• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Conservative Heresies: What is a real Christian?

  • Thread starter angellous_evangellous
  • Start date

Buttercup

Veteran Member
A 'real' Christian to me is somone who accepts the atoning works of Christ on the cross as payment for our sins. Is subsequently indwelled by the Holy Spirit and strives to live a life pleasing to God. Of course we all fall flat on our face innumerable times throughout our lives.

I also know that we cannnot judge who is and who is not a Christian. That's up to God and I don't even bother with trying to determine the salvation of other people. I am not the Christian police. It's not my job and it sure makes your life easier to just assume the best.

On the other hand, I have been known to smack a 'supposed' Christian for acting like an idiot! :)
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
Buttercup said:
A 'real' Christian to me is somone who accepts the atoning works of Christ on the cross as payment for our sins. Is subsequently indwelled by the Holy Spirit and strives to live a life pleasing to God. Of course we all fall flat on our face innumerable times throughout our lives.

I also know that we cannnot judge who is and who is not a Christian. That's up to God and I don't even bother with trying to determine the salvation of other people. I am not the Christian police. It's not my job and it sure makes your life easier to just assume the best.

On the other hand, I have been known to smack a 'supposed' Christian for acting like an idiot! :)

1. I love your new avatar!
2. I love your "Christian" attitude.
3. Your last line made me laugh. :biglaugh:
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
SoyLeche said:
It's been a while, but hasn't AE said that specific thing to us, multiple times?
Yeah, more times than I can count. But I think his OP was intended to poke fun at the arrogance of people who are exclusionary in how they look at Christians whose beliefs differ from their own. He probably doesn't even recognize himself as being one of them.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Squirt said:
Where did you get this definition? I believe it more accurate means "follower of Christ" or "disciple of Christ."

It is a literal translation of the word "Christian" in both Greek and English.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Squirt said:
Well, of course. To be a Christian, one must believe in the "real" Jesus and not the "LDS" Jesus. How on earth could you have forgotten the most important criteria?

SoyLeche said:
It's been a while, but hasn't AE said that specific thing to us, multiple times?

That is not a conservative heresy.

It is true that I have argued that the definition of Christ and the Christian understanding of God are associated with the word "Christian," which the LDS reject. LDS doctrine clearly does not affirm the Trinity, nor is it even tri-theistic, but polytheistic.

I have argued that LDS are not traditional Christians on the grounds that they reject traditional Christianity. The word "Christian" carries with it traditional Christian definitions of God (One, Creator, Holy Spirit, Father, Jesus) which the LDS redefine. It is nonsensical to carry the name Christian alone, but LDS Christian to denote and constructively affirm the differences.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
angellous_evangellous said:
That is not a conservative heresy.

It is true that I have argued that the definition of Christ and the Christian understanding of God are associated with the word "Christian," which the LDS reject. LDS doctrine clearly does not affirm the Trinity, nor is it even tri-theistic, but polytheistic.

I have argued that LDS are not traditional Christians on the grounds that they reject traditional Christianity. The word "Christian" carries with it traditional Christian definitions of God (One, Creator, Holy Spirit, Father, Jesus) which the LDS redefine. It is nonsensical to carry the name Christian alone, but LDS Christian to denote and constructively affirm the differences.
I'm okay with that, but just remember that the qualifiers are important. You can say that "LDS Christianity" is different from "Traditional Christianity" and I'm perfectly all right with that. "LDS Christianity" still falls within the realms of "Christianity" though.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
SoyLeche said:
I'm okay with that, but just remember that the qualifiers are important. You can say that "LDS Christianity" is different from "Traditional Christianity" and I'm perfectly all right with that. "LDS Christianity" still falls within the realms of "Christianity" though.

How can LDS Christianity fall within the realms of "Christianity" when the LDS completely reject the Christian understanding of God and Jesus Christ, the primary subject of and defining characteristic of Christainity?

It's like saying that Christianity is Judaism. Christianity completely redefined God, breaking away forever from Judasim. They aren't the same because of how they define God and interpret and re-interpret Scripture. Christianity came on the scene and Judaism merrily went on as it was before, completely ignoring the Jesus movement. Christianity has no claim on Judaism whatsoever.

The later group (Christianity) may have re-interpreted the first group (Judaism), but that does not give them the right to redefine, re-name, or claim to actually be the first group.
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
That is not a conservative heresy.
Yeah, says who? As far as I'm concerned, it is every bit as narrow-minded and self-righteous as any of the other items on your "Official a_e List of Conservative Heresies."

LDS doctrine clearly does not affirm the Trinity...
Nor did the first-century Christians. But clearly, they were not "traditional" in their approach, because "traditional" Christianity had not yet emerged.

...nor is it even tri-theistic, but polytheistic.
Only when distorted by people who don't really understand it.

