RM idea of "Christian" on what basis?

[Judson]

Hi,

If the RM does not appeal to any creed or confession as a basis for baptism or fellowship, how does it determine what Christian belief is, or what a Christian is?

What is the criteria for you to reject a Mormon, say, to become a member of your church?

thanks.

 

[DerSchweik]

Hi,

If the RM does not appeal to any creed or confession as a basis for baptism or fellowship, how does it determine what Christian belief is, or what a Christian is?

What is the criteria for you to reject a Mormon, say, to become a member of your church?

thanks.

Not to sound trite but, we use the bible.

Presumably most creeds and "confessions" are created by a group, or groups of men to confirm/affirm what? To confirm/affirm what the bible says - according to them. And that's fine, but does that then validate what the bible says (as if the bible needs validation from a group of men) or does it validate for those who happen to believe/agree with whatever the confession/creed those men created says?

In a world where false doctrine and teachings are rampant - and always will be rampant (evidenced by the plethora of them that abound even today), what does a creed/confession do? It affirms/confirms what the bible says - and according to what those men who created it says it says or means. Why is this necessary? Or for whom is this necessary?

One might argue its necessary for the unlearned and uneducated theologically, who may not understand the "finer" points of scripture and doctrine.

I would argue, why then was the bible (New Testament) written in the first place - if not for the unlearned and uneducated theologically?

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16f

If what God wrote is sufficient to this end, why creeds and confessions?

We have the bible and a plethora of commentaries, study guides, dictionaries, concordances, topical studies, etc. and etc. - not to mention bible versions and paraphrases - from which we can, if we wish, study the Word on our own. Why do we need a creed or confession to affirm/confirm what we can read/study for ourselves? Is the bible that arcane we need the learned, the educated, the theologically astute to point out to us what we can read for ourselves? I don't believe so. Honestly, it's my contention that human creeds and confessions do more to damage Christian unity than they do to embrace it. But that's a different topic altogether...

In Him,

 

[aggie03]

Hi,

If the RM does not appeal to any creed or confession as a basis for baptism or fellowship, how does it determine what Christian belief is, or what a Christian is?

To echo what was said earlier, the Bible is used as a test to see if someone's belief matches in an acceptable way with mine. Complete agreement isn't necessary, but there are certain things that must be agreed upon.

In all practicality, this isn't much different than what a group with an acknowledged, formal, written creed would do. While one might ask someone, for example, if they hold to the Westminster Confession of faith, I would simply ask them if they believe the things that the Bible teaches.

From a practical standpoint, there is really very little difference. I would argue that both lines of questioning are getting at the same point, that is, "do you believe what is necessary to be a saint, a Christian, a believer?" I would even argue that both lines of questioning are trying to get at what the Bible actually says. I have never met anyone who believes in a creed but does not also believe that the Bible teaches what the creed contains.

After asking my question, whether I turned to the Bible or to a creed, I would then ask more pointed and direct questions until my conscience was satisfied that someone was a saint. So again, practically speaking, there would be little difference to the method used one way or the other.

What is the criteria for you to reject a Mormon, say, to become a member of your church?

thanks.

I believe that there ought not to be a governing body that presides over all congregations to make sure that they are all believing and teaching the exact same things. I think that it is up to the Christians in each area to make sure that they are doing what the Bible says. I don't have any responsibility to make sure that people who live on the other side of the world are abiding by the exact same rules or guidelines that I am. So, from a global or national level, I do not have any way of doing what you've asked.

On a local level, I believe that local congregations do not have to accept everyone who seeks to be a member. There may be a variety of reasons why the leaders of a local congregation may reject someone as a member, and that is completely up to them. If, after talking with someone, like a Mormon, the local leaders decide that someone's beliefs are incompatible with the Scriptures, I would think that teaching is the first step and then rejecting the person as a member of the local congregation if they are not willing to learn.

However, it may also be that someone knows all the "right answers" or has beliefs that are very similar to those held by a local group, but they have a terrible attitude and are known to try and split congregations and cause all sorts of other trouble every place that they go. I do not think that the leaders of a local group are forced to accept that person simply because they ask to be a member.

Ultimately, to answer your question, the admission of someone into a local group as a member depends completely on the leaders of that local group. They may accept or reject anyone as they see fit.

 

[strangertoo]

Not to sound trite but, we use the bible.

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

It seems to me that Paul makes a definitive statement here about who is and who is not worthy as a Christian, the very foundation of God given in scripture that most who call themselves 'Christian' would deny ... the question then is whether one has stopped sinning [not whether one has sinned, in the past, but if one has stopped hurting others with sin, braeking Jesus commands so that he is not one's lord if one does not obey the command to love, but sins against others]

It is not then a matter of whether one has sinned as all have sinned [excluding Jesus] ,but that Jesus showed us that one can live without sinning any more and all who follow him must do so else they continue to follow Satan as 1 John points out :-

1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

the mark of a Christian is then unsurprisingly defined in scripture, one need not guess who is a follower of Christ, Jesus came to destroy sin, [not to perpetuate it under the guise of man-made religion of sinners]

again the scripture is clear that teh church of God si a congregation of saints, not of sinners , not that saints weren't once sinners for all have sinned, but that they departed from iniquity so that Jesus would accept them at his return... again the words of Jesus in scripture are clear are they not ? :-

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Luke 13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

Jesus states here incontrovertibly that he will not take anyne who has not stopped sinning against others in life...

again Paul states that the new covenant of grace is no basis for continuing to sin, God forbid! :-

Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
...
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

... clearly the scripture is at ods with the teachings of sinners, so one must decide wheteher to believe in divided sinners , countless denominations, sects, groups, individuals, or in the one integral truth of the saints and Jesus in scripture ...

we are then talking of nothing less than the foundation of God that sin is destroyed, not perpetuated, and indeed we can see the apostasy of the countless divided churches of sinners simply by reading the scripture of God ...

