What do Christians believe?


Recommended Posts

In the past we have discussed how we might know who a Christian is? It usually comes up in the negative "Are Mormons Christians?" strings. I remember one string that really stretched me...what would disqualify someone from claiming to be a Christian? Is the Trinity, for example, the marker? If so, what of my United Pentecostal Church bretheren, who agree with me on 98% of all doctrine, and are only faulted for...yep, denying the Trinity (they believe Jesus is God, and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different "modes" or "roles" that he has)?

Some LDS say that believing in the divinity of Christ is essential. If so, despite their claims to the contrary, Jehovah's Witnesses would be disqualified--sorta...they do say Jesus is "a god."

Salvation by grace? That could disqualify Catholics and Orthodox, and even the Church of Christ (they require baptism).

Of course, many Christians do argue that the Trinity is our major common ground.

My own answer is somewhat vague, because I leave it to God to make any ultimate judgements. However, traditional Christianity does embrace the Trinity, place heavy emphasis on Christ's saving grace, and holds the Bible as the reliable, applicable truth of God.

These matters unite. They give content and meaning to Christianity. The world looks at us and says, "Christians believe in the Trinity, that Jesus saves, and that the Bible is ultimate truth."

How far from accurate can one be, and still be Christian? How much error will the Holy Spirit tolerate in us? I'm not so sure. However, it may help our discussion to ask what Christians BELIEVE. Surely there is a common set of teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe that the word "Christian" has no eternal meaning. I am happy to let it be a self-defined appellation. In the very strictest interpretation, only Latter-day Saints would qualify as Christians (because only Latter-day Saints have made the baptismal covenant), and on a spiritual level, most of them probably wouldn't make the grade, either. But I don't find that, or any other, definition to be particularly useful.

On a personal level, I could hardly care less whether some religionist somewhere thinks I'm a Christian. It bothers me only insofar as it tends to deafen otherwise sincere seekers after truth. Which I think is exactly why some in the larger Christian community say it -- to ward off the evil conversion attacks of those darned Mormons. Much easier to poison the well than to make actual reasoned arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

With as much variety as there is in the Christian world, I'm inclined to allow a fair amount of latitude before arguing someone's legitimacy as a Christian. I think that one would need to believe in Resurrection and that He paid the price for our sins, but I bet that even there we could find disagreement with some churches who would otherwise claim to be Christian. I guess I would like to rule out the folks who would limit Jesus to the role of merely being a prophet or moral teacher. Beyond that, those who profess to follow His teachings are welcome to claim to be a part of Christianity.

That said, there are certainly churches/practices/ministers out there within the broad spectrum of Christianity that seem to difficult to square with Jesus' actual teachings. They will have to answer to God - not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I struggle with the Trinity. I struggled with it when I was investigating the Catholic Church and I've struggled with it since joining the LDS Church. I resent the fact that belief in the Trinity is the standard that a church must meet to be considered "Christian" by mainstream Christianity.

I also struggle with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. I also resent that the saved by grace belief has been used as another standard for "true" Christianity.

I imagine people in other churches take issue when I say I am a member of the "true" church, and they are just as baffled at my beliefs as I am at theirs.

All of my education in Christianity has been through a Mormon filter. This is the only church I've ever been a member of and everything I learn about Christianity, I learn from a Mormon perspective.

Joseph Smith said: "The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it?"

He may be oversimplifying, but it is a sound principle. Without an intervention from an outside influence, you can't divide by zero and end up with 100. Not bad for a farmboy.

So I have all these issues and I welcome a new perspective on them. So how does the Trinity become the measuring stick in Christianity? How do we get to that point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the Trinity, salvation by grace, and esteem for the Bible? The Trinity tells us who God is. We should agree on that, if we are part of the same religion. Grace tells us how we get in, or join, so to speak. It defines the core essential that we share. Finally, the Bible is our rule book. If we do not use the same rules, how can we play the same game?

The Trinity is complicated for two reasons. First, it was an explicit reaction to a number of other teachings. The effort to correct errors, often will involve meticulous vocabulary and explanation, and thus become complicated and difficult. Secondly, this is God we are talking about. His divine nature must, on some level, be beyond our understanding.

Grace is undervalued because it is perceived as a teaching that allows us to "game" God. However, God will not be fooled. Grace does not prevent good works, it empowers them. I respond to God's gift by acts of service and worship. Insincere repentance will likely be harshly judged, rather than allowing the deceitful in heart an entry into heaven, under false pretenses. I do pity those so deluded they believe they can live for the Devil, while mouthing praises to God, and expect to be "saved by grace."

As for the Bible, we all respect it. However, there is a feeling amongst non-LDS that your canonized proviso "as far as it is translated correctly..." casts a shadow of uncertainty over it.

I'm not going to tell anyone who identifies themself as a Christian that they are not. However, it is fair to ask, "What do Christians believe?" And then, to be concerned when our answers do not come close to agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to prefer a broad non-technical definition. Just look at the word itself- Christian. The root word is "Christ" and the suffix most simply translates to "a follower of". So a Christian is a "follower of Christ". Just what makes someone a "follower of Christ"?

Since the Lord himself does not look on the "outward appearance" but on the "heart", I'd say it is what is inside that counts. That is not something we can easily see or identify. I believe there are likely many people who align themselves with any number of "Christian" beliefs or churches who are not truly Christian, just as there are any number of people who claim no denomination that are, in their hearts Christian. Since I cannot see their heart, it is not for me to say whether or not someone is Christian, but there are things to look for or "fruits" that can make it easier to identify someone who strives to follow Christ.

