What Constitutes A Christian?

[zerinus]

Since many have taken it upon themselves to question the “Christianity” of Mormonism, I thought before one should attempt at such a discussion, an accurate definition or description of what constitutes a Christian should be agreed on by all sides so that a meaningful discussion can take place. If each side had a different idea of what is a Christian, then such a discussion could not be meaningfully carried out. Some time ago I wrote a piece in Blog to hopefully obtain some clarity on that definition, which you can read here. Feel free to have a look, and tell me what you think. If you disagree with my definition, then I would like to know why, so that I can modify it so everyone can agree with it. I had previously discussed this topic in MADB as well as in Beliefnet forums, which led to some good discussions. You might like to read those before commenting here. Reading other peoples’ comments and opinions sometimes helps one form or express one’s own opinions more clearly.

zerinus

 

[dmar198]

Since many have taken it upon themselves to question the “Christianity” of Mormonism, I thought before one should attempt at such a discussion, an accurate definition or description of what constitutes a Christian should be agreed on by all sides so that a meaningful discussion can take place. If each side had a different idea of what is a Christian, then such a discussion could not be meaningfully carried out. Some time ago I wrote a piece in Blog to hopefully obtain some clarity on that definition, which you can read here. Feel free to have a look, and tell me what you think. If you disagree with my definition, then I would like to know why, so that I can modify it so everyone can agree with it. I had previously discussed this topic in MADB as well as in Beliefnet forums, which led to some good discussions. You might like to read those before commenting here. Reading other peoples’ comments and opinions sometimes helps one form or express one’s own opinions more clearly.

zerinus

I enjoyed reading your FAQ, it was very articulate and informative. One thought that jumps out immediately:

If we decide to determine a person’s Christianity by his fruits primarily, then we will have a difficult time weeding out all the very benevolent atheists and Muslims, etc. I don’t think you addressed this issue at enough depth: you did mention this, that “*f somebody told me that he is a Muslim or a Zoroastrian, I would take his word for it that he is what he claims to be, and respect him for his religion. I wouldn’t tell him that he is not really a Muslim or Zoroastrian; but he is a Jew or a Buddhist!” Perhaps you are trying to say that one who CLAIMS to be a Christian and bears good fruit would therefore be a Christian.

If that is your position, you should probably consider making it a little more clear.

I think a helpful thing would be to decide how the Lord Jesus defined discipleship for His disciples. It was not merely about bearing good fruit, but believing His teachings: “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;” (John 8:31)

Indeed also when He told commissioned His disciples He told them to “make disciples of all nations” by baptizing them in the Trinitarian formula, which implies the right application of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Now these two things are manifestly impossible to decide by ourselves: Mormons baptize in the Trinitarian formula without believing in the Trinity, because they understand the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit differently, and every Christian congregation claims to continue in Jesus’ Word – to accurately teach what He taught – without agreeing on what He means.

But if true and full discipleship of Jesus includes a specific way of believing in the relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as Matt. 28:19 suggests, and professing belief in an accurate profession of Jesus’ teachings, then such an accurate understanding of the Word of God must be accessible to all generations. In other words, there must be an infallible institution to guide men, and this institution must have existed in every generation since Christ.

So since only the Catholic Church has so existed, full and corporate discipleship of Christ entails that we identify ourselves with the Catholic Church.

See what I mean?*

 

[Will_B]

A Christian is any person baptized by water in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

Does that person lead a Christian life?

Maybe yes, and maybe no… Still that person is a member of God’s family and is marked as one of Christ own forever.

It’s like your brother will always be your brother, even if he steal from the bank and commit adultery with your neighbor’s wife. You may not like what he does, but he is still your brother.

If you are baptized, you are God’s child and you are Christian… If you don’t obey God’s rules you are subject to the wrath of God, which is always merciful.