 

[Toynbee]

To echo what was said earlier, the Bible is used as a test to see if someone's belief matches in an acceptable way with mine. Complete agreement isn't necessary, but there are certain things that must be agreed upon.

In all practicality, this isn't much different than what a group with an acknowledged, formal, written creed would do. While one might ask someone, for example, if they hold to the Westminster Confession of faith, I would simply ask them if they believe the things that the Bible teaches.

From a practical standpoint, there is really very little difference. I would argue that both lines of questioning are getting at the same point, that is, "do you believe what is necessary to be a saint, a Christian, a believer?" I would even argue that both lines of questioning are trying to get at what the Bible actually says. I have never met anyone who believes in a creed but does not also believe that the Bible teaches what the creed contains.

After asking my question, whether I turned to the Bible or to a creed, I would then ask more pointed and direct questions until my conscience was satisfied that someone was a saint. So again, practically speaking, there would be little difference to the method used one way or the other.



I believe that there ought not to be a governing body that presides over all congregations to make sure that they are all believing and teaching the exact same things. I think that it is up to the Christians in each area to make sure that they are doing what the Bible says. I don't have any responsibility to make sure that people who live on the other side of the world are abiding by the exact same rules or guidelines that I am. So, from a global or national level, I do not have any way of doing what you've asked.

On a local level, I believe that local congregations do not have to accept everyone who seeks to be a member. There may be a variety of reasons why the leaders of a local congregation may reject someone as a member, and that is completely up to them. If, after talking with someone, like a Mormon, the local leaders decide that someone's beliefs are incompatible with the Scriptures, I would think that teaching is the first step and then rejecting the person as a member of the local congregation if they are not willing to learn.

However, it may also be that someone knows all the "right answers" or has beliefs that are very similar to those held by a local group, but they have a terrible attitude and are known to try and split congregations and cause all sorts of other trouble every place that they go. I do not think that the leaders of a local group are forced to accept that person simply because they ask to be a member.

Ultimately, to answer your question, the admission of someone into a local group as a member depends completely on the leaders of that local group. They may accept or reject anyone as they see fit.

Exactly. Basis is the bible.

 

[strangertoo]

Hi,

If the RM does not appeal to any creed or confession as a basis for baptism or fellowship, how does it determine what Christian belief is, or what a Christian is?

What is the criteria for you to reject a Mormon, say, to become a member of your church?

thanks.

God's definition of a Christian :-

2 Timothy 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

 

[notreligus]

Hi,

If the RM does not appeal to any creed or confession as a basis for baptism or fellowship, how does it determine what Christian belief is, or what a Christian is?

What is the criteria for you to reject a Mormon, say, to become a member of your church?

thanks.

They use CENI. I'll let one of the others here explain that to you. It is their private system of Bible interpretation.

The Bible speaks of the spirit of antichrist, or those who follow teachings which do not properly present Jesus Christ for Who He is, for What He did, and Why He did it. Not all, but many in this group don't emphasize Christ's obedience at the cross, but commonly refer to their own obedience to commandments, as though their righteousness comes from works instead of the righteousness of Christ being imputed to those who put their faith in His finished work on the cross.

Mormons teach that Christ was the brother of Lucifer. Isn't that teaching a false Christ? That's enough for me to say that they are of the spirit of antichrist.

 

[Gozreht]

Here is what I think:

1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Now the Bible does not use these words specifically but do not get bogged down with that. There are things called concepts. Psalm 139:7-12 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast. If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,” even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.
   
2. Jesus was fully man and fully God. Jesus was God but He was also man. He felt the same things do. He knows what the flesh is all about. But He is also God because only He can forgive sins. John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. John 10:30, I and the Father are one.
   
3. Jesus was the Son of God (as man) and came to die for all mankind. How could He be the Son of God yet God at the same time? Think of it as when you give something of yours to somebody. It is from you, it is of you, it shows who you are. Now try and put yourself in that place. That is why you are not God (L. Ron Hubbard). You can't do it. But God manifested Himself into the flesh and was called Jesus. The second part is the important part here. 1 Peter 2:24, “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed."
   
4. Jesus rose from the dead. Without this, our faith means nothing. If God can not raise the dead then there is no hope. Acts 10:40, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.
   
5. Jesus will return for those who believe in Him. If He does not return then His promise is a lie. If He is a liar then no one should believe in Him. John 14:2-3, My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
   
6. Jesus is the only medium, or mediator, between God and man. Now that does not mean the only messenger of God. It means that there is only one way to God and that is through Jesus, no other being. If someone claims they are the only one to interpret things or the only one who knows God then they are delusional. 1 Timothy 2:5, For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.
   
7. Solo Scriptura. This idea is that the Bible alone is the sole authority by which we live. It trumps tradition and any other liturgical ideas. The Bible was written by the Apostles and fathers of the Church in 1st century AD. When John wrote the final words, the Bible can not be added to.
   

Beyond these that are mentioned is mostly about comfortability and practice.

 

[candle glow]

If the RM does not appeal to any creed or confession as a basis for baptism or fellowship, how does it determine what Christian belief is, or what a Christian is?

"Christian" is someone who follows Jesus. If someone is practicing the teachings of Jesus, that person is a Christian. God doesn't care about labels, denominations, organizations, governments, etc...

He is looking for real sincerity. Here is an example:

LK 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Jesus, even waaaay back in his own time, knew there would be people claiming to speak on his behalf, but not obey him.

What is the criteria for you to reject a Mormon, say, to become a member of your church?

The same criteria I would use for you. If you are willing to apply Jesus' teachings, welcome. If not, then what do we really have in common?