ErikJohnson

Hi bytor2112—Your opening words suggest you aren’t clear on what the word “theology” means. Per Dictionary.com, it means: “The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.” So when you ask: “Whose theology?”—the only possible answer in this context is Piper’s. It’s his study, his analysis of God’s Word, and his observations and conclusions. If you intended this to be a rhetorical question, I’m afraid I don’t see your point. But feel free to explain. You might also explain what setting up a kingdom has to do with Piper's theology, because I'm not making the connection here either. Regarding the people interviewed in the Christianity Today article you cited—why do you tell us they don’t know “anything about God?” What specifically was it about their questions that lead you to your conclusion? And what does any of this have to do with Joseph Smith’s claim that a Personage (I forget which one) said all church creeds were an abomination? Are we to understand you think the beliefs of Reformed Christians are an abomination? Just say it if that is what you mean. No need to be coy. --Erik

Appreciate the link, AnthonyB. And I realize you probably put it out there as an illustration, and not necessarily to defend and discuss. Nonetheless, I think it's worthy of some comment. If I were to offer a criticism of Cottrell’s approach, it would be that he makes no effort to substantiate his positions with Scripture. And if I were on the other side of the discussion, I would probably not have picked this particular essay. Cottrell’s apparent lack of need for Scripture in support of his theological conclusions may serve to give readers new to the subject the wrong impression about Arminians and the basis of their position on God's Sovereignty and human will. (He does make a reference to Ephesians 1:11—but only to say the verse may be taken as something other than face value.) Many of the Arminian persuasion do take their Bible seriously, of course, and make full use of it in their theological writings. (Elsewhere Cottrell might too—I’m just not familiar.) And far be it from me to suggest that those of us who lean Reformed have nothing to learn from our Christian brothers and sisters who follow in the Wesley/Methodist tradition, for example. But in my opinion, Cottrell’s idea of a self-imposed limitation by God (in order to preserve human free will) comes undone when you consider the hardening work of God in the case of the Pharaoh, as found in Exodus (and Romans 9), as well as other examples (Deuteronomy 2:30, Joshua 11:19-20, Romans 11:7-9). As a side-note, God’s hardening work as revealed in Scripture wreaks havoc on LDS teaching. Recognizing the text presented an intractable problem, Joseph Smith went so far as to re-write portions of Exodus to preserve Pharaoh’s “free agency” in his so-called translation. By contrast, when you read Piper’s writing on God’s Sovereignty, you see he takes real pains to align his thinking with the testimony of Scripture. References abound. The reader isn’t left in any doubt that the Bible is the basis for his theology (even though some will contest his understanding of particular passages and reasonably challenge his conclusions). And for that reason, I find Piper’s work compelling (though I have no affiliation with Bethlehem Baptist). I’ll note here that one of the hallmarks of Reformed Protestantism is its high view of Scripture (and it’s one of the things I find hugely appealing, personally). No one ever had to wonder whose side the Calvinists were going to take in the SBC’s biblical inerrancy battles. As a side-note, the outcome of that struggle (and the role played by those who were Reformed) was covered in Christianity Today. It’s quite interesting, and relevant to our broader topic—Young, Restless, Reformed - Christianity Today magazine - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com All that said, I hope LDS will give them both (Piper and Cottrell) a read and due consideration (starting with Piper, of course). ;0) And I’m interested in how LDS will respond to your question—it’s a good one. God willing, we’ll get something more than special definitions and an assertion that the subject isn't "profitable." God willing, of course… --Erik

