Which of the Articles of Faith are Necessary to be a Christian?

[Truth2Tell]

On 9/2/2018 at 1:42 PM, Jane_Doe said:

For generic Christian: #1 is the huge one-- it's definition of what it is to be a Christian.  

But Christians believe in the trilogy and Mormons don't.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes and this is why the Evangelical seems contradictory to us.  Why would God create his children to burn in hell if we didn't "get it right" through no fault of their own?   I cannot even imagine that a merciful God would do that.

I think frankly we take it deeper by thinking about what "time" is.

Was there "time" before the creation?  And yet God supposedly existed before time?  What was he "doing" before time?

How is it possible for us to even imagine what it means to "exist" outside of time?   Our mental categories cannot handle it.  I remember trying to figure out, when I was in like second grade, what God was doing "before" he made us- AND time along with it

As a second grader in Catholic school I had to memorize this excerpt from the Baltimore Catechism:

http://www.cmri.org/baltimore-catechism-no2-lessons1-10.shtml

 

God made us to "show forth his goodness"??   To whom and why did he need to show forth his goodness?

So He must have made a decision to do that action- to "show forth his goodness" AND to "share with us".

We were not yet around yet then he must have had a plan to CREATE US too, right?   So that he could show forth is goodness to us who had not yet been created?

And so he did all this before he created time??   But did it take him time to figure out the plan??

Obviously there are problems- DEEP problems with this kind of explanation and if a second grader can see that.....

And so we have the idea of a pre-existence- a "time" before time - when all this "happened" or another explanation- time is RELATIVE to THIS creation or this planet or this earth or this Creation or Big Bang- or Cycle- or Buddhist "Kalpas" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalpa_(aeon)

It seems other religions have no problem with the relativity of time to our perception of it- and that is the only logical answer to even HOW God could have created the Universe for his "purposes"- which must have "existed" "BEFORE" "time" as we think of it.

So our notion is that God was a man in another time reference BEFORE our time reference and an eternity FOR US is "One Eternal Round" which quite frankly I see as pretty much a similar view to the Buddhist Kalpa

So no conflict here at all, but one must take a more ..... complex.... view of how all this works in order for it to make sense.

One must be able to imagine a higher context into which one "jumps" - a kind of quantum leap looking at an even bigger picture than the way we ordinarily see things.

Tarski called these "meta-languages" my little example above is an example of a meta-language in which we take the context of the statement "up" to a "higher level" by seeing a "larger" explanation.  If God created the world AND time- he must have done so "outside time" or in "another time" reference.  This sees the problem in a "larger" context of time being relative to OUR perception but not to God's perception of time.  One must "step out" of the context to a "higher" context.   It's like suddenly questioning a game one is playing and considering the RULES of the game instead of staying within the context of the game.

In the off chance anyone is actually interested in the logic of how this works, here is a link and a quote from that link:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/par-liar/#SH1c
 

 

Hey you might like this; though the science is a bit dated (but still valid), a Jewish scientist touches upon the Hebrew notion of non-linear time and the connections you mention: 

http://www.ldolphin.org/jtime.html

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And yes, our brains can't understand the concept of outside of time, but that doesn't mean the concept is false. Read up on the mystics and mystical experience (including mystical experiences had by Nobel prize winning physicists who codified quantum physics).....

Exactly! That's what I was saying about different levels of consciousness to understand higher realities, such as the reality that my deepest level of being intersects God, and that God is ground of all being. I can't see or explain this properly in mundane consciousness, but I have experienced it in meditation on monastic retreat.

I think the even bigger pictures contains the smaller pictures as well. The idea of holons, where consciousness/reality are like nested Russian dolls. Each doll is complete by itself, but the bigger (higher) doll encompasses the previously complete doll and then some. So my reality right now is complete, but if I move into a higher consciousness/reality, it will include this one and then some.

Have you read Forgotten Truth by Huston Smith? It is short and I highly recommend it. It covers the ideas of different levels of religious consciousness and the great chain of being.

 

Would never say it was "false" since we both said the same thing eventually.

Did you read the Tarski stuff?

We agree on all points I am not sure why you would think that I thought that I said that what you said...... 

 

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, Truth2Tell said:

But Christians believe in the trilogy and Mormons don't.

I'm assuming you meant "Trinity" here.

LDS and Athanasian (aka Trinitarians) Christians all agree that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons in ONE God.  The difference between these views is the *how* these three are one God.

