What do Christians believe? - Page 7

annewandering · #61 (**permalink**) 10-25-2011, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mordorbund

I'm intentionally creating hypothetical religions so that we can still remain respectful of other religions in discussing this. There's plenty of LDS on this board that would prefer to be recognized as Christians and I think we should grant other religions the same privilege - especially those that aren't represented.

I noticed you didn't answer the question. What is theologically required for a religion to be Christian? Must they believe in the divinity of Christ? The Trinity? or perhaps just accepting that Jesus is a spiritual Savior? What if he's just a temporal or moral Savior?

Just was noticing it sounded like Scientology.
In answer to your question I think to be Christian you have to be a disciple of Christ. A follower of Christ. I do not feel you have to believe in any particular doctrine but just believe that He is the Christ.
Now if you want to talk doctrine etc well that is describing the kind of Christian not whether a person is a Christian.

mordorbund · #62 (**permalink**) 10-26-2011, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annewandering

Just was noticing it sounded like Scientology.
In answer to your question I think to be Christian you have to be a disciple of Christ. A follower of Christ. I do not feel you have to believe in any particular doctrine but just believe that He is the Christ.
Now if you want to talk doctrine etc well that is describing the kind of Christian not whether a person is a Christian.

It sounds like you were trying to avoid it, but now we have to talk doctrine to determine if a group is Christian (remember I am not talking about individuals, but group classifications). The only requirement to being Christian is that a religion claims that Jesus is the Christ. So we ask a follow-up question, what does it mean that Jesus is the Christ. The OmniSalvationists claim that the Christ atoned for all sinners, giving everyone entrance to heaven. The Salvationists claim that the Christ atoned for all sins, placing heaven within reach of everyone who believes on him. The Pathifists claim the Christ did not atone (such would be unjust), but heaven is available to everyone who follows his path. The Moralists claim that the Christ was indeed sent by God to teach us how to behave better, but it has nothing to do with an afterlife.

I've just created 4 different religions that on the surface claim that "Jesus is the Christ", but they all have different definitions of Christ. Should these all be classified as Christian? And I'll also point out that if OmniSalvationists or Moralists are right, it's not such a big deal, but if it's the other two then they should distance themselves so that Christ-seekers are aware that they won't find salvation in the other groups. And the easiest way to create that distance is to show that the other groups, while claiming to be Christian, really aren't because underlying the core doctrine is theology that is just too "other".

AnthonyB · #63 (**permalink**) 10-26-2011, 01:15 AM

mordorbund,

If you were visiting a church with an open communion table, where the invitation was that all who loved the Lord can partake would you?

(I wonder how an open communion church would react to LDS partaking of the Lord's super?)

mordorbund · #64 (**permalink**) 10-28-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

mordorbund,

If you were visiting a church with an open communion table, where the invitation was that all who loved the Lord can partake would you?

(I wonder how an open communion church would react to LDS partaking of the Lord's super?)

If I was attending by myself, I probably wouldn't take communion even with the open invitation for all who loved the Lord. I think I would have some uncertainty if I was really supposed to be included in such. If I was attending with a friend who knows me, and he nudged me and told me to go ahead, I probably would. The difference being that someone who knows my beliefs of the Lord and the proper "requirements" (for lack of a better word) sees nothing amiss in it.

prisonchaplain · #65 (**permalink**) 10-28-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnthonyB

mordorbund,

If you were visiting a church with an open communion table, where the invitation was that all who loved the Lord can partake would you?

(I wonder how an open communion church would react to LDS partaking of the Lord's super?)

I'm trying to remember if the LDS fellow who attended my chapel services took communion or not. I offered it every week. I would usually announce that anyone who knew Jesus was in his heart, and had forgiven his sins, was welcome to the table--that it was not my role to "police" it. My guess is that in most "open communion" services no one would know if or ask if a visitor was LDS. Now, if elders came with their name tags on, that might be a bit awkward. I think I would offer it to them, and perhaps deal with a few angry parishioners in the week to follow.

clint25n · #66 (**permalink**) 10-31-2011, 01:54 AM

After listening to many debates on what defines Christianity, I've come to an understanding. It will never be possible for Mainstream Christianity and Mormonism to come to an agreement on whom are actually Christians for one good reason. Their terminology is almost completely different.