Good question. The short answer is that God is in control and He wills ALL actions, including sinful acts. Yet God does not sin. For a more complete explanation, I'd turn again to John Piper--"Are There Two Wills in God?" Are There Two Wills in God? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library There’s a reason Piper gets a mention in a secular magazine’s top ten list—you'll find he's a pretty thoughtful guy. Scroll down to "How Extensive Is the Sovereign Will of God?" if you don't want to read the whole thing. An excerpt-- There are passages that ascribe to God the final control over all calamities and disasters wrought by nature or by man. Amos 3:6, "Does evil befall a city, unless the LORD has done it? Isaiah 45:7, "I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create woe, I am the LORD, who do all these things." Lamentations 3:37-38, "Who has commanded and it came to pass, unless the Lord has ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?" Noteworthy in these texts is that the calamities in view involve human hostilities and cruelties that God would disapprove of even as he wills that they be. BTW, if you find this troubling, consider the alternative--a God who is not in control, a spectator who must await the outcome of human initiative and/or submit to other forces. Would such a being be worthy of worship? --Erik

The link I provided under "Five Points" in my OP may be of use to you, Giant_Son. It's to an article by John Piper (who is also mentioned in the TIME Magazine article). Reformed theology certainly doesn't "erase personal responsibility." The fact of a Sovereign God doesn't relieve anyone of their duty, or their accountability for thought, word, and deed. It's useful to remember that while God wills the ends, He also wills the means to the ends. What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library Did anyone actually read the TIME article and have thoughts on it? --Erik

No need for you to guess, LM, I'll be glad to share my thoughts on the matter. Daniel Peterson made a highly inflammatory statement and got called out on it. So what does he do (in the quote you provided)? He throws out an outrageous strawman ("God doesn't like the Chinese") and then follows up with an assertion of his seemingly perpetual victimhood ("a weapon against me"). I'll leave it to fans of FAIR/MA&DB to decide if there's any pattern here... --Erik

Limited atonement does seem to be a frequent sticking point, even at Mars Hill. It's considered an open-handed issue. Regarding Servetus, Wikipedia gives a pretty even-handed treatment of what is obviously a difficult matter for admirers of John Calvin. John Calvin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia --Erik

There’s a recently published top 10 list of “Ideas Changing the World Now” from Time Magazine. Curious what LDS think of idea number 3, “The New Calvinism.” Read it here— 3. The New Calvinism - 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now - TIME I don’t want this thread to turn into a debate about the “Five Points” and whether these doctrines have a strong Biblical foundation (although in my opinion—they do). Instead, I simply want to know what folks here think about this increasingly influential trend in Evangelical Christianity and in the world at large. Are you indifferent? Are you concerned? Do you think this is the kind of “change” the world needs now? LDS Apologist and BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson is on record using some remarkably blunt language against Calvinism. Sparing his readers any diplomatic pretense, Peterson wrote, "Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I regard Calvinism as repulsive, its morality disgusting, and its teaching about God as blasphemous." (If you like, you can dig up his views on Calvinism, among many other subjects, on the Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board.) Do folks here share Peterson’s abhorrence of Reformed theology, or do you think his comments were over the top? Lastly, if you as a Latter-Day Saint were intending to proselytize to a committed, Bible-believing Christian—how might you modify your approach if you knew that person was Reformed? In the interest of full disclosure, Mark Driscoll (mentioned in the Time article) is the preaching pastor at my Church, Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Also, I’m sending a link of this thread to my Mom, and a few others. So please be nice. ;0) --Erik PS. If you are a Christian who leans toward Reformed theology (like me)—are you planning to do anything to celebrate the 500 year anniversary of John Calvin’s birth this July? If so, what are your plans?

Not yet. Quite a number of questions have gone unanswered. She didn't know what to make of D&C 19's “Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.” At face value, this appears completely nonsensical. See my post 61, in reply to Maxel. And the question I put to him remains outstanding. Just_A_Guy made an answer to the question, and I requested a reference for his position (see post 72). I suspect he's speculating and incorrect in his understanding of the LDS doctrine of the Spirit Prison, but I don't know--and no reference has been forthcoming. And then there's Pam's curious post (#67) in which she appears to state that Jesus was referring to himself in John 14:16 as "another helper." I sought clarification in post 69--but haven't gotten any (thus far). Much work to be done, I'm afraid. But I appreciate your asking. Stay tuned... --Erik

