Definition of a Christian

[Guest ceeboo]

I would say that this is a perfect example of being disrespectful and irreverent.

Not to pick sides again but::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I pick Maureen :)

BTW Maureen, Mom asked if we could be there at 6 on Saturday, see you there Sis :)

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

I think saying that God has "Multiple Personality Disorder" is doing the doctrine of the Trinity disservice, as it isn't how Trinitarians actually see it. Admittedly, I can't technically tell you how they see it, but I don't think they'd see it in those terms.

One being but different persons??? WTF(reak)?? Isn't that what MPD is.... different personalities trapped in one body?

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

I would say that this is a perfect example of being disrespectful and irreverent.

No, it's a perfect example of not understanding Christian double-speak in regards to the Godhead. I'm sorry but the Trinity doctrine makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And how is it irreverent?

[Guest ceeboo]

One being but different persons??? WTF(reak)?? Isn't that what MPD is.... different personalities trapped in one body?

Hi Book of Mormon :)

Just curious, are you Mormon ???:lol:

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Hi Book of Mormon :)

Just curious, are you Mormon ???:lol:

No.

[Guest ceeboo]

No, it's a perfect example of not understanding Christian double-speak in regards to the Godhead. I'm sorry but the Trinity doctrine makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And how is it irreverent?

Hi again Book of Mormon Warrior, :)

I was wondering, are you Mormon???:lol::lol:

[Book_of_Mormon_Warrior]

Hi again Book of Mormon Warrior, :)

I was wondering, are you Mormon???:lol::lol:

No.

[Guest ceeboo]

No.

I didn't think so :)

Thanks for the answer

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Maxel]

One being but different persons??? WTF(reak)?? Isn't that what MPD is.... different personalities trapped in one body?

Some clarification: Trinitarians do believe in 3 persons in one being (I think I worded that right) but they wouldn't associate God as having MPD, if for no other reason than MPD is a human disorder and God is perfect, immune to all blemishes and imperfections.

(I learned this from How Wide the Divide) Whenever attempting to come to terms of understanding other faiths, it does the other religion injustice by declaring they believe something actually different than what they do. I daresay that most/all Trinitarians would not say God had MPD, even if a human who had 3 persons in one being would be afflicted with MPD.

For example, I don't like it when others tell me how I don't actually worship God or Christ, but instead I worship something else (usually Joseph Smith or Satan) because it's not what I actually worship.

Disclaimer: PC started a thread devoted to the understanding of the Trinity- it can be found here.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Maxel

[prisonchaplain]

As an aside...I really appreciate Maxel's discourse and wisdom. And my gratitude has nothing to do with the reference to How Wide the Divide (a book I happen to give out to curious inmates, both evangelical and LDS--gotta tell the LDS ones that it sells at Deseret Books...LOL). So, kudos hermano.

[Maya]

See my new thread...but I suppose what's bugging folks about the Trinity is how three persons can be one essential being, whereas what bugs Trinitarians about the LDS Godhead is how three gods (granted only one is worshipped) seems to violate the monotheism of historic Jewish and Christian faith. For me, I can accept that the three persons in one God is hard to wrap the mind, but tremble in fear at the potential for heresy and worse by accepting that there are three gods.

Same question was asked Jesus and apostles by jewish Church leders.

[Faded]

For me, I can accept that the three persons in one God is hard to wrap the mind, but tremble in fear at the potential for heresy and worse by accepting that there are three gods.

Glad that we have a separate thread for the Trinity now.

The statement that "there are three Gods" is not really being that understanding. Latter Day Saints do not describe it that way. We do see ourselves as monotheists. You could easily break down the whole debate as:

Three beings that are one vs One being that is Three.

But lets back away from valiantly defense of the Trinity Doctrine now (use the other thread perhaps?).

