Definition of a Christian

[Avrham]

Hello just adding my2cents

I believe i am a Christian(I never say out loud to anyone else) because I just like helping others, I try to define my Belief with actions and my faith increases

I was brought up too believe "deeds not words" is what defines a person belief/personalty

:):)cheers just a brief summary

[Hemidakota]

It comes back to the old age question, who are the true followers of Christ? Can we call upon Christ as His servants or must He call us?

[Avrham]

It comes back to the old age question, who are the true followers of Christ? Can we call upon Christ as His servants or must He call us?

I suppose we(servants) initiate contact and wait for orders stand2 at all times who stands the tallest/longest , most well I let God decide:):)

[Hemidakota]

We can ask but we need that invitation that only comes from the Holy Ghost.

[Avrham]

We can ask but we need that invitation that only comes from the Holy Ghost.

When we are summoned just Hope we are still listening for the invite too join the Master:)instead or listening to others

[Hemidakota]

At that point, there is no listening but what is seen.

[LittleNipper]

Peter put it this way... "You are the CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD." And JESUS responded that upon such an affirmation would HE build HIS Church.

[ErikJohnson]

My ambiguity was added because of the confusion that arises when one interprets the Bible. I do not believe the Bible contains the fullness of the Gospel of Christ, therefore it does not contain the entirety of Christ's doctrine, though it does set the foundation. This foundation is more than enough; if followed with a 'sincere heart and real intent', it will produce an honest-to-goodness Christian.

In my heart of hearts, I don't designate anyone a Christian based on their metaphysical beliefs- I designate someone a Christian for trying to follow the light of Christ as it touches their lives.

My problem with your original post, and with any attempt to label Christian according to doctrinal correctness to the degree that you seemed to apply it, is that it assumes the one handing out the labels understands, 100%, the true nature of God and how others feel about God in their own personal soul. Frankly, I wouldn't give any mortal man that attribute of near-omniscience; not even the prophet.

I feel that you approached the manner of calling one Christian as an exercise of exclusion (i.e., excluding those who believed in the heresy of the Arian controversy) instead of inclusion. When one goes about to exclude people from a group, their manner is entirely different than one who goes about in an attempt to include. In this instance, the former relies on dividing people according to metaphysical beliefs, the latter on bringing people together according to desires and good-faith attempts. To righteously exclude anyone from a group based on character attributes, one has to be acting in the authority of God Himself- I am not given that authority, and I doubt I ever will. You have not been given that authority either. At this point in time, none have been given that authority except Christ, who is not currently exercising that right. He will at the great Judgment, when he separates the goats from the sheep.

I do not believe that prisonchaplain, for instance, has the 'correct' views on the nature of God, but I fail to find anything un-Christian in the way he conducts himself to his fellow man (or in his honest attempts to find the true doctrine of Christ). If I were to label him 'Christian' based on exclusion, I could point to the fact that (I believe) my view of God is correct, and he doesn't follow it- therefore, he isn't 'Christian'. If I were to label him based on inclusion, I would point to the fact that he spends his life attempting to bring the good word of Christ, and the spirit of Christ (love, charity, long suffering, etc.) not only to us on the forum, but inmates in a prison. Frankly, I believe he follows the mandate to 'visit the sick and the afflicted' better than I do. Am I to then exclude him from being a 'Christian'- one who has taken upon himself the name of Christ, which is what we are told to do- based on the fact that he doesn't believe the exact same things I do?

It is my firm belief that, in the last day when the Lord comes again in all his glory, there won't just be bona fide Mormons at Zion- you'll find people of all walks and faiths who, for some reason or another, do not accept the restored gospel before the second coming, but lived up to the Light of Christ inside themselves so well that they found themselves among the anointed of God. At that day, I believe they will accept the Gospel, having followed the path to exaltation which leads to the feet of Christ in their own lives. If I believe that I will find some Protestants, Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox Christians, Jews, and (anything's possible) a few atheists kneeling next to me on that day, confessing that Christ is the Lord... how am I to exclude any of God's children from taking upon them the name of Christ here and now? As I judge, so will I be judged. I would rather be found on the side of giving my fellow man the benefit of the doubt, rather than giving him the shaft.

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

Edited February 17, 2009 by ErikJohnson

[Maxel]

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.

The second definition, which has the phrase '- and Christ Jesus is God' was never presented by me. A minor typographical error I'm sure; however, it cannot be used to suggest the simple definition offered by me as one that is 'remarkably close' to your original definition. My most detailed definition to date is 'a Christian is anyone who truly worships Christ for who Christ truly is'.

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.