Kindly explain your use of the word "probably," Faded. Jesus explicitly identifies Judas as a Son of Perdition (John 17:12, KJV). There's no ambiguity here at all--unless you think Jesus may have been mistaken...--Erik

I see. So even though Hitler's time on this earth didn’t go well by most measures (although apparently it went better than Stalin's--according to Hemidakota), Hitler nonetheless gets another opportunity to escape the endless punishment of Hell. Depending on what he decides during his 1,000 year probationary/test period in the Spirit Prison--he may or may not inherit the Telestial Kingdom and spend the rest of eternity with the Holy Spirit (though not with the other Gods of the LDS Godhead). Interesting. I have to say I don't recall hearing that a person could be sent to the "Spirit Prison" and subsequently end up in "Outer Darkness." I thought LDS Spirit Prison was somewhat analogous to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. No one in Purgatory ends up going to Hell. After some period of punishment, Purgatory’s inhabitants ultimately end up in Heaven. But the LDS Spirit Prison's inhabitants apparently can go either way--to the Telestial Kingdom or to Outer Darkness, depending on the choice they make. Is that official LDS doctrine? And if so, can you provide a reference? --Erik

In John 14:16, Jesus tells his disciples the Father will send them another Helper (rendered "Comforter" in the KJV). This is commonly understood to mean the Holy Spirit. But if I'm following you correctly, you're saying the common understanding is wrong. It is not the Holy Spirit, but "Jesus Christ Himself” per Joseph Smith. I have to say this explanation makes no sense in the context of John 14:16. When Jesus refers to "another Helper" it's clear he's referring to the Holy Spirit (the next verse makes this explicit). Did I miss something? --Erik

Apologize if I've missed the obvious, but what is this "Second Comforter" of which you speak?Regarding your last paragraph, my whole point, Hemidakota, was that Hitler did not repent (unless self murder is an illustration of repentance--as Charley suggests). But assuming Charley can't substantiate his claim--how does Hitler escape the consequences of D&C 19 (as cited by Maxel)? --Erik

Perhaps you missed your calling as a defense attorney, Charley. But tell me, how can suicide play a part in anyone's repentance? Is this analogous to Brigham Young's teaching of Blood Atonement? I thought that doctrine had been officially repudiated by the contemporary LDS leadership. Kindly explain your statement, Charley --Erik

Good to see you, Maxel. And I’m much obliged for your effort to get my poor thread back on topic (“A concise, understandable answer to the question: “What do LDS think they are saved from?”). As to whether your citation is concise and understandable—I’ll have to leave it to our readers to decide if the meaning/implication of, “Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment” can be understood by anyone. I’ll confess it makes no sense to me at all. But from what I am able to grasp from your citation, and your comments that followed—it does appear repentance is required to avoid the punishment of Hell (verse 4). I would reasonably suppose then that anyone who didn’t repent would “suffer” (“endless torment”, but not necessarily torment with “no end”—whatever Joseph Smith may have meant with those words). So let’s try and make this practical. In my OP, I used the example of Adolph Hitler, a man whose last murderous decision, was to murder himself. Pure evil to the bitter end. He, according to criteria set forth by LDS earlier in the thread, is not going to Hell, but rather the Telestial Kingdome—where he will spend eternity with God the Holy Spirit. And yet Hitler plainly did not repent. How then does he escape the eternal/endless punishment described in D&C 19? --Erik