Is it acceptable and proper for religious leaders to intentionally or inadvertently trick their followers into completely misunderstanding everything that Latter Day Saints believe about God? "Mormons aren't Christians" does not accurately describe us as having a differing understanding of Jesus of Nazareth from yours. It says we don't believe in him at all. Anyone who has any understanding of our beliefs knows that is completely false. Ultimately, tricking your congregation to try to protect them from perceived false doctrines is still violating, "Thou shalt not lie." So why insist upon doing it?

[FunkyTown]

Glad that we have a separate thread for the Trinity now.

The statement that "there are three Gods" is not really being that understanding. Latter Day Saints do not describe it that way. We do see ourselves as monotheists. You could easily break down the whole debate as:

Three beings that are one vs One being that is Three.

But lets back away from valiantly defense of the Trinity Doctrine now (use the other thread perhaps?).

Is it acceptable and proper for religious leaders to intentionally or inadvertently trick their followers into completely misunderstanding everything that Latter Day Saints believe about God? "Mormons aren't Christians" does not accurately describe us as having a differing understanding of Jesus of Nazareth from yours. It says we don't believe in him at all. Anyone who has any understanding of our beliefs knows that is completely false. Ultimately, tricking your congregation to try to protect them from perceived false doctrines is still violating, "Thou shalt not lie." So why insist upon doing it?

Just as an aside, it's "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

If these people are simply regurgitating the arguments they've heard before, they aren't bearing false witness. They're simply misled.

[Faded]

Just as an aside, it's "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

If these people are simply regurgitating the arguments they've heard before, they aren't bearing false witness. They're simply misled.

The great majority of pastors and ministers know very well what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes about God. They have been spouting, "Mormon's aren't Christians" and similar things from their pulpits since Jospeph Smith claimed he had seen God the Father and Jesus Christ. They know very well that the vast majority of their followers draw the conclusion that we do not believe in Jesus Christ. And in over 180 years of knowing that they were engendering that very belief in their listeners, they've gone to no real effort to set the record straight. Many of those ministers are of the opinion that it's better off that way -- in the interests of protecting their flock for "false doctrines." That's why I'm saying it's dishonest.

On top of that, the uneducated believer or minister that passes this along is guilty of evil-speaking, gossip and bearing false witness to a lesser degree. They could find out the truth on the matter but choose not to. They choose to pass along the false rumor without really knowing if it's true.

[ErikJohnson]

I would say a Christian is anyone who truly worships Christ for who Christ truly is.

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

[Maxel]

Hi Maxel--

It's been a crazy week, which is my excuse for my slow response.

No problem, hope everything is all right. Your post has taken off quite well since then, so good luck if you're hoping to weigh in on everything that's been said, lol.

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?

Actually, I would argue that the person grasped the basic message of the Bible quite well, and is well on their way to a life in the service of God. Their basic understanding is definitely not complete, but I don't blame them in the slightest.

[ErikJohnson]

I think I can easily offer a much better definition of the word "Christian."

Christian: Individual who believes in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and seeks to live their life accordingly.

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

[ErikJohnson]

Their basic understanding is definitely not complete

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

[prisonchaplain]

Is it acceptable and proper for religious leaders to intentionally or inadvertently trick their followers into completely misunderstanding everything that Latter Day Saints believe about God? "Mormons aren't Christians" does not accurately describe us as having a differing understanding of Jesus of Nazareth from yours. It says we don't believe in him at all. Anyone who has any understanding of our beliefs knows that is completely false. Ultimately, tricking your congregation to try to protect them from perceived false doctrines is still violating, "Thou shalt not lie." So why insist upon doing it?

Well...let's start with the disclaimer...I don't tell my congregation that "Mormons aren't Christians." :)

As for those pastors/leaders who do, I'm sure the argument is, "Since the LDS beliefs do not line up with historic and current orthodox Christianity, then it ain't Christian." I have already said that since I am not able to find the clear line of demarcation, I don't. The fact that a few would misunderstand that there is no connection at all to Jesus Christ within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints speaks to a lack of inquisitiveness on the part of those few, imho.

Edited February 1, 2009 by prisonchaplain
clarification

[Maxel]

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

I would say that both of your statements are true. Let me explain my previous post a little better.