I actually disagree with the entirety of the proceedings of the early Councils that produced the Creeds (except perhaps the Apostles' Creed; but that's another discussion). From what I've read, the proceedings were not inspired of God, and the resulting philosophical statements are obviously Hellenistic Christianity- not Christ's Christianity. I do not condone the 'Arian controversy', but I do not condone the philosophy set forth in the Nicean and subsequent councils in response to it. I feel both are flawed- including the overemphasis on the 'eternal' aspect of Christ, and the incorrect assumption that if Christ did not exist from the beginning of time (as we currently understand it) then He could not be divine.

Also, I do see the Christian response to the Arian controversy as an exercise in exclusionary definition, although I wouldn't say it was worthless. It cemented the precedent that would follow for over a millennium: the nature and doctrine of God would be interpreted and decided by councils of uninspired men posturing for power. It was full of ominous import.

In regards to 'eternal'- I believe Christ is eternal, yes. In the same way His Father is eternal. I also believe that if we speak about the nature of God as found in the Bible, then we should understand His sundry characteristics in the manner that the original readers of the Bible- first- and second- century Jews and Gentiles- understood vital terms and ideas. I quote professor Stephen Robinson from How Wide the Divide?:

The biblical concept of "eternity" is problematic, and most constructions translated "forever" or "eternal" actually read "to the end of the age" or just "to the age." Indeed, the words usually rendered "forever" or "eternal" are the Greek and Hebrew words for "age" (aion and olam respectively). First-century Jews understood eternity to consist of successive ages or eons- all within the parameters of the beginning and the end.

How Wide the Divide? A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation; 90

Interestingly, Robinson then goes on to explain how Isaiah 44 should be read.

God is the First and the Last, the only being who exists from the beginning to the end (Is 44:6; Rev 1:8), that is, from the first moment of creation to the last. This is clearly a temporal frame... I firmly believe God did exist as God "before all ages" (from the beginning), but that still does not say anything about before the beginning. Certainly my understanding of "eternity" is different from that of the average Evangelical, but it is not without ancient precedent, nor is it internally inconsistent.

How Wide the Divide? A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation; 90

My turn to ask you a question: why does this matter? Does a person's belief in the nature of God on this earth matter so much that an honest misunderstanding of the subject doom them to hell? For example, if God is really of a Trinitarian nature, and I believe in the Godhead- does that doom me to everlasting hellfire? I have my opinion; I'd like to know yours.

[a-train]

Definition of a Christian

Anyone who tells someone who claims to be a Christian that they are not a Christian is not a Christian.

-a-train

[Islander]

Peter put it this way... "You are the CHRIST, the SON of the living GOD." And JESUS responded that upon such an affirmation would HE build HIS Church.

Not quite. Let's look at the whole context of the exchange. The scripture reads: "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. "

The Savior is pointing to the fact that it was REVELATION from the Father that led Peter to know and declare that Jesus WAS the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and not his own (Peter's) insight and (theological) understanding.

What follows is a very interesting play on words in Aramaic but if we follow the context of the previous sentence it can only mean one thing: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The rock is the REVELATION that brought forth the confession that Jesus was the Christ. The nascent church was to be guided by the Apostles (in His name) after the Savior ascension by new and revolutionary revelation. No longer Jew and gentile, no longer the law but the Atonement, repentance, baptism and the the fire of the Holy Ghost.

[Maya]

I know I am a Christian as well, as I know my mother, who is a lutheran, is a Christian.

I really like Maxels way to put it!

[Dr T]

Not quite. Let's look at the whole context of the exchange. The scripture reads: "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. "

The Savior is pointing to the fact that it was REVELATION from the Father that led Peter to know and declare that Jesus WAS the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and not his own (Peter's) insight and (theological) understanding.

What follows is a very interesting play on words in Aramaic but if we follow the context of the previous sentence it can only mean one thing: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The rock is the REVELATION that brought forth the confession that Jesus was the Christ. The nascent church was to be guided by the Apostles (in His name) after the Savior ascension by new and revolutionary revelation. No longer Jew and gentile, no longer the law but the Atonement, repentance, baptism and the the fire of the Holy Ghost.

Well said Islander. That scripture is packed with stuff and I'd agree with much of what u said. I do not think Jesus was saying it is the apostles that are the object of what he was praising but the "revelation" of Jesus being who Peter said he was. Thanks for your reading of that :)

[Faded]

But all that said and duly acknowledged, it simply isn’t the case that EVERYTHING in the Bible is ambiguous and confusing.

