Definition of the Term Christian when Referring to a Person

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Hi Navidad. I'm not picking on you or your words, I just want to clarify to readers that what you write is not the Catholic position. Catholicism believes that the visible church is the institution and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

 

Okeedokee! I agree and understand. I will also make it clearer that when I use the word "us" I am not speaking for the Catholic position. My guess is I aim or claim to speak for the Evangelical movement, which in my experience does not exclude Catholics by any means. But the Evangelical position and the official position of the Catholic church are two different things. Would you agree that there are Evangelical Catholics, just like there are Charismatic Catholics, and Traditionalist Catholics? There probably are even post-Vatican II Catholics! Oh my! What have I said?😀

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Reign Gurl said:

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure. I'm still unsure of what distinguishes a "living" church. Are you claiming that a church is "living" if it has an alive figurehead who claims to have Heavenly Authority?

Really?

I apologize, but I find this to be a really demeaning statement. In essence, you're advising Christians to relax about the possibility of not having a "living" church while on earth. Since God has built a place for them in heaven called Spirit prison, where the Mormons will teach them everything they need to know alongside every other religion that the Earthly authorities so mischievously forced onto its adherents, you can go there to learn everything you need to know so one day you'll become a member of the actual "living" church. 

Is that what you mean when saying, don't worry, you'll have plenty of time  and opportunity to figure it out? You're referring to spirit prison?

 

Yes, apostolic succession is what being a living extension of that original apostleship is.

Are you a hyperbolic atheist or a universalist? Thats the only reason for your odd sense of offence. Other than Universalism, the LDS plan of salvation is one of the most inclusive belief systems there are. A real LDS member would know the spirit prison is not in heaven, rather the realm of the underworld, the Jews called Sheol, where all people, good and evil go to wait judgement, there are captives that thirst for "water" of the gospel and Yhwh will visit and recover them, even those formerly described as his captive enemies, and the Catholic Purgatory, where people wait to receive the gospel and baptism. The Catholics are uncertain how the Lord will take care of them in a just manner, only they are certain He will, but the LDS doctrine affirms that even the Chinese rice farmer who never heard of Jesus Christ his whole life and dies will have the gospel preached to him, be offered ordinances, and if he desires, exaltation. Unevangelized and unbaptized can all be saved post-mortem and receive exaltation, no matter the denomination they were. Why are you pretending to be LDS? Condemning people is totally giving you away. God is just, and merciful, so on that point you should indeed "relax", just don't be complacent, character matters more than upbringing.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

 

Yes, apostolic succession is what being a living extension of that original apostleship is.

Are you a hyperbolic atheist or a universalist? Thats the only reason for your odd sense of offence. Other than Universalism, the LDS plan of salvation is one of the most inclusive belief systems there are. A real LDS member would know the spirit prison is not in heaven, rather the realm of the underworld, the Jews called Sheol, where all people, good and evil go to wait judgement, there are captives that thirst for "water" of the gospel and Yhwh will visit and recover them, even those formerly described as his captive enemies, and the Catholic Purgatory, where people wait to receive the gospel and baptism. The Catholics are uncertain how the Lord will take care of them in a just manner, only they are certain He will, but the LDS doctrine affirms that even the Chinese rice farmer who never heard of Jesus Christ his whole life and dies will have the gospel preached to him, be offered ordinances, and if he desires, exaltation. Unevangelized and unbaptized can all be saved post-mortem and receive exaltation, no matter the denomination they were. Why are you pretending to be LDS? Condemning people is totally giving you away. God is just, and merciful, so on that point you should indeed "relax", just don't be complacent, character matters more than upbringing.

I find it difficult to reply that I agree or disagree with what you wrote! 🙃 I think I semi-agree, not that it really matters, but I prefer to find agreements more than disagreements. I can't agree that the LDS gospel will be preached to anyone in spirit prison, for the simple reason I do not agree that there will be earthly or mortal denominations in the eternities. No more anyone of Paul or Apollos or Peter or Jew or Greek. I can't say that with unarguable certainty - I prefer to say it with provisional certainty.

I can't accept the idea that baptism, by any mode, in any manner, by anyone has anything to do with eternal destiny. I only believe in exaltation in the sense of sanctification and becoming like Christ, not as Christ.