And frankly, that level of theological detail isn't what makes a person a Christian or not.  A Christian is a follow of Christ-- acknowledging the Father, Son, and Spirit, and following.  It's not about passing a theology test about whether or not you agree with documents written ~500 AD.  

Edited September 3, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[mfbukowski]

17 minutes ago, theplains said:

I believe the scriptures give us the true identity of Jesus Christ so we don't have that excuse of not getting it right through
no fault of our own.  That's why the Bible warns of false teachers of prophets - this presumes we know how to detect
them.  We have the choice to hear the truth and then to accept or reject it.  That is why I don't follow a Jesus who is said
to be Michael the Archangel or some "spirit become God after reaching a pinnacle of intelligence."

Taking a glance into LDS theology for a bit ... if 1/3 of Heavenly Father's spirit children knew they would be in the lake of
fire with Satan, I highly doubt they would have followed him in the war against Jesus (as some interpret Revelation 12 to
denote).

For those who have never heard the gospel, I believe God will judge them on the knowledge of Him they had at death.

My brother said he would wait until after death to make his choice.  But I told him it would be too late.  Because it would not
be based on faith, but on fact.  He can't use the excuse that he didn't know or was deceived.  He just wouldn't accept the
truth (yet) when he heard it.

Jim

Well then it all comes back to the circularity of the Bible- believe the bible because it says it's true

How do you know it's true?

Because it says so!   It could not possibly be that you know by personal revelation - because that is what those evil Mormons believe!!

And what of those who never had a bible? (China 300 BC, etc)

And God judging them on the "knowledge of Him they had at death" is pretty much exactly what we believe!

We just extend it to folks like you too who do not understand !!  I am not going to blame you for not understanding US and neither will God.   We will both be judged by our knowledge at death as only God himself can- and then we will go on and progress from there!

Evangelicals just cannot answer our questions and then think we go to hell because they can't answer our questions!  I don't think that is God's way!!

See you on the other side Bro- we will have some great discussions then!!

Meet you on a cloud just left of the entrance to the Pearly Gates... ! 

Section 76

Quote

 

75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

 

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Jane_Doe]

12 minutes ago, theplains said:

I believe the scriptures give us the true identity of Jesus Christ so we don't have that excuse of not getting it right through
no fault of our own. 

I'm sorry, but this argument is nothing but a self-contridiciton coming anyone who also claims the Creeds.  

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, theplains said:

I believe the scriptures give us the true identity of Jesus Christ so we don't have that excuse of not getting it right through
no fault of our own. 

And those who never had access to the scriptures?

[Truth2Tell]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm assuming you meant "Trinity" here.

Yes, and thank you.  I knew there was something wrong with it but it slipped by me.  ☺️ Believing in the precepts of Christianity does not change because of what two breakaway groups have chosen to believe while still insisting that they are Christian.   The devil is in the details.  You can not ignore them and insist that they don't matter because it suits your agenda.  If Christianity says that the Trinity is one thing and you decide to deny that and to see it in another way, then you are not a Christian.  You can be a follower of Christ but not part of the Christian community.   Mormons don't accept people into their church just because they say that they are Mormon.  There are rules and hoops.  This is a Christian hoop.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

And those who never had access to the scriptures?

Exactly

"They will be judged by their knowledge of God at their death"

Yeah, pretty much what we believe.  Evangelicals will be judged on what they know and then wait around to get taught, and learn to progress in knowledge.

Seems like pretty simple stuff to me.  They are blinded by the doctrines of men like Luther et al.  So they learn more and see how they were mistaken.

We've got that covered but they can't see it. 

Oh well.

That's why I don 't bother with those folks unless they come on pridefully like this newbie who came down on Tacenda, or seem to be actually seeking like theplains.

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Truth2Tell said:

Yes, and thank you.  I knew there was something wrong with it but it slipped by me.  ☺️ Believing in the precepts of Christianity does not change because of what two breakaway groups have chosen to believe while still insisting that they are Christian.   The devil is in the details.  You can not ignore them and insist that they don't matter because it suits your agenda.  If Christianity says that the Trinity is one thing and you decide to deny that and to see it in another way, then you are not a Christian.  You can be a follower of Christ but not part of the Christian community.   Mormons don't accept people into their church just because they say that they are Mormon.  There are rules and hoops.  This is a Christian hoop.

