands by one in authority, that is true. But one of the Holy Ghost's gift of a spiritual confirmation or witness of truth that the Holy Ghost may give to whomever He chooses has no such requirement.

Nice attempt to conflate the two though. You get an anti-Mormon +1 for your effort.

I said absolutely nothing denying the possibility according to LDS doctrine of "the Holy Ghost's gift of a spiritual confirmation or witness of truth that the Holy Ghost may give to whomever He chooses has no such requirement." All I said was that "the gift of the Holy Ghost" according to LDS doctrine can only be received by the laying on of hands by a Mormon male priesthood holder. That is a correct statement of the LDS position. Instead of admitting that what I said was correct, you changed the subject. After knocking down a straw man, ironically, you concluded:

But hey, what do a few falsehoods and strawmen amount to, right?

Even you were able to manufacture only one alleged falsehood in my post, and that was by a clear-cut distortion of what I said. You are the one guilty of a strawman argument.