Hi Applepansy—By “eternal spiritual death”—do you mean the punishment of Hell as described in Luke 16:23-27? Or should we understand your words to mean something else? I’m guessing the latter, although I really don’t know. The responses thus far are confirming my initial reaction that it’s all rather complicated and hard to explain, even for long-time LDS. Per Connie’s three posts on the subject, Hell has “at least two” (perhaps more?) meanings in latter-day revelation, and salvation likewise has multiple “different meanings.” It may be that no definitive answer is possible from the LDS view. Per the thread, LDS say they’re saved from a number of things, e.g., “the consequences of sin,” “separation of body and soul,” “separation from God.” But it’s interesting to me that no LDS respondents have explicitly stated they are saved from God’s wrath—His everlasting punishment in Hell. There seems to be a disbelief that they (or anyone) need to be saved from such a thing. Hell, as Christians understand it (“generic Christians”—per jadams_4040), appears to be not applicable. And not even for a man like Adolf Hitler (per Connie’s criteria). I do appreciate all the responses. As always, I’ll gladly take correction if I’m misunderstanding any of this. And I’m still interested if anyone thinks they have a concise, understandable answer to the question: “What do LDS think they are saved from?” Perhaps we are really closer than it seems, and with a little clarification, we’ll be there. --Erik

My LDS parents were over last weekend (visiting from Utah—primarily to meet their new granddaughter). It was an enjoyable time (lots of picture taking), and among other things we had an opportunity to take them to a Sunday Service at Mars Hill Church (it was a great sermon—we’re currently going through a series on 1 Peter). The visit triggered some questions from my wife about LDS beliefs (she doesn’t have an LDS background). Normally I can field such questions pretty easily, but she asked one that kind of stumped me. She asked: “What do LDS think they are saved from?” Now as a Christian, the answer is straightforward. When we say God has saved us—we mean He has saved us from His wrath and punishment in everlasting Hell (which is what we justly deserve for sinning against Him). Luke 16:23-27 (and elsewhere) gives us an idea of the place and what it will be like for its inhabitants. The account therein would give any sober-minded person pause. And we are told Hell will not be sparsely populated. Scripture reveals: “The gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many” (Matthew 7:13). I find her question difficult to answer because LDS have such a radically different idea of Hell (and therefore of Salvation). The LDS requisite to be cast into Hell is such that not even history’s most monstrous evildoers appear to make the grade (e.g., Hitler). Instead, their abode will likely be the Telestial Kingdom, where they will dwell eternally with God the Holy Spirit. A place so beautiful that we would take our own lives to be there if we could see it (at least this is what I heard taught and attributed to Joseph Smith —but I’m not sure if it’s really an official position or just a popular belief amongst the LDS membership). As a practical matter and consequence—it’s almost as though Hell doesn’t exist. Please correct me if I’ve in any way mischaracterized the LDS view of Hell. And please tell me how you would answer my wife’s question: What do LDS think they are saved from? --Erik