"Christian Community" and "hoops" are defined by a document written in 500 AD? 

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

"Christian Community" and "hoops" are defined by a document written in 500 AD? 

And about the trilogy for that matter.

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And about the trilogy for that matter.

I'm not going to get on anyone's case about a typo--- that would be WAY hypocritical of me

But it does deeply bother me when people pretend the Athanasian Creed is in the Bible.  It's just not.    And people pretending it is just makes them look.... so horribly unread.  

Edited September 3, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Truth2Tell said:

Yes, and thank you.  I knew there was something wrong with it but it slipped by me.  ☺️ Believing in the precepts of Christianity does not change because of what two breakaway groups have chosen to believe while still insisting that they are Christian.   The devil is in the details.  You can not ignore them and insist that they don't matter because it suits your agenda.  If Christianity says that the Trinity is one thing and you decide to deny that and to see it in another way, then you are not a Christian.  You can be a follower of Christ but not part of the Christian community.   Mormons don't accept people into their church just because they say that they are Mormon.  There are rules and hoops.  This is a Christian hoop.

Methinks it is your hoop. There are and have been various and sundry forms of the trinity over the years. One God - three persons - all co-equal and co-existent, and co-eternal and all of the same essence. That is my concept of the trinity. I  would never say someone is not a Christian who doesn't agree exactly with me on every one of those points. Would you ban them from Christianity?

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm not going to get on anyone's case about a typo--- that would be WAY hypocritical of me

But it does deeply bother me when people pretend the Athanasian Creed is in the Bible.  It's just not.    And people pretending it is just makes them look.... so horribly unread.  

Hi Jane and what bothers me is folks who continue to claim that Protestants, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are creedal. Pretty soon I am going to have to start insisting what Mormons believe regardless of what you all tell me. I am not sure where so many Mormons got programmed on this creedal obsession. I happen to think that the Bible teaches a trinitarian view of the Godhead and that the earliest editions of the Book of Mormon did too, as did early Mormonism a la Sidney Rigdon. I have never paid any attention to the creeds or no offense, to Athanasius. I took all the church history I could get in university, seminary, and graduate school but only because I love history, not because I was looking for the source of my beliefs. I don't want to debate the trinity with anyone here. That isn't why I am here. I am simply confused by this constant creedal thing. Please let it go. It isn't a factor for probably over 85 to 90% of Protestants, fundamentalists and evangelicals.

 

[Jane_Doe]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Jane and what bothers me is folks who continue to claim that Protestants, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are creedal. Pretty soon I am going to have to start insisting what Mormons believe regardless of what you all tell me. I am not sure where so many Mormons got programmed on this creedal obsession. I happen to think that the Bible teaches a trinitarian view of the Godhead and that the earliest editions of the Book of Mormon did too, as did early Mormonism a la Sidney Rigdon. I have never paid any attention to the creeds or no offense, to Athanasius. I took all the church history I could get in university, seminary, and graduate school but only because I love history, not because I was looking for the source of my beliefs. I don't want to debate the trinity with anyone here. That isn't why I am here. I am simply confused by this constant creedal thing. Please let it go. It isn't a factor for probably over 85 to 90% of Protestants, fundamentalists and evangelicals.

 

Hi @Navidad, my comment was directed specifically at @Truth2Tell, based off her earlier post insisting how believing in the Trinity was a "hoop" for belonging to the "Christian Community".  Admittedly, after spending decades being spat at and told that I'm a "non-Christian cultist" for not agreeing with Athanasius--- and being told this usually by people who don't even know who Athanasius was.... admittedly I'm short tempered with @Truth2Tell's type of argument -- I find it horribly ignorant and puts on a bad face for rest of Christians (vast majority of whom are more like you).  Yes, this is a case of the vocal minority being loud and obnoxious, and me being.... imperfect here.  I'll very readily acknowledge all of that.

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Jane and what bothers me is folks who continue to claim that Protestants, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are creedal. Pretty soon I am going to have to start insisting what Mormons believe regardless of what you all tell me. I am not sure where so many Mormons got programmed on this creedal obsession. I happen to think that the Bible teaches a trinitarian view of the Godhead and that the earliest editions of the Book of Mormon did too, as did early Mormonism a la Sidney Rigdon. I have never paid any attention to the creeds or no offense, to Athanasius. I took all the church history I could get in university, seminary, and graduate school but only because I love history, not because I was looking for the source of my beliefs. I don't want to debate the trinity with anyone here. That isn't why I am here. I am simply confused by this constant creedal thing. Please let it go. It isn't a factor for probably over 85 to 90% of Protestants, fundamentalists and evangelicals.