It can easily be seen that relying on interpretation of the Bible alone is a completely inadequate method of establishing truth. The Trinitarian Doctrine defines the nature of God as, "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. Three separate persons who are of the same substance and are one being." Okay great, show me any passage of scripture that is exactly that explicit in defining God.

Simply referencing passages using the word "One God" is inadequate the instant that we see the word used to NOT imply being of the same substance:

[9] I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

[10] And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

[11] And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

If we are to always understand the intended meaning of the words "we are one" in the Bible as "of one substance", then clearly we must all believe that the ultimate goal is to merge into God and become part of Him, right?

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.

Latter Day Saints do not use such verbiage anymore than Trinitarians. We don't talk of them as three gods because that is not how they refer to themselves in revealing themselves to mankind. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, so thoroughly united that they are one god for all intents and purposes. Up to this point, we agree. The Trinitarian Doctrine adds to the scripture, "they are of one substance." That is where we diverge in our doctrinal thinking. The Godhead Doctrine stops short of insisting that they are of one substance -- a distinction and definition that never appears in scripture.

And what is the price of the Trinitarian addition to the scriptural record? The Trinitarian can call themselves "children of God" but they cannot say they they believe it literally. After all, the Trinitarian God is not human. It is impossible for the Trinitarian God to be of the same species as mankind, and theologians upholding the Trinity are forced to accept that fact. In every other aspect of truth, those things which are true make everything clearer and enlightens our view of everything. The Trinity has the opposite effect. Step beyond the initial description and try to comprehend and and what to you get? Confusion. A sense of greater distance from God. A sense of his "otherness" and "alieness."

Am I willing to go so far as to say to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is false. Yes, it is. Others are welcome to disagree with me. The difference I see between adherents to the Trinity Doctrine as compared to Latter Day Saints is simple. Both believe their point of view is right and that the other one is wrong. Most Trinitarians take it upon themselves to damn LDS to hell for their "incorrectness" which is usurping a right that belongs to God alone. Latter Day Saints are considerably less bigoted, willing to allow Trinitarians to cling to their false doctrines about God without resorting to insults and name calling. Latter Day Saints will call both groups Christians because we feel that God is merciful and we trust that believers in those false doctrines do the best that they can to follow Christ and do his will. Trinitarians arrogantly claim to hold the exclusive rights to the word "Christian."

I do not intend to imply that Trinitarians do not love God. I would simply state that they were mislead by the doctrines of man which were decided upon by a politically motivated committee of scholars. If those men were inspired of God to define his nature correctly, why did they have Arius assassinated? Why was Constantine, the champion of the Trinity, baptized by an Arian Christian?

[LittleNipper]

It can easily be seen that relying on interpretation of the Bible alone is a completely inadequate method of establishing truth. The Trinitarian Doctrine defines the nature of God as, "God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. Three separate persons who are of the same substance and are one being." Okay great, show me any passage of scripture that is exactly that explicit in defining God.

Simply referencing passages using the word "One God" is inadequate the instant that we see the word used to NOT imply being of the same substance:

If we are to always understand the intended meaning of the words "we are one" in the Bible as "of one substance", then clearly we must all believe that the ultimate goal is to merge into God and become part of Him, right?

Latter Day Saints do not use such verbiage anymore than Trinitarians. We don't talk of them as three gods because that is not how they refer to themselves in revealing themselves to mankind. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, so thoroughly united that they are one god for all intents and purposes. Up to this point, we agree. The Trinitarian Doctrine adds to the scripture, "they are of one substance." That is where we diverge in our doctrinal thinking. The Godhead Doctrine stops short of insisting that they are of one substance -- a distinction and definition that never appears in scripture.

And what is the price of the Trinitarian addition to the scriptural record? The Trinitarian can call themselves "children of God" but they cannot say they they believe it literally. After all, the Trinitarian God is not human. It is impossible for the Trinitarian God to be of the same species as mankind, and theologians upholding the Trinity are forced to accept that fact. In every other aspect of truth, those things which are true make everything clearer and enlightens our view of everything. The Trinity has the opposite effect. Step beyond the initial description and try to comprehend and and what to you get? Confusion. A sense of greater distance from God. A sense of his "otherness" and "alieness."

Am I willing to go so far as to say to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is false. Yes, it is. Others are welcome to disagree with me. The difference I see between adherents to the Trinity Doctrine as compared to Latter Day Saints is simple. Both believe their point of view is right and that the other one is wrong. Most Trinitarians take it upon themselves to damn LDS to hell for their "incorrectness" which is usurping a right that belongs to God alone. Latter Day Saints are considerably less bigoted, willing to allow Trinitarians to cling to their false doctrines about God without resorting to insults and name calling. Latter Day Saints will call both groups Christians because we feel that God is merciful and we trust that believers in those false doctrines do the best that they can to follow Christ and do his will. Trinitarians arrogantly claim to hold the exclusive rights to the word "Christian."