 

[zerinus]

I enjoyed reading your FAQ, it was very articulate and informative. One thought that jumps out immediately:

If we decide to determine a person’s Christianity by his fruits primarily, then we will have a difficult time weeding out all the very benevolent atheists and Muslims, etc. I don’t think you addressed this issue at enough depth:

Thank you, that is a good point. I think that the Lord’s emphasis on “good fruits” in the New Testament is so great that we have to believe that anyone, of whatever religious persuasion, who produces those “fruits” would be approved of God far more than a nominal “Christian” who fails to produce them. I am reminded of the parable of the Prodigal Son. I think that the moral of that story is that a non-Christian that does the will of God has better chance of salvation than a nominal Christian that does not. There are many scriptures that teach that God will judge mankind according to their works. What their beliefs were seems to take a secondary place as to how they will be judged. Paul also seems to support the same idea here:

Romans 2:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

16 n the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

you did mention this, that “*f somebody told me that he is a Muslim or a Zoroastrian, I would take his word for it that he is what he claims to be, and respect him for his religion. I wouldn’t tell him that he is not really a Muslim or Zoroastrian; but he is a Jew or a Buddhist!” Perhaps you are trying to say that one who CLAIMS to be a Christian and bears good fruit would therefore be a Christian.

If that is your position, you should probably consider making it a little more clear.*

Yes, that is what I meant!

zsrinus

 

[zerinus]

A Christian is any person baptized by water in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

Does that person lead a Christian life?

Maybe yes, and maybe no… Still that person is a member of God’s family and is marked as one of Christ own forever.

It’s like your brother will always be your brother, even if he steal from the bank and commit adultery with your neighbor’s wife. You may not like what he does, but he is still your brother.

If you are baptized, you are God’s child and you are Christian… If you don’t obey God’s rules you are subject to the wrath of God, which is always merciful.

Thank you. I was trying to establish a theologically accurate criterion that one can apply objectively and practically to determine the “Christian-ness” of someone, or of a particular church or religion. Your criterion fails when you are dealing with someone who is a hypocrite, and only pretends to be a Christian for personal gain, but whose heart is as far from it at possible.

zerinus

 

[dmar198]

Thank you, that is a good point. I think that the Lord’s emphasis on “good fruits” in the New Testament is so great that we have to believe that anyone, of whatever religious persuasion, who produces those “fruits” would be approved of God far more than a nominal “Christian” who fails to produce them. Indeed, I know what you mean. Have you ever read Tathea by LDS author Anne Perry? In the final chapter – excerpts from “The Book” – you’d see that she explains this phenomenon very well.

However at the same time one must remember that one is never saved per se by doing good works. It is always God Who gives us faith in Him, by which we are saved, if we persevere in the service of good. Someone who knows the truth, but rejects it for a lie, cannot be saved even if they had the greatest charity of all men.

Yes, that is what I meant!

 

[mercygate]

What constitutes a Christian as an individual or what constitutes a Christian church or ecclesial community?

A Christian ecclesial community or Church would adhere to the Chalcedonian definition concerning the Godhead and the Person of Jesus Christ. Minimum. That has been the “glue factor” of Christianity since its promulgation in 451 A.D. Of course, on your time line, that is after the Great Apostasy. But for Christians, that is the gold standard.

 

[LutheranDK]

What constitutes a Christian? That’s simple to answer, really.
Reed the Apostolic Creed, the Nicene Creed (including the original, unaltered version, and the Athanasian Creed. He who can read all these three and say “Credo!”
(I believe!) is a Christian. He that cannot, is not.

Short and simple…

 

[zerinus]

Indeed, I know what you mean. Have you ever read Tathea by LDS author Anne Perry? In the final chapter – excerpts from “The Book” – you’d see that she explains this phenomenon very well.

I haven’t had the privilege of reading that book; but I shall keep that in mind.

However at the same time one must remember that one is never saved per se by doing good works.…

I don’t think I said that one would.

Now two problems arise because of which I cannot this. First, you say that a person must claim to be a Christian, and second, bear fruits as such, in order to be truly considered one. Now neither of those criterion are sufficient: so I say that they are insufficient even when put together. Since you say otherwise, I must ask you: what is the biblical basis for this idea: that even though these two criterion are insufficient of themselves to characterize every Christian per se, nevertheless when put together they become sufficient. ?