 

I'm not the most schooled person on the subject, but this does show a list of creeds for various Christians denominations, some of which were prominent in Joseph Smith's day and place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_creeds

I agree that most believers don't practice their religion from a creedal orientation. I think the "creedal thing" has to do with any false content in the creeds, and the "professors" who specifically "draw near to [Christ] with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him]" and who "teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof" rather than the personal beliefs and intentions of the "practitioners" who are doing the best they can with what they've got. For example, I remember how greatly some Charismatics differed from the creed of their formal Catholic association, and they considered themselves Catholic. As a new member of the Church, it was a little unnerving to stand in a prayer circle with them and hearing them speak in tongues but I wanted to get along with my girlfriend's parents!

In a discussion about creeds, there may be some shorthand going on that may make it appear otherwise, but I do take these remarks to be more about the "professors" and the content of the creeds than about the "followers." And when someone promotes a particular creed to judge the validity of another believer in Christ as Christian or not, they become a deputized professor.

Edited September 4, 2018 by CV75

[Navidad]

Hi my friend - These creeds on Wikipedia are mostly similar to the 13 articles of faith of the LDS Church. Would you be comfortable if I call them a creed and direct descendants of the various early church creeds? First, I wouldn't do that because it isn't true. They are statements of faith of the many different groups. I have studied under some professors as your describe. They are great for intellectual stimulation, but any spiritual growth from their teaching is absent. I have seen that in many groups, including in Mormonism. There are Charismatic Catholics certainly. I don't know enough about them to know what exactly they represent, other than the charismatic experience, which I do not share. I simply cannot believe that some fundamentalist in Temple Square who is trying to convert Mormons does so on the basis of the Athanasian creed. I would like to have a go at him or her. That is incomprehensible to me. I do think Mormons have a tendency perhaps to overstate the opposition on the basis of Nicea and Athanasius. Creedal Christians are not especially evangelistic. I don't expect to find them outside of LDS pageants hollering out their opposition. Best, Phil

[Navidad]

20 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Hi @Navidad, my comment was directed specifically at @Truth2Tell, based off her earlier post insisting how believing in the Trinity was a "hoop" for belonging to the "Christian Community".  Admittedly, after spending decades being spat at and told that I'm a "non-Christian cultist" for not agreeing with Athanasius--- and being told this usually by people who don't even know who Athanasius was.... admittedly I'm short tempered with @Truth2Tell's type of argument -- I find it horribly ignorant and puts on a bad face for rest of Christians (vast majority of whom are more like you).  Yes, this is a case of the vocal minority being loud and obnoxious, and me being.... imperfect here.  I'll very readily acknowledge all of that.

Jane: I don't know what to say. I hate that you have been spat on. That you have been spat upon for not agreeing with Athanasius is, methinks your interpretation. Many Mormons like to simply deny the existence of the trinity in the Bible, so therefore they force any such belief on a belief in Athanasius. They triumphantly state that the word trinity is nowhere in the Bible. Sigh!  I, in addition happen to believe that the trinity is present in the 1830 original translation of The Book of Mormon prior to the "son of God" edits. Certainly Sidney Rigdon was a trinitarian as might have been Joseph Smith in the beginning. I haven't brought any of that up on this forum because it is not my purpose for being here. I am a Trinitarian who recognizes that a belief in the Trinity comes in many forms. I am happy and capable of discourse with @Truth2Tell on that issue. Please don't take what she said and now say, Protestants say the trinity is a rule and a hoop. That is her opinion. I have no idea to what group she belongs.  You are a good person, kind and definitely a Christian. Phil

[Storm Rider]

"All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ." - J. Kenneth Grider  

When I find people arguing about the definition of a Christian, I have found that the best definition I can provide is the one above by Ken Grider.  His wisdom is self-evident and I have yet to hear a better definition. 

