Defining Christianity

[BigDaddy4]

WOW. This is the direction I wanted to go. I love oneness in faith and doctrine. We THINK in the same direction.
First, the Bible defines that Christian is disciple of Christ.
Then the Bible defines who disciple of Christ is.
Disciple of Christ according to the Bible is the one who keeps this commandment of Christ: love one another as I have loved you, that ye also love one another by this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
So, I love my brothers and sisters in Christ. I love my family, friends, neighbors. I love people as Christ loves me. Sometimes I fail but I repent.

Conclusion: according to the Bible I who is LDS(Mormon) keep this commandment of Christ which makes me disciple of Christ. Which makes me Christian.
Thank you, Bible, for letting me know that I am Christian. It is very important to me that according to the Bible(Word of God) I am Christian. Opinions of men are not that important to me IF they CONTRADICT the Word of God.

Which may be well and good if you stopped there. But the lds do not stop there. A look into the nature of what the lds believe about God, the existance of a Heavenly Mother, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, salvation, baptism of the dead, and other non-Biblically supported beliefs makes the lds religion non-Christian. Your conclusion is deceptive.

 

[Sojourner1]

Where does it state that a Christian is someone who has been born again by God? Can you point out the specific line that means what you have just indicated?

This passage clearly explains that a Christian (portions in red) must be born again.

John 3:1-21

There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

 

[Ran77]

Which may be well and good if you stopped there. But the lds do not stop there. A look into the nature of what the lds believe about God, the existance of a Heavenly Mother, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, salvation, baptism of the dead, and other non-Biblically supported beliefs makes the lds religion non-Christian. Your conclusion is deceptive.

Off topic.

 

[Ran77]

This passage clearly explains that a Christian (portions in red) must be born again.

We shall see.

John 3:1-21

There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

This verse states that 1) unless one (a person), 2) is born again (baptized), 3) he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nowhere in this verse does it mention a requirement for being a Christian. What it "clearly" states is that being born-again is a requirement to see the kingdom of God. The rest of what you presented is human interpretation of the scripture. It could mean that a Christian cannot see the kingdom of God unless they have a conversion of heart. Or it could mean that any person at all cannot see the kingdom of God unless they are baptized. Or any combination of those elements. What it doesn't say is the requirement of being a Christian.

Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Again, there is a lot of interpretation involved with these verses. This does seem to clearly be an attempt by Jesus to clarify what He meant by being born again. I have heard many interpretations of what it means to be born of water and the spirit. It includes being born of woman (water), being baptized, being converted (spirit), and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost (baptism of spirit).

It is clear that unless "one" is born of water and spirit - whatever that means - they cannot enter the kingdom of God. That is a future event. It doesn't define who is a Christian in the here and now. It does however clarify what is meant by "see the kingdom of God" in a pervious verse.

Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Again, no mention of requirements to be a Christian. What we have is 1) whoever, 2) believes in Him, 3) shall have eternal life. Belief in Christ is necessary for eternal life. I'll be happy to give you that. Of course, that really doesn't exclude anyone who identifies themselves as a Christian from having eternal life.

“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

Again, no mention of any requirement to be a Christian. It states that 1) he who does the truth (believe), 2) comes to the light, 3) that his deeds may be clearly seen. Pretty much the same response as I had above.


These verses talk about believing in Christ. At best, a person can extrapolate that a Christian is a person who believes in Christ. Which follows the primary definition in the dictionary and I think is readily accepted among even those people who are traditionally excluded from the I-am-a-Christian club. Even though the Bible doesn't specifically give this as the definition of a Christian, I am willing to accept that a person who believes in Christ is a Christian as a definition of what it takes to be a Christian. Of course, all that would do is put us right at the point I've made on this forum all along.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Christ had dimples???

GAAA!!!! THE TYPO"S!!!!!!!

 

[Sojourner1]

Ran, you are attempting to interpret the passage and explain what it means. That wasn't the point of my post. I didn't give any analysis of the Scripture, no interpretation at all, I merely highlighted the relevant portions that discussed that a "believer" (which is referring to a "Christian") must be born again. The passage speaks for itself. Christ explains that a person must be born again (of water and the spirit). Then Jesus goes on to explain that those who believe in Him will have eternal life, and that those who don't are already condemned.

