Elder Wirthlin's definition of Christian

[Just_A_Guy]

Rider, I've also got to say it sounds like you're trying to force us to make the same "Nobody's Christian but Us" statement that many Protestants make.

If that isn't your point, then what is your point?

Personally, I view the term "Christian" as ultimately a man-made definition, that has no bearing on what God actually thinks of the person so-labeled. That's why I don't really care if someone who doctrinally disagrees with me insists on using it.

[Rider]

Rider, you have made it clear that you do not agree with Elder Wirthlin's definition of Christian or any other LDS member's definition of Christian. What isn't clear is why you keep beating the horse. What is your point?

To be clear, I'm not saying Mormons aren't Christian. That's not my point. Most LDS say we're both Christians, but I don't see how that's possible. How can two groups who contradict each other on the fundamentals of Christ's teachings both be Christian? How can they both be following Christ when they're beliefs are going down different paths?

[beefche]

So, by your definition, does that mean only Catholics can claim to be Christian? Or only Baptists? or only Methodists? or Assemblies of God? or Nazarene's? Or Greek Orthodox? or Mormons? or Church of the Harvest? or ......

Because from where I'm standing, almost every denomination disagrees on some point or another with any other denomination.

[Rider]

Rider, I've also got to say it sounds like you're trying to force us to make the same "Nobody's Christian but Us" statement that many Protestants make.

If that isn't your point, then what is your point?

Personally, I view the term "Christian" as ultimately a man-made definition, that has no bearing on what God actually thinks of the person so-labeled. That's why I don't really care if someone who doctrinally disagrees with me insists on using it.

Yes, it is a man-made word. But the definition of that word includes 'following Christ's teachings.' So it points to something that isn't man-made.

[Gatorman]

Yes, it is a man-made word. But the definition of that word includes 'following Christ's teachings.' So it points to something that isn't man-made.

So, you can only be a Christian if you follow all of his teachings perfectly? Wouldn't that remove the fact that we are imperfect and have need to both improve and ask for forgiveness? Christian = Follower of Christ, one who works to achieve the teachings of Christ. That path is based on their own understanding, but, they are still following Christ.

[Rider]

So, by your definition, does that mean only Catholics can claim to be Christian? Or only Baptists? or only Methodists? or Assemblies of God? or Nazarene's? Or Greek Orthodox? or Mormons? or Church of the Harvest? or ......

Because from where I'm standing, almost every denomination disagrees on some point or another with any other denomination.

When I talk about this, I make sure I word it like 'the fundamentals of Christ's teachings.' Many churches disagree about end times theology, creation and what type of songs we should sing in church, but those aren't part of the fundamentals of Christ's teachings. So two people can disagree on those issues and still both be following Christ.

Yes, if Catholics and Baptists disagree on the fundamentals, then they can't both be Christians. The same goes for all those groups.

[Rider]

So, you can only be a Christian if you follow all of his teachings perfectly? Wouldn't that remove the fact that we are imperfect and have need to both improve and ask for forgiveness? Christian = Follower of Christ, one who works to achieve the teachings of Christ. That path is based on their own understanding, but, they are still following Christ.

Christ never said he expects us to follow Him perfectly. We just need to follow the fundamentals of his teachings. Do you believe baptism for the remission of sins is one of the fundamentals? Edited October 16, 2009 by Rider

[Maxel]

Rider, according to your stringent definitions of "Christian", you exclude everyone except those who are doctrinally correct from being Christians.

Therefore, according to YOUR definition, it is impossible for both Mormons and non-Mormons to be Christians. According to YOUR definition, the path of Christian discipleship is closed to all except those who are lucky enough to have the full truth.

According to OUR definitions and theology, Christians are those who truly seek to follow the will of Christ and walk in His footsteps- whatever religion or denomination they belong to. Mormons do not seek to disclude others as Christians.

YOU'RE the one who's trying to disclude others from being Christians, not the Mormons or Elder Wirthlin. If you can't see this, you need to re-evaluate your position and go before God in humble prayer. You've become one who seeks to make others an "offender for a word" (Isaiah 29:21), whether you mean to or not.

