Definition of a Christian


ErikJohnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Then we have most of the rest of Christianity. They believe in the Trinitarian doctrine. I would venture to say that the vast majority of their members do not know why they believe in this doctrine (many don't even know that they believe it -- but theoretically they do -- by virtue of belonging to a religion that requires it.) But their religious experts definitely believe in the Trinitarian doctrine and most of those experts generally understand that it comes down to the Council of Nicea.

I think those who believe in trinity believe their scolars, they do not really have anything they believe in that they even want to try to understand, but the word from these scolars. They do not need to think themselves, the table is already deccet by scolars, and you are not allowed to change or remove or add anythig from/on the table!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

ok just me but I do not think the Godhead is totally comprehensible for us at this stage, therefore to believe in the trinity if you are not LDS is not a huge deal, there is an awful lot of truth in it...

I never did but I do understand how someone reading the Standard Works could come up with it.

-Charley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the word Christian came from the Pagans of the day for those who were 'followers' of Christ?

Acts 26:28

28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

1 Peter 4:16

16 Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Alma 46:13

13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land--

Alma 46:15

15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.

Alma 46:16

16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored.

Alma 48:10

10 And thus he was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people really believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ care about any of this.

I believe some think it really matters, it doesnt.

We're in the last days and when things are so bad that the world is ripe for picking, it all boils down to good vs evil and that will include anyone that follows God, and Jesus Christ.

And when we go to the mountains to escape the wicked, im sure there will be a mixture of christians and we will rely and respect one anothers views and wait together for the Coming of The Lord.

None of us are going to be turned away because of a misunderstanding be it the God Head or the Trinity, all of us will be set straight, just like those of you wanting to know if The Book of Mormon is true scripture.

Edited by jolee65
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't the word Christian came from the Pagans of the day for those who were 'followers' of Christ?

.....

Interesting how what goes around comes around (Karma). The term "Pagan" was a denigrating term invented by the "Christians" that gained political power in order to refer to religions that did not meet their "doctorial" requirements. Those that met the doctrinal litmus test for Christian but differed on some other point of doctrine were labeled with the term “Heretic”.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do people really believe that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ care about any of this.

I believe some think it really matters, it doesnt.

We're in the last days and when things are so bad that the world is ripe for picking, it all boils down to good vs evil and that will include anyone that follows God, and Jesus Christ.

And when we go to the mountains to escape the wicked, im sure there will be a mixture of christians and we will rely and respect one anothers views and wait together for the Coming of The Lord.

None of us are going to be turned away because of a misunderstanding be it the God Head or the Trinity, all of us will be set straight, just like those of you wanting to know if The Book of Mormon is true scripture.

Interesting thought you have concerning a "mixture of Christians". Many believe that among the mixture of Christians will be those Jews that "respect one another’s views" that get "set straight" when Jesus returns.

Perhaps there will also be some Muslims that believe Jesus Christ will return with Mohamed to “set straight” the Christians that did not believe the revelations of Mohamed.

Perhaps there will also be some Hindus that believe the world has degenerated from a golden age through an age of silver and an age of bronze to a degraded age of iron and finely an age of iron mixed with “dirt” (See Daniel chapter 2). That believe when all “evil” has run its course that the golden age will be brought back by divine intervention.

Perhaps there will also be some Buddhist that believe that by living in harmony with all that is around them that they will be recognized by all others that also live in harmony.

Perhaps there will also be some agnostics and atheists that believe we should not require a religion or belief in some G-d or afterlife before we will live with kindness and compassion toward others.

Do we dare consider that Jesus may have been completely correct when he said:

“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see G-d. Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of G-d. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Maybe it is not just what we believe but how what we believe has affected the way we treat others and endure the treatment of others.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how what goes around comes around (Karma). The term "Pagan" was a denigrating term invented by the "Christians" that gained political power in order to refer to religions that did not meet their "doctorial" requirements. Those that met the doctrinal litmus test for Christian but differed on some other point of doctrine were labeled with the term “Heretic”.

The Traveler

I was referring too the Romans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the crux of the matter from the LDS perspective is this: We feel in our hearts and souls that we have the correct ideology and understanding on the nature of God (insofar as anyone can understand the infinite of course.) A correct understanding of God and our relationship to Him is certainly a very important thing to us. But we do not seek to belittle other faiths over their incorrect views regarding the nature of God. In this, the majority of Latter Day Saints are choosing to be charitable rather than vindictive.