Example: I've had Mormons agree with me on the statement that we are saved through grace and faith in Jesus Christ. But when the meaning of each one of the terms "saved", "grace", "faith" and even "Jesus Christ" are all different from mainstream ones, then even when we agree on this statement, we actually still disagree.

A person could be raised up to believe that the color blue is actually called green. If you were to agree with them that green is the prettiest color, you would seem to agree, but only verbally. In truth, you would actually disagree, but walk away not knowing. You would both need to come to an authority on the truth to see what truth is.

In this same way, when a Mormon says we are Christian, he is correct in his own terminology and worldview, but when a Mainstream Christian says they are not, they are correct from their terminology and worldview. To truly be able to make the proper judgement and understanding, one must be rooted and grounded in the truth. You must be anchored to God's Word, which is the final authority on what Christianity means.

Spartan117 · #67 (**permalink**) 10-31-2011, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I'm trying to remember if the LDS fellow who attended my chapel services took communion or not. I offered it every week. I would usually announce that anyone who knew Jesus was in his heart, and had forgiven his sins, was welcome to the table--that it was not my role to "police" it. My guess is that in most "open communion" services no one would know if or ask if a visitor was LDS. Now, if elders came with their name tags on, that might be a bit awkward. I think I would offer it to them, and perhaps deal with a few angry parishioners in the week to follow.

Before I was baptized, the missionaries told me I could take the sacrament if I wanted. They said that since I hadn't made any covenants, I couldn't renew them, so it wouldn't mean anything if I took it. I didn't until I was baptized though. I've never thought about the sacrament or communion if I were to visit another a church.

Maygraceabound · #68 (**permalink**) 03-19-2012, 05:21 PM

You are Christian the moment you first believe. Mormons, Catholic, Baptist or no religion; it does not matter. All can be Christian. God is interested in your heart. I would add that most people who go to church are probably not Christian. Just my observation. It is not about the religion, it is about believing in Jesus.

prisonchaplain · #69 (**permalink**) 03-20-2012, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maygraceabound

You are Christian the moment you first believe. Mormons, Catholic, Baptist or no religion; it does not matter. All can be Christian. God is interested in your heart. I would add that most people who go to church are probably not Christian. Just my observation. It is not about the religion, it is about believing in Jesus.

I understand the sentiment, but struggle a bit. A person can have no religion at all, and still be a Christian? I take that to mean that this person belongs to no church, no congregation, no community of faith--they simply agree that Jesus...well, that Jesus what? Just what would "believing in Jesus" mean to someone with no religion and no community of faith?

And then, despite this seemingly low bar for salvation, to toss out the salvo that most who go to church are not Christians? Are you saying that most people who go to church do not believe in Jesus?

Guess I need your ideas fleshed out a little, cause I found them confusing.

rameumptom · #70 (**permalink**) 03-20-2012, 06:48 AM

I think there are two parts to this. We believe in the priesthood of all believers, or an individual relationship with Christ. One can achieve this in a church or on a mountain top. Mankind may be saved from death and hell through faith and repentance in this.

Then there is the formal priesthood. This provides the ordinances, covenants, and authority to not only organize the church of Christ, but also to help us receive higher levels of salvation. This cannot be found just anywhere, nor as an individual. God set up prophets, apostles, and other specific callings to provide for this (Ephesians 2:19, 4:11-16, Hebrews 5-7). The Mosaic covenant came via a prophet of God. The Noahic Covenant came through a prophet. The key revelations in the Bible came via prophets. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, who held the proper authority in the priesthood and was a prophet. Jesus also held the priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 7).

To receive a fulness of salvation, what LDS call exaltation, one must have both the individual salvation through Christ, plus the covenants and ordinances commanded by Christ through those with the proper authority.