Those who are kind, giving, forgiving, charitable, compassionate, etc. Those who actively seek out good things and to productively bring good things into the world. Creators, doers, fixers, menders.

To identify whether or not the tenants of any specific religion are "Christian" we should look for the same things. Most obviously, a Christian religion will "teach of Christ, preach of Christ, and rejoice in Christ". A Christian religion will seek to help others become better "followers of Christ" by teaching people just what they are following or striving to follow.

When we get into the nitty-gritty details about just what exactly people believe "about" Christ we start making divisions that I think we ought not be making. While it is not possible that all these different Christian religions are entirely correct, they are all "striving" for the same thing. To follow Christ. I personally believe that the LDS church provides the most correct teachings that help me more closely follow Christ, but I will not negate the fact that many others who are not LDS are striving just as hard (or even more so) as I am to follow Him. They are just as Christian as I purport myself to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I have all these issues and I welcome a new perspective on them. So how does the Trinity become the measuring stick in Christianity? How do we get to that point?

As a Trinitarian I have also asked that question. How can one be expected to completely comprehend the incomprehensible God in order to qualify for salvation? Of course put in that way it doesn't make sense to me.

My thought is that (and I could be wrong) it is one thing to say I don't understand the Trinity and clearly another to say I don't believe in it. If the Trinity is the truth of God and one denies that then isn't that person rejecting the truth? If the Trinity is false and one accepts it as God's truth then that persons belief is false. PC asked;

How far from accurate can one be, and still be Christian?

How can one be saved who places his faith in a false christ. I believe the Bible says he can't. To be saved one must be "born again". (John 3:3) Only the true God can do that. Who God is is of vital importance in my opinion, we must not be wrong.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the Trinity, salvation by grace, and esteem for the Bible? The Trinity tells us who God is. We should agree on that, if we are part of the same religion. Grace tells us how we get in, or join, so to speak. It defines the core essential that we share. Finally, the Bible is our rule book. If we do not use the same rules, how can we play the same game?

Finally some answers :banana:

The Trinity is complicated for two reasons. First, it was an explicit reaction to a number of other teachings. The effort to correct errors, often will involve meticulous vocabulary and explanation, and thus become complicated and difficult. Secondly, this is God we are talking about. His divine nature must, on some level, be beyond our understanding.

As a Mormon, I've been counseled to form a personal relationship with my Savior, and my Father in Heaven. In a very literal way, I am counseled to get to know Them. I fully agree that there things about God we just will not get in this life, I don't believe this is one of those aspects though. Here are my hang ups with the Trinity ...

Why is it not taught in the Bible? You can pick out verses that talk about one true God all day long. If this is the nature of Deity, why isn't it mentioned? This is what defines true Christianity, so why doesn't the rule book have this in it? At no point is the term "Trinity" used, and at no point is there a teaching about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one being in 3 forms. I will concede that there are scriptures that lend credence to the Trinity. I think most of them are out of context, and not definitive at all, but I concede there is some scriptural support. Can you read the NT from cover to cover and walk away with the Trinity? Can you read the Bible and come to the Trinity on your own? I can't, not at all. This is the standard for true Christianity, so there needs to be something definitive if you're making this kind of claim.

All through out the NT, Christ teaches that he was sent here by someone greater than He, that Christ came here to do the will of the Father, and not His own, that the Father is superior to Him, even His God. The Father is always mentioned as another distinct identity, who is greater than Christ, has a will that may be different than Christ's, and is worshiped by Christ. This is where obscure references to "I AM" don't hold up for me. All the differences that Christ lists between Himself and the Father do not support the doctrine of the Trinity. When Christ knelt down in the Garden of Gethsemane, he prayed to Himself to let the bitter cup pass? He resolved to ignore his desires and let the Father's will be done. On the cross, Christ calls out to Himself, and asks why He's forsaken Himself? Then He wills his soul to Himself? I'm not trying to be flippant or disrespectful, but these are gaping wide holes in the Trinity doctrine that deserve a definitive answer. In my opinion they are anyway.

My understanding is that the Council at Nicene is the genesis for the Trinity as we know it. This is about 300 or so years after Christ's resurrection. Constantine gathers up all the bishops and the mission of the council is to get some solid answers in doctrinal matters so there is some consistency throughout the churches. These issues are voted on, after a month of debating. There were several competing theories aside from the Trinity, but in the end the Trinity is accepted as the authoritative teaching in regards to the nature of God, and His relationship to the Son and Holy Ghost. Final answer.

Would this be accurate? This is my understanding of the historical account of the council. My wikipedia education paying off. But before I go into my issues with the council, I wanna make sure I got the facts straight.

Grace is undervalued because it is perceived as a teaching that allows us to "game" God. However, God will not be fooled. Grace does not prevent good works, it empowers them. I respond to God's gift by acts of service and worship. Insincere repentance will likely be harshly judged, rather than allowing the deceitful in heart an entry into heaven, under false pretenses. I do pity those so deluded they believe they can live for the Devil, while mouthing praises to God, and expect to be "saved by grace."

I will concede that there is strong and clear scriptural support for being saved by grace, and being saved by works. Even in full context, there is a scriptural conflict. So, if the scriptures can't sort it out (I'm not saying they can't, but I haven't been able to myself) then I go back and look at the NT as whole (same thing I did with the Trinity) and see what sticks. Now I am clearly biased, and I already said that all my education in Christianity has been done through Mormon glasses. So I'm looking to see if and how MY beliefs fit first. Here is what I come up with ...