[Jane_Doe]

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Jane: I don't know what to say. I hate that you have been spat on. That you have been spat upon for not agreeing with Athanasius is, methinks your interpretation. Many Mormons like to simply deny the existence of the trinity in the Bible, so therefore they force any such belief on a belief in Athanasius. They triumphantly state that the word trinity is nowhere in the Bible. Sigh!  I, in addition happen to believe that the trinity is present in the 1830 original translation of The Book of Mormon prior to the "son of God" edits. Certainly Sidney Rigdon was a trinitarian as might have been Joseph Smith in the beginning. I haven't brought any of that up on this forum because it is not my purpose for being here. I am a Trinitarian who recognizes that a belief in the Trinity comes in many forms. I am happy and capable of discourse with @Truth2Tell on that issue. Please don't take what she said and now say, Protestants say the trinity is a rule and a hoop. That is her opinion. I have no idea to what group she belongs.  You are a good person, kind and definitely a Christian. Phil

Thank you.

For a point of clarification: I have no problem with folks believing the Trinitarian interpretation of the Bible.  No problem whatsoever.  My issue comes when people become downright hostile to folks that have other interpretations.  I likewise have issues when LDS folks become hostile to other folks who have different interpretations (whether that other person is LDS or not).

Edited September 4, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

 

My brother said he would wait until after death to make his choice.  But I told him it would be too late.  Because it would not
be based on faith, but on fact.  He can't use the excuse that he didn't know or was deceived.  He just wouldn't accept the
truth (yet) when he heard it.

We all proved we can follow God in the pre-mortal world by living and following God based on fact and evidence.  Those who demand fact and evidence to believe simply are attempting to retest what we all passed in the pre-mortal world.   This life is about moving to the next step or test.  Not retesting past steps or tests.  Anybody can believe something if they have sufficient evidence to believe.  There is nothing special about that. It sure is not going to impress anyone and God is not going to give a special reward for that.

Edited September 4, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Truth2Tell said:

Yes, and thank you.  I knew there was something wrong with it but it slipped by me.  ☺️ Believing in the precepts of Christianity does not change because of what two breakaway groups have chosen to believe while still insisting that they are Christian.   The devil is in the details.  You can not ignore them and insist that they don't matter because it suits your agenda.  If Christianity says that the Trinity is one thing and you decide to deny that and to see it in another way, then you are not a Christian.  You can be a follower of Christ but not part of the Christian community.   Mormons don't accept people into their church just because they say that they are Mormon.  There are rules and hoops.  This is a Christian hoop.

The word "Christian" is like "ice cream".  There are many different flavors and kinds of ice cream.  Just because a person loves vanilla and does not like rocky road does not mean that rocky road is not ice cream.  To be a Christian under the dictionary definition is simply according to dictionary.com

adjective

1. of, relating to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ:
3. of or relating to Christians:
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike:
5. decent; respectable:
6. human; not brutal; humane:

noun

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ:
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name

Based in this, there is nothing in here that excludes LDS from being Christians.  One can add their own personal definitions to exclude us but those are personal made up definitions which are not valid in the normal discourse of conversation between people.

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Truth2Tell]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

a person who believes in Jesus Christ

Apparently, the fact that the Mormon Jesus is unrecognizable to a Christian doesn't matter.  Pure deflection.

[Rivers]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The word "Christian" is like "ice cream".  There are many different flavors and kinds of ice cream.  Just because a person loves vanilla and does not like rocky road does not mean that rocky road is not ice cream.  To be a Christian under the dictionary definition is simply according to dictionary.com

adjective

1. of, relating to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ:
3. of or relating to Christians:
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike:
5. decent; respectable:
6. human; not brutal; humane:

noun

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ:
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name

Based in this, there is nothing in here that excludes LDS from being Christians.  One can add their own personal definitions to exclude us but those are personal made up definitions which are not valid in the normal discourse of conversation between people.

 

To many Christians, Mormons fall so far outside the mainstream that we are not part of the Christian family.  We are not Eastern Orthodox; Catholic, or Protestent. We are whole different kind of religion in their eyes.  To use your ice cream analogy, Mormons are not really ice cream.  We are more like gelatto, frozen yogurt, or sherbet.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Rivers

[Navidad]

25 minutes ago, Truth2Tell said:

Apparently, the fact that the Mormon Jesus is unrecognizable to a Christian doesn't matter.  Pure deflection.

Hi: Please explain what you mean with specifics. I am certainly a Christian and I recognize the Mormon Jesus. He is their saviour, the one through whose atonement they are redeemed. He is God, a member of the Godhead of three persons in a monotheistic sense. He was fully God and fully man after his birth, he was virgin born, he died, rose again and ascended back into heaven where he sits on the right hand of the father. Which part of that do you not recognize?