When asked your question about someone reading the Bible and deciding that Jesus is God and there only being one God, I assumed the following scenario: someone who has had no exposure to any form of Christianity before picks up a copy of the Bible, reads all the way through it once in one sitting, puts it down, and thinks to himself "I like this Christ chap, and I think he's spot on. I think he is God, and the only God!" (Don't ask me why he was British, but in my mind's eye he was) Although this fictitious event was unrealistic (who can read the whole Bible in one sitting?) I believe the basic spirit of your question was preserved.

From that event, I moved onwards: is the man, in his conclusions, incorrect or deceived? I decided the man was definitely not deceived, as one main point of the Bible is to declare the Gospel of Jesus Christ- that is, the Good Word of Christ's message. Central to that message is that Christ is God, the only God; the only means whereby we can attain salvation.

Although the man was not deceived, his understanding is not complete because the Bible also stresses the ignominious state of human existence, and the fact that the only road to salvation leads to the feet of Jesus Christ, through the atonement that He wrought while living on the earth. If a man concludes that A.) Jesus is God and that B.) there is only one God; and that is the extent of his knowledge about Christ, than the man's knowledge is nascent and very basic. Personally, I don't believe a person can qualify to be a Christian (if we define 'Christian' by the beliefs a person holds) until they believe the points already stated, and understand that Christ's atonement and godly grace is absolutely essential to our eternal salvation. Also, they have to understand in someway that there is life after this life, and that Christ came to redeem us so that our afterlife could be glorious, and filled with God's presence.

Forgive my waxing garrulous; the point I am bringing this to is that the man's understanding of Christ is basically complete, yet still missing some vital pieces. He's grasped the Bible's central message, but still has more to learn before he understands all the basics of Christ's message, which is prerequisite to one being a true Christian. In other words, his basic understanding of Christ's divinity is complete, but his understanding of the base teachings of Christ are incomplete.

[ErikJohnson]

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

[Faded]

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

It's as I said repeatedly -- IMHO, your purpose in posting this thread is to belittle the faith of others and make excuses for yourself for playing the deceptive card of, "Mormon's aren't Christians." Everything you've stated points to you trying to solidly establish this one single point. There is no room for discussion for you. You instantly reject every point anyone else makes. You were never interested in this being a discussion of opinions, only a chance for you to "lay down the law" and prove that every Latter-Day Saint has no right to call themselves Christian. It's a simple regurgitation of the same intolerance someone else taught to you.

I cannot overstate this. The reason this is a big deal is because the premise "Mormons aren't Christians" is a deceptive ruse -- Protestants ministers have used it for well over a century to demonize and belittle our faith in God and Christ. "Mormons aren't Christians" does not say we have a difference of opinion on the nature of Jesus Christ. It does not demonstrate that we both truthfully believe he is a god, but have a difference of opinion beyond that point. "Mormons aren't Christians" says we don't believe in Jesus Christ at all. And yet Protestant leaders, knowing full well that they are engendering that very falsehood continue to promote it in every way they can. If challenged, they make some very fancy excuses, but that's the underlying purpose of it. To protect their flock from the "evils" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by lying.

-- It does not inspire love and respect.

-- It does not bring anyone closer to God.

-- It does not help anyone understand what we actually DO believe.

-- It destroys any chance for mutual understanding.

-- It accomplishes nothing good.

-- It amounts to nothing less than picking a fight and being completely disrespectful of the faith and beliefs of others.

-- It definitely inspires hate and misunderstanding.

-- It establishes an unequal and hostile relationship on the premise of "I'm right and you're wrong."

For all these reasons and many more, it is not light. It is darkness. Why persist in spreading darkness?

Edited February 1, 2009 by Faded

[Maxel]

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

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.

