What is Biblical Christianity...

[Tanyan]

No, not at all like the Joseph in Genesis...

His brothers thought he was a bad dreamer and left him to die, even before Jeremiah. His own brothers couldn't stop to listen and really hear.

True !, As Joseph Smith J.R was a modern day John The Baptist, Hearalding in the proclamation of the 2nd comming of THE LORD OF LIFE CHRIST JESUS .

[1dc]

1dc, Benji, is a typical Greek/Neo-Platonic/Gnostic/Hellenized/Fundementalist/ Evangelical /Christian wouldn"t you say ?.

Couldn't say . . don't like labels for people much, and not sure if he even knows . . or why he's here.

That site sure looks kinda eastern/mystical/new wave, though. At least I don't remember a cross prominately.

Nite, Benji!

[Tanyan]

HUUUUUUM !, makes you wonder why this person came to our house.

[Alexander]

Benji, you're begging the question in every one of the verses you provided to prove JS was false.

Also, I think it's unfair to simply post link to be honest. However, some of the verses were off topic so perhaps it was warranted.

[wenglund]

Another way to ask the same question is:

"Is there only one way for Christians to interprete the millions of words contained in the Bible?"

"If not, then don't each of the respective Christian interpretations qualify as "Biblical Christianity?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benji]

Tanyan, to answer your question we are free to do everything you mentioned.

As for your list of labels as to what kind of Christian I am I will have to disagree.

You claim I am:

1. Greek. Actually I am Scotch-Irish.

2. Neo-Platonic. This philosophy is not consistent with Biblical Christianty. According to the definition here I am not a Neo-Platonist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

3. Gnostic. They believed things outside the realm of Biblical Christianity. Along with many other things I disagree with, here is an example of one of those beliefs:

"They did not look upon the world as having been created perfectly and then having degenerated as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Rather the world was seen as being evil at the time of its origin, because it had been created by an inferior God."

4. Hellenized. Again, this philosophy goes against biblical Christianity. Here is an example:

"The Hellenistic worldview understood matter as questionable at best--if not down-right evil. The body was seen as something like an unnatural tomb, within which the eternal human soul was temporarily trapped until released by death. Whereas, with Judaism, Christianity proclaimed that to be human was to have a body, and thus that we would experience resurrection of the body (an uncorruptible body!) in the after-life, the Greek view of the after-life was freedom from the body."

5. Fundamentalist. This term can mean many things. Please define what you mean.

6. Evangelical. This term is probably correct.

[wenglund]

Benji,

The thread was moving so fast that I am not sure you saw this. So I am reposting it here:

Another way to ask the same question is:

"Is there only one way for Christians to interprete the millions of words contained in the Bible?"

"If not, then don't each of the respective Christian interpretations qualify as "Biblical Christianity?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benji]

Wade, the core doctrines (primary issues) of biblical Christianity are what matter most. Biblical Christians agree on the fundamentals (Nature of God, Deity of Christ, etc.). Secondary matters (baptism, communion, etc.) are an in-house debate within Biblical Christianity.

[wenglund]

Wade, the core doctrines (primary issues) of biblical Christianity are what matter most. Biblical Christians agree on the fundamentals (Nature of God, Deity of Christ, etc.). Secondary matters (baptism, communion, etc.) are an in-house debate within Biblical Christianity.

While this is an interesting answer, it doesn't directly answer the questions I asked.

You are welcome to try again.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Benji]

okay, then my answer is: In some ways yes.

[Benji]

And in other ways no

[1dc]

And in other ways no

Wow . . that was evasive.

Wade, the core doctrines (primary issues) of biblical Christianity are what matter most. Biblical Christians agree on the fundamentals (Nature of God, Deity of Christ, etc.). Secondary matters (baptism, communion, etc.) are an in-house debate within Biblical Christianity.

And who gets to determine which agreements and fundamentals are correct to be considered Biblical?

[Benji]

There is no disagreement about the core doctrines of Biblical Christianity.

[The_Monk]

There is no disagreement about the core doctrines of Biblical Christianity

Really? Does Christ have one nature or two (Monophysite or duophysite)?

Tell me, are Catholics Biblical christians?

Or is "Biblical Christian" code for "anyone who agrees with me" ?

