What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[Anijen]

Akboy you want to define follow and Christianity only in the boundaries you or your church chooses. It does not work that way.

Christianity= those who follow Christ, Period.

It is not up to any certain church, group, or person to say who is and who isn't a Christian. It is up to that individual. If that individual breaks the commandments regularly but he still chooses to follow Christ then he is a Christian. There is no doctrinal test for Christianity.

Bottom line (again), all who choose to follow Christ regardless of the Christian church they attend are Christian.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Anijen

[Akboy]

I'm sorry if i misunderstood you.

It just seems that if it takes a whole lifetime to really learn what it means to follow Christ, then following Jesus imperfectly cannot exclude someone from being a Christian.

Think of following Christ like searching for buried treasure. The LDS church and Protestants each have their own treasure map to help you search for the treasure, but each one is sending you off in very different directions. Are they both following the same thing? With the Protestant map, you'll spend you whole life following it because there's always more to learn, but the important part is you're going in the right direction. From the Protestant point of view, you can use the LDS map all you want, but it will never never send you in the right direction.

I just came up with that off the top of my head, but I think it's pretty close to what I'm trying to say.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Akboy

[Anijen]

All those who say LDS are not Christian are naive of what the LDS believe or have a puerile view of what they think Christian means.

Or perhaps in Akboys case both may apply.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Anijen

[Anijen]

Think of following Christ like searching for buried treasure. The LDS church and Protestants each have their own treasure map to help you search for the treasure, but each one is sending you off in very different directions. Are they both following the same thing?

Yes they are both following a treasure map.

If treasure map were a religion, regardless of how many maps and where it leads you both are followers of a treasure map.

[bluebell]

Think of following Christ like searching for buried treasure. The LDS church and Protestants each have their own treasure map to help you search for the treasure, but each one is sending you off in very different directions. Are they both following the same thing? With the Protestant map, you'll spend you whole life following it because there's always more to learn, but the important part is you're going in the right direction. From the Protestant point of view, you can use the LDS map all you want, but it will never never send you in the right direction.

I just came up with that off the top of my head, but I think it's pretty close to what I'm trying to say.

I understand what you are trying to say, i really do.

But the first problem in the analogy is that the LDS church doesn't believe it has 'it's own treasure map' but that it's simply passing along the map that Christ wants everyone to have. I'm guessing that protestants probably feel the same way, so you might want to change that aspect of the story.

The second and really important problem is that it implies that Christ's grace can have no affect on people who are sincerely trying to follow Him and who want, with their whole hearts, to follow Him, but for whatever reason are going about it the wrong way. In your analogy Christ waits at the end and has no part in the journey and can have no relationship with the misled regardless of how desperately the mislead are trying to follow Him.

I don't find that supported in scripture at all. In fact, Christ's dealings in the NT seem to point out how He was constantly drawn to the pure in heart, regardless of how far off the 'path' they were and He taught that those who 'hunger and thirst after righteousness' (implying a lack of righteousness but a desire to have it-as you don't hunger or thirst after nourshiment that you have in your possession) will be filled. He also taught that those who seek Him WILL find Him.

So, i guess what i'm really trying to say is that I believe the bible supports the idea that if you are sincere in your attempt to have faith in Christ and obey Him-if your heart is His-He doesn't care which church hold's your records, He doesn't care what "map" you are following. That will be ironed out eventually.

I'll consider your postion further if you can provide biblical examples of times when Christ refused to accept someone as His disciple and a true follower until they knew the whole gospel and had no erroneous ideas about Him or God's will as part of their belief.

Also, will you please tell me some of the ways that your map and mine are going in completely opposite directions? I think it might be beneficial to really think about how different (or similar) our beliefs actually are and to consider whether or not certain theological differences are in fact so far apart that they consitute a following a 'different Jesus'.

[Akboy]

Akboy you want to define follow and Christianity only in the boundaries you or your church chooses. It does not work that way.

Christianity= those who follow Christ, Period.

It is not up to any certain church, group, or person to say who is and who isn't a Christian. It is up to that individual. If that individual breaks the commandments regularly but he still chooses to follow Christ then he is a Christian. There is no doctrinal test for Christianity.

Bottom line (again), all who choose to follow Christ regardless of the Christian church they attend are Christian.

Yes, I want to have faith that how I'm following Christ is the correct way to follow Christ. Isn't that what faith and religion is about?