Either accept as truth the multiple witnesses that testify that the Mormons do not seek to claim others as non-Christian, or accept the eternal punishments of refusing to accept the truth from your well-meaning brothers and sisters.

[beefche]

Did Christ teach about baptism? I consider all of Christ's teachings as fundamental. Otherwise I don't know what you mean about fundamentals.

I think anyone who does a little research into LDS belief can know what we believe about Jesus. You can then make your own judgment of "Christian" or not--I say I'm a Christian. You can disagree with me, but I won't stop declaring it.

[Gatorman]

Christ never said he expects us to follow Him perfectly. We just need to follow the fundamentals of his teachings. Do you believe baptism for the remission of sins is one of the fundamentals?

I believe that to be following him perfectly, one of the things we need to do is to be baptized, according to the example he set. In other words, by immersion and by someone with the proper authority, which John had. But, do I believe to be a follower you MUST be baptized? No. You can be Christian, even if you haven't been baptized yet.

[lattelady]

Rider, I don't know what faith you claim; but we all have to be very careful when telling one another what is required to "be a Christian", or to "please God". The only way to know what He wants or expects from us, or what we NEED to do is to see what God says on that subject. Look at Romans 10:8-10--"But what does it say? 'The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,' that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

The first place I could find the term "Christian" being used in the Bible was in the book of Acts (11:26)--and it referred to, well, here's what it says: "...and when he found him he brought him to Antioch. So FOR A WHOLE YEAR Barnabas and Saul MET WITH THE CHURCH and TAUGHT GREAT NUMBERS OF PEOPLE. THE DISCIPLES WERE CALLED CHRISTIANS first at Antioch." (Caps mine)

It appears that it was a word referring to disciples who were being taught the things of Christ--by Christ's ministers, Saul and Barnabas.

The more time goes by, and depending on the religious affiliation, it seems that the more people desire to put their own human terms and regulations on what "Christian" must mean. I don't think we have the right to do that. Study the Bible and see what Christ HIMSELF said must be required to be His follower--but don't add your own elements to it.

[Rider]

Did Christ teach about baptism? I consider all of Christ's teachings as fundamental. Otherwise I don't know what you mean about fundamentals.

I think anyone who does a little research into LDS belief can know what we believe about Jesus. You can then make your own judgment of "Christian" or not--I say I'm a Christian. You can disagree with me, but I won't stop declaring it.

To be clear, when I talk about Christ's teachings, I'm including Paul's letters and other NT books. Jesus taught Paul and Paul expanded on Christ's teachings in the Gospels. Do you consider all of the teachings in Paul's books as fundamental as baptism? Are there any teachings more fundamental, more foundational than others?

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, it is a man-made word. But the definition of that word includes 'following Christ's teachings.' So it points to something that isn't man-made.

But determining what "Christ's teachings" really were entails man-made interpretations of the Gospels. So my point stands: you cannot identify a Christian without a (man-made) value judgment as to that Christian's doctrine.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[ryanh]

Yes, if Catholics and Baptists disagree on the fundamentals, then they can't both be Christians. The same goes for all those groups.

Then it’s completely settled now, isn’t it? This whole discussion is NOT about LDS views about who is, or who is not Christian. It is about your acceptance of who is or who is not Christian being superimposed as a paradigm for interpreting LDS beliefs. The two are incompatible, and it is apparent now why Elder Worthlin’s talk would cause consternation.

The parable of the talents in the NT is illustrative of why LDS can feel perfectly comfortable, and without cognitive dissonance, considering as Christians those we believe don’t have the fullness of the gospel. To whom much is given, much is required. To whom has the lesser portion, less is required.

[lattelady]

Rider, respectfully, your statement "Jesus taught Paul and Paul expanded on Christ's teachings in the Gospels" is incorrect. Jesus had been crucified and risen and ascended into glory before Saul (Paul's name before he became converted to Christianity) was converted on the road to Damascus. Jesus didn't teach Paul. Saul/Paul spent time with the disciples (Acts 9:19), and learned things from them, no doubt, but wasn't "taught by Jesus."