[rhinomelon]

Wow, when I first saw this topic I was thinking, "man, eight pages already?!" Thankfully, this seems to be one of those threads where all the posts are short and to the point. I'll try to keep that trend going, although many of you know my tendency to babble

I'm seeing some of the same old arguments against historic Christianity being lobbed in by LDS on this thread. I think it interesting that all of those arguments can be used with equal effectiveness against the LDS position. For instance, where in the four standard works does it say that "the four standard works are the only true canon of the LDS church"? All religious groups have canons, which are almost always defined outside of the canons themselves, LDS notwithstanding.

As to Wade's questions:

"Is there only one way for Christians to interprete the millions of words contained in the Bible?"

Not to be a twit, but Benji's answer is somewhat accurate, if cryptic. There are some areas of biblical testimony about which one can only have one interpretation and still be considered "in the stream" of Christian thought. Benji has already laid out some good examples: One God, the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the nature of man, the means of salvation. These are explicitly taught throughout the Bible. There are other examples of such core doctrines that are held by all branches of mainstream Christianity.

Then, as to Benji's "no" answer, there are the matters of lesser importance, such as mode of baptism, eschatology, church governance, etc. These are matters which can be interpreted differently in light of biblical testimony, but that are not absolutely essential. Christians honestly have different convictions that are valid in areas such as these. And the Bible makes room for differing convictions on non-essential issues. And lest you think this is evidence of some "Great Apostasy", I see the same state of affairs in the LDS church, perhaps even to a deeper degree.

A quote, which I have heard repeated by LDS authorities: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

[rhinomelon]

Really? Does Christ have one nature or two (Monophysite or duophysite)?

Good question. Mysterious, isn't it?

Tell me, are Catholics Biblical christians?

Another good question. I find little to disagree with in Catholic doctrine, although I think that the reliance on tradition throws many people for a loop, both inside and outside the Catholic Church. This is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier: On the essentials, I agree with Catholics. On non-essentials, there are things I disagree with.

To reverse the question somewhat, is the Community of Christ a "true Restored Church"?

Or is "Biblical Christian" code for "anyone who agrees with me" ?

No. I would say that Biblical Christian is one who agrees with core Christian teaching, as laid out in the Old and New Testaments and preserved and lived out (however imperfectly) to the present day. I am actually reading a fantastic book by a Catholic author right now, talking about the essentials of orthodoxy. I find little, if anything, to disagree with. Rather, it strengthens me in my faith in Jesus Christ, which I and this author share.

Just my thoughts

[urroner]

rhino asked:

To reverse the question somewhat, is the Community of Christ a "true Restored Church"?

I answer:

No, no more than an Evanglical church since it is basically slowly morphing into one.

rhino stated

I would say that Biblical Christian is one who agrees with core Christian teaching, as laid out in the Old and New Testaments and preserved and lived out (however imperfectly) to the present day.

I say:

So what are these basic doctrines that a Biblical Christian has to believe? If somebody claims to be a Christian, but doesn't believe one or more of these basic tenants, then is the person a Christian?

[rhinomelon]

Which "One God" Trinity Model/Form do you comform to ? :Western, Eastern, Eastern, Economic,Essential, Social, Tritheistic, Modalistic/Sabellian ?.

Which Anchient or Modern Scholar/Theologian Has the Correct Trinity ?. Thank You.

Not to be a twit again, but which LDS Godhead do you believe in? Joseph Smith's early Godhead, Smith's King Follet Godhead, Brigham Young's, Blake Ostler's, Stephen Robinson's, Robert Millet's, McConkie's? Who out of this list was wrong (because apparently only one can be correct, according to the above quote)?

There are different ways of talking about and examining the Trinity. Many of those you list above are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. I have no problem believing and learning from the views of the Trinity postulated by Tertullian, Augustine, Western, Eastern, Economic, Immanent, Essential, Social, Athenagoras, etc. I still don't understand why the above quote would have any impact on belief in the Trinity.

Now I have to get going. Take care, everybody

[rhinomelon]

Dang, I'm back for another quickie

I answer:

No, no more than an Evanglical church since it is basically slowly morphing into one.

By whose standards? Are you saying that just because the CoC no longer agrees with you that they are no longer a valid expression of Restoration Christianity?