We are given commandments that define our moral code. Christ comes to earth so atone for our sins because we suck. While He's here, He teaches us about how we are to treat one another. He teaches love and forgiveness, and then He lives His perfect life as an example for us to follow. If there aren't consequences anymore for not following the commandments, and no demands made after precise teachings regarding our conduct, and everyone gets a free pass to heaven, why bother? Why spend your entire life teaching and living these principles if no one is under obligation to follow them? That is my conclusion, biased as can be. But it makes sense. I require further knowledge PC :)

As for the Bible, we all respect it. However, there is a feeling amongst non-LDS that your canonized proviso "as far as it is translated correctly..." casts a shadow of uncertainty over it.

Well, is there a first edition NT anywhere? This could be easily solved if we could just compare our modern day Bible to the original scrolls and see how it matches up ;)

The earliest accounts we have for most of the books in the Bible come from the Dead Sea Scrolls (I think) and date around 700AD. I don't think it's inappropriate to have some kind of standard for accuracy that needs to be met before the Bible gets to be infallible. There's a big gap that isn't accounted for. I don't think adding a note about "accuracy in translation" is uncalled for. My Mormon point of view leads me to make that jump though. I have other books of scripture that have an unbroken line from Deity to prophet to paper. That's the standard I expect though.

I'm not going to tell anyone who identifies themself as a Christian that they are not. However, it is fair to ask, "What do Christians believe?" And then, to be concerned when our answers do not come close to agreement.

I support you 100%. Differences should be examined, that is more than "fair to ask." I don't know to what extent I would be concerned about differences between faiths. But at some point you have to call shenanigans.

Thank you in advance for humoring me. I appreciate it :banana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, or another Trinitarian, help me out here, but isn't that a description of modalism not trinity?

I apologize in advanced for this and anything else I wrote that turns out to be inaccurate or incorrect :confused:

Edited by Spartan117
removed filter skipping
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to prefer a broad non-technical definition. Just look at the word itself- Christian. The root word is "Christ" and the suffix most simply translates to "a follower of". So a Christian is a "follower of Christ". Just what makes someone a "follower of Christ"?

Since the Lord himself does not look on the "outward appearance" but on the "heart", I'd say it is what is inside that counts. That is not something we can easily see or identify. I believe there are likely many people who align themselves with any number of "Christian" beliefs or churches who are not truly Christian, just as there are any number of people who claim no denomination that are, in their hearts Christian. Since I cannot see their heart, it is not for me to say whether or not someone is Christian, but there are things to look for or "fruits" that can make it easier to identify someone who strives to follow Christ.

Those who are kind, giving, forgiving, charitable, compassionate, etc. Those who actively seek out good things and to productively bring good things into the world. Creators, doers, fixers, menders.

To identify whether or not the tenants of any specific religion are "Christian" we should look for the same things. Most obviously, a Christian religion will "teach of Christ, preach of Christ, and rejoice in Christ". A Christian religion will seek to help others become better "followers of Christ" by teaching people just what they are following or striving to follow.

When we get into the nitty-gritty details about just what exactly people believe "about" Christ we start making divisions that I think we ought not be making. While it is not possible that all these different Christian religions are entirely correct, they are all "striving" for the same thing. To follow Christ. I personally believe that the LDS church provides the most correct teachings that help me more closely follow Christ, but I will not negate the fact that many others who are not LDS are striving just as hard (or even more so) as I am to follow Him. They are just as Christian as I purport myself to be.

I love everything you say here. Christians should act like Christians. On the other hand, we've all met Buddhists, Muslims, Atheists, and "Nones" who act more "Christian" than some of our church/ward members.

Behavior does count. Maybe day to day it is more important than doctrine, or belief. Nevertheless, people of "like precious faith" should agree on what they believe. The question, though divisive, is necessary. What do Christians believe? Where can we disagree and still share fellowship? At what point do we say, "Call yourself what you will, but we are too far apart to share sacraments." And then, when do we surrender and admit we are not even attempting the same religion. All we have in common is behaving well to please our higher power?

I'm not implying any set answers here. However, Spartan threw out a gauntlet in another thread that I found worthy--trying to establish where our border-maintenance should be, as Christians, in relation to doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, or another Trinitarian, help me out here, but isn't that a description of modalism not trinitarianism?

Modalism would speak to "roles" "modes" "manifestations." Not sure what to make of "forms"--but yeah, that seems to also veer towards modalism. Trinitarianism proclaims three persons, one essential being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spartan threw out a gauntlet in another thread that I found worthy--trying to establish where our border-maintenance should be, as Christians, in relation to doctrine.

I got excited when you made this thread :banana: I feel like I'm taking advantage of you. You're a good man. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally some answers :banana:

As a Mormon, I've been counseled to form a personal relationship with my Savior, and my Father in Heaven. In a very literal way, I am counseled to get to know Them.

In your conversations with open-minded evangelicals, stress this over and over again. We do not get this about you. We tend to wonder if even many of our more ritualistic brethren (Catholic, Anglican, etc.) enjoy 'a personal relationship with Jesus." So, hearing you say this is very encouraging about this very topic. :)

Why is it not taught in the Bible? You can pick out verses that talk about one true God all day long. If this is the nature of Deity, why isn't it mentioned? This is what defines true Christianity, so why doesn't the rule book have this in it? At no point is the term "Trinity" used, and at no point is there a teaching about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost being one being in 3 forms. I will concede that there are scriptures that lend credence to the Trinity. I think most of them are out of context, and not definitive at all, but I concede there is some scriptural support. Can you read the NT from cover to cover and walk away with the Trinity? Can you read the Bible and come to the Trinity on your own? I can't, not at all. This is the standard for true Christianity, so there needs to be something definitive if you're making this kind of claim.