[beefche]

Christ never said he expects us to follow Him perfectly. We just need to follow the fundamentals of his teachings. Do you believe baptism for the remission of sins is one of the fundamentals?

I don't believe you are as dense as you appear to be in this thread. You said earlier this isn't about baptism...yet you keep asking the same question about baptism.

You say that anyone who follows the fundamentals of Jesus Christ are Christians, yet you also say that if 2 denominations disagree on the fundamentals, then one is not Christian.

You obviously don't care what LDS people have to say. You keep asking the same questions and not listening to the answers. So, just spell it out for us. What is your point? What is your agenda?

[Rider]

But determining what "Christ's teachings" really were entails man-made interpretations of the Gospels. So my point stands: you cannot identify a Christian without a (man-made) value judgment as to that Christian's doctrine.

Then how can you say the LDS church is the only church with the full gospel? Is that a man-made value judgment to say other gospels are incomplete?

When someone says Mormons aren't Christian, they are saying the LDS gospel is incomplete. If you can say other gospels are incomplete, can't other people say the same about yours?

Rider, respectfully, your statement "Jesus taught Paul and Paul expanded on Christ's teachings in the Gospels" is incorrect. Jesus had been crucified and risen and ascended into glory before Saul (Paul's name before he became converted to Christianity) was converted on the road to Damascus. Jesus didn't teach Paul. Saul/Paul spent time with the disciples (Acts 9:19), and learned things from them, no doubt, but wasn't "taught by Jesus."

I'm fully aware of that time line. What do you believe this passage is talking about?

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

And I know how such a man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows--was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.

We believe that's talking about a period when Paul was taken into Paradise and taught directly by Christ.

[Rider]

I don't believe you are as dense as you appear to be in this thread. You said earlier this isn't about baptism...yet you keep asking the same question about baptism.

You say that anyone who follows the fundamentals of Jesus Christ are Christians, yet you also say that if 2 denominations disagree on the fundamentals, then one is not Christian.

You obviously don't care what LDS people have to say. You keep asking the same questions and not listening to the answers. So, just spell it out for us. What is your point? What is your agenda?

Baptism is just the example I'm using. I'm not talking about whether or not baptism is required for salvation. I'm asking how two people can both be following Christ when they disagree about that. I could also use 'grace' or 'works' as examples.

If 2 denominations disagree on the fundamentals, then at least one of them is not Christian. I'm saying a Christian isn't just someone who says they're following Christ. A Christian is someone who is actually following Christ. If that say they're a Christian, but they're not following his teachings, then they're not a Christian. Is there something wrong with saying that?

Here is my point: How can two groups who contradict each other on the fundamentals, the basics of Christ's teachings both be Christian?

[beefche]

Here's my point: Each denomination (and even factions within denominations) define fundamentals differently. So, I can say that a fundamental of Mormonism is that no blue M&Ms should be eaten and claim to be a Christian. A Nazarene can say that blue M&Ms can be eaten, but not the brown ones and claim to be a Christian. What right do I have to start accusing said Nazarene that you aren't following the fundamentals? My definition of fundamental is different.

Mormons believe that we have the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We believe we are led by Jesus through His chosen prophet. We claim to follow the "fundamentals" of His teachings. You'll be hard pressed to find a Mormon today to point to another and say "that man is not a Christian because he doesn't follow the doctrines (fundamentals) of LDS church!"

Again, you may disagree that Mormons are Christian. You may disagree that Nazarene's are Christian. Honestly, I don't really care. I live my life as close to Christ's teachings as I can, knowing that I fail.

[Just_A_Guy]

Then how can you say the LDS church is the only church with the full gospel? Is that a man-made value judgment to say other gospels are incomplete?

Because "full gospel" is not a man-made definition; (Mormons would argue) it's objectively provable by scripture in conjunction with direct revelation from God. And Mormons make no bones about claiming that their church is the only one with the full gospel.

When someone says Mormons aren't Christian, they are saying the LDS gospel is incomplete.

But all of the following are "complete"?