I think I explained that in my Blog. A true Christian is a true disciple of Jesus Christ; and a true disciple can be identified when, firstly, he identifies himself as a true disciple (i.e. a Christian); and secondly, when he produces the kind of fruit that is expected of a disciple, as Jesus repeatedly demanded.

I say that there must be one criterion, and as such it must sufficiently characterize Christianity. I say that it is baptism into the Triune God, and I say this because of Matthew 28:19. Therefore insofar as someone is baptized into the Christian God as defined by the Church, they are completely in the discipleship of Jesus, but if they ever disown their Lord and deny the significance of their baptism, they have ceased to be so.

Ah, but when you start laying down “doctrinal beliefs” as part of your criteria, then you start getting into trouble. How about many Protestant groups who do not consider baptism to be a requirement for salvation at all? By your definition, they might not be considered Christians. Then you would not be much different from them who accuse you of not being Christians, because they believe something different from what you do!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

What constitutes a Christian as an individual or what constitutes a Christian church or ecclesial community?

I deliberately left that vague because I believe that the same criterion is equally applicable to both. A church consists of the body of its membership. If that body exemplifies those standards laid down by the Lord, then it is a Christian church or religion.

A Christian ecclesial community or Church would adhere to the Chalcedonian definition concerning the Godhead and the Person of Jesus Christ. Minimum. That has been the “glue factor” of Christianity since its promulgation in 451 A.D.

There is a problem with using doctrinal beliefs as a criterion. See my previous posts.

Of course, on your time line, that is after the Great Apostasy. But for Christians, that is the gold standard.

When you start introducing biased statements into it like that, then I have no choice but to correct your bias. If you substitute “Apostate Christians” for “Christians” in the last sentence, that would make it a correct statement.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

What constitutes a Christian? That’s simple to answer, really.
Reed the Apostolic Creed, the Nicene Creed (including the original, unaltered version, and the Athanasian Creed. He who can read all these three and say “Credo!”
(I believe!) is a Christian. He that cannot, is not.

Short and simple…

I don’t think you had read any of the things I had linked to in my OP, otherwise you would not have said that.

zerinus

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t think he should have to. The Creeds are the minimum for a believer, at least in the Apostolic tradition. We reaffirm them every mass because they are still what we believe, over a thousand years later.

Is there anything that a Mormon can say that they have kept since the time of the earliest Christians?

Oh…wait. What a silly question. I’m sorry.

 

[mercygate]

I deliberately left that vague because I believe that the same criterion is equally applicable to both. A church consists of the body of its membership. If that body exemplifies those standards laid down by the Lord, then it is a Christian church or religion.

There is a problem with using doctrinal beliefs as a criterion. See my previous posts.

When you start introducing biased statements into it like that, then I have no choice but to correct your bias. If you substitute “Apostate Christians” for “Christians” in the last sentence, that would make it a correct statement.

zerinus

Then I stand corrected. It was my understanding that Mormons believe that the entire Christian enterprise rolled off the tracks before the New Testament was canonized and that defining beliefs, such as the Holy Trinity, were not Christian.

For Christians, following Jesus Christ is, of course, a sine qua non, however, “Who do you say I am?” is a question posed by Our Lord Himself. For us, “Who He is” cannot be separated from His body: His Church.

 

[zerinus]

Then I stand corrected. It was my understanding that Mormons believe that the entire Christian enterprise rolled off the tracks before the New Testament was canonized and that defining beliefs, such as the Holy Trinity, were not Christian.

Well, that up to a point is true; except that we also believe in the Trinity, but we define it differently than you do. We define it as three distinct and separate personages. We believe that our definition of it conforms with the Bible; whereas yours does not.

For Christians, following Jesus Christ is, of course, a sine qua non, however, “Who do you say I am?” is a question posed by Our Lord Himself. For us, “Who He is” cannot be separated from His body: His Church.