You didn't ask for an explanation of what being born again meant, you asked "where does it state that a Christian is someone who has been born again by God". The passage I quoted answers your challenge. The term "Christian" was not used until the book of Acts, therefore, the word "believers" is referring to those who we now call "Christians".

 

[civilwarbuff]

Ran, you are attempting to interpret the passage and explain what it means. That wasn't the point of my post. I didn't give any analysis of the Scripture, no interpretation at all, I merely highlighted the relevant portions that discussed that a "believer" (which you are referring to as a "Christian") must be born again. The passage speaks for itself. Christ explains that a person must be born again (of water and the spirit). Then Jesus goes on to explain that those who believe in Him will have eternal life, and that those who don't are already condemned.

You didn't ask for an explanation of what be born again meant, you asked "where does it state that a Christian is someone who has been born again by God". The passage I quoted answers your challenge. The term "Christian" was not used until the book of Acts, therefore, the word "believers" is referring to those who we now call "Christians".

Well crafted....

 

[Ran77]

Ran, you are attempting to interpret the passage and explain what it means.

Actually, I broke it down to precise pieces to limit any interpretation. What I presented requires no interpretation.

The term "Christian" was not used until the book of Acts, therefore, the word "believers" is referring to those who we now call "Christians".

Then it appears your post doesn't really deal with the topic. If these verses predate the term Christian then how do you expect it to help define what and who is a Christian?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Off topic.

I'll show you off topic!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

GAAA!!!! THE TYPO"S!!!!!!!

Perhaps she meant "pimples"?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Actually, I broke it down to precise pieces to limit any interpretation. What I presented requires no interpretation.




Then it appears your post doesn't really deal with the topic. If these verses predate the term Christian then how do you expect it to help define what and who is a Christian?

You need to read the definitions you posted...especially 7&8.....

I think the dictionary definitions of Christian are helpful in this discussion, although I agree with you that they perhaps fall short.

Here is a list of definitions taken from dictionary.com which I feel pertain to this discussion:

adjective

1. of, relating to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ : Spain is a Christian country.

3. of or relating to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

noun

7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ : He died like a true Christian.

9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.


I notice that many of these (4, 5, 6, 8) indicate a sort of behavior which identifies the person as a Christian rather than a specific set of beliefs.
edited

 

[Sojourner1]

Actually, I broke it down to precise pieces to limit any interpretation. What I presented requires no interpretation.

Breaking it down into pieces actually limits the passage as it must be read in it's entirety, not in pieces. The passage works together.

Then it appears your post doesn't really deal with the topic. If these verses predate the term Christian then how do you expect it to help define what and who is a Christian?

Acts 11:26b
"The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

You do realize don't you that the term "Christian" is only used two other times in the New Testament, in Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16. If you want to go this route and argue that unless the actual word "Christian" is used in a Scripture then we can't use that Scripture to define who a Christian is, then I think you will find that you will have boxed yourself into a corner. You likewise will not be able to use any Scriptures without the word "Christian" in them to defend your position that Mormons are Christians.

 

[ViaCrucis]

it doesn't appear we have anything to discuss.

Not when you refuse to have a discussion because someone isn't going to play by your arbitrary rules.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ran77]

You need to read the definitions you posted...especially 7&8.....

I think it might help if you read the comment to which I responded.

. . . That wasn't the point of my post. I didn't give any analysis of the Scripture, no interpretation at all, I merely highlighted the relevant portions that discussed that a "believer" (which is referring to a "Christian") must be born again. The passage speaks for itself. Christ explains that a person must be born again (of water and the spirit). Then Jesus goes on to explain that those who believe in Him will have eternal life, and that those who don't are already condemned.

. . . The term "Christian" was not used until the book of Acts, therefore, the word "believers" is referring to those who we now call "Christians".

The topic is not about how a believer must be born again.


If "Christian" wasn't even used until the book of Acts, then any scripture appearing before that point are invalid in determining how the Bible defines what and who is a Christian.