Am I allowed to define 'follow' for myself? If I have a firm faith in my definition, why would I keep it to myself? I thought the great commission was about teaching others to follow Christ. How can I possibly do that without using my definition of 'follow?' Where does the Bible say Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, unless the nation thinks they're already following Christ?

The Jews certainly thought they were following God. They were convinced the Messiah would come as a conquering king who would return Israel to it's former earthly glory. They thought the Christ would support all their little laws and guidelines they set up. Did the early church let them be? Did the early church avoid imposing their definition on traditional Jews? No, the church proclaimed the gospel exactly as they defined it. Paul didn't just ignore people who tried to mix the gospel with the old law. No, he insisted on using the gospel as he defined it. Obviously, none of us are divinely inspired in the same way Paul was, but that doesn't mean we can't have faith in our own definitions.

[bluebell]

No, he insisted on using the gospel as he defined it. Obviously, none of us are divinely inspired in the same way Paul was, but that doesn't mean we can't have faith in our own definitions.

If we aren't 'divinely inspired as paul was,' do we have the right or authority to insist on using the gospel as WE define it?

Your point here is a huge one. Paul had a right to define the gospel for other people. He had that right because Christ personally gave it to Him. It didn't come from reading the scriptures, or studying, or getting a degree, or any other way.

But you have been given no authority to speak for God and you don't have anyone in your church who claims that authority either (and i don't mean that in a snarky way). Knowing that, what right do you have, or your church, to define the gospel for anyone else? (again, not meant as a snarky remark but an honest sincere question I would really like you to answer).

[Akboy]

If we aren't 'divinely inspired as paul was,' do we have the right or authority to insist on using the gospel as WE define it?

Your point here is a huge one. Paul had a right to define the gospel for other people. He had that right because Christ personally gave it to Him. It didn't come from reading the scriptures, or studying, or getting a degree, or any other way.

But you have been given no authority to speak for God and you don't have anyone in your church who claims that authority either (and i don't mean that in a snarky way). Knowing that, what right do you have, or your church, to define the gospel for anyone else? (again, not meant as a snarky remark but an honest sincere question I would really like you to answer).

You're taking my statement out of context. Like I said in the rest of the post, it's all about faith.

I have as much authority as you do when you talking about doctrines the LDS teaches. We each have faith that what we're talking about is accurate. What right do you have to define those doctrines for anyone else?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Akboy

[KevinG]

What right do you have to define those doctrines for anyone else?

Irony: It is you that presume to tell LDS what their beliefs are about Christ. No LDS here has attempted to evangelize Evangelicals by telling them they worship the wrong Christ.

[bluebell]

You're taking my statement out of context. Like I said in the rest of the post, it's all about faith.

I have as much authority as you do when you talking about doctrines the LDS teaches. We each have faith that what we're talking about is accurate.

You, as a non-member, do not have as much authority as me when talking about about doctrines of MY church. That seems rather obvious. I would never try to declare that I have as much authority as you do when talking about EV beliefs because it would be silly to do so.

I'm not speaking about discussing each other's doctrines though but the bigger picture. You have said multiple times that the LDS gospel is the wrong one and you are preaching the right one. I want to know, what authority do you have to define which gospel is right? You can have your opinion, of course, but the second you attempt to teach someone else they are wrong and your are right, you are implying that you have the authority to make that distinction.

If you want me to listen to you, then tell me where your authority to speak for God comes from (and please don't say the scriptures unless you show first that the bible teaches that a person can get the authority to teach the gospel purely from studying the scriptures).

[bluebell]

What right do you have to define those doctrines for anyone else?

My church claims authority directly from Christ following the biblical pattern for how such authority is given.

[CASteinman]

Is the Hebrew Bible monotheistic?

Nah. Not really.

http://rdtwot.files..../10/monoth1.pdf

That is a really interesting article. Thanks.

[Akboy]

Irony: It is you that presume to tell LDS what their beliefs are about Christ. No LDS here has attempted to evangelize Evangelicals by telling them they worship the wrong Christ.

Could you post a link to the thread where I said anything like that?

You, as a non-member, do not have as much authority as me when talking about about doctrines of MY church. That seems rather obvious. I would never try to declare that I have as much authority as you do when talking about EV beliefs because it would be silly to do so.

I'm not speaking about discussing each other's doctrines though but the bigger picture. You have said multiple times that the LDS gospel is the wrong one and you are preaching the right one. I want to know, what authority do you have to define which gospel is right? You can have your opinion, of course, but the second you attempt to teach someone else they are wrong and your are right, you are implying that you have the authority to make that distinction.

