CHRISTIANITY DEFINED - (LDS Site Defining Christianity) OPEN

LDS site Foundation for Christian Studies ^

[greyfoxx39]

[snip]

 

 

CHRISTIAN DEFINED One might think that defining a Christian would be simple. Webster’s Dictionary defines the word Christian to mean “adherent of Christianity”, or “relating to or professing a belief in Christianity or Jesus Christ.” Simply put, a Christian is defined as one who believes in Jesus Christ. The Encyclopedia Britannica states: “…writers of Christian history normally begin phenomenologically when discussing Christian identity; that is, they do not bring norms or standards by which they have determined the truth of this or that branch of Christianity or even of the faith tradition as a whole but identify everyone as Christian who call themselves Christian.” According to Britannica, a revered source in continuous publication since 1768, a Christian is plainly defined as someone who calls themselves a Christian. Some Refute the Defining of a Christian Despite the simplicity of the aforementioned definitions, there are some individuals and institutions who sternly contend that there are self-described Christians, and in fact entire sects of self-proclaimed Christian religions, who should not be considered Christians at all. As odd as this may seem, such allegations are common and emotionally charged. The website religioustolerance.org attempted to define a Christian and described the exercise as a “lightning rod,” and that the conclusions they came up with generated “many emails from angry Christians who denounce it,” especially among “Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Protestants.” The FCS encourages visitors to examine the content generated by religioustolderance.org on the subject of defining a Christian . Reminiscent of the Pharisees of old, the contentious individuals and institutions who deny the Christianity of others often utilize their personal interpretation of scripture and synthetic dogma to support their assertions. They contend the privilege of earning the Christian label is dependent on such things as being born again, believing in the Triune God, accepting certain creeds, and/or belonging to a particular faith community. The absurdity of the dynamic reaches its pinnacle when those who bear testimony of their devotion to Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Redeemer are rebuked and denied the Christian marker by those who disagree with their religion and/or theological beliefs. It causes one to ponder—what would Jesus do? Historical Perspective The word “Christian” appears three times in the scriptures, all three in the New Testament. Acts 11:26 reveals that the Disciples of Christ were first referred to as Christians in Antioch, indicating those who followed Christ were starting to be referred to as Christians. Before that time it was common for those who followed Christ to refer to one another as brothers (or brethren), disciples, or believers. In Acts 26:20 King Agrippa tells Paul “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” likely indicating the term “Christian” was beginning to be used (perhaps even regularly) to refer to a believer in Christ. In 1 Peter 4:16, Peter refers to those who would “suffer as a Christian,” signifying that those who consider themselves Christian should be happy in their persecutions and trials. In all three scriptural references that use the term Christian, not one denotes any further requirement to be a Christian other than believing in and following Jesus Christ. In the Greek language (ancient and modern) it’s common to refer to a group of people by taking the root geographic location or ethnicity of that people and to add the suffix “anos.” For instance, those from the Cretan village of Spili are referred to as Spilianos, and a follower of Mohammed (Moameth in Greek) is referred to as Moamethanos. The reference to Christians in the original Greek translation of the New Testament is Christianos, meaning a follower of Christ. Although the term Christianos is historically believed to have been used in a derogatory sense by unbelievers, the meaning of the word remains. When one combines the three New Testament references to Christian, the historical context of the time, and the linguistics of the original Greek, one must conclude that a Christian is simply one who follows and/or believes in Christ. Should one desire to create a deeper definition of a Christian using 1 Peter 4:16, then the most far reaching conclusion that can be drawn is that a Christian is one who not only follows Christ, but more deeply puts their trust in him, is reliant upon him, and seeks to live a life that exemplifies him—all difficult traits to quantify and thus of little value in defining a Christian. The Testimony of an Apostle as a Litmus Test One would never doubt the testimony of the apostle Peter, despite the fact he had his own moments of weakness during the trial and Atonement of Christ. When asked by the Savior “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter boldly replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, ” to which Jesus Christ confirmed “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 16;15-17). Perhaps we can use Peter’s testimony as a litmus test for all prospective Christians: do they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God? If the answer is affirmative, then they are indeed a Christian. Jesus Christ in Humility was Inclusionary Jesus Christ never administered any theological exams to his disciplines, nor established any notable prerequisites to being a Christian other than to believe on him as the Son of