• Roman Catholic
• Eastern Orthodox
• Oriental Orthodox
• Assyrian Church of the East
• Anglican
• Lutheran
• Reformed
• Presbyterian
• Congregationalist
• Anabaptists
• Quakers
• Methodists
• Northern Baptists
• Southern Baptists
• Apostolic
• Pentecostal
• Assembly of God
• Seventh-day Adventists

How can they all be complete, if they differ in doctrine? And if they don't differ in doctrine, why don't they all unify?

"Doctrinally incomplete" is not the colloquial, everyday meaning of the term "un-Christian" or "non-Christian". And I daresay you know that very well.

I suspect you also know very well that the term "Christian" has built up an enormous store of goodwill. It stands for charity; for compassion; for forgiveness; for integrity; for hard work. And, above all, to a good-faith effort to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

And I also suspect that the idea of Mormons laying claim to that goodwill drives some people absolutely batty.

If you can say other gospels are incomplete, can't other people say the same about yours?

IMHO they're very welcome to make their case, so long as they're semantically honest in their approach.

[Rider]

Here's my point: Each denomination (and even factions within denominations) define fundamentals differently. So, I can say that a fundamental of Mormonism is that no blue M&Ms should be eaten and claim to be a Christian. A Nazarene can say that blue M&Ms can be eaten, but not the brown ones and claim to be a Christian. What right do I have to start accusing said Nazarene that you aren't following the fundamentals? My definition of fundamental is different.

If you're fundamentals are right, then the Nazarene's fundamentals are wrong. Don't you believe your fundamentals are right? Is so, what wrong with saying the logical conclusion, that those contradicting your fundamentals would be wrong.

But all of the following are "complete"?

* Roman Catholic

* Eastern Orthodox

* Oriental Orthodox

* Assyrian Church of the East

* Anglican

* Lutheran

* Reformed

* Presbyterian

* Congregationalist

* Anabaptists

* Quakers

* Methodists

* Northern Baptists

* Southern Baptists

* Apostolic

* Pentecostal

* Assembly of God

* Seventh-day Adventists

How can they all be complete, if they differ in doctrine? And if they don't differ in doctrine, why don't they all unify?

"Doctrinally incomplete" is not the colloquial, everyday meaning of the term "un-Christian" or "non-Christian". And I daresay you know that very well.

You're right, they can't all be complete. What I'm saying goes for all those groups as well. If Quakers and Pentecostals contradict each other on the fundamentals of Christ's teachings, then at least one isn't a Christian.

[Gatorman]

Rider - Simple, because, you are looking at the details, instead of the basics. For example, I am an American. I believe in the Constitution as the Supreme law of our Government. Now, others may be Americans and believe it is okay to do things that I disagree with. For example, I believe that welfare is unconsitutional. Others do not. Does us having different understandings of this specific issue make either of us any less American?

Christian's follow Christ's teachings as best they can, as best they understand them.

[Maxel]

Rider, Mormons believe that non-Mormons can be Christians. You can decide that that belief is silly or illogical if you want, but that's what we believe.

That. Is. Your. Answer.

Have a nice day.

[Just_A_Guy]

You're right, they can't all be complete. What I'm saying goes for all those groups as well. If Quakers and Pentecostals contradict each other on the fundamentals of Christ's teachings, then at least one isn't a Christian.

But we're back to square one. Who gets to decide what is and isn't a "fundamental" of Christ's teachings? You say baptism is not required. I say it is. But either way--is the necessity (or lack thereof) for baptism really a fundamental teaching of Christ, at least for the purposes of defining who is a "Christian"? Who's to say?

[Rider]

Rider - Simple, because, you are looking at the details, instead of the basics. For example, I am an American. I believe in the Constitution as the Supreme law of our Government. Now, others may be Americans and believe it is okay to do things that I disagree with. For example, I believe that welfare is unconsitutional. Others do not. Does us having different understandings of this specific issue make either of us any less American?

I don't think that's a good comparison. Most Americans because they were born in America. No one is born a Christian. No one is saying an infallible, all knowing, all powerful god wrote a book telling people how to be an American. But Christianity is based on a book like that.

Christian's follow Christ's teachings as best they can, as best they understand them.

I've talked with some people who are following Christ's teachings as best as they can, but they don't believe Christ is the Son of God or rose from the dead. Are those people Christian?