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.

[Elsie]

All of those so called QUOTES you show are NOT Scripture!!

They were speaking as MERE MEN; as you WELL know; GENTILE!

--MormonDude(I'm glad I do not have to defend those words!)

[Elsie]

Cool!

(Let the guessing begin... ;^)

[Elsie]

ADVANCED CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

 

Miracle of Forgiveness, by Spencer. W. Kimball

Jesus the Christ (Collector's Edition), by James E. Talmage

Lectures on Faith, by Joseph Smith

Articles of Faith, by James E. Talmage

 

AND...under INTERMEDIATE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

 

The Great Apostasy, by James E. Talmage

 

---

Move along.  No bias here...

[greyfoxx39]

I think it is SO indicative that when it comes to making a buck off book sales.....

[reaganaut]

You DO remember the JST; don’t you?

It’s that thing that MORMON Headquarters, located in SLC, has FAILED to include into the pantheon of the Standard Works®.

---

That always bothered me that it wasn’t included.

When I asked, I was told “it is not a standard work because Joseph never finished it”. Ok. Then I read a reference (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. I, pp. 324 and 368, and Times and Seasons, Vol. VI, p. 802) that shows it WAS completed.

So, if it was completed, and JS was a prophet (which I no longer believe), then why not use it? And why was I lied to about it being unfinished?

[Tennessee Nana]

This is from another website...

A conversation with a TBM FIL...

(TBM FIL) hit me with the question right out of nowhere when no one else was around. “So I heard that you resigned from the church. Is that true?”

ExMo: “yeah, sure is...”

TBM FIL: “Can I ask why?”

I decided to give him the simple explanation. We no longer believe in the principles taught, and we don’t want our children to be raised with a skewed view of reality. What he said next kind of surprised me, though.

TBM FIL: “That’s okay. The Lord knows what he’s doing and if he lead you out of the church then there is probably a good reason.”

ExMo: “Uh, I don’t think you understand. The church isn’t what it claims to be and I think it’s built on a pile of lies. That’s why I resigned.”

TBM FIL: “That’s what the Lord wants you to think. I’m sure he’s just preparing your family for the next phase in your lives and when the time is right he’ll coax your family back into the waters of baptism. Not everyone is meant to take the same path and the Lord is preparing you for your personal journey”

ExMo “uuhhh... yeah.”

BIG DUH.....

I’ve read junk like this before...

Things like “god lied so that “his” work would “go forth” etc...

[Elsie]

And why was I lied to about it being unfinished?

Because you are a GENTILE!!

Don't you KNOW that it is permissable for Muslims to lie to Infidels?

[greyfoxx39]

Response to a comment made to the Foundation for Christian Studies,
from another website.

Folks:

Thank you so much for visiting the Foundation for Christian Studies. We
appreciate your feedback and communication, although you both seem to take
great exception at our approach.

We at the foundation are Christians, like the 2 billion around the world
today from 38,000 different Christian denominations.

I'm sorry you feel we are being deceptive and working a bait and switch
scheme. Would you feel the same if we were Catholics, Methodists, or
Evangelicals?

We are in no way deceptive in the least. We clearly state the Christian
Orthodoxy which we follow in the about section of the website:
http://www.studychristianity.com/christian_orthodoxy.html - which is that of
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

We are foundation and in no way affiliated with any Church. If you read my
own personal testimony as the founder, you can learn more about my own
background as a Christian and the clearly stated fact that I align myself in
believe and affiliation with the Christian denomination of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:
http://www.studychristianity.com/founderstestimony.html

There is no deception here - myself and the board of advisors are simply
teaching the world about the Christianity that we have come to embrace. We
are not an apologetic website, nor a defender of the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints. As our foundation statement reads we are "a
non-profit organization dedicated to the study, teaching, and practice of
Christianity in a way that inspires all people, regardless of theological
differences, to come together in support of essential Christian values and
compassionate service to God's children across the globe."

If you would like to discuss a particular doctrine you feel is out of step
with your own interpretation of Christianity we would be happy to do so. If
you would like to understand our definition of a Christian you can do so on
the website at: http://www.studychristianity.com/christian_defined.html .
Perhaps we can start with what the definition of a Christian is and why you
believe myself and the rest of the foundation, even Mormons as a group of
people, are not Christians. I would be very interested in how you have
arrived at that conclusion.

I truly hope you will visit us again and join in the dialogue taking place.