So what are these basic doctrines that a Biblical Christian has to believe? If somebody claims to be a Christian, but doesn't believe one or more of these basic tenants, then is the person a Christian?

First answer: Core doctrines have already been listed, and include such foundational concepts as one God, the deity and humanity of Christ, the reality of his death and resurrection, the way of salvation, the vital importance of the rites of communion and baptism, etc. There are more.

Second answer: I would say no. Not agreeing with the core values of any institution (whether sacred or secular) is grounds for dismissal. If I work at an orphanage, but believe that children are nasty and should be disposed of, I should be dismissed. If I don't do a job for a company by adhering to that company's standards, I should be fired. If I am LDS and teach that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, I should be excommunicated.

Just a few thoughts. Now I really need to go Take care, everyone

[Alexander]

Tell me, are Catholics Biblical christians?

Another good question. I find little to disagree with in Catholic doctrine, although I think that the reliance on tradition throws many people for a loop, both inside and outside the Catholic Church. This is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier: On the essentials, I agree with Catholics. On non-essentials, there are things I disagree with.

Who or what defines these "essentials"? Where in the Bible does it say "this is essential, but this isn't"?

My mother always tells me "as long as you believe in Christ..." But the Bible says that there will be those who call upon Christ but he will deny knowing because of their wickedness.

The entire notion of "Biblical Christianity" is a sham. Say you rely on the Bible all you want, everyone - and I do mean everyone - has a source outside the Bible - be it tradition, revelation or other.

[rhinomelon]

Who or what defines these "essentials"? Where in the Bible does it say "this is essential, but this isn't"?

Many places. I'll try to post some for you in a bit. The Bible also contains information about non-essentials, which I'll also post.

My mother always tells me "as long as you believe in Christ..." But the Bible says that there will be those who call upon Christ but he will deny knowing because of their wickedness.

I agree. Which is why it is vitally important to pay attention to all that the Bible says, and not just a few select passages to tickle one's ears.

The entire notion of "Biblical Christianity" is a sham. Say you rely on the Bible all you want, everyone - and I do mean everyone - has a source outside the Bible - be it tradition, revelation or other.

I don't think it is a sham, any more than you think "the one true restored church of Jesus Christ" is a sham. I also agree that everybody has sources outside the Bible. However, the Bible is given prominence in the Christian faith, as the standard by which everything else is judged. The Bible simply doesn't have enough room to talk in detail about every single situation a Christian might face at some point in time; what it does lay out are the essentials, which are true in any situation at any point in time, and serve as a guide.

And, lest we forget, the Holy Spirit is also active through the Bible. These are not simply dead words on a page, but the words of a living God to His followers, made living and active through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Just my thoughts, take care everybody

[rhinomelon]

Okay, some essentials, in the form of the Nicene Creed, with relevant Bible passages:

We believe in one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 45:5; James 2:19) the Father Almighty (1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6; John 17:3), maker of all things both seen and unseen (Genesis 1:1; Isaiah 44:24; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), and in one Lord (Deuteronomy 6:4) Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:5), the Son of God (Hebrews 1:2-, the Only Son begotten of the Father (John 3:16), that is from the Being of the Father (John 1:18; Hebrews 1:3), God from God (John 1:1-2; 1:18; Hebrews 1:8-9), Light from Light (John 1:5; 8:12; 1 John 1:5), true God from true God (John 17:3 cf. 17:21; 1 John 5:20), begotten not made (John 1:2-3; 1:14-15; Colossians 1:13-17), essentially the same as the Father (John 1:1; 8:58; 10:30; 14:9-10; Hebrews 1:3), through whom all things came into being (John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2), both in heaven and upon earth (Genesis 1:1 cf. Colossians 1:16), who on behalf of humanity and for our salvation came down (John 16:28) and was enfleshed (John 1:14), became human (Philippians 2:6-7), suffered [death] (Matthew 16:21; Mark 10:45; Romans 8:32; Philippians 2: and came back to life on the third day (Mark 10:34; Luke 24:46; 1 Corinthians 15:4), ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9) and is coming to judge the living and the dead (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:25-29; Revelation 22:12), and [we believe] in the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; John 15:26; 1 Corinthians 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18; 13:14).2

Those are some good essentials. Others would be the fallen nature of man, man's need for salvation, man's complete inability to save himself from his sins, repentance and faith in Christ for the remission of sins and salvation, baptism and the Lord's supper as ordinances of the church, the church as the body of all believers in Christ, the perfection of God, Christ being both fully human and fully divine, salvation being for all men, the resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of man, heaven and hell, etc. There are probably some others, but those are the biggies.