If you want me to listen to you, then tell me where your authority to speak for God comes from (and please don't say the scriptures unless you show first that the bible teaches that a person can get the authority to teach the gospel purely from studying the scriptures).

Sorry, I should have worded that better. Maybe I shouldn't be writing these while trying to make dinner.

I meant to say I have as much authority to talk about my own beliefs and doctrines as you do when you talk about doctrines the LDS teach. We each have faith that what we're talking about is accurate.

Yes, I want to have faith that how I'm following Christ is the correct way to follow Christ. Isn't that what faith and religion is about?

Am I allowed to define 'follow' for myself? If I have a firm faith in my definition, why would I keep it to myself? I thought the great commission was about teaching others to follow Christ. How can I possibly do that without using my definition of 'follow?' Where does the Bible say Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, unless the nation thinks they're already following Christ?

Edited August 2, 2012 by Akboy

[bluebell]

Could you post a link to the thread where I said anything like that?

Sorry, I should have worded that better. Maybe I shouldn't be writing these while trying to make dinner.

I meant to say I have as much authority to talk about my own beliefs and doctrines as you do when you talk about doctrines the LDS teach. We each have faith that what we're talking about is accurate.

I completely agree.

It's when you start to declare that you know what God wants me to believe that you need to show me where your authority to speak for God comes from.

Yes, I want to have faith that how I'm following Christ is the correct way to follow Christ. Isn't that what faith and religion is about?

I think we all want that.

Am I allowed to define 'follow' for myself?

Sure.

If I have a firm faith in my definition, why would I keep it to myself?

You absolutely don't have to keep it to yourself. However, if you want me to believe that you are right, you have to give me a reason to trust what you are saying is God's truth.

That's why I want to know, what authority do you claim?

I thought the great commission was about teaching others to follow Christ

The great commission was preceded by Christ giving the apostles His authority to teach in His name. So, if the bible is our example of what the great commission is, then it's about being an authorized servant of God in spreading His gospel.

How can I possibly do that without using my definition of 'follow?' Where does the Bible say Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, unless the nation thinks they're already following Christ?

I'm pretty confused here because i don't remember saying that you couldn't define follow for yourself or share that definition with other people. All i'm saying is that if you want me, or anyone, to listen, you have to first show that you have a right to define the gospel as Paul did.

[theplains]

I do not believe the devil is a "spirit son" of the Father.

According to the church's website, it says:

"We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, "Whom shall I

send?" (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah,

said, "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3:27).

Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give his life for us, and take upon himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted

us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father's commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove

ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever" (Moses 4:2).

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that

one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor" (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his

will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us.

Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation"

According to this, Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers. Or maybe you have another devil in mind?

Regards,

Jim

[Duncan]

According to the church's website, it says:

"We needed a Savior to pay for our sins and teach us how to return to our Heavenly Father. Our Father said, "Whom shall I

send?" (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah,

said, "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3:27).

Jesus was willing to come to the earth, give his life for us, and take upon himself our sins. He, like our Heavenly Father, wanted

us to choose whether we would obey Heavenly Father's commandments. He knew we must be free to choose in order to prove

ourselves worthy of exaltation. Jesus said, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever" (Moses 4:2).

Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, "Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that

one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor" (Moses 4:1). Satan wanted to force us all to do his

will. Under his plan, we would not be allowed to choose. He would take away the freedom of choice that our Father had given us.

Satan wanted to have all the honor for our salvation"

According to this, Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers. Or maybe you have another devil in mind?

Regards,

Jim

Lucifer is the son of God the Father who became the Devil through exercising his agency

happily yours,

Me

[Deborah]

Think of following Christ like searching for buried treasure.

It's actually more like following a road map. You can have a destination in mind and there are several routes you can take. You can take the direct route, the scenic route, the roundabout rout, or even get detoured along the way and still end up at your destination. The fact that you get there is what matters.

I think you are forgetting one very important admonition of Christ: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:1-2.

[Deborah]

According to this, Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers. Or maybe you have another devil in mind?

And Lucifer fell and lost his inheritance and sonship. But I suppose you'd rather believe that he became the devil because Jesus created evil than that Lucifer actually chose his path.

[Akboy]

The great commission was preceded by Christ giving the apostles His authority to teach in His name. So, if the bible is our example of what the great commission is, then it's about being an authorized servant of God in spreading His gospel.

So when LDS missionaries go door to door, what authority do they have to teach people doctrine?