Now the biggie - I do believe that the Chinese rice farmer who never heard of Jesus Christ his whole life and dies will have the privilege/opportunity to be judged by Christ. I do believe there is a wideness in His mercy. I do believe that no one comes unto the Father but by Christ - and that happens at the final judgment. I do believe with you that many who are unevangelized and unbaptized may be ushered into the presence of the Father by Christ's perfectly balanced righteousness and mercy. Therefore I and many many Evangelicals believe that there will be more people ushered into the heavenly kingdom(s) (however many exist) to spend eternity with Christ and the Father. There now! I disagree and agree! Maybe I can get my head back on straight now! 🙂 Oh, that's better!

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I find it difficult to reply that I agree or disagree with what you wrote! 🙃 I think I semi-agree, not that it really matters, but I prefer to find agreements more than disagreements. I can't agree that the LDS gospel will be preached to anyone in spirit prison, for the simple reason I do not agree that there will be earthly or mortal denominations in the eternities. No more anyone of Paul or Apollos or Peter or Jew or Greek. I can't say that with unarguable certainty - I prefer to say it with provisional certainty.

I can't accept the idea that baptism, by any mode, in any manner, by anyone has anything to do with eternal destiny. I only believe in exaltation in the sense of sanctification and becoming like Christ, not as Christ.

Now the biggie - I do believe that the Chinese rice farmer who never heard of Jesus Christ his whole life and dies will have the privilege/opportunity to be judged by Christ. I do believe there is a wideness in His mercy. I do believe that no one comes unto the Father but by Christ - and that happens at the final judgment. I do believe with you that many who are unevangelized and unbaptized may be ushered into the presence of the Father by Christ's perfectly balanced righteousness and mercy. Therefore I and many many Evangelicals believe that there will be more people ushered into the heavenly kingdom(s) (however many exist) to spend eternity with Christ and the Father. There now! I disagree and agree! Maybe I can get my head back on straight now! 🙂 Oh, that's better!

Indeed, I don't pretend to know what the Spirit World gospel message is, I don't think its LDS doctrine that one needs to be told the First Vision in a world without competing denominational ideologies. Baptism has been universally a requirement until recent centuries, baptism was viewed as the acceptance of Christ and being sanctified, and still seems to be preached from the Bible as something everyone, who can, should morally do for some reason. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Indeed, I don't pretend to know what the Spirit World gospel message is, I don't think its LDS doctrine that one needs to be told the First Vision in a world without competing denominations where that story might matter. Baptism has been universally a requirement for salvation until recent centuries, as baptism was viewed as the acceptance of Christ and being sanctified, and still seems to be preached as something everyone, who can, should morally do for some reason.

 

I think the idea that baptism was not necessarily salvific began at least as early as 1420 or so. It may even have been earlier. I am not sure. I agree with your last statement. Testifying of ones faith in Christ is seen as an important thing to do, although not necessary.

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your insightful (as always) reply. I think however, you are confusing (no offense) the concept for the non-LDS Christian of "Canon" versus "Revelation." There is a broad distinction between the two, as there is sometimes for the LDS. For example. Wilford Woodruff's desert revelation was declared (by the Brethren) to be useful for the general church, but not as Canon. It was never included in the D&C or added to the POGP as LDS canon. But it was acknowledged as revelation that was helpful for church members, and they were encouraged to read it. Read the text of their decision on this point and it was clear. Revelation - yes. Canon - no. 

First of all, thank you for your reply as well.   I always respect and appreciate your point of view.  I'm going to try hard to understand your distinction here, but I'm not sure I understand the difference.  I don't think I'm really confusing the concept of the non-LDS Christian "Canon" with revelation.  I will try to explain what I mean further, and hopefully you can follow up and help me see the distinction you are trying to make.  

When I say "Canon" I'm referring to the books we accept as scripture that are considered to be the authoritative written rule of faith and practice for the Church, and also considered to be the "word of God".  In Latter-day Saint terminology, we would refer to it as our Standard Works (the Bible, Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price).  For the non-LDS Christian world the Canon of scripture is limited to the Bible (either 66 books for Protestants, or 73 for the Catholics).   

To me this is distinctly different than "Revelation", because every individual is entitled to personal revelation from God pertaining to their own lives and walk with God, but rarely are such revelations binding on the Christian body as a whole.  So when I speak of the scriptural Canon, I'm talking about those books of scripture considered to be the inspired and revealed word of God and binding upon and applicable to the whole Church. 