May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you and your loved ones with his spirit and
redeeming love.

Sincerely,

Eric Shuster
Founder and Executive Director
The Foundation for Christian Studies
www.studychristianity.org
eshuster@studychristianity.org

[Elsie]

And why was I lied to about it being unfinished?

It's about BOOKS; you know.

---

Do you REALLY think a LIVING Prophet® of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints would EVER get a revelation (wink-wink) to actually canonize a Book that a BREAKAWAY (in their terms) group of Mormons-lite owns the COPYRIGHT thereof??

[Elsie]

Things like “god lied so that “his” work would “go forth” etc...

Romans 11:32-34
32. For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
33. Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
34. "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"

--RestyDudette(I am SO confused!)

[Colofornian]

AND...under INTERMEDIATE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

More & more, the latest LDS PR spin (Millet does this in the clip Elsie often posts of him) is to present Christianity as "Mormon lite." IOW, we're supposedly the introductory version of full-blown Mormonism. They are supposedly "advanced," "mature" Christianity -- while we're" just the milky version. You see this, too, in the labeling of that book on the supposed "apostasy" as "intermediate."

You also see it in the Web site as the basis of this thread. Here's what they say:

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.

So the spin is basically to try to focus less and less on us as outright "apostates" and more & more to try to present us as "incomplete Christians" who need Mormonism to "complete" us.

(Yeah, right...like I always wanted to become a god / sarc)

[Elsie]

 

 

If you would like to discuss a particular doctrine you feel is out of step
with your own interpretation of Christianity we would be happy to do so. If
you would like to understand our definition of a Christian you can do so on
the website at: http://www.studychristianity.com/christian_defined.html

 

---

---

 

Welcome to Mormonism 101

 

We'll begin in a minute.

 

In the mean time, you may enjoy the art that is on our walls.

 

 

 

 

 

You may think some of our doctrine a bit shifty; but if you study it real close in one area, it will be quite steady.

 

Please ignore any shifting you THINK you observe elsewhere, for if you look at THAT area; it, too, will become fixed.

[Tennessee Nana]

Stop me if I’m wrong...

But the “living mormon prophet” thingy goes like this...

Whatever a living mormon prophet has said AKA “prophecised” is no longer valid when he dies...

His words are then superseded by the new and “living” mormon prophet ???

OKAAAAAAAAAAAY...

Then since Smith is a dead mormon prophet...

And Young, Taylor, Woodruff, Snow, Smith, Grant, Smith, McKay, Smith, Lee, Kimball, Benson, Hunter, Hinckley all superseded the guy before him...

And they are all DEAD...

Starting with Joey Smith (1805-1844), all spoken and written wordsa of the lot of them are now null and void...

And only the current guy, Munson, has anything authentic and binding to say...

Thus the current guy, Munson, can start his own brand new religion...

With a clean slate...

Oh, gollies...

The book of mormon is NOT true...

Well if it was...it aint anymore...

[ejonesie22]

That is about as textbook a definition of deceptive practices as one can get.

The folks have learned well from their LDS trainers.

The doctrine is less important than the marketing.

Something made very apparent here as well due to the many different errors we see the LDS posters make about their own doctrine and scripture and the spinning and such done to ignore/deny those very same errors...

[Tennessee Nana]

Channeling MormnDude...

Didnt Resty PING you ????

Now is the time for all good mormons to come to the aid of the paltry..

[Tennessee Nana]

See how good I was at Pitmans Shorthand in high school ????

:)

[greyfoxx39]

So the spin is basically to try to focus less and less on us as outright "apostates" and more & more to try to present us as "incomplete Christians" who need Mormonism to "complete" us.

That same old "attitude of superiority" again, and here is one mormon who is a good example of......

[reaganaut]

I wasn’t a Gentile then. I was a member. But the recognition that I was being lied to about things like that is one thing that made me take a closer look at the LDS church, which is what led me out. I became a Christian shortly after leaving.

[reaganaut]

Lol. Yeah, I have heard similar things. A TBM friend of mine told me that I was “led out of the LDS church” so I could discover the “falseness” of “so-called Christian doctrine” and return to the “True Church”. And that God told her someday I would be re-baptized LDS.

Boy she is NOT going to be happy when I tell her I am getting baptized again next month, this time as a Christian, not as a Mormon.

[Tennessee Nana]

What was she drinking ???

She needs to stick to coffee...

;)