Then we have most of the rest of Christianity. They believe in the Trinitarian doctrine. I would venture to say that the vast majority of their members do not know why they believe in this doctrine (many don't even know that they believe it -- but theoretically they do -- by virtue of belonging to a religion that requires it.) But their religious experts definitely believe in the Trinitarian doctrine and most of those experts generally understand that it comes down to the Council of Nicea. They believe that they have the correct understanding of the nature of God. The majority of them choose to be vindictive about it rather than charitable. Thus, they actively seek to attack any faith that fails to accept their view of God.

The debate comes down to the LDS faith refusing to say, "I know you are but what am I?"

Charity vs. Vindictiveness? Yes, I suppose it can seem that way. On the other hand, how important is it for us to grapple with and understand the nature of our God? Trinitarians believe it is crucial...perhaps even "salvational." While I'm not at all required to master the philosophical ramifications of the Trinity (or the LDS Godhead, for that matter), if I claim to love God I should know about him that which he has revealed.

And so, along comes one who defies my church authorities, and that which I believe (have a testimony of) that God has revealed to me, concerning his very nature. How do I respond? I shouldn't be nasty, obnoxious or vindictive. But, especially if I am a church leader, I must say that your teachings are a depatrue from teh truth we've found. Don't we all say, "I believe I'm right, I believe you're wrong, you should follow the truth I've found, if you want I'll tell you why you're wrong, why I'm right, etc."

Perhaps the key is love...and it's very difficult to communicate love when we're discussing truth and error about the most meaningful aspect of our lives. Yet, this is what Jesus calls us to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think those who believe in trinity believe their scolars, they do not really have anything they believe in that they even want to try to understand, but the word from these scolars. They do not need to think themselves, the table is already deccet by scolars, and you are not allowed to change or remove or add anythig from/on the table!

Just change "scholars" to God-appointed authorities. Remember, we don't believe we ever lost it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summary, Elder Daniel H. Ludlow wrote in the 'Encyclopedia of Mormonism' Volume 4,

The Old World origin of the word "Christian" is obscure. Possibly it was first used by pagans in Antioch to identify those who followed Christ. However, by the end of the first century A.D., it was an accepted self-designation among Church members as reflected in the writings of Ignatius (c. 35-c. 107 A.D.). The word is used three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).

In the new world (Book of Mormon world), there was a similar designation for Church members (Mosiah 18:12-17; Alma 46:13-16; 48:10). "Christian" designated those who were "true believers in Christ" and who "took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come" (Alma 46:15). Here the term "Christian" referred to those who believed Christ would come, and not only, as in the New Testament, to those who believed he had come.

Perhaps the term first used by Old World Christians for themselves was the Greek word hagioi, meaning "holy ones" or "saints." Latter-day Saints have taken upon themselves this New Testament designation (Acts 9:13; 32, 41; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 1:1). Such terminology is seen in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 13:5, 9; 14:12, 14; 2 Ne. 9:18-19; Morm. 8:23; Moro. 8:26), the Doctrine and Covenants (1:36; 84:2; 88:114; 104:15), and the Pearl of Great Price (Moses 7:56).

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not see itself as one Christian denomination among many, but rather as God's latter-day restoration of the fulness of Christian faith and practice. Thus, from its earliest days LDS Christians sought to distinguish themselves from Christians of other traditions. Other forms of Christianity, while bearing much truth and doing much good under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are viewed as incomplete, lacking the authority of the priesthood of God, the temple ordinances, the comprehensive understanding of the Plan of Salvation, and the nonparadoxical understanding of the Godhead. Therefore, the designation "saint" reflects attachment to the New Testament church, and also designates a difference from Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity in the current dispensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess , i see it as he will see us as a whole , and wont even concern himself with what mistakes we've made but will give us a full understanding of the truth and do I know what will happen with Muslims or Jews no , I only know that compassion will fall on all of us that lived a rightous life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charity vs. Vindictiveness? Yes, I suppose it can seem that way. On the other hand, how important is it for us to grapple with and understand the nature of our God? Trinitarians believe it is crucial...perhaps even "salvational." While I'm not at all required to master the philosophical ramifications of the Trinity (or the LDS Godhead, for that matter), if I claim to love God I should know about him that which he has revealed.

And so, along comes one who defies my church authorities, and that which I believe (have a testimony of) that God has revealed to me, concerning his very nature. How do I respond? I shouldn't be nasty, obnoxious or vindictive. But, especially if I am a church leader, I must say that your teachings are a depatrue from teh truth we've found. Don't we all say, "I believe I'm right, I believe you're wrong, you should follow the truth I've found, if you want I'll tell you why you're wrong, why I'm right, etc."