I see the "living church" as having an open scriptural canon, one that could be added to when God has something he wants to give to the entire church.  These would be revelations from God that would be added to scripture, much like the Latter-day Saints do with our Doctrine and Covenants.

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Also notice Sproul's words (which for some reason did not copy over) that there are those within the "visible church" - that in and of itself implies they are Christians because for us, the visible church has nothing to do with any institution or organization, but refers to individuals collectively who are Christian, regardless of organizational affiliation.

This is also a huge difference between our faiths.  I accept that there is a "visible church" that encompasses all true Christians (and when I say "true Christians" I'm talking about what's in the heart, not denomination or Christian group).  But the fact that there is no over all governing body or organization for the "visible church" seems to be one of the things that precludes the possibility of having a revelation given to the body as a whole that would be considered as scripture.  Who would God choose to receive such a revelation?  And how would it go over with the "visible church" if someone steps forward and says God has called them and has given them a revelation that pertains to the "visible church" and should be added as scripture?   (We already know how that worked out for Joseph Smith).

So this organizational question is important to the whole point of continuing revelation to the church as a body.  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there was a restoration of the original governing body of apostles and prophets, which automatically opens up the possibility of having something revealed by God to the entire church.  The structure is already in place for that to happen, just like it happened in New Testament Christianity.

The Sproul article on the Canon has an example of what I'm talking about here:

Quote

The English Bible is composed of 66 books. How do we know that these books and no others are the infallible and inerrant Word of God? The basic answer to this question is that when men wrote these books, they came to be aware that they had written the Word of God. Right away, the community of the faithful recognized that these books were the Word of God because the Spirit of God caused them to recognize the Master's voice. Thus, right away, each new book was added to the collection that Moses had begun. This process went on during the Old Testament times and continued in the New Testament. We see this process in action in 2 Peter 3:16, where Peter refers to Paul's letters as already part of the canon (list) of Scripture.

This is very similar to how the early revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants (previously Book of Commandments) were compiled in Latter-day Saint history.  What other church today does this kind of thing?  This is why I include this in my definition of a "living Church".   As our 9th Article of Faith says:  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Going back to my former example with Wilford Woodruff, he had the vision when he was an apostle. He went before the Brethren with a copy of it. The declined to declare it to be canonical (the stuff that gets in the D&C or POGP). Then he became president. Could he have then declared it (the vision) to have been Canonical? Wouldn't he need the support the same (most) of the men who had decided otherwise eight years before? He never did that. I think the same folks may have equivocated when the made the decision to add his 1890 manifesto to the back of the D&C and of course later the family manifesto. They did not become new sections in the LDS approved canon, did they? I think their placement implies a difference?

There were a lot of personal revelations that were not included in the standard works (the LDS Canon), primarily because they may not have been relevant to the church as a whole.  But others have been included, like Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, which was added to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1981 as section 138.

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

Sproul used the word heresy - that is strongly worded, but doesn't mean "non-Christian."

I wasn't referring to his talk about heresy.  When I said that the article "hints that those who add to the canon of scripture are not Christian", I was referring to this statement:  "While no Christian today seeks to add to the Canon....", which would imply (in my mind) that those who DO seek to add to the Canon are not Christian.

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

It goes way back even to the arguments about Origen. As many of his peers thought many of his statements were heretical, (why I object to them being considered normative), he has been defined as the "father of orthodoxy" and the "father of heresy." As one modern scholar has also written, he was "gifted, devout, and condemned."

Which of Origen's contemporary peers thought many of his statements were heretical?  I'm fully aware of the controversy surrounding some of his views a couple of centuries after his death, but that doesn't count.  If the doctrinal views changed through the years (as would be the case if there was an apostasy) then later interpretations of his work would be considerably tainted by the later changes in doctrine.  Do you have examples of contemporary peers that thought him to be heretical?

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

So it often is with the interpretation of revelation and the decision with regard to canon. Many new documents have been discovered over the last 1500 years. None, that I know of have ever been added to the "canon" of non-LDS Christianity. I always have to add things like "that I know of" because I don't believe anything is unarguable - a word someone used earlier. In Sproul's reformed PCA context, only a Christian could be heretical. I have had many Saints say to me that I cannot be an apostate, because I never accepted the truths of the LDS restoration and joined the church. I can only be and, as a matter of fact am a reprobate! I feel so much better! Take care.