I do not intend to imply that Trinitarians do not love God. I would simply state that they were mislead by the doctrines of man which were decided upon by a politically motivated committee of scholars. If those men were inspired of God to define his nature correctly, why did they have Arius assassinated? Why was Constantine, the champion of the Trinity, baptized by an Arian Christian?

I do not as a Christian damn people to hell, and honestly, I do not feel that most christians do, directly. I do point to Christ and say that one must accept HIM and HIM alone as the means of one's salvation. There is but one way to heaven ---- not of works lest any man should boast. I do not understand why Constantine did what he did (if he did), any more than I understand why Mr. Smith did many of the things his did. Perhaps it is because they are after all mere mortals. Even if one looks at the various Biblical characters of the Bible, one would be hard pressed to find one who didn't make mistakes. The question might be asked, when did they make their mistakes and how did GOD deal with them? Was it while writing GOD's word as GOD dictated, or was it when they fawned after their own follies.

[Maureen]

Trinitarians arrogantly claim to hold the exclusive rights to the word "Christian."

Thanks (read sarcasm).

[ErikJohnson]

The second definition, which has the phrase '- and Christ Jesus is God' was never presented by me. A minor typographical error I'm sure; however, it cannot be used to suggest the simple definition offered by me as one that is 'remarkably close' to your original definition. My most detailed definition to date is 'a Christian is anyone who truly worships Christ for who Christ truly is'.

I actually disagree with the entirety of the proceedings of the early Councils that produced the Creeds (except perhaps the Apostles' Creed; but that's another discussion). From what I've read, the proceedings were not inspired of God, and the resulting philosophical statements are obviously Hellenistic Christianity- not Christ's Christianity. I do not condone the 'Arian controversy', but I do not condone the philosophy set forth in the Nicean and subsequent councils in response to it. I feel both are flawed- including the overemphasis on the 'eternal' aspect of Christ, and the incorrect assumption that if Christ did not exist from the beginning of time (as we currently understand it) then He could not be divine.

Also, I do see the Christian response to the Arian controversy as an exercise in exclusionary definition, although I wouldn't say it was worthless. It cemented the precedent that would follow for over a millennium: the nature and doctrine of God would be interpreted and decided by councils of uninspired men posturing for power. It was full of ominous import.

In regards to 'eternal'- I believe Christ is eternal, yes. In the same way His Father is eternal. I also believe that if we speak about the nature of God as found in the Bible, then we should understand His sundry characteristics in the manner that the original readers of the Bible- first- and second- century Jews and Gentiles- understood vital terms and ideas. I quote professor Stephen Robinson from How Wide the Divide?:

Interestingly, Robinson then goes on to explain how Isaiah 44 should be read.

My turn to ask you a question: why does this matter? Does a person's belief in the nature of God on this earth matter so much that an honest misunderstanding of the subject doom them to hell? For example, if God is really of a Trinitarian nature, and I believe in the Godhead- does that doom me to everlasting hellfire? I have my opinion; I'd like to know yours.

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

[Faded]

I do not as a Christian damn people to hell, and honestly, I do not feel that most christians do, directly.

I realize it. There is probably a majority of "traditional" Christianity that is very tolerant, loving, non-judgmental and ... well ... Christian. Christian in behavior, thought and spirit. I have nothing but good feelings for this majority of Christians.

Unfortunately, there is a significantly large contingent of those who call themselves Christians who do think and behave exactly as I've described in my last post. They go to great lengths to attack and belittle what they view as false doctrines. They go out of their way say how wrong they think that Latter Day Saints are about absolutely everything. Ours is a religion that endures constant assault by their arrogance, spitefulness and frequent use of deceptions. This thread was, in my opinion, started with the primary intent in mind to do exactly that. It is such people who are the Trinitarians I'm primarily referring to when I say, "Trinitarians arrogantly claim to hold the exclusive rights to the word "Christian." " If you don't belittle my belief in Christ and you can be sure I'm not talking about you.

I do point to Christ and say that one must accept HIM and HIM alone as the means of one's salvation.

And here is where we do not disagree in the slightest bit. It is this fact -- the fact that I as a Latter Day Saint trust completely in Jesus Christ for salvation from my sins. It is the fact that His teachings are the very center of our beliefs. It is the fact that we seek center our lives around Jesus Christ. THIS is why I am deeply offended by anyone who wishes to tell me, "You're not Christian." But that is the entire premise of this thread, isn't it?