God. Many were healed of the vilest of infirmities by simply believing in Jesus Christ as one who had the authority to perform such healings. There is no mention in the scriptures that the healed were made whole because they embraced the doctrine of the trinity, nor because they were classified as born again, nor because they belonged to a particular sect of believers. They were healed because they believed, or were blessed to have a believer intercede on their behalf, that Jesus was the Christ. Jesus was never one to be exclusionary in his ministry, but rather inclusionary across a broad spectrum. This is beautifully illustrated in Luke 9:49-50 which reads: “And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” Jesus did not ask about their specific belief system, nor what group of disciples they congregated with. Rather, Jesus proclaimed that those who act in His name are to be considered His disciples. Many Christians today would do well to understand this passage of scripture and apply it to their own actions towards others. The World in Pride is Exclusionary If Jesus was so inclusionary, why then do we have modern day Pharisees fighting so hard to narrow the definition of a Christian—even to the persecution of fellow Christians? Do these individuals, like the apostle John in the passage from Luke 9, seek for a more exclusive club and complain when others call themselves Christian but don’t practice the same rituals or beliefs as they do? The likely root of the reason for such passionate denials of Christianity upon others is pride and arrogance. Such pride can manifest itself into a fear of not clearly understanding the theological beliefs of others, nor taking the time to earnestly do so, thus resulting in the easier resolution of flatly denying to acknowledge another’s Christianity. There may be fear that such acknowledgement will lead to acceptance of another’s beliefs leading to a loss of membership or validity in their own religion. Greed may play a role in the denial of the Christian label by ecclesiastical leaders resisting the loss of tithe paying members by employing a strategy of quiet slander towards other denominations. Additionally, one cannot rule out the possibility of Saul’s Syndrome, where like Saul who persecuted the Christians of old out of his zeal for the law, well intentioned individuals seek to protect the faith—when in essence they are fighting against the true will of God. Excerpt from the article on Saul's Syndrome: in keeping others from the truth. Consider the Pharisee Saul before his radical conversion to the Lord when he afterwards became Paul. Through his disciplined spiritual education among the finest teachers in Jerusalem, and an unrivaled passion to protect the ways of the Lord as he knew it, Saul persecuted and fought against the spread of Christianity—even unto death among those he victimized. Paul was so blinded by his passion for what he believed to be right that he never considered that his interpretation of the scriptures and his spiritual belief system may be wrong. It wasn’t until the Lord himself appeared to Saul that he relinquished his incorrect interpretation of God’s doctrine and embraced the true gospel. How many millions today suffer from the same syndrome as Saul where religious passion overcomes the promptings of the Holy Ghost? No matter what the specific reasons are, the resulting fruits of such denials of Christianity are disunity in the body of Christ, the spread of misinformation, and the sowing of seeds of ”discord among brethren” (Prov. 6:19). Differences in Gospel Living, but all are Christians Beyond being identified as a Christian, there is an abundance of doctrine in the scriptures that helps explain true Christian beliefs and practices—even “the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2: 9-10). Some Christian theology is simple to understand, while other theological concepts are more difficult. Paul to the Corinthians and Hebrews used the metaphors of milk and meat to indicate there were simple doctrines (milk) and more complex doctrines (meat) (1 Cor. 3:2 and Heb. 5:12), and that one must be able to digest the milk before moving on to the more difficult to digest meat. Paul points out that there may be various stages of understanding of the doctrines of Christianity among Christians. This difference in doctrinal understanding, combined with the moral agency of mankind that can lead to good and bad choices, results in their being stronger Christians who live their lives according to the precepts espoused by Jesus Christ (Matt. 25:34-36), and weaker Christians who find it difficult to live their lives in accordance with the gospel (Matt. 7:21-23). Regardless of what stage there are in, both are Christians and both must individually exercise their moral agency to accept or reject the ordinances and principles of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Likewise, both must accept the consequences of their actions in the Day of Judgment. There will be Christians (valiant and less valiant) in all three kingdoms in the eternities—perhaps even some who will end up relegated into outer darkness. Conclusion It is the hope and prayer of the FCS that the Christian world can unite on the simple principle of allowing everyone who claims Jesus Christ as their Savior to be respectfully referred to as a Christian without caveats. We can peacefully and considerately coexist as brothers and sisters in Christ, while ascribing to different Christian beliefs and church affiliations. Imagine what we can accomplish as a diverse Christian family working together to fulfill God’s purposes on earth.