A simple reading of the Bible informs us that Jesus is God. That was enough to eventually see the followers of The Way driven out of the synagogues.

So the Christians worshiped God the Father, in the name of Jesus, God the Son. They also knew the Holy Spirit intimately, and would have considered him God. And yet...they considered themselves believers in The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--the one God.

That is what you can take away from the Bible, sans any controversy. I would call it a vague percursor to Trinitarianism. How the doctrine of the Trinity became more than the sum of the books of the New Testament is in how the church decided to tackle heresies that had arisen. In reality, the doctrine is a repudiation of false doctrines. It says that ...

1. God is not...The Father alone, with the son as a subordinate "god."

2. God is not...Jesus alone, fulfilling modes, or roles, of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3. Jesus was not human in form only--he was fully human.

4. Jesus not merely human--he was also fully God, though he had given up his power, during his sojourn among us.

To counter these teachings, church leadership went back to the scriptures to do, as you say, and compile them together to repudiate the errors. You believe they do so out of context, I'd say God directed their efforts. Irregardless, the Trinity doctrine is, no doubt, a reaction to false teachings, and not merely note-taking, after a devotional reading of the Bible.

All through out the NT, Christ teaches that he was sent here by someone greater than He, that Christ came here to do the will of the Father, and not His own, that the Father is superior to Him, even His God. The Father is always mentioned as another distinct identity, who is greater than Christ, has a will that may be different than Christ's, and is worshiped by Christ. This is where obscure references to "I AM" don't hold up for me. All the differences that Christ lists between Himself and the Father do not support the doctrine of the Trinity. When Christ knelt down in the Garden of Gethsemane, he prayed to Himself to let the bitter cup pass? He resolved to ignore his desires and let the Father's will be done. On the cross, Christ calls out to Himself, and asks why He's forsaken Himself? Then He wills his soul to Himself? I'm not trying to be flippant or disrespectful, but these are gaping wide holes in the Trinity doctrine that deserve a definitive answer. In my opinion they are anyway.

You almost seem to argue that Jesus is less than God. At the same time, you seem to be disagreeing with modalism, not trinitarianism. We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings, though one God, one essence. Further, we agree that Jesus, as Son, would submit to his Father's will.

I will concede that there is strong and clear scriptural support for being saved by grace, and being saved by works. Even in full context, there is a scriptural conflict. So, if the scriptures can't sort it out (I'm not saying they can't, but I haven't been able to myself) then I go back and look at the NT as whole (same thing I did with the Trinity) and see what sticks. Now I am clearly biased, and I already said that all my education in Christianity has been done through Mormon glasses. So I'm looking to see if and how MY beliefs fit first. Here is what I come up with ...

We are given commandments that define our moral code. Christ comes to earth so atone for our sins because we suck. While He's here, He teaches us about how we are to treat one another. He teaches love and forgiveness, and then He lives His perfect life as an example for us to follow. If there aren't consequences anymore for not following the commandments, and no demands made after precise teachings regarding our conduct, and everyone gets a free pass to heaven, why bother? Why spend your entire life teaching and living these principles if no one is under obligation to follow them? That is my conclusion, biased as can be. But it makes sense. I require further knowledge PC :)

Part of the problem with the grace discussion is that LDS consider salvation as having made it into heaven--really the Celestial Kingdom. Evangelicals consider salvation to be conversion. All the "works salvation" scriptures we would see as encouragements to walk in our salvation, and to maintain it. Since I do not subscribe to "once saved always saved," I actually see our churches as fairly close on this. We're not in agreement, but we're not so far off--at least as far as grace goes.

Well, is there a first edition NT anywhere? This could be easily solved if we could just compare our modern day Bible to the original scrolls and see how it matches up ;)

Call this faith, but the Bible has so many self-promoting scriptures, that I have to believe that God has his hand on the translation of his word. There are a few bad ones out there (mostly produced by individual religious movements, or by individuals). However, the major ones are remarkably accurate.

And again, even while I might admit that a translation could have a slight error in nuance or grammar...we wonder why this reminder is so important that it makes your Articles of Faith. Again, our suspicion is that it is a subtle justification for treating the Triple (BoM, D&C, and PoGP) as slightly more reliable than the Bible.

The earliest accounts we have for most of the books in the Bible come from the Dead Sea Scrolls (I think) and date around 700AD. I don't think it's inappropriate to have some kind of standard for accuracy that needs to be met before the Bible gets to be infallible. There's a big gap that isn't accounted for. I don't think adding a note about "accuracy in translation" is uncalled for. My Mormon point of view leads me to make that jump though. I have other books of scripture that have an unbroken line from Deity to prophet to paper. That's the standard I expect though.

Some of the manuscripts go back to the 200s, I believe. The other reality is that we have so many copies to compare, and they are remarkable in their consistency.

I support you 100%. Differences should be examined, that is more than "fair to ask." I don't know to what extent I would be concerned about differences between faiths. But at some point you have to call shenanigans.