Hey Maxel—I'm enjoying our little dialogue here. Let me start by saying the definition you seek to disown is merely a concatenation (linking together) of your two previously stated positions (and you’ll notice I didn’t put it in quotations). Together, your statements close the loop. You said Christ should be worshiped for who He is (post #4), and then you subsequently agreed with my statement that Jesus is God (your very first sentence in post #91). Therefore, Jesus should be worshiped as God—because that’s who you say He is. Am I wrong here? It’s difficult to see how you could expect your readers to reach any other conclusion, based on what you wrote. It now seems you want to retreat from your previous agreement that Jesus is God. Did the words from your keyboard not accurately reflect the intent of your heart? If so, just acknowledge it, tell us who you say Jesus is now, and we’ll move on. Regarding “eternal”—thank you for your clarification. If I understand you correctly, usage of “eternal” and “forever” in all the common English translations of the Greek New Testament are really mistranslations, and should have been rendered “finite windows of time” (or some such language to indicate clear beginning and end points). Do you really suppose that all the thousands of translators and scholars behind the KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc., over the decades and centuries—they all got it wrong, and they got it wrong every single time? And we’re to believe this because a BYU professor in Provo, Utah says so? No offense to Provo (it’s my parents’ hometown)—but that seems highly improbable, at least to me. I do find Stephen Robinson’s assertion: “I believe Christ is eternal”—to be awkward, and frankly disingenuous. He goes on to make plain he doesn’t mean it. In fact, he means the very opposite of the word he uses! The word eternal means “without beginning or end, lasting forever” (you can look it up on dictionary.com if you like). If an LDS told a non-LDS that he or she believed Christ was eternal and left it at that—the non-LDS would be completely deceived. So why use such language to begin with? He could just as easily say, “I believe Christ is not eternal” and then go on to make his argument that the concept of eternal isn’t Biblical. His meaning would be no different and this time there would be no risk of confusion. There’s a term for what Robinson is doing when he says Christ is eternal—it’s called doublespeak. The question is, why? What benefit is there to obfuscating such an important distinction, Maxel? But at least you and I are clear on one thing—we aren’t going to be able to reconcile my use of “eternal” between our definitions. That looks like a real show-stopper for you (as taking it out would be for me). Apparently you don’t believe in an Eternal God at all (in the plain English-language meaning of the word—not Robinsonian doublespeak). And I do, of course. If I were feeling uncharitable, I might observe that your disbelief in an Eternal God shares something in common with atheism. ;0) Now on to your question (because turnabout is fair play): “Why does this matter?” I’m actually surprised that the last paragraph in my previous post didn’t pre-empt this. I’ll repeat it for your consideration— It must matter greatly to us who Jesus is, right? It makes a difference if we think Jesus was a great prophet who ascended into heaven (as Muslims do) or “a god” (one of many) or the Only and Eternal God. A big difference! The man who died on that cross ~2,000 years ago was really, truly, fully God. God died—in our place, for our sin (as the Christian faith has always taught). If something less than that happened, meaning that Jesus was something less than fully God, then there could have been no real atonement. Instead, we’d just have the story of a creator “sacrificing” one of its many creations, for the benefit of the rest of them—following a sort of utilitarian logic. And that’s a very, very different story from the one we find in the Bible. Do you see why this is so vital? You can’t begin to understand and appreciate the significance of the atonement—what God accomplished and how much it cost—if you don’t know who Jesus is. That's why who Jesus is—is central to the definition I offered. Regarding the next part of your question about whether a person can have an “honest misunderstanding” of the nature of God/Gods and whether such honesty “dooms them to hell”—I wouldn’t look at it that way. If we believe a knowledge of Christ is necessary for salvation and that God is the source of that knowledge—then in my mind it follows that a Christian is going to believe in Jesus as revealed in God’s Word, the Bible. A Christian is going to believe in Jesus who was and is unequivocally and eternally God. The Holy Spirit will seal on our minds the truth God has revealed to us in His Word. If something else is revealed that contradicts Scripture—then the source of such revelation is not the Holy Spirit, but one of the spirits the Apostle John warned about in his epistle (1 John 4). So the person who has an “honest misunderstanding” and supposes Jesus to have been something less than fully God—that person doesn’t really know Jesus (even if they’re sure that they do). That person could not have encountered the Holy Spirit—because the Holy Spirit would not have contradicted God’s Word. By denying that Jesus was and is God—a person shows clear evidence (fruit) that he or she isn’t saved. And an organization that promotes the idea that Jesus was/is something less than fully God at all times—that organization cannot be said to be Christian, in my opinion. But I’m NOT saying all its adherents are going to be in Hell. This is important: I believe God can bring anyone He chooses to a knowledge of Christ and thereby save that person—even if it’s through a vision in the last moments of life. Even if that person was an infant, or mentally impaired, or lived in a place where the Gospel was never preached and there never were any Bibles—God can still save people through Christ. I have never said, nor would I ever say that all LDS will be in Hell. I think it’s possible that Joseph Smith himself could have been saved while he fell from that window to the ground below—despite the life he had lead previous to that moment. I’m not saying I think it’s likely—I’m just saying that with God all things are possible. Does that answer your question and help you to understand my position, Maxel? Feel free to critique any part of what I’ve said. I welcome you to do so. I will gladly submit myself to the authority of Scripture and take correction if it can be shown that I am in error. And now let me ask you—and please be honest and don’t worry about hurting my feelings—do you think I’m deceived in my Christian belief that there is an Eternal God, and that Jesus is that God? --Erik