And how do you apply that criterion to see if someone is a Christian or not? Do you just ask them? What if they are lying? How do you determine that? Do you probe them to see whether they go to church or not, and which church they go to? What if they are hypocrites, and they go to church for pretense, but deep down in their hearts they are worse than pagans? How do you determine that? What practical test do you apply to determine if they are true Christians or not?

zerinus

 

[dmar198]

I haven’t had the privilege of reading that book; but I shall keep that in mind.

Great.

I don’t think I said that one would.

Then you’re good. I was just clarifying.

I think I explained that in my Blog.

You described your understanding of the criteria of Christendom in your blog, but I am saying that it cannot be accurate, because the two criterion you mentioned are not sufficient of themselves to characterize Christianity.

A true Christian is a true disciple of Jesus Christ;

As you yourself have suggested, the waters are a little murkier here. “…anyone, of whatever religious persuasion,” you have said, can be "approved of God far more than a nominal ‘Christian’ " if they bear good fruit. But this very thing, which can be called following the truth as it is revealed to them, makes them a kind of disciple: disciples of truth, which in its fullness is Christ, according to His words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” etc. (John 14:6).
Does that mean anyone of any religious persuasion is Christian, insofar as they bear good fruit? No, certainly not. But it does mean they are a kind of disciple.

a true disciple can be identified when, firstly, he identifies himself as a true disciple (i.e. a Christian); and secondly, when he produces the kind of fruit that is expected of a disciple, as Jesus repeatedly demanded.

This is where our disagreement is fundamental. There are true disciples who do not identify themselves as disciples: those, for example, who have not heard the gospel, but nevertheless try to live out their lives according to the grace that God has given them. And on the other hand there are those who are not really disciples but who nevertheless identify themselves as such: I am sure you agree with both of those assertions, because you have spoken very similarly already. But I am afraid that you are not drawing the implication. For if one can be a disciple in some sense and not know it, and if one can be no disciple at all except nominally, then to identify yourself as a disciple is not a sufficient characteristic of true and full discipleship.

Secondly, concerning the bearing of fruits, there are those who bear good fruits but who do not believe, and these shall not be necessarily saved: for “without faith it is impossible to please him.” (Hebrews 11:6) Therefore bearing fruit is not a sufficient characteristic of true and full discipleship.

Ah, but when you start laying down “doctrinal beliefs” as part of your criteria, then you start getting into trouble. How about many Protestant groups who do not consider baptism to be a requirement for salvation at all? By your definition, they might not be considered Christians.

First, it should be noted that we should not change the definition of Christianity merely so that it includes more people. If Protestants fell outside the scope of Christianity, then I would not consider them Christians even if they were the majority (which they in fact are not).

But you have telescoped over my reasoning, I think unintentionally. I have said repeatedly, here and in my other post, that profession of faith in the accurately-taught doctrines of Christ is necessary for ‘full, corporate’ discipleship. One can be a disciple in another sense, as I have said of some non-Christians, etc. One can, for example, have certain truths of Christianity revealed to them in their community, but lack some truths, and if they live out their lives according to what they have been taught of Christianity – then they certainly are disciples in some sense, and Christians in some sense. But by the very fact that they do not have the fullness of the revelation of Christ, therefore also they are not fully united to His Body, the Christian Church. They have instead an imperfect unity corresponding to the imperfection of their faith.

But this assumes, of course, the identification of true doctrine as the sufficient character of true discipleship. Now with this presumption, I have dealt with the only objection you relayed in your response, namely, that it seems exclusive rather than inclusive. If you think there are other reasons why true doctrine cannot be the sufficient character of true discipleship, such that we might identify someone as a true and full disciple based on their acceptance of certain beliefs, then I we can discuss those as well.

God bless!

-Dmar198

 

[zerinus]

You described your understanding of the criteria of Christendom in your blog, but I am saying that it cannot be accurate, because the two criterion you mentioned are not sufficient of themselves to characterize Christianity.