Thank you in advance for humoring me. I appreciate it :banana:

This is great stuff. If it has not been recommended to you, I'd encourage you to look at the book How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Blomberg & Robinson). You can find it on Amazon, used, for about $5 delivered. SNOW turned me on to this book, and the two authors do a fine job of explaining the Evangelical and LDS viewpoint on major doctrines, finding surprising areas of agreement, and yet highlighting just where the differences are. One author is from BYU, the other from Denver Seminary. They are both rigorous in their defenses, yet respectful in their tone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your conversations with open-minded evangelicals, stress this over and over again. We do not get this about you. We tend to wonder if even many of our more ritualistic brethren (Catholic, Anglican, etc.) enjoy 'a personal relationship with Jesus." So, hearing you say this is very encouraging about this very topic. :)

We're off to a great start :)

A simple reading of the Bible informs us that Jesus is God. That was enough to eventually see the followers of The Way driven out of the synagogues.

We agree again, Christ's divinity is never up for debate in either of our faiths.

So the Christians worshiped God the Father, in the name of Jesus, God the Son. They also knew the Holy Spirit intimately, and would have considered him God. And yet...they considered themselves believers in The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--the one God.

That is what you can take away from the Bible, sans any controversy. I would call it a vague percursor to Trinitarianism. How the doctrine of the Trinity became more than the sum of the books of the New Testament is in how the church decided to tackle heresies that had arisen. In reality, the doctrine is a repudiation of false doctrines. It says that ...

1. God is not...The Father alone, with the son as a subordinate "god."

2. God is not...Jesus alone, fulfilling modes, or roles, of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

3. Jesus was not human in form only--he was fully human.

4. Jesus not merely human--he was also fully God, though he had given up his power, during his sojourn among us.

Hmmm. We've hit our first snag PC. I do see another aspect of Trinity that was lost on me before though. But that raises more doubts for me, if the Trinity is indeed the true nature of God then it wouldn't have to meet certain standards just to refute false doctrine. It wouldn't matter what the other competing ideas were, the goal is to get to the truth, not to prove something else wrong. Unless I'm misunderstanding you?

To counter these teachings, church leadership went back to the scriptures to do, as you say, and compile them together to repudiate the errors. You believe they do so out of context, I'd say God directed their efforts. Irregardless, the Trinity doctrine is, no doubt, a reaction to false teachings, and not merely note-taking, after a devotional reading of the Bible.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Christ is Michael the Archangel, and here is how they do it ...

1 Thessalonians 4:16 states: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael.

The Bible states that “Michael and his angels battled with the dragon . . . and its angels.” (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Matthew 13:41) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.

I bring this up often because I see similarities in each model used to interpret scriptures. I've seen the Trinity explained through scripture and it's similar to how JW provide scriptural backing for the Jesus-Michael belief. The dots get connected, but any context those verses had is lost. The last paragraph explaining Jesus-Michael is a perfect example of cherry picking verses to create the explanation you want. And at face value, the argument has a leg to stand on. It's a stretch for sure, and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. But there it is. I know there are different interpretations of the Trinity doctrine, and I couldn't tell you which one I read about. I'm not trying to mix apples oranges, I'm trying to demonstrate how I understand things and how I end up with the conclusions I do. I don't mean to equate the Trinity doctrine as equal with Jesus-Michael. Like I said, I'm trying to show you how I get to where I am. Nothing more.

You almost seem to argue that Jesus is less than God. At the same time, you seem to be disagreeing with modalism, not trinitarianism. We believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct beings, though one God, one essence. Further, we agree that Jesus, as Son, would submit to his Father's will.

I was misinformed for sure. This is why I'm glad you started the thread. I intend to walk away from this thread an expert on Evangelical Christianity. :cool:

As to the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we believe the Father existed prior to the Son and the Holy Ghost and is the source of their divinity. In classical terms, LDS theology is subordinationist; that is, it views the Son and the Holy Ghost as subordinate to and dependent upon God the Eternal Father. They are his offspring. Thus Joseph Smith referred to the Father as "God the first" to emphasize his priority in the Godhead. The Son and the Holy Spirit were "in the beginning, with God," but the Father alone existed before the beginning of the universe as it is known. He is ultimately the source of all things and the Father of all things, for in the beginning he begot the Son, and through the instrumentality of his agent, the Son, the Father accomplished the creation of all things. Although the three members of the Godhead are distinct personages, their Godhead is "one" in that all three are united in their thoughts, actions, and purpose, with each having a fulness of knowledge, truth, and power. Each is a God.

Part of the problem with the grace discussion is that LDS consider salvation as having made it into heaven--really the Celestial Kingdom. Evangelicals consider salvation to be conversion. All the "works salvation" scriptures we would see as encouragements to walk in our salvation, and to maintain it. Since I do not subscribe to "once saved always saved," I actually see our churches as fairly close on this. We're not in agreement, but we're not so far off--at least as far as grace goes.

I thought justification by grace alone meant just that? Or "once saved always saved" as you say? I am confused :confused:

Call this faith, but the Bible has so many self-promoting scriptures, that I have to believe that God has his hand on the translation of his word. There are a few bad ones out there (mostly produced by individual religious movements, or by individuals). However, the major ones are remarkably accurate.

And again, even while I might admit that a translation could have a slight error in nuance or grammar...we wonder why this reminder is so important that it makes your Articles of Faith. Again, our suspicion is that it is a subtle justification for treating the Triple (BoM, D&C, and PoGP) as slightly more reliable than the Bible.