I'm not necessarily talking about ancient documents that may be discovered and added to scripture (although there is a good possibility that as Israel is gathered, some documents may come forth that contain the word of God as given to their prophets anciently, in the lands to where they were dispersed, and these books may be considered scripture and added to our Canon of scripture.  I detailed that possibility in a post yesterday in this same thread).  My point about this being a feature of the "living Church" is that it is something that could happen in real time today, like what the Latter-day Saints do and have done with the Doctrine and Covenants.

Hopefully this helps clarify my views.  Please let me know if you still think I'm confusing this with what you see happening in other Christian groups.

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

First of all, thank you for your reply as well.   I always respect and appreciate your point of view.  I'm going to try hard to understand your distinction here, but I'm not sure I understand the difference.  I don't think I'm really confusing the concept of the non-LDS Christian "Canon" with revelation.  I will try to explain what I mean further, and hopefully you can follow up and help me see the distinction you are trying to make.  

When I say "Canon" I'm referring to the books we accept as scripture that are considered to be the authoritative written rule of faith and practice for the Church, and also considered to be the "word of God".  In Latter-day Saint terminology, we would refer to it as our Standard Works (the Bible, Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price).  For the non-LDS Christian world the Canon of scripture is limited to the Bible (either 66 books for Protestants, or 73 for the Catholics).   

To me this is distinctly different than "Revelation", because every individual is entitled to personal revelation from God pertaining to their own lives and walk with God, but rarely are such revelations binding on the Christian body as a whole.  So when I speak of the scriptural Canon, I'm talking about those books of scripture considered to be the inspired and revealed word of God and binding upon and applicable to the whole Church. 

I see the "living church" as having an open scriptural canon, one that could be added to when God has something he wants to give to the entire church.  These would be revelations from God that would be added to scripture, much like the Latter-day Saints do with our Doctrine and Covenants.

This is also a huge difference between our faiths.  I accept that there is a "visible church" that encompasses all true Christians (and when I say "true Christians" I'm talking about what's in the heart, not denomination or Christian group).  But the fact that there is no over all governing body or organization for the "visible church" seems to be one of the things that precludes the possibility of having a revelation given to the body as a whole that would be considered as scripture.  Who would God choose to receive such a revelation?  And how would it go over with the "visible church" if someone steps forward and says God has called them and has given them a revelation that pertains to the "visible church" and should be added as scripture?   (We already know how that worked out for Joseph Smith).

So this organizational question is important to the whole point of continuing revelation to the church as a body.  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there was a restoration of the original governing body of apostles and prophets, which automatically opens up the possibility of having something revealed by God to the entire church.  The structure is already in place for that to happen, just like it happened in New Testament Christianity.

The Sproul article on the Canon has an example of what I'm talking about here:

This is very similar to how the early revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants (previously Book of Commandments) were compiled in Latter-day Saint history.  What other church today does this kind of thing?  This is why I include this in my definition of a "living Church".   As our 9th Article of Faith says:  "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  

There were a lot of personal revelations that were not included in the standard works (the LDS Canon), primarily because they may not have been relevant to the church as a whole.  But others have been included, like Joseph F. Smith's vision of the redemption of the dead, which was added to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1981 as section 138.

I wasn't referring to his talk about heresy.  When I said that the article "hints that those who add to the canon of scripture are not Christian", I was referring to this statement:  "While no Christian today seeks to add to the Canon....", which would imply (in my mind) that those who DO seek to add to the Canon are not Christian.

Which of Origen's contemporary peers thought many of his statements were heretical?  I'm fully aware of the controversy surrounding some of his views a couple of centuries after his death, but that doesn't count.  If the doctrinal views changed through the years (as would be the case if there was an apostasy) then later interpretations of his work would be considerably tainted by the later changes in doctrine.  Do you have examples of contemporary peers that thought him to be heretical?

I'm not necessarily talking about ancient documents that may be discovered and added to scripture (although there is a good possibility that as Israel is gathered, some documents may come forth that contain the word of God as given to their prophets anciently, in the lands to where they were dispersed, and these books may be considered scripture and added to our Canon of scripture.  I detailed that possibility in a post yesterday in this same thread).  My point about this being a feature of the "living Church" is that it is something that could happen in real time today, like what the Latter-day Saints do and have done with the Doctrine and Covenants.

Hopefully this helps clarify my views.  Please let me know if you still think I'm confusing this with what you see happening in other Christian groups.

Thanks again for a reply from which I can learn. That is what it is all about for me.