As you yourself have suggested, the waters are a little murkier here. “…anyone, of whatever religious persuasion,” you have said, can be "approved of God far more than a nominal ‘Christian’ " if they bear good fruit. But this very thing, which can be called following the truth as it is revealed to them, makes them a kind of disciple: disciples of truth, which in its fullness is Christ, according to His words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” etc. (John 14:6).
Does that mean anyone of any religious persuasion is Christian, insofar as they bear good fruit? No, certainly not. But it does mean they are a kind of disciple. This is where our disagreement is fundamental. There are true disciples who do not identify themselves as disciples: those, for example, who have not heard the gospel, but nevertheless try to live out their lives according to the grace that God has given them. And on the other hand there are those who are not really disciples but who nevertheless identify themselves as such: I am sure you agree with both of those assertions, because you have spoken very similarly already. But I am afraid that you are not drawing the implication. For if one can be a disciple in some sense and not know it, and if one can be no disciple at all except nominally, then to identify yourself as a disciple is not a sufficient characteristic of true and full discipleship.

Secondly, concerning the bearing of fruits, there are those who bear good fruits but who do not believe, and these shall not be necessarily saved: for “without faith it is impossible to please him.” (Hebrews 11:6) Therefore bearing fruit is not a sufficient characteristic of true and full discipleship.

You are making the whole thing unnecessarily far too complicated. When I set out to provide a theologically accurate, biblical definition of a true Christian, the idea that the person (or people, or institution, or church) that is being so examined must in the first instance himself (or itself) acknowledge to be a Christian was a “given”. We are not trying to lay down a criterion by which to determine whether the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Bahais, or Zoroastrians are Christians or not; because they have already made that decisions for themselves as well as for us. The purpose of the criterion was to determine whether someone (or institution) that claims to be Christian, is indeed such or not. That makes a lot of what you have said irrelevant.

First, it should be noted that we should not change the definition of Christianity merely so that it includes more people. If Protestants fell outside the scope of Christianity, then I would not consider them Christians even if they were the majority (which they in fact are not).

That was not the intention either. Perhaps I should have put it more bluntly: Do you believe that Protestants (who do not believe in the necessity of baptism) to be Christians or not?

But you have telescoped over my reasoning, I think unintentionally. I have said repeatedly, here and in my other post, that profession of faith in the accurately-taught doctrines of Christ is necessary for ‘full, corporate’ discipleship. One can be a disciple in another sense, as I have said of some non-Christians, etc. One can, for example, have certain truths of Christianity revealed to them in their community, but lack some truths, and if they live out their lives according to what they have been taught of Christianity – then they certainly are disciples in some sense, and Christians in some sense. But by the very fact that they do not have the fullness of the revelation of Christ, therefore also they are not fully united to His Body, the Christian Church. They have instead an imperfect unity corresponding to the imperfection of their faith.

But this assumes, of course, the identification of true doctrine as the sufficient character of true discipleship. Now with this presumption, I have dealt with the only objection you relayed in your response, namely, that it seems exclusive rather than inclusive. If you think there are other reasons why true doctrine cannot be the sufficient character of true discipleship, such that we might identify someone as a true and full disciple based on their acceptance of certain beliefs, then I we can discuss those as well.

Again, you are making the whole thing far more complicated that it need be. We are not debating whether the Jews, Muslims, or atheists are Christians or not. We are discussing whether Christians (or those who profess to be) are Christians indeed or not. What criterion do you apply which is biblical (and hence theological) to determine that? Your (or my) opinion is not of any consequence here. In my Blog post I had tried to establish a biblical (hence theological) criterion by which to determine that. If you see a flaw in my theological reasoning, based on the teachings of the Lord Himself in the Bible, that is something that we can look at. But what you (or I) just “think” is not of any consequence here.

zerinus

 

[Erich]

Ah, but when you start laying down “doctrinal beliefs” as part of your criteria, then you start getting into trouble. How about many Protestant groups who do not consider baptism to be a requirement for salvation at all? By your definition, they might not be considered Christians.

Actually, it’s the non-Catholics (and, by extension, non-Christians) who start getting into trouble. From the April 1993 issue of This Rock (emphases mine):

Less than a century after Christ’s death Ignatius, the great martyr-bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter to the people of Smyrna in which the combination “the Catholic Church” occurs for the first time. His words are: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church.” By the beginning of the third century the meaning of the term “Catholic” as applied to the Church had become clearly established. It was used technically to imply sound doctrine as opposed to schism.

