Hi,
In your OP you asked for “an accurate definition or description of what constitutes a Christian”. The Council of Chalcedon provides an accurate definition that has served well for over 1500 years.
I’m not the first one to try to explain something to you, and I’m surely not going to be the last one to do so either. You yourself wrote, “We define [the Trinity] as three distinct and separate personages. We believe that our definition of it conforms with the Bible; whereas yours does not.” In Matthew 28:19 Jesus commands the Eleven to baptize all nations “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (i.e. name, not names… three distinct and separate personages would have three distinct and separate names, would they not?) In John 10:30 Jesus says “the Father and I are one” (i.e. doesn’t that reduce by one the number of “distinct and separate personages”?)
The church of the living God (i.e. the visible church that Jesus started, and to which he promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it) is the pillar and foundation of truth. That would make this verse central to any accurate description or definition of what constitutes a Christian.
Isn’t this a little like the (Mormon) pot calling the (Catholic) kettle black?
To be a ‘disciple’ does not necessarily mean ‘disciple of the Lord,’ right? You said in your article, for example, that the Pharisees had disciples.
Protestants try to follow Jesus, so they are in some sense His disciples. But they do not have the full doctrine of Jesus. Therefore they are not fully disciples, but are only disciples in a limited sense.
We can forget about it for the moment.
Maybe; but I like my one better; and you haven’t said anything that makes me want to change my mind.
My definition conforms to the Bible because Jesus spoke of the Father as separate from Himself, preyed to His Father, said that His Father was greater than Him, said that He ascended to His Father; and the voice of the Father was heard separately testifying of the Son. Your arguments that they are not separate are are contrived, and are based on faulty reasoning. “name of …” does not mean that they are not three separate beings. In Greek grammar it probably means the same as “names of …”. And Jesus also commanded His disciples to “one” with Him as He is with the Father.
I didn’t get the joke with that one; you will have to explain. Maybe I will laugh when I get the joke.
Thank you.
Wrong! In the context in which I was discussing the subject, by “disciples” I meant the disciples of Jesus Christ, not disciples of the Maharishi Yogi.
Protestants, like anybody else, are disciples of Jesus only to the extent that they are willing to keep His commandments and obey His word. “Understanding the doctrine of Jesus fully” has never been a requirement of discipleship. The disciples whom Jesus had during His lifetime did not fully understand His doctrine either.
As you know, the doctrine of the Trinity was limned before the canon was closed, so we just scratch our heads over that.
I am not the conscience police. Thank God. How much of that is my business? I am not interested in other people’s hypocrisy unless someone comes to my CCD program and starts teaching something contrary to the faith.
Right, I understand that. I didn’t say you were talking about disciples of anyone other than Christ: I was saying that some people are following Him without knowing it; for example, those who try to live according to the truth even if they have never heard of Jesus. They are unwitting disciples of Jesus because they follow the Truth.
I didn’t say you must ‘understand’ His doctrine fully; only that you must accept and live by all of His teachings. I am certain that we agree on this point, so I would advise that you do not attack it. What you should be concerned about is also the same thing I am concerned about: I draw the implication that, in order to be fully Christ’s disciple, one must accept and live by all of His teachings, whether or not you understand them. For example, you cannot say, “I do not understand Jesus’ teaching in John 15 that one must bear fruit; therefore I reject it.” One must instead say, “I do not understand Jesus’ teaching in John 15 that one must bear fruit; but I accept it anyway and will live accordingly.”
that is why we need the Church. One found by Christ to lead us in Truth.
Hmm… and by what authority would your personal definition/description of what constitutes a Christian supercede one that has served Christians well for over 1500 years?
You’re basing your entire theology of what it means to be a Christian on a “probably”?
That is funny; I have been scratching my head over what that sentence means, and haven’t found the answer yet.
Why then did you reply to this thread? This thread relates to those who think they are.
And that proves what, exactly?
You had stated:
OK. I’ll drop out of the discussion on how to tell whether an individual is a hypocrite. and leave that sort of thing to those who feel it is their responsibility.
The consistency of teaching on the Holy Trinity among those who have split from the Catholic Church speaks to the integrity of the teaching, to the consistency of the teaching, and to the centrality of the teaching. Thinkers who reject significant tenets of the Catholic Faith because they believe them to be “unbiblical” nevertheless retain the doctrine of the Trinity (as understood by the Catholic Church) as central to the Christian faith.
That is possible.
Wrong! We are not talking about “unwitting disciples”. We are talking about “witting” ones. Those are the kinds of people that Jesus was addressing in these words:
I know what you are trying to do. You are trying to mix up doctrinal understanding of a theological principle with the injunction to keep His commandments and do His will. That is a trick. It don’t work. Jesus has never laid down a theological understanding of deep doctrine as a requirement for His discipleship. The only requirement of discipleship that He has laid down is to believe in Him and keep His commandments. Anybody who fulfills those two requirements, and identifies himself as a Christian, is a Christian according to the scriptural definition. He is a true “disciple” of Jesus Christ, hence a true Christian by that definition.
Thank you. We do have such a Church. It is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
zerinus, didn’t I say something similar up thread? The troops on the ground need not be held to an impossibly high standard of doctrinal understanding. Yet doctrine IS very important at a certain level.
You call it “Christian teaching;” I call it Apostate Christian teaching; because we believe that early Christianity went into Apostasy, and the doctrine of the Trinity that you are referring to is one of the results of that Apostasy.
Well, not entirely. We have additional books of scripture that give us a deeper understanding of those doctrines than would be possible from reading the Bible alone. I am referencing the Bible because that happens to be a volume of scripture that we both share. The Bible is adequate to prove my point without needing to refer to LDS-specific books of scripture.
That is very much a debatable subject; but debating it will not be possible unless you can be more forthcoming with evidence to back up that highly questionable claim.
That is hardly a valid argument for the truth of the doctrine. It is more of a valid argument for the Apostasy. It shows that Apostasy can only be corrected by a Restoration, not by a Reformation. A Reformation cannot fix the problem of the Apostasy.
I am not sure that is correct either. The word “Trinity” refers to the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost that is referenced in Christian scripture; not to a particular theological interpretation of it. Even in early Christianity the Trinity had more than one definition or meaning. Some were “subordinationists,” meaning that they believed in the subordination of the Son and the Spirit to the Father, while others were not; and going back further, we find that the doctrine begins to get closer to the LDS definition.
really? and who made this determination? if i ask.