Regarding Origen's contemporaries and accusations of heresy - I would suggest the most important person in his life in Alexandria as a budding Christian thinker was Demetrius, his bishop. Origen requested ordination from his bishop and his bishop refused because of the heterodox teachings and writings. They allowed him to teach, but not to preach or perform ordinances. Origen then began in real time bishop-hopping. He found a bishop, I believe in Caesarea who agreed to ordain him as some form of minister. Origen then left Alexandria and moved to Caesarea. His ordination was controversial among his peers. His own synod condemned his views. From that point on, Origen's travels and teachings were primarily done outside of the jurisdiction of his own synod. I don't have time today to go back through sources, but I have no doubt I could find a number of examples of his contemporaries not supporting his theological speculations. He was a thinker. No question about that. At times his thinking went too far afield, apparently even for his own bishop and peers. I have been under the authority of a bishop. During that time, he was the most important religious contemporary in my life.

I don't think there is a distinction between your view of canon versus revelation and mine. I think we basically agree.

Your use of the term "entire church" several times in your reply is confusing to me. You seem to be referring to the LDS church as the "entire church," while acknowledging that there is a  broader community of Christians without government or structure. Certainly you are correct that there is no method for a Christian-wide revelation that would be accepted by all. However if and when God decides to provide a world-wide theophany or hierophany, I think the vast majority of those who experience it, would accept it. Of course, there has never been such a thing in the history of the visible church. There also has been no such thing in the last century or so among the Saints and their church. I remember a wonderful talk at a Sunstone Conference where the speaker, a medical doctor and current bishop talked about the "aspirational nature" of certain LDS scriptures. I found that very interesting and insightful. It is like those who speak about the future or the past in the present tense. That happens a lot here in Mexico. In your own words, you are describing things that "could happen," not that are happening. That is aspirational. Nothing wrong with it - I just find it an interesting concept.  You state, "My point about this being a feature of the "living Church" is that it is something that could happen in real time today, like what the Latter-day Saints do and have done with the Doctrine and Covenants." You use of the term "could happen" is indeed aspirational. I have no problem agreeing with that. With God, virtually anything could happen in real time. I don't know any Christians from any group that would deny that.

I do not believe that Sproul was saying that those who might seek to add to the Canon are non-Christian. I believe he would have held that they would be wrong, perhaps even heretical. Sproul was a leader in the PCA - The Presbyterian Church in America. That group (strongly Evangelical) was created as an alternative to both the modernism they thought existed in the PCUSA and the fundamentalism of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as founded by J. Gresham Machen ( a friend of my father). As happened so many times, those with Evangelical leanings separated themselves from both those who they thought were too progressive/liberal/social gospelish - pick your word) and those who were overly strident fundamentalists (in this case reformed) to stake out a moderate position somewhere in the middle. Gotta run. Lots to do.Best wishes.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I see the "living church" as having an open scriptural canon, one that could be added to when God has something he wants to give to the entire church.  These would be revelations from God that would be added to scripture, much like the Latter-day Saints do with our Doctrine and Covenants.

Off the point totally, BUT for me, I see the process the secular make secular by calling it godless "evolution" is actually God's design both for us individually and humanity as a whole to lead us forth as a chessmaster teaching a student through practice by presenting problems the student needs to solve for himself, or for us as his people 

-Abortion

Gender issues

Global warming 

Which candidate is less evil-

Which paradigm will we create with divine guidance to solve these issues?

Again, I see it pragmatically, the "best" solution has a chance to "evolve" by "proving contraries", aka dialectical reasoning, opposition in all things, and yet including the "still small voice".

"Same as it ever was, letting the day go by..."

THIS is the strength of having a prophet to lead us and the Holy Spirit to verify the teachings he gives.

[mfbukowski]

Sorry folks, my response above should have been to @InCognitus and not to @Navidad

Oops, I did it again!! 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry folks, my response above should have been to @InCognitus and not to @Navidad

Oops, I did it again!! 

I knew what you meant  

[Chum]

On 11/28/2022 at 9:17 AM, Navidad said:

On 11/27/2022 at 3:05 PM, Chum said:

It occurs to me - an appeal of defining other individuals as Christian is the ability to label unliked individuals as Not Christian.

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at? Can you amplify a bit?

Take two Christian sects, A and B. Sect A really dislikes Sect B. To best demonize Sect B, Sect A claims the ability to define+declare who is and isn't Christian.