Hi Maxel—Apologize for my previous false start and subsequent long delay. I fully appreciate your point regarding difficulties in Biblical understanding and interpretation. Bible-believing Christians have long disagreed over some matters of doctrine and practice, and continue to do so. And when we read the New Testament—we see Christians have been engaged in disputes and divisions from the very beginning (arguing and dividing over issues like circumcision, Sabbath observance, dietary laws). Christ’s Church is made up of fallen, sinful people, then as now. I find Paul’s letters admonishing and correcting the early Church and its leaders—they are no less applicable to the Church today. But all that said and duly acknowledged, it simply isn’t the case that EVERYTHING in the Bible is ambiguous and confusing. And you appear to agree (post #91). For example, when the Prophet Isaiah says there is only one God (e.g., 43:10-11), he doesn’t leave us to wonder whether the real number might be three or more. Likewise, when the Apostle Thomas beholds the resurrected Christ and proclaims, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28)—there’s no ambiguity whatsoever that Jesus is God. And again, you appear to agree with me. And I agree with you that there’s more to being a Christian than merely recognizing Jesus for who He is (because even demons can do that much, as the Gospels record). On the surface, we appear to agree on many things, Maxel. So let's see if we can close the gap. And if we can’t, then let's be clear on why we couldn't do it. As a courtesy to our readers who may not wish to dig through prior posts, I’ll provide a recap— Your original definition: “I would say a Christian is anyone who truly worships Christ for who Christ truly is.” Your revised definition acknowledging (post #91) that Jesus is God: I would say a Christian is anyone who truly worships Christ for who Christ truly is—and Christ Jesus is God. This is remarkably close to the definition I offered: “A Christian is someone who worships Jesus as the eternal God.” In fact, the only material difference I can see between my definition and your revised definition is my use of the word “eternal.” Do you think my use of that word is incorrect in the context of God? Obviously by acknowledging Jesus is God, you’re not repeating the error of that 4th century cultic offshoot of Christianity—the Arians—who I mentioned in my opening post. And I trust you don’t consider the Christian response to that controversy to have been a worthless exercise in the “metaphysical” (great word choice, btw) and in “exclusionary” definitions. It must matter greatly to us who Jesus is, right? It makes a difference if we think Jesus was a great prophet who ascended into heaven (as Muslims do) or “a god” (one of many) or the Only and Eternal God. A big difference! The man who died on that cross ~2,000 years ago was really, truly, fully God. God died—in our place, for our sin (as the Christian faith has always taught). If something less than that happened, meaning that Jesus was something less than fully God, then there could have been no real atonement. Instead, we’d just have the story of a creator “sacrificing” one of its many creations, for the benefit of the rest of them—following a sort of utilitarian logic. And that’s a very, very different story from the one we find in the Bible. Do you see why this is so vital? You can’t begin to understand and appreciate the significance of the atonement—what God accomplished and how much it cost—if you don’t know who Jesus is. A Christian must recognize who Jesus is (as revealed by God through Scripture). Thoughts? --Erik

captainmoroni1265 and I are good. his apology was gladly accepted. time permitting, we'll enjoy much further discussion.--Erik

Hi again, Maxel— Recall your previous definition of Christian—“I would say a Christian is anyone who truly worships Christ for who Christ truly is.” You then went on to say your definition was purposefully ambiguous. My point is that your ambiguity was unnecessary, because God has revealed who Christ is through Scripture (and I provided a number of verses to support my contention). And you seem to agree with me—that there is only one God and Jesus is that God. And if you do agree with me on these two essential points, then I don’t understand why you took exception to the definition of Christian that I offered in my opening post. In my definition I added the word “eternal” to God. Is that the real problem you have with my definition? Do you believe God the Son is not eternal (as per the dictionary, without beginning or end)? --Erik