[greyfoxx39]

Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.

On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”

When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”

Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.

Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/

 

Additional comment by the Religion Moderator:

This should also be repeated from my profile page:

I am not the protector of your beliefs.

I am not the arbiter of truth, for that posters must turn to God or whoever they consider to be the final authority.

I am not the arbiter of logical proofs, for that the posters must turn to the mathematicians, logicians and philosophers.

I am not the arbiter of fact, for that the posters must turn to the scientists, physical evidence, testimonies and historians.

I am not the arbiter of the meaning of words, and I'm not sure there exists such a final authority so the burden rests with the posters to explain what they mean.

For instance, two different posters may look at the world around them and say it is a fact that it is [pick a number] years old. I will not step in and say one is wrong and the other is right.

Ditto for two different posters looking at the history of a matter - or manuscripts - and coming to completely different conclusions.

Such disagreements may be very heated - but they are not hate-mongering.

We moderators know hate mongering when we see it: the false Jesuit Oath, Jack Chick materials, Islamic fundamentalism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism.

This should also be repeated from my profile page:

I am not the protector of your beliefs.

I am not the arbiter of truth, for that posters must turn to God or whoever they consider to be the final authority.

I am not the arbiter of logical proofs, for that the posters must turn to the mathematicians, logicians and philosophers.

I am not the arbiter of fact, for that the posters must turn to the scientists, physical evidence, testimonies and historians.

I am not the arbiter of the meaning of words, and I'm not sure there exists such a final authority so the burden rests with the posters to explain what they mean.

For instance, two different posters may look at the world around them and say it is a fact that it is [pick a number] years old. I will not step in and say one is wrong and the other is right.

Ditto for two different posters looking at the history of a matter - or manuscripts - and coming to completely different conclusions.

Such disagreements may be very heated - but they are not hate-mongering.

We moderators know hate mongering when we see it: the false Jesuit Oath, Jack Chick materials, Islamic fundamentalism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism.

[greyfoxx39]

Ping

[aMorePerfectUnion]

mormonism defining Christianity?!!

Might as well have an Hindu define Christianity. At least when they talk about their 300 million gods, they are forthright. Mormonism tries to hide their polytheism of billions or trillions of gods.

Might as well have Shirley McClain define Christianity. She claims to be god and doesn’t try to hide it. Mormonism teaches that every mormon male has the potential to become a god of his own world. They secretly hope for it. It gives them a feeling of significance while they are failing at keeping the law.

Might as well have a Scientologist define Christianity! They have their own secret planet, secret spirit children, secret knowledge, secret way of extorting money. Mormonism hides all that (Kolob, eternally pregnant goddess wives with celestial sex, secret temple handshakes and mumbo jumbo, and extorting money for temple recommends).

Might as well have a Hare Krishna define Christianity. At least their “special” clothing is evident for all to see. Mormonism hides their secret underwear with the occult symbols.

Might as well have someone chosen from random out of the phone book in Thailand define Christianity. I’d bet they would be more accurate.

Might as well go to any world religion or cult to define Christianity. They all HAVE to do something with Jesus Christ - good teacher, rabbi, prophet, etc. Mormonism steals the name of Jesus Christ and redefines Him from who the Bible reveals Him to be.

[svcw]

What I would like someone to explain to me is this: why for decades ldsers bristled at the thought of being called christians and now they weep and cry to be called christians. (Yes I did not capitalize Christian on purpose.)

The entire foundation of lds is based of Christian hatred and distorting centuries of tradition and scripture.

Please someone tell me why you now want to be called christian.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

As good a definition as anyone else’s.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[svcw]

Grey, doesn't the first half of this alleged study spend its time trashing Christians and redefining the word, then the second half crying and weeping over how ldsers are christians?

Humble these ldsers are not.

[aposiopetic]

We can peacefully and considerately coexist as brothers and sisters in Christ, while ascribing to different Christian beliefs and church affiliations.

Could "subscribing" be what the FCS meant?

[greyfoxx39]

ascribe

Verb

[-cribing, -cribed]

1. to attribute, as to a particular origin: headaches which may be ascribed to stress

2. to consider that (a particular quality) is possessed by something or someone: specific human qualities are ascribed to each of the four elements [Latin ad in addition + scribere to write]

ascription n

USAGE: Ascribe is sometimes used where subscribe is meant: I do not subscribe (not ascribe) to this view.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ascribe

[hocndoc]

I didn’t know that you were a moderator.

Nevertheless, most of us will rely on a few verses for telling the Good News. (and most of us will capitalize any reference to the Creator, the Lord or His Son.)

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish, but have life everlasting.

Romans 5:3 but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Important for this conversation are

Genesis 1: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, “The most important one is ‘Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God is One!’”