Thus Clement of Alexandria wrote, “We say that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith.” From quotations like this it is easy to see how “Catholic” became the proper name of the true Church founded by Christ.

There are two significant passages in the Catechetical Discourses of Cyril of Jerusalem, composed about the year 347. In the first he gives some advice to travelers: “If ever thou art staying in any city, ask not simply where the Lord’s house is - for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord - not merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the special name of the holy body the mother of us all.” Writing of the Creed he tells us, “Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other.”

Augustine uses the word “Catholic” as a synonym for the Church 240 times. The occasion was mainly the Donatist heresy. Against its errors the mark of universality was particularly emphasized. Note what Augustine wrote: “Whether they wish or no, heretics have to call the Catholic Church Catholic.”

In another place he put down something which is applicable today. “Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet, if anyone ask where is the Catholic place of worship, none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle.” Ask a London policeman for the Catholic Church, and he will direct you to Westminster Cathedral, not to St. Paul’s.

The word “Catholic” is, therefore, the proper name of that one, visible, organized Church founded by Jesus Christ. It is the Church we read about in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is described as having its head, its bishops, its priests, its deacons, its sacraments, its doctrines, its authority, its unity, and its disciples.

…

It would have been obvious to any of the saints we have mentioned that a church different from theirs could not rightly be called the Catholic Church. But how could a church be different from the Catholic Church?

The difference would have to be in essentials. For example, if a church professed doctrines different from those of the Catholic Church, it could not be the Catholic Church. If a church’s essential acts of worship were different from those of the Catholic Church, it could not be the Catholic Church. If the authority acknowledged by a church were not the same as the authority of the Catholic Church, that church could not be the Catholic Church.

Over time bodies broke off from the Catholic Church because they did not agree with its beliefs, or did not worship as it did, or would not recognize its authority. They became new and different churches. They ceased to be the Catholic Church.

At different times men started new churches from scratch. They were not the same as the Church Jesus Christ had founded. They were in opposition to it. His Church was, as we have seen, the Catholic Church; those new, man-made churches were not the Catholic Church.

 

[dmar198]

You are making the whole thing unnecessarily far too complicated. When I set out to provide a theologically accurate, biblical definition of a true Christian, the idea that the person (or people, or institution, or church) that is being so examined must in the first instance himself (or itself) acknowledge to be a Christian was a “given”.

I understand that, Zerinus. In fact, as I understand it, that was the point of your statement: that to claim discipleship is an essential part of discipleship. I am saying that this is false, because there are some who are in some sense ‘disciples’ of the truth who do not claim to be disciples of the Lord Who IS the truth.

In other words, you would make the knowledge of one’s discipleship essential to discipleship, whereas I say that one can be a disciple in some sense without even knowing it.

Will you still say that this is too complicated? that your reasoning does not apply to these latter people? I am in complete agreement, in fact my point is precisely this: your reasoning does not wholly apply. Therefore it is not sufficient to answer our question.

Do you believe that Protestants (who do not believe in the necessity of baptism) to be Christians or not?

Yes, they are Christians, that is precisely my point. They are Christians, but they do not share the fullness of Christian discipleship, because they do not share the fullness of Christian doctrine. This point is crucial: for your two most fundamental assumptions, as I understand them, was that (1) to be a Christian was to be a disciple, and (2) to bear the fruits that a typical disciple would is to be a disciple in the full sense (together with the declaration that one is a disciple).

But the fact that Protestants are not fully disciples, even though they are Christians and often bear Christian fruit, undercuts both of those assumptions.

What criterion do you apply which is biblical (and hence theological) to determine that [a nominal Christian is really Christian]? Your (or my) opinion is not of any consequence here. In my Blog post I had tried to establish a biblical (hence theological) criterion by which to determine that. If you see a flaw in my theological reasoning, based on the teachings of the Lord Himself in the Bible, that is something that we can look at. But what you (or I) just “think” is not of any consequence here.