If I say to you that--a. Jesus is God, and b. There is only one God how are either of those statements "incomplete?" Granted they don't present a comprehensive definition of God--but that's not the intent. In and of themselves, they are both true (and Biblical). Now you could disagree with me and call one or both of my statements false, but I don't see how you can call them "incomplete." Jesus is God, or he is something else. There is only one God, or there is more than one (or zero). It's not a question of completeness or incompleteness of the statements. It's a question of truth or falsity. Have I missed something? --Erik

Hi Faded--Muslims believe Jesus was a bringer of scripture, a worker of miracles, and that he ascended bodily to heaven. Your definition is so broad that Muslims too would appear to qualify as Christians. Is this really your intent? --Erik

Hi Maxel--It's been a crazy week, which is my excuse for my slow response. I certainly agree with your definition, and would add that God has revealed through Scripture who Christ truly is (John 1:1-4, 1:14, 5:17-18, 8:58, 10:30-33, 12:37-41, Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, Col 1:16-17, 2:8-9, 1 Tim. 6:15, Titus 2:13, 1 John 5:20, Rev 1:8, 1:17-18, 17:14, 19:16, 22:13-16, Matt 28:9). And Scripture also makes clear that there is only one true God (Ex 20:1-3, Deut 4:39, Isa 43:10-11, Mark 12:29, Ro 3:30, James 2:19) and that all other "gods" are false and therefore mere idols which are not gods at all (Deut. 32:21, 1 Sam 12:21, Psa 96:5, Isa 37:19, 41:23-24, 29, 1 Cor 8:4, 10:19-20). However, demons may pose as gods and illicit worship, possibly even through counterfeit signs, wonders and miracles (Deut 32:17, Psa 106:37, 1 Cor 10:20). Let's leave aside the doctrine of the Trinity for a moment and focus on the person of Christ. Let me ask you this, Maxel--Supposing someone read the Bible and became convinced that there was only one God, and that Jesus was that eternal God. Would you argue that such a person was deceived? If so, on what basis would you make such an argument? --Erik

Hi Maxel-- Appreciate the critique, but I find your post curious. You seem to be suggesting that it's not worthwhile attempting to define the word Christian. I find that surprising because these days many LDS take real offense when told their church is not Christian. But you seem to indicate the word has no practical meaning or application, and any attempts to define it only serve to reveal the agenda of the person offering the definition. If that were so, then presumably LDS wouldn't care one way or the other. Obviously this is not the case. LDS clearly think the word means something. But perhaps I've misunderstood you. Do you have a definition for the word Christian that you think is an accurate reflection of either your own belief or of LDS belief (or both)? Regarding your point about those who never had access to the Bible, I think God has the means to bring anyone to a knowledge of Christ. He can appear in dreams, even in the final moments of life. I definitely wouldn't see this as an argument against attempting a definition. --Erik

Spin-off thread from my introductory post (first of potentially several). The original was here, see post # 31: http://www.lds.net/forums/introduce-yourself/17029-dont-hate-me-lds-turned-christian-protestant.html In it, a poster defined a Christian as, “Persons who believe in Jesus and accept him as their personal savior.” While there’s certainly nothing wrong with such language—I don’t think the definition goes far enough. A little Church history to show why I think this— In the 4th Century, a contention arose in Christianity. Certain people began to contend that Jesus was the Son of God and therefore like any son—he must have had a beginning. They insisted Jesus was a created being and therefore was not eternally God. This is referred to as the “Arian Controversy” (you can look it up on Wikipedia, if you’d like to know more). From this example of heresy in the early Church—you can see that a person may say that he/she believes Jesus is the Son of God, and yet does not believe Jesus is the eternal God, as Christians do. Such persons use Biblical language—but they aren’t true Christians, because they don’t recognize Jesus for who He really is (as revealed by God in Scripture). I’ll offer what I think is a better definition, one that precludes the confusion introduced by the Arians: A Christian is someone who worships Jesus as the eternal God. Please critique my definition. If you think you have a better one, submit it for my critique and that of other posters. --Erik