It's when you start to declare that you know what God wants me to believe that you need to show me where your authority to speak for God comes from.

I wouldn't have much faith if I didn't believe God wanted everyone to follow Him like I am. I believe the authority of my faith comes from an exegetical interpretation of scripture. Insight from the Holy Spirit is a factor, but not in a way that overrides scripture.

So where does your authority come from?

[Akboy]

It's actually more like following a road map. You can have a destination in mind and there are several routes you can take. You can take the direct route, the scenic route, the roundabout rout, or even get detoured along the way and still end up at your destination. The fact that you get there is what matters.

How can you be so sure all the routes end up at the same destination? If Christ's message was 'Follow me by doing A, B and C to get to the destination,' yet I try to follow Him by doing X, Y and Z, why would I still end up at the destination? What about the passage later in Matt. 7?

¹³ Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. ¹⁴ For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

It certainly doesn't sound like a wide range of routes lead to the destination. Since the gate is narrow, you need to actually follow Christ through it. If someone is following a gospel that is leading them to destruction, what good does it to for me to call them Christian?

I think you are forgetting one very important admonition of Christ: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Matthew 7:1-2.

Are you judging someone when you mention your belief that contradicts theirs? When someone comes in here and starts thread talking about their understanding of grace or salvation, are you judging them when you quote verses to show why you don't agree with them? Edited August 2, 2012 by Akboy

[CASteinman]

Lucifer is the son of God the Father who became the Devil through exercising his agency

Culturally, its a bit weird to think about, but really he should not be named Lucifer any longer. He is not a light bringer but a bearer of darkness. his name is perdition. On the other hand, we are told that Jesus is now the Bright and Morning Star and some if not all of us were once morning stars shouting for joy. But perdition is out of the family and out of the club.

[Duncan]

Culturally, its a bit weird to think about, but really he should not be named Lucifer any longer. He is not a light bringer but a bearer of darkness. his name is perdition. On the other hand, we are told that Jesus is now the Bright and Morning Star and some if not all of us were once morning stars shouting for joy. But perdition is out of the family and out of the club.

well, that's what the newspapers said

Edited August 2, 2012 by Duncan

[CASteinman]

So when LDS missionaries go door to door, what authority do they have to teach people doctrine?

I wouldn't have much faith if I didn't believe God wanted everyone to follow Him like I am. I believe the authority of my faith comes from an exegetical interpretation of scripture. Insight from the Holy Spirit is a factor, but not in a way that overrides scripture.

So where does your authority come from?

You do not seem to actually understand legal authority to administer the ordinances of the Gospel. One does not simply wake up one day with an internal authority. No man takes this honor unto himself legitimately. It must be done according to the processes provided by Jesus Christ, to include ordination by one who holds authority.

Authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comes as follows:

Jesus Christ ordained Peter, James and John and the other Apostles.

Peter, James and John, under the direction of Jesus Christ, ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, acting under revelation from Jesus Christ set apart and ordained 3 Witnesses of the Book of Mormon.

The Three Witnesses called a quorum of 12 Apostles who were set apart and ordained by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

The Apostles and Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery conferred the Priesthood on the heads of other people who in due time conferred it on still others until this very day, when it is possible for every Priest in the LDS Church to show their line of authority from head to hand -- all the way right back to Jesus Christ. For example as part of my priesthood line of Authority I refer back to Anthony Ivins who was ordained by Joseph F. Smith who was ordained by Brigham Young who was ordained by Oliver Cowdery along with the other 3 Witnesses (who had received their authority from Oliver and Joseph Smith). Oliver Cowdery (and Joseph Smith) were ordained by Peter James and John who received their Commission from Jesus Christ.

[CASteinman]

According to this, Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers.

They were spirit brothers. perdition is out of the family. cast out entirely and has no standing at all. Meanwhile Jesus has advanced and has become the Father of all those who are Born Again -- and indeed even to those who are saved (possibly without their knowledge) -- from the power of the second death.

So there is no family relationship whatsoever.

Edited August 2, 2012 by CASteinman

[djholmess]

Well, Paul already answered this question.

1 Cor 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So your answer about Deuteronomy 4:35&39 is to ignore the verse and jump to another book and present a verse from it as your explaination. Even worse this verse clearly teaches monotheism in its context, 'we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.'. I'm happy to discuss that verse too but lets establish some of the OT background first.

Can anyone else explain how Deuteronomy isn't saying there is only 1 God in the heavens and Earth.