There is but one way to heaven ---- not of works lest any man should boast.

We're not so different there either.

I do not understand why Constantine did what he did (if he did)

Any honest analysis of the history surrounding the acceptance of the Trinity Doctrine as the "only acceptable description of the nature of God" must inevitably come face to face with Emperor Constantine. It was Constantine that called for the Nicean Council. It was Constantine who intervened and picked as side and insisted upon its correctness with the threat of arrest or death. Constantine murdered his own son, and did a significant number of immoral things in his life. He did not become Christian until long after the Council of Nicea. Yet one must accept that such a man was the instrument in revealing the very nature of God to mankind. God has used bad people to do good things, but I don't recall him every using them as a medium for revelation. And this would be about as important a revelation as you're going to get -- explaining the nature of God, once and for all. I also do not recall God ever revealing important truths through a debating committee of hundreds of religious theological experts.

Constantine was not a very nice person. Athanasius, the primary proponent of the Trinity doctrine leading up to the Nicean Council, was also not a very nice person. Among a lot of other things, it's pretty obvious that he was instrumental in putting out the "hit" on Arius, who was the primary proponent of the Arian doctrine regarding the nature of God. And that is yet another reason to question the proceedings and conclusions of the Council of Nicea: Enforcing the chosen doctrine by use of murder.

I'm sorry, but I can't see God revealing His will in the Council of Nicea. That does not add up to, "I'm right and you're wrong." What it does add up to is a lot of reasons to seriously doubt the validity of the proceedings that defined the nature of God as explained in the doctrine of the Trinity. It leads me to ask the obvious question: Why do so many Christians elevate the "absolute correctness" of the decisions made at Nicea to a level higher than scripture? Why the absolute certainty that they got it right at all? Maybe they did and maybe they didn't.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Faded

[Islander]

Thank you Faded. I remember a few months ago posting a brief account of the riot in Nicaea. A couple of the members exploded on me like lava out of a volcano. All but accused me of revisionism.

I pointed to LittleNipper precisely the same and he chose to ignore my point. The "Trinity" as later known was a theo-political compromised and neither biblical or holy revelation. But the time will come when, just like baptism (until a few years ago many churches did not believe it necessary), slowly but surely others will join in the realization; that God is who He is and not what the mind of feeble men imagined.

[Guest ceeboo]

Thank you Faded. I remember a few months ago posting a brief account of the riot in Nicaea. A couple of the members exploded on me like lava out of a volcano. All but accused me of revisionism.

I pointed to LittleNipper precisely the same and he chose to ignore my point. The "Trinity" as later known was a theo-political compromised and neither biblical or holy revelation. But the time will come when, just like baptism (until a few years ago many churches did not believe it necessary), slowly but surely others will join in the realization; that God is who He is and not what the mind of feeble men imagined.

:(:(

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Guest ceeboo]

You know, Ceeboo has really grown to hate ( ooops I mean dislike ) these " who is Christain " threads.:(

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Faded]

You know, Ceeboo has really grown to hate ( ooops I mean dislike ) these " who is Christain " threads.:(

Peace,

Ceeboo

It is my sincerest wish that people would forever cease to bring them up. I'd love to see this concept never come up again for the rest of my life. Unfortunately, it keeps coming up. Probably won't ever stop.

[bytor2112]

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).

How many Christians have read the Bible? How many are "saved" because someone led them to Christ? Do they "know" the Jesus of the bible, if they have never really read the Bible? What about the illiterate or the blind, deaf and dumb that may never read the Bible, yet they believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind? How is the truth sealed in there minds if they do not know the truth as revealed in his word? I won't comment on your assessment that the Holy Spirit that millions of Saints have experienced is something other than Holy, but I would suggest that you tread lightly, rather than profaning what we consider sacred.

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.

There are to my knowledge millions and millions of people who consider themselves "saved" and Christian that are not intimately familiar with the Bible. Yet, they believe that they have received Christ as there personal Savior, are they not Christian by your standards? And, I am sure you will say that its the Bible/God who sets those standards. I guess my question is..... as a Christian Erik, do you propose that one take a written or oral exam in order to prove there understanding of Christ before you consider them a Christian?

Your comments beginning with the bold text.........are rude and condescending. Do you actually read what you write? How nice to suggest that some of LDS might get lucky and be saved?????? Your comments regarding Joseph Smith are bordering on bashing, really you should refrain from criticizing someone which you obviously know that we revere.

Edited February 18, 2009 by bytor2112

[john doe]

This conversation is getting a little out of hand so I'm closing it. Let's try to be nice in the future guys.