Your suspicions are well founded. The BoM has an unbroken chain of custody from prophet to prophet, ending with Joseph Smith putting it on paper. Doctrine and Covenants is even more direct, Deity-prophet-paper. The Pearl of Great Price has several parts to it. Moses and Abraham came from papyrus found in Egypt, JST Matthew is taken directly from Joseph Smith's notes, same with the JS History and the Articles of Faith were written by JS as well. In each case the end is the same, translated or written by a prophet onto paper and into my quad. No one book replaces another though. But from my perspective PC, can you see why I would say that the content in the Triple would be more "reliable" than the Bible? Looking through my Mormon glasses, nothing is out of place about that idea. I don't want to say that my point of view is right, I am not anywhere near familiar enough with any of the scriptures to make claims like that. Once I've prayerfully read all of the standard works about 100 times I'll have an opinion.

Some of the manuscripts go back to the 200s, I believe. The other reality is that we have so many copies to compare, and they are remarkable in their consistency

I was WAY off, and WAY wrong.

These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE.
This is great stuff. If it has not been recommended to you, I'd encourage you to look at the book How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Blomberg & Robinson). You can find it on Amazon, used, for about $5 delivered. SNOW turned me on to this book, and the two authors do a fine job of explaining the Evangelical and LDS viewpoint on major doctrines, finding surprising areas of agreement, and yet highlighting just where the differences are. One author is from BYU, the other from Denver Seminary. They are both rigorous in their defenses, yet respectful in their tone.

This is indeed great stuff. My wife has talked about that book. We don't own it but that may change soon. I really do appreciate you taking the time to explain things like you have. Feel free to throw in the towel whenever you're ready because I will keep pestering you until you've posted everything you know. I have no shame. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modalism would speak to "roles" "modes" "manifestations." Not sure what to make of "forms"--but yeah, that seems to also veer towards modalism. Trinitarianism proclaims three persons, one essential being.

In my mind, and in my simplistic way of understanding things you have:

Trintarianism: 3 -> 1

Modalism: 1 -> 3

That is to say Trinitarianism takes three and makes it one (three persons of one being), where Modalism takes one and makes it three (one person in three roles).

For kicks I'll add the LDS teachings about Godhead:

Godhead: 3 -> (1+1+1)

It takes three and places them in the same sphere but keeps them separate.

Today's theology for dummies and by dummies brought to you by Dravin and the letter F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

PC - the way you describe the Trinity I have to wonder how different our interpretations really are, or if they are more a matter of semantics than actual difference. When you say three distinct beings, but one God, I can't help but think that is what we believe - 3 beings in one Godhead. I know there are other differences (physical vs. spirit body of God, etc.), but it seems like we may be closer than we realize.

I've long thought that one way to reconcile the "one God" verses in the Bible with LDS teachings is to assume that "one God" could be interpreted as "one God-head", comprising all of the roles needed (Father, Redeemer, and Testifier of truth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we need to have the term Christian as more general, and then use descriptors to define it down.

Traditional Christian would mean those who follow the Trinity.

Restorationist Christian would include Mormons and a few others.

I think doing it this way is more inclusive, and yet allows for distinction without condemnation or judgment of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC - the way you describe the Trinity I have to wonder how different our interpretations really are, or if they are more a matter of semantics than actual difference. When you say three distinct beings, but one God, I can't help but think that is what we believe - 3 beings in one Godhead. I know there are other differences (physical vs. spirit body of God, etc.), but it seems like we may be closer than we realize.

I've long thought that one way to reconcile the "one God" verses in the Bible with LDS teachings is to assume that "one God" could be interpreted as "one God-head", comprising all of the roles needed (Father, Redeemer, and Testifier of truth).

I've been thinking this myself. After conversations with Stephen about Catholicism and now PC's explanation on the Trinity with respect to Evangelicals, I keep thinking that it is so similar to what we believe I would almost say that we (Mormons) DO believe in the Trinity. The difference is so very slight it is almost indiscernable. Dravin identified it nicely though :). Which raises the need, again, for a more broad definition of "Christian". Why make the dividing line something that is so minute, so difficult to understand and define, when we are all still trying to follow Christ but just understand his "nature" a little differently?

I believe we need to have the term Christian as more general, and then use descriptors to define it down.

Traditional Christian would mean those who follow the Trinity.

Restorationist Christian would include Mormons and a few others.

I think doing it this way is more inclusive, and yet allows for distinction without condemnation or judgment of others.

Ram hit it on the head, I think. Anyone who is a "follower of Christ" is Christian in my book. If we want to draw a dividing line over who we are willing to take sacrament with, that dividing line is easily identified by the different Christian denominations. Saying though that your denomination is the only Christian denomination, or that only denominations whose beliefs are similar enough to yours to suit you are Christian I think is really petty and silly, however well-meaning the effort for distinction may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking this myself. After conversations with Stephen about Catholicism and now PC's explanation on the Trinity with respect to Evangelicals, I keep thinking that it is so similar to what we believe I would almost say that we (Mormons) DO believe in the Trinity. The difference is so very slight it is almost indiscernable.

The differences are small to us, but the notion of 3 separate Gods instead of 1 is heretical to most of mainstream Christianity.

The Trinity expresses the belief that God is one Being made up of three distinct Persons who exist in co-equal, co-eternal communion as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

conAllow me to break the spirit of Godwin's law and propose an extreme. I have founded a religion on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We hold the Bible to be the word of God; we believe in the Trinity as well. We'll leave the grace/works debate out for the moment (maybe we're more works-based, you'll see why).