Perhaps the key is love...and it's very difficult to communicate love when we're discussing truth and error about the most meaningful aspect of our lives. Yet, this is what Jesus calls us to.

PC is right and he speaks with honor and dignity about something that is easily to take offense over(Although we really shouldn't, since these sorts of things -are- important. There's a reason God called His chosen people 'Wrestles with God').

Ultimately, I have heard the Trinitarian viewpoint. However, I have read so many things where Jesus refers to God as someone else("Why hast thou forsaken me?" "Would that thou wouldst take this cup away. Nevertheless, thy will and not mine be done." "Why dost thou call me good? None is good but God alone.") and has even been shown to change and draw an increase in this world. (Luke 2:40: And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him.)

When I first looked at these passages, free of my own perceptions and were willing to come as a child, I had to think that perhaps the Trinitarian view is not correct. There are many scholars more learned than myself and they do subscribe to it, so I don't fault them or claim to have hidden wisdom they don't.

I simply believe that God let His Son come down. I believe His son was perfect and without sin. I believe he struggled here and sacrificed His life for us. And I believe he did this to honor His father. I believe the Godhead are three separate personages with a perfectly unified vision, singular in their goals but separate in being.

Ultimately, I trust God. I trust and love Him and His son and know He will reveal it all to me in due time and I pray that he let all men come to the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, I think that the underlying thing is to answer the question. Does the rejection of the Trinitarian Doctrine equate to a rejection of God and Christ? Our belief in God the Father, God Jesus Christ and God Holy Ghost -- all three so one and so united and so alike that the are for all intents and purposes, one and the same ... Is it really that offensive? Is it really that upsetting?

The biggest problem that I see with stubbornly demanding the acceptance of the Trinitarian Doctrine is simple: The Bible does not specifically and exhaustively spell it out. There is no subsequent revelation from God in which he spells out the Trinitarian Doctrine. We do not have any specific revelation from God that locks down the nature of God enough to disallow both of these viewpoints. When I read the Bible, I see three beings working as one. When you read the Bible you see one being. How coud that be? It is quite simply because there is room for both points of view based on the Biblical text.

It is much like Born Again vs Saved by Works + Grace. More Gifts of the Spirit vs Less Gifts of the Spirit. Predestination vs no Predestiantion. All of them are critical defining points with right and wrong answers, yet Christianity as a whole has learned to be tollerant of such differences of opinion. All of them are a very very big deal because they might define how and why you are able to be saved by God from your sins. Yet in spite of these disputes, all sides of the argument are afforded the right to call themselves Christians. Yet the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not afforded the same tollerance. Personally, I find that to be ridiculous.

The bigger issue is the deceptive side of "Mormons aren't Christians" and accompanying bits of Christian love.

"Mormons aren't Christians" leaves the door open for the uneducated to conclude, "Mormons worship Joseph Smith" or "Mormons worship 'Mormo'" and all manner of other nonsense. .

"Mormons believe in a different Jesus" leads the uneducated to conclued, "Mormons follow some other man named Jesus and not Jesus of Nazareth. Some 'Jesus' born in another time and place or something." Obviously this is completely false.

It is my opinion that this is the purpose that religious leaders of Protestant and Catholic faiths have in mind. They intend to sow confusion and misinformation. That is not true of all of them, but it is true of a very large number of them. For the sake of honesty, sincerity, and to avoid both inadvertant and intentional confusion and deception -- I say that the contrived requirement of accepting the Trinitarian Dogma should be dropped from the discussion of trying to define, "What is a Christian?"

That is the only way I see it leading to:

Perhaps the key is love...and it's very difficult to communicate love when we're discussing truth and error about the most meaningful aspect of our lives. Yet, this is what Jesus calls us to.

Anything less can and will be taken as spiteful, hateful and vindictive. And it certainly doesn't lead to Love. Edited by Faded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our hearts ache over non-attending folk. We wonder if they have fallen away. We sometimes call on them. Scriptures says we cannot say we love God if we do not love one another. So, yes, it's very worrisome. I think that rather than consider them damned to hell, we would look upon them as prodigal, as "lost sheep," or, as the Baptists like to say, "backslidden." On the other hand, we do know there is a danger that faith can be lost all together. Hope this helps.

My reason for asking is....Often I will be in a conversation with a Baptist here in my area. Keep in mind we have First Baptist and Freewill Baptist and Fellowship Freewill Baptist. They will inform me I am not a "Christian". We engage in conversation at that point. Some have told me even though they don't attend Church, it doesn't matter. We are concerned abour our "Less Active" members who do not attend or lost sheep. We do refer to them as that to. We do try to bring them back to the fold. I am just always shocked by those who say, they don't need to attend to be saved.