Gal 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

[greyfoxx39]

Grey, doesn't the first half of this alleged study spend its time trashing Christians and redefining the word, then the second half crying and weeping over how ldsers are christians?

After more than 150 years claiming persecution, it's second nature for them to play the...

I find this site to be highly deceptive, from the logo of the site which claims to be the "Foundation for Christian Studies, to the website URL, "studychristianity dot org."

This is obviously a ramping up of the LDS' intent to be known as Christian, by hook or by crook. The hook doesn't seem to be working, (such as the offer of a "Free Bible" in TV commercials to obtain names and addresses for missionary purposes), or they wouldn't feel the need for such deception.

[greyfoxx39]

I didn’t know that you were a moderator.

I'm puzzled..what is there in narses' post leads you to say this?

[hocndoc]

I read more closely, and see that you were quoting a Moderator, sorry.

However, I worry about these threads and their divisiveness, their ability to give ammunition to atheists and weaken those already weak.

On the other hand, what do we do when we find fraud such as this site?

[greyfoxx39]

On the other hand, what do we do when we find fraud such as this site?

Well, some of us try to shed light on such deception.

You know, atheists aren't jumping up and down demanding to be known as Christian, and atheists aren't going out every year more than 60,000 strong trying to convert Christians by telling them that their beliefs are wrong and that they, the atheists have the ONLY truth.

[ejonesie22]

Marketing.

The LDS is a business, not a faith.

[ckilmer]

The most fashionable heresy of the last 200 years has been arianism. theological problems aside churchs that adapt arianism soon die.

this is what happened to most european churches. this is what is happening now to american liberal churches.

mormonism is the exception...

arianism is the belief that jesus is fully man but not fully God. It stems from a 4th century dispute started by an egyptian named Arius that was resolved at the counsil of Nicea. The nicean creed spoken in many denominations comes from this period.’

The arian heresy was brought back to life and popularized in the english speaking by Issac Newton. Likely he got it from the tree of knowledge put out a century early by the french philosopher Decartes and the englishman Francis Bacon. They put theology—along with witchcraft — down as a branch subbranch of philosophy.

Decarte’s & Bacon’s tree of knowledge does bear some similiarities to the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden. But you’ll notice that God resides outside of the garden of eden and outside the tree of knowledge.

[count-your-change]

Hardly a surprize, eh? Let’s see what else is here... topic for discussion to the left....premortal existence.

Here’s a keeper for sure:

“The doctrine of premortal existence is a key element of Christian theology and helps tie together a number of principles that are taught in several advanced doctrines. It is the doctrine of the premortal existence that distinctly answers the many questions that were posed at the opening of this section regarding “where did I come from?”

A True and Loving Heavenly Father
The Apostle Paul wrote: “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Hebrews 12:9).
In this scripture Paul personalizes the role of Heavenly Father as not just the Creator, but as the Father of our spirits. Since he is our Father, it is completely consistent that we would have been with him before coming to the earth. This personalization is further supported in Acts 17:29 where men and women are referred to as “... the offspring of God...”; in Psalms 82:6 where we are referred to as “... children of the most high...”; and in Deuteronomy 14:1 where we are referred to as “... children of the LORD your God.”

Notice the adroit passage of “Father of spirits” into “Father of OUR spirits”?

And this leap across a Grand Canyon of Logic:

“Since he is our Father, it is completely consistent that we would have been with him before coming to the earth.”

But it is circular reasoning , text book quality, we came to the earth so it is consistent with being with the Father before we came to earth. And how can we know we came to earth? Why, because humans are called children of God!

That Leap of Logic didn’t get daylight under its feet.

But in defining Christianity this Mormon apologia says’

“The doctrine of premortal existence is a key element of Christian theology....”. Of Mormon theology, yes. Of Christian theology, no.

[greyfoxx39]

The arian heresy was brought back to life and popularized in the english speaking by Issac Newton.

IMO, mormonism is the attempt by man to equal God, and Joseph Smith, the founder of mormonism, has said: I have more to boast of than any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I (History of the Church, Vol.6, pp. 408-09).

[count-your-change]

No google site, no connection. Hmmmm.

[ejonesie22]

We confront it, vigorously.

And it is working, this LDS based site is proof. They are getting more bold, more desperate, going with a subtle but a direct approach. Their numbers are dropping, the Internet is exposing them. So now they have been moving to a “if we can't beat ‘em will appear to join ‘em” approach.

Now is not the time to back down...