Edited February 2, 2009 by Maxel

[ErikJohnson]

It's as I said repeatedly -- IMHO, your purpose in posting this thread is to belittle the faith of others and make excuses for yourself for playing the deceptive card of, "Mormon's aren't Christians." Everything you've stated points to you trying to solidly establish this one single point. There is no room for discussion for you. You instantly reject every point anyone else makes. You were never interested in this being a discussion of opinions, only a chance for you to "lay down the law" and prove that every Latter-Day Saint has no right to call themselves Christian. It's a simple regurgitation of the same intolerance someone else taught to you.

I cannot overstate this. The reason this is a big deal is because the premise "Mormons aren't Christians" is a deceptive ruse -- Protestants ministers have used it for well over a century to demonize and belittle our faith in God and Christ. "Mormons aren't Christians" does not say we have a difference of opinion on the nature of Jesus Christ. It does not demonstrate that we both truthfully believe he is a god, but have a difference of opinion beyond that point. "Mormons aren't Christians" says we don't believe in Jesus Christ at all. And yet Protestant leaders, knowing full well that they are engendering that very falsehood continue to promote it in every way they can. If challenged, they make some very fancy excuses, but that's the underlying purpose of it. To protect their flock from the "evils" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints by lying.

-- It does not inspire love and respect.

-- It does not bring anyone closer to God.

-- It does not help anyone understand what we actually DO believe.

-- It destroys any chance for mutual understanding.

-- It accomplishes nothing good.

-- It amounts to nothing less than picking a fight and being completely disrespectful of the faith and beliefs of others.

-- It definitely inspires hate and misunderstanding.

-- It establishes an unequal and hostile relationship on the premise of "I'm right and you're wrong."

For all these reasons and many more, it is not light. It is darkness. Why persist in spreading darkness?

Hi Maxel—

You’re clearly a thoughtful writer, more than capable of a dialogue on the meaning of “Christian.” And you previously shared a succinct definition that I think is quite interesting. (You were one of the few LDS who actually offered a definition.) And you subsequently wrote some things that I agree with and that I think merit further discussion.

So I’m quite surprised by your sudden effort to change the subject and turn the thread into a debate about my personal motives. Take a look at some of the language you used to characterize me and the content of my posts: “belittle,” “excuses,” “deceptive,” “intolerance,” “falsehood,” “spreading darkness.” Honestly, Maxel, nothing I’ve written justifies any of this. Consider how your words might appear to nonpartisans visiting the thread. (I always try to remember that myself when I write.)

I fully appreciate your previous point regarding difficulties in Biblical understanding and interpretation. I’m keenly aware that Bible-believing Christians have divided over questions 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 don’t dispute any of these facts with you.

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 (Isaiah 43:10-11), he doesn’t leave us to wonder whether the real number might be three or four. Likewise, when the Apostle Thomas beholds Jesus resurrected and proclaims, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28)—there’s no ambiguity 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).

So I’d like to build on that, Maxel. I’d like to see how we can bring our respective definitions together. And if we can’t, then I’d like to at least be clear on what our difference is.

To recap for the benefit of our readers who don’t want to dig through prior posts—

Maxel’s original definition: “I would say a Christian is anyone who truly worships Christ for who Christ truly is.”

Maxel’s 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 is God.”

This is remarkably close to what I wrote originally: “A Christian is someone who worships Jesus as the eternal God.”

In fact the only material difference I can see between my original definition and your revised definition is my use of the word “eternal.” Is my use of that word incorrect in the context of God? Or would you now agree with that too. Please share your thoughts, Maxel

--Erik

[Maxel]

So I’m quite surprised by your sudden effort to change the subject and turn the thread into a debate about my personal motives. Take a look at some of the language you used to characterize me and the content of my posts: “belittle,” “excuses,” “deceptive,” “intolerance,” “falsehood,” “spreading darkness.” Honestly, Maxel, nothing I’ve written justifies any of this. Consider how your words might appear to nonpartisans visiting the thread. (I always try to remember that myself when I write.)

That was Faded who said those things, not me. I did say some things

Judging by that case of mistaken authorship, and you not interacting with my most previous post's content (which you have heretofore done very well), I believe at this time you may have mistaken Faded's post for mine and missed my actual response? (Post #94)