Reading definitions 7 and 8 does not refute either of these points. They do however support my view on the topic.

 

[cloudyday2]

Your question isn't specific enough for me to reply with anything useful. Are you looking for scriptural support for the Nicene creed, for example? If so, there's a page somewhere on this site that does that.

FWIW, my understanding of the question from @Ran77 is: "why a specific collection of beliefs?". Taking the Nicene Creed as an example, the items derive from bible verses scattered throughout the Bible. Why those particular items? Why not include others in the collection? Why not exclude some items from the collection? Where in the Bible is any particular collection of beliefs justified for use as a Christian creed?

 

[Ran77]

Breaking it down into pieces actually limits the passage as it must be read in it's entirety, not in pieces. The passage works together.

Normally, I would ask you to demonstrate how my breaking it down had a negative impact on understanding the piece as a whole; however, that isn't the topic. I am still waiting for verses from the Bible that define what and who is a Christian. Can you provide those or not?

Acts 11:26b
"The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch."

You do realize don't you that the term "Christian" is only used two other times in the New Testament, in Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16. If you want to go this route and argue that unless the actual word "Christian" is used in a Scripture then we can't use that Scripture to define who a Christian is, then I think you will find that you will have boxed yourself into a corner. You likewise will not be able to use any Scriptures without the word "Christian" in them to defend your position that Mormons are Christians.

Since I have already responded to a post which listed all three instances of the term Christian in the Bible it seems pretty likely that I do realize the number of times it is used. Which is why I'm amazed that people think they can define what and who is a Christian. The Bible doesn't contain scripture which clearly defines what it means to be a Christian. And I am tired of people offering their interpretation of the Bible as the Word of God.

What I have given everyone is an opportunity to make whatever argument they have for defining what and who is a Christian. I have not limited it to verses which contain the word. It isn't my fault that nothing credible has been presented so far. If I was in your position I feel that I could give a reasonably strong argument on the topic. Anyone who cannot back up their claims about what constitutes a Christian should rethink their position because what they are presenting is obviously just their opinion.

And in case you haven't noticed, I'm not defending Mormon beliefs here. This isn't even the correct forum for debating Mormon beliefs. I'm surprised that a Staff Member continues to try to make this thread about Mormon beliefs even after an official Moderator message has been posted to leave it alone.

 

[Ran77]

FWIW, my understanding of the question from @Ran77 is: "why a specific collection of beliefs?". Taking the Nicene Creed as an example, the items derive from bible verses scattered throughout the Bible. Why those particular items? Why not include others in the collection? Why not exclude some items from the collection? Where in the Bible is any particular collection of beliefs justified for use as a Christian creed?

This too. Yes.

Where do we find versus in the Bible that tell us this belief and not that belief constitute Christian doctrine (pretty much what you said)? And where do we find verses in the Bible that tell us this person and not that person is a Christian? That is what I am asking the forum at large. Thank you for your input.

 

[Ran77]

Not when you refuse to have a discussion because someone isn't going to play by your arbitrary rules.

Asking for scripture to support your view is playing by arbitrary rules? How amusing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Asking for scripture to support your view is playing by arbitrary rules? How amusing.

That isn't even remotely what I said. Go back and read my previous posts. I think I've been pretty clear, if there's something I haven't been clear about, then ask me to clarify it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChetSinger]

FWIW, my understanding of the question from @Ran77 is: "why a specific collection of beliefs?". Taking the Nicene Creed as an example, the items derive from bible verses scattered throughout the Bible. Why those particular items? Why not include others in the collection? Why not exclude some items from the collection? Where in the Bible is any particular collection of beliefs justified for use as a Christian creed?

The Nicene creed was penned for a particular purpose: countering the teachings of Arius. So afaik it's considered necessary theology, but not complete theology.

As an aside, I now think this thread is an exercise in futility. How can one "define Christianity" when Christian and LDS theologies don't even agree on a definition of "God"? While we use similar vocabulary ("God", "Jesus", etc.) the underlying meanings are different. Of what value is saying something as innocuous as "we both believe in God" when the two religions don't even agree on who "God" is?

Sorry for venting.