Some of our customs are admittedly a bit different. Just as baptism is a symbol of birth for when you're born again, so is the baptism of fire a symbol of final purification mirroring our death ritual. To receive the Holy Spirit, you walk across hot coals between two walls of fire. This also symbolized the death of the sinner for us because we burn our dead. This has gotten us in hot water with some other Christians in the past because they like to compare this to having our children pass through the fires of Molech and such, but we feel there's enough justification for the practice.

The practice that gives us the most trouble centers in our beliefs about family. We believe in strict celibacy as practiced by Jesus and Paul ("follow me as I follow Christ", and "follow me"). Those that do marry are to sanctify their family by crucifying their first-born (matters not if it's boy or girl). The celibate often compare their godly walk with that of Jesus'. The sacrifants experience a godly walk similar to the Father's. Both are considered saved.

Anyway, we consider ourselves Christians, and it sounds like your definitions include us as well (if anything, we're even MORE Christian, since we follow Christ's life a lot more closely - maybe a debate saved for another day). We've decided to host a Christian fellowship and brotherhood conference and invite our fellow Christians to join us and celebrate how much we have in common.

Is your Church represented as fellow-Christians? or are we too "other" to be considered in the same basket?

Edited by mordorbund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

I think the child sacrifice would definitely put this "church" out of mainstream Christianity and into the "cult" status (whatever that means). It's hard for me to define a cult, in the pejorative sense of the word, but it seems like its one of those things that you know-it-when-you-see-it (like a judge once said about obscenity or pornography). It also should be based on more than just dislike of a particular group (as seems to be the case with many who label us as cultists). The Branch Davidians holed up in a compound in Texas thought of themselves as Christian, but they were following someone who claimed to be Jesus. They made no attempt at being maintstream, or even involved with the world, so I'm comfortable calling them a cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. We've hit our first snag PC. I do see another aspect of Trinity that was lost on me before though. But that raises more doubts for me, if the Trinity is indeed the true nature of God then it wouldn't have to meet certain standards just to refute false doctrine. It wouldn't matter what the other competing ideas were, the goal is to get to the truth, not to prove something else wrong. Unless I'm misunderstanding you?

Precept upon precept, milk before meat, and all that. Another way of explaining would be that when a teacher lectures, and someone raises their hand, and asks a question, the whole class may well get information that was not in the notes. In early years of the persecuted new church, finer questions about God's nature were not front and center. As questions did arise, a deeper look at scripture, to answer questions that had not been asked before, led to more precise answers. This is a normal process in life, and in the church.

The reality of more be revealed over time should be especially obvious to you, as I am sure your knowledge of your own faith grew leaps and bounds once you were able to enter the Temple. I'm not privy to what you learned, but it's easy for me to speculate that a whole knew level of spiritual experience and wisdom opens to you, once you are able to enter.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Christ is Michael the Archangel, and here is how they do it ... I bring this up often because I see similarities in each model used to interpret scriptures. I've seen the Trinity explained through scripture and it's similar to how JW provide scriptural backing for the Jesus-Michael belief. The dots get connected, but any context those verses had is lost. The last paragraph explaining Jesus-Michael is a perfect example of cherry picking verses to create the explanation you want. And at face value, the argument has a leg to stand on. It's a stretch for sure, and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. But there it is. I know there are different interpretations of the Trinity doctrine, and I couldn't tell you which one I read about. I'm not trying to mix apples oranges, I'm trying to demonstrate how I understand things and how I end up with the conclusions I do. I don't mean to equate the Trinity doctrine as equal with Jesus-Michael. Like I said, I'm trying to show you how I get to where I am. Nothing more.

I understand the charge of cherry-picking scriptures to prove points. However, without examples to look at, it would be hard to defend against a vague charge like that. So, all I can say is that yes, we must look at both immediate context, and broader context. We agree in general.

As to the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we believe the Father existed prior to the Son and the Holy Ghost and is the source of their divinity. In classical terms, LDS theology is subordinationist; that is, it views the Son and the Holy Ghost as subordinate to and dependent upon God the Eternal Father. They are his offspring. Thus Joseph Smith referred to the Father as "God the first" to emphasize his priority in the Godhead. The Son and the Holy Spirit were "in the beginning, with God," but the Father alone existed before the beginning of the universe as it is known. He is ultimately the source of all things and the Father of all things, for in the beginning he begot the Son, and through the instrumentality of his agent, the Son, the Father accomplished the creation of all things. Although the three members of the Godhead are distinct personages, their Godhead is "one" in that all three are united in their thoughts, actions, and purpose, with each having a fulness of knowledge, truth, and power. Each is a God.

You probably know this, but our disagreement here is rather serious. Trinitarians grant that Jesus gives deference to his Father, because He is Father, and Jesus is Son, but not that they are different in nature. We say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are Co-equal and Co-eternal.

We could really trip over terms here, so it helps to remember that Trinitarians also believe that ONLY the Godhead is eternal. Matter is not eternal. Creation came from "out of nothing," by the word of God.

With that in mind, to say that Jesus and the Spirit were created, in our minds, we make them gods. Yet, you do not exactly say that, since you believe matter is eternal. Nevertheless, you still seem to put the Father BEFORE the Son and Spirit. I'd really struggle with how they could be Gods, and not gods, then. Yet, you also believe that exalted humans will become Gods. To my reckoning, if God the Father is BEFORE all others, only He would be God for eternity. All others would become gods.

Maybe the above is confusing...so feel free to seek clarification from me.