I think as I am sure you do as well, that attending church and reading from the Bible each day is really important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pale.....I live in the deep south, bible belt as well and Southern Baptists are very vocal in expressing that we are not Christians and determining my ultimate fiery:devil: :satanflame:destination if I don't accept the real Jesus and get "saved". I throw a wrench in the machine by explaining that I was once a Southern Baptist and did get "saved". How does that affect me now????:confused: The answers vary.......

Side note: I was watching a sermon from Dr. Charles Stanley, a prominent Southern Baptist preacher in Atlanta, Ga. He said....and I paraphrase here, but essentially, once you have accepted Christ as your personal Savior and have accepted his grace, realizing there is absolutely nothing you can do to be saved, then you are saved and remain in that state for the rest of your life....regardless of transgressions or backsliding or living a life obviously outside of biblical teaching. He said that the Lord will chastise you, but once you are saved, you are saved forever. So, where is the incentive to go to church or live the gospel? Dr.Stanley explain that immediately upon accepting Christ the Holy Spirit dwells within you and you are a new creature in Christ and lose the desire to sin. He further explains that you can't feel the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, but you can know that it is because the bible says it is so.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pale.....I live in the deep south, bible belt as well and Southern Baptists are very vocal in expressing that we are not Christians and determining my ultimate fiery:devil: :satanflame:destination if I don't accept the real Jesus and get "saved". I throw a wrench in the machine by explaining that I was once a Southern Baptist and did get "saved". How does that affect me now????:confused: The answers vary.......

Side note: I was watching a sermon from Dr. Charles Stanley, a prominent Southern Baptist preacher in Atlanta, Ga. He said....and I paraphrase here, but essentially, once you have accepted Christ as your personal Savior and have accepted his grace, realizing there is absolutely nothing you can do to be saved, then you are saved and remain in that state for the rest of your life....regardless of transgressions or backsliding or living a life obviously outside of biblical teaching. He said that the Lord will chastise you, but once you are saved, you are saved forever. So, where is the incentive to go to church or live the gospel? Dr.Stanley explain that immediately upon accepting Christ the Holy Spirit dwells within you and you are a new creature in Christ and lose the desire to sin. He further explains that you can't feel the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, but you can know that it is because the bible says it is so.

Counterfeit and imposters cannot deal with the real thing because the very existence of reality negates them. The real deal is seldom if ever concerned with counterfeit and imposters but goes about its own business. When I have dealt with counterfeit and imposters claiming that we are not Christian I have asked if they believe we are not Christian because their minister said so or have they visited one or more of our worship services prior to coming to such a conclusion. The Bible teaches that one should not make such an accusation until they have heard who they accuse speak. So if they have not attended one of our worship services to hear a sermon before they make up their mind about us, their belief is contrary to the Bible - To which I voice my concern about what is being taught to them where they worship and quickly believing doctrine country to the Bible and no desire to change or follow the Bible.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Christian is at least an apprentice, actively engaged in the process of learning and applying the discipline defined by the Master Jesus Christ. Those that call themselves Christians without being proficient in the craft taught by Christ are imposters.

Apprentices are not proficient because they are learning. I would think there has to be an inbetween here. A person can call themselves a Christian without being proficient because they are in fact the apprentices or somewhere on that path.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose our discussion boils down to whether it is better to have the truth, and be lax about it, or to be in error, but to be very diligent in it. The best answer, of course, is to be diligent in truth. Thankfully, I leave it to my Master to discern and judge anything "in between."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting string ( got " string " from prison chaplain, love him for that :) )

Thanks to all for sharing :)

IMHO, I do not believe the definition of a Chrisian has anything at all to do with what building we choose to worship in, nor do I believe it has anything at all to do with what we label ourselves ( Catholic, Baptist, LDS, Lutheren, etc, etc ). I ABSOBATOOTLY believe that a Christain is defined by their actions and mostly ( but not limited to ) how they treat, reach out to, help, and love all humans on the planet.

Just my 2 cents :)

Ceeboo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I HATE IT , I HATE IT , I HATE IT.... I... what was it again.... sorry wenting a bit :rolleyes:

Yes I hate it when people trow it in the discusition that you/LDS are not christian. Especially I hate it, if the discusition is not about who is Christian who not, but completely something else. Actually if people demand others to believe in trinity to be christian so Jesus and his apostles were not christian. So many times Jesus spoke about HIS father and in Acts in one place the apostles say YOU and your father.:eek: I tell 2 not 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share