A Biblical principle, founded upon the Word of God alone, is that – per individuals – full discipleship in Christ consists in the intention to follow everything that Jesus taught, bar none. This is taught especially in 1 John 5:2. Per communities, such as the LDS community, full discipleship in Christ consists in presenting all the teachings of Jesus Christ to their members. This is taught especially in 1 Tim. 3:15.

 

[Erich]

Someone earlier mentioned Chalcedon… from the February 1999 issue of This Rock:

In condemning the Eutychian heresy, Pope Leo issued his famous Tome, setting forth the Church’s faith that the incarnate Lord is fully God, fully man, two natures in one divine person. The patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, who ruled the Robber Synod with an iron hand, refused to allow the pope’s Tome to be read. Pope Leo condemned the council and declared its members to be deposed from their offices as bishops. This settled the fate of the Robber Synod.

It remained for the Council of Chalcedon to implement Pope Leo’s decisions. More than 600 bishops were present, almost all (except the pope’s legates) from the East. The pope directed the council to depose Dioscorus if he persisted in his heresy; to restore the bishops who had been deposed by that Synod; to reinstate bishops of that Synod who were truly repentant; and to issue a definition of faith that reflected Leo’s teaching in the Tome.

Every action taken by the Council of Chalcedon reflected its conviction that as successor to Peter the pope enjoyed supreme authority over the whole Church. With regard to the punishment of the unrepentant Dioscorus, the delegates unanimously asked the pope’s legates to pronounce the sentence of deposition because they spoke with the authority of Leo. Note carefully the subject and the predicate of the Council’s statement deposing Dioscorus:

“Wherefore Leo, the most holy and blessed Archbishop of great and older Rome, by us and by the present holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and worthy of all praise, the blessed Apostle Peter, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of his episcopate and deprived him of all sacerdotal dignity” (italics added). It was Leo, acting through the Council, who deposed Dioscorus. This is a significant exercise of papal authority, deposing the incumbent of the second see of Christendom with the unanimous approval of 600 Eastern bishops. What more striking declaration of universal papal authority could one ask for?

…

Incidentally, Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox who claim to accept the full authority of the early ecumenical councils should ponder what this fourth ecumenical council teaches about Peter the Rock. What/who is “the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church?” Not Peter’s faith, as Anglicans and other Protestants claim. Not Peter as a symbol of all bishops, as the Eastern Orthodox hold. No, the Apostle Peter himself is “rock and foundation.”

For the first thousand years after the birth of Christ, there was no distinction between “Catholic” and “Christian.” Jehovah’s Witnesses and others who do not accept Jesus’ divinity are, by definition, non-Christian.

Christians hold (indeed, have always held) that public or “general” revelation ended at the death of the last apostle (Catechism of the Catholic Church 66, 73). LDS and others who hold, as an article of faith and an official statement of doctrine, that public revelation continues are also, by definition, non-Christian. (Now you know why someone who’s only ever been baptized Mormon and converts to Catholicism is rebaptized.)

 

[zerinus]

I understand that, Zerinus. In fact, as I understand it, that was the point of your statement: that to claim discipleship is an essential part of discipleship. I am saying that this is false, because there are some who are in some sense ‘disciples’ of the truth who do not claim to be disciples of the Lord Who IS the truth.

Sorry, but that is an illogical statement. It doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps it does to you, but I don’t understand it.

But the fact that Protestants are not fully disciples, even though they are Christians and often bear Christian fruit, undercuts both of those assumptions.

What you are saying still does not make sense to me. I don’t understand what you are talking about.

A Biblical principle, founded upon the Word of God alone, is that – per individuals – full discipleship in Christ consists in the intention to follow everything that Jesus taught, bar none. This is taught especially in 1 John 5:2. Per communities, such as the LDS community, full discipleship in Christ consists in presenting all the teachings of Jesus Christ to their members. This is taught especially in 1 Tim. 3:15.

I looked up 1 John 5:2, and that seems to be relevant to our discussion; but 1 Tim. 3:15 didn’t seem to be.

zerinus