I thought justification by grace alone meant just that? Or "once saved always saved" as you say? I am confused :confused:

Justification by grace (really by faith) was Martin Luther's signature doctrine. Yet, he did not espouse "once saved always saved." He simply argued that we could not earn the right to conversion. All we could do was believe and receive God's grace. Good works would follow.

It was the Calvinists who developed the doctrine of Eternal Security "Once Saved Always Saved." The argument went that if Jesus saves us, then we cannot lose what He gives. He is 100% faithful, and so is his gift.

However, they also said that we do not really choose Jesus. He chooses us. They say God predestines who will be Christian and who won't. This is God's sovereignty. So...if a so-called Christian falls into sin, and does not repent, in truth that person was never really a Christian at all. S/he was a pretender, a hypocrite.

As FYI, I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in predestination or eternal security. A person can become a Christian, and abandon their faith, or fall into sin and not repent. They can lose their salvation. I also happen to believe that doing so would be difficult and intentional.

Your suspicions are well founded. The BoM has an unbroken chain of custody from prophet to prophet, ending with Joseph Smith putting it on paper. Doctrine and Covenants is even more direct, Deity-prophet-paper. The Pearl of Great Price has several parts to it. Moses and Abraham came from papyrus found in Egypt, JST Matthew is taken directly from Joseph Smith's notes, same with the JS History and the Articles of Faith were written by JS as well. In each case the end is the same, translated or written by a prophet onto paper and into my quad. No one book replaces another though. But from my perspective PC, can you see why I would say that the content in the Triple would be more "reliable" than the Bible? Looking through my Mormon glasses, nothing is out of place about that idea. I don't want to say that my point of view is right, I am not anywhere near familiar enough with any of the scriptures to make claims like that. Once I've prayerfully read all of the standard works about 100 times I'll have an opinion.

I see why a testimony of Joseph Smith's authority, and the truth of the BoM is necessary. In Pentecostalism, we have continuing revelation. However, modern prophecies are not canonized, and are always subjected to examination through the lense of current Scripture. With the Triple, being the latest revelation, you would interpret the Bible through that lense. I understand why, since we interpret the Old Testament in light of the New. Ultimately, the modern scriptures you have are either true or not. Non-LDS Christians will continue to look at them as they compare with the Bible, until we have our own testimony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

conAllow me to break the spirit of Godwin's law and propose an extreme. I have founded a religion on the teachings of Jesus Christ. We hold the Bible to be the word of God; we believe in the Trinity as well. We'll leave the grace/works debate out for the moment (maybe we're more works-based, you'll see why).

Some of our customs are admittedly a bit different. Just as baptism is a symbol of birth for when you're born again, so is the baptism of fire a symbol of final purification mirroring our death ritual. To receive the Holy Spirit, you walk across hot coals between two walls of fire. This also symbolized the death of the sinner for us because we burn our dead. This has gotten us in hot water with some other Christians in the past because they like to compare this to having our children pass through the fires of Molech and such, but we feel there's enough justification for the practice.

The practice that gives us the most trouble centers in our beliefs about family. We believe in strict celibacy as practiced by Jesus and Paul ("follow me as I follow Christ", and "follow me"). Those that do marry are to sanctify their family by crucifying their first-born (matters not if it's boy or girl). The celibate often compare their godly walk with that of Jesus'. The sacrifants experience a godly walk similar to the Father's. Both are considered saved.

Anyway, we consider ourselves Christians, and it sounds like your definitions include us as well (if anything, we're even MORE Christian, since we follow Christ's life a lot more closely - maybe a debate saved for another day). We've decided to host a Christian fellowship and brotherhood conference and invite our fellow Christians to join us and celebrate how much we have in common.

Is your Church represented as fellow-Christians? or are we too "other" to be considered in the same basket?

If I am reading this right (literal fire baptism, sacrifice of humans) this would be a most dangerous cult, in a sociological sense. I'm thinking Jim Jones and David Koresh here.

LDS may have to put up with evangelical "missionaries to Mormons," some of whom are confrontational, and incredibly grating--the ones you mention in this post will likely have to deal with the FBI and the ATF. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the child sacrifice would definitely put this "church" out of mainstream Christianity and into the "cult" status (whatever that means). It's hard for me to define a cult, in the pejorative sense of the word, but it seems like its one of those things that you know-it-when-you-see-it (like a judge once said about obscenity or pornography). It also should be based on more than just dislike of a particular group (as seems to be the case with many who label us as cultists). The Branch Davidians holed up in a compound in Texas thought of themselves as Christian, but they were following someone who claimed to be Jesus. They made no attempt at being maintstream, or even involved with the world, so I'm comfortable calling them a cult.

If I am reading this right (literal fire baptism, sacrifice of humans) this would be a most dangerous cult, in a sociological sense. I'm thinking Jim Jones and David Koresh here.

LDS may have to put up with evangelical "missionaries to Mormons," some of whom are confrontational, and incredibly grating--the ones you mention in this post will likely have to deal with the FBI and the ATF. :eek:

Don't worry so much about the legalities, we've collected enough tithing to have a small island-nation (we call it "Mt Zion").

You've both dropped the "cult" bomb on me, so let's clarify a bit. I'm assuming that since you're calling us a cult, you also mean we're not Christian. I'm not hearing any theological complaints, so it must be our bizarre practices. Is it just the morally-reprehensible child sacrifice (and again, not everyone has to do it)? or are we still a non-Christian cult with the baptism of fire? No one has ever died performing this rite. Is it just too "wierd" to be Christian? is that actually a criterion we want on the table (I think you can both provide arguments for why we wouldn't really want that as a metric)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share