I have argued that LDS are not traditional Christians on the grounds that they reject traditional Christianity. The word "Christian" carries with it traditional Christian definitions of God (One, Creator, Holy Spirit, Father, Jesus) which the LDS redefine.
I don't believe we've ever claimed to be a part of "traditional" or "mainstream" Christianity. We're more than happy to distance ourselves from the philosophies of men, thank you very much! As long as my Christianity is in line with the Christianity of the Apostles, I would actually prefer that it not be in line with the Christianity of Constantine. :D

Have a great day, a_e.

The thorn in your side,
Squirt :D
 

SoyLeche

meh...
angellous_evangellous said:
How can LDS Christianity fall within the realms of "Christianity" when the LDS completely reject the Christian understanding of God and Jesus Christ, the primary subject of and defining characteristic of Christainity?

It's like saying that Christianity is Judaism. Christianity completely redefined God, breaking away forever from Judasim. They aren't the same because of how they define God and interpret and re-interpret Scripture. Christianity came on the scene and Judaism merrily went on as it was before, completely ignoring the Jesus movement. Christianity has no claim on Judaism whatsoever.

The later group (Christianity) may have re-interpreted the first group (Judaism), but that does not give them the right to redefine, re-name, or claim to actually be the first group.
I've said before - as far as I'm concerned a Christian is anyone who believes that Christ is their Savior. Any additions to that are just defining a subset of Christianity. You have your "Traditional Christians", your "Gnostic Christians", your "Fundamentalist Christians", your "LDS Christians".........

I just find it interesting that you are so willing to deride "Conservative Christians" for excluding you from Christianity, but are in the next breath willing to do the same thing to me. Can we all say... Hypocrite
 

Squirt

Well-Known Member
angellous_evangellous said:
How can LDS Christianity fall within the realms of "Christianity" when the LDS completely reject the Christian understanding of God and Jesus Christ, the primary subject of and defining characteristic of Christainity?
We don't reject the Christian understanding of God and Jesus Christ. We reject the post-apostolic understanding of God and Jesus Christ.

It's like saying that Christianity is Judaism.
No, it's not. Jews don't claim to be Christians. You aren't offending them in the slightest by telling them they're not Christians. A Christian looks to Jesus Christ and to Him alone for salvation. A Christian worships and honors Christ as the Son of God. Jews do neither of these things. The Latter-day Saints do.

Quite frankly, I think Jesus Christ would be appalled by your definition of a Christian.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Squirt said:
We don't reject the Christian understanding of God and Jesus Christ. We reject the post-apostolic understanding of God and Jesus Christ.

No, it's not. Jews don't claim to be Christians. You aren't offending them in the slightest by telling them they're not Christians. A Christian looks to Jesus Christ and to Him alone for salvation. A Christian worships and honors Christ as the Son of God. Jews do neither of these things. The Latter-day Saints do.

Thanks for at least partially addressing the OP.
Quite frankly, I think Jesus Christ would be appalled by your definition of a Christian.
This isn't the first time that I have been brutally attacked by you with the name of Jesus.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28365&page=17, post #168
Squirt said:
I think your exclusionary attitude hurts Him deeply
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
SoyLeche said:
I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

In any event, you've utterly, miserably, and completely failed to prove your point.

Carefully read post # 26.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
angellous_evangellous said:
In any event, you've utterly, miserably, and completely failed to prove your point.

Carefully read post # 26.
My point is that you have defined a subset of Christianity and have set it up to be the only set that really counts. The people you refferenced in your OP have done the same thing.
 

Endless

Active Member
A christian is a person who knows the true historical Jesus, his teachings - a part of which are taught by those who lived with him during his years of ministry and believes in what Jesus did on the cross for them.

I stress the 'true Jesus' because there are many people who have claimed to be Jesus and introduced false teachings - technically these people could be classed as Christians, but in reality since they don't follow the true Jesus who is God their labelling as Christians is worthless.
There are many who use the Bible and teach erronous doctrine, deviating from what we know the early church taught and what is taught in the Bible. Such people may follow a Jesus, a Christ, a Messiah - yet they are no more true Christians than the others, for they do not follow the true Christ.

I think it is very important that this is realised - the importance of following the true Christ. We can have this picture of Christ in our heads that doctrine has imposed upon us, we can then pray to this 'Christ' and yet at the same time be completely deluded. We aren't worshipping the truth, nor following the truth.

Therefore the question, 'Who is Jesus' is vital - because this is the Jesus that we follow. If there are differences in our answer as to who Jesus is - then there are also differences in the truth that we each believe we are following. If the origin is faulty, then the faith is built upon a faulty foundation.

I believe that the question of who Jesus is can only be answered using what the Bible teaches, what Jesus said and what the disciples who lived and were taught by Jesus thought he is. This is the only basis which we can use to find the answer. If we use anything else then we risk wrongly interpreting. Many people have come up with different starting points and then use those to interpret what scripture says - this is wrong. You must use scripture to interpret scripture. You cannot interpret scripture from another viewpoint, no matter whether you believe that viewpoint has been given by God or not.
 
Top