Now, non-essentials would include some of the following: Where you worship (John 4), what you eat or drink (Colossians), what day one worships on (Colossians), etc. These are explicitly seen as non-essentials in the Bible, and I seem to remember there being others as well.

Now, issues that are not explicitly seen either way in the Bible, and therefore open to adaptation: Mode of baptism, role of women in leadership, how often one holds the Lord's Supper, the order of the last days (eschatology), the age at which one is baptized, church government, titles for leaders, marriage and singleness (both are accepted and approved), the current state of the dead, and there are probably others. This is off the top of my head, so other additions would be fine with me.

Hope this helps. Take care, everyone

[Herb]

What makes those essentials you've listed essential? Their inclusion in a creed? Is there a preface to the passages which say, to the effect, "You must believe this?" If not, then what makes their inclusion in your list more than opinion?

[rhinomelon]

What makes those essentials you've listed essential? Their inclusion in a creed? Is there a preface to the passages which say, to the effect, "You must believe this?" If not, then what makes their inclusion in your list more than opinion?

Good questions. The essentials are those issues and beliefs which the Bible is clear on, and which are emphasized as essentials of the Christian faith. Many of the items in my list are mentioned over and over again, and affirmed time and time again by the teachings of the OT prophets, Jesus, and the NT apostles. One way to look at it is that these are underlying themes that are woven throughout biblical testimony.

There are indeed points in the Bible which use language that refers to essentials, such as, "this is what we (the apostles) preach," or "the core of our teaching" or "Jesus said such-and-such". There are, without a doubt, core teachings that are emphasized in the Bible, to the point where rejecting such doctrines is seen as unbelief or apostasy. The list above is a good taste of those doctrines.

The LDS church has the same thing, choosing to emphasize some teachings as the core of the faith, while allowing differences of opinion on other, less central matters. I'm sure you could think of a similar list of central (and not-so-central) LDS doctrines yourself, if you were so inclined. Just my two bits. Take care, everyone

EDIT: One last thought. The inclusion of such doctrines in the creeds is not why they are now considered essential. Rather, these doctrines were set down in the creeds because they had already been deemed essential. The creeds were the list of already held essential doctrines; the creeds were not the source of those essentials. I hope that's clear. Thanks!

[Alexander]

Those are some good essentials. Others would be the fallen nature of man, man's need for salvation, man's complete inability to save himself from his sins, repentance and faith in Christ for the remission of sins and salvation, baptism and the Lord's supper as ordinances of the church, the church as the body of all believers in Christ, the perfection of God, Christ being both fully human and fully divine, salvation being for all men, the resurrection of Christ, the resurrection of man, heaven and hell, etc. There are probably some others, but those are the biggies.

Now, non-essentials would include some of the following: Where you worship (John 4), what you eat or drink (Colossians), what day one worships on (Colossians), etc. These are explicitly seen as non-essentials in the Bible, and I seem to remember there being others as well.

Now, issues that are not explicitly seen either way in the Bible, and therefore open to adaptation: Mode of baptism, role of women in leadership, how often one holds the Lord's Supper, the order of the last days (eschatology), the age at which one is baptized, church government, titles for leaders, marriage and singleness (both are accepted and approved), the current state of the dead, and there are probably others. This is off the top of my head, so other additions would be fine with me.

Hope this helps. Take care, everyone

Thank you for your post rhinomelon,

I think you gave some rather poor example of "non-essentials". To include the Catholic Church - or others - in with Protestant Christianity you would be forced to conclude that issues such as mode of baptism, necessity of baptism, faith vs. works, definition of scripture, church organization, nature of communion, etc are "non-essentials." These are not trivial issues such as what kind of ice cream we should eat.

Where in the Bible does it say that such major issues are "non-essentials?"