The Mormon church and Jehovah's Witnesses are intensely invested (at times literally financially invested) in the world seeing them as just another "flavor" of Christians (who wants to be a cult?). But their beliefs in general and their beliefs about who Christ really was and is, in particular, are what disqualifies both groups for the label Christian, in my view. Mormons may say Jesus died for their sins, but they also believe that a good Mormon man can someday become God. I don't think they qualify as followers of Christ in that regard. Jesus Christ certainly never indicated that we could become equals with God the Father. As for Jehovah's Witnesses, they don't even believe that Jesus actually died, so I'm not sure how they could claim he died for their sins. I agree with your premise that we each apply our own distinct theological baggage to God, and that imperfect theology doesn't disqualify us for salvation. However, Christ and his sacrifice are, in fact, central. (We agree on that, too.) I do not believe that the two particular groups you mentioned (Mormons & Jehovah's Witnesses) actually hold Him as central. Therefore, they are not just outside the mainstream, they are outside the fold, according to my understanding.
Jeff
· 1 year ago
My understanding of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe is that Jesus is not God. That Jesus is the Son of God in a literal sense. That Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice. But Jesus did not rise from the grave physically, but as a spirit.
This view of who Jesus is, is clearly not scriptural. The New Testament has a good number of verses that deal with this idea since there were some who believed this in the early days of the Church. I would even say that this is clearly 'false teaching'. But for those who have been deceived by these false teachers and believe in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins, is it their Theology that makes them non-Christian? It sounds like that is the essential argument. But then is making that claim scriptural?
curtis
· 1 year ago
Jeff,
the issue with some groups that are not considered christian is that they mess with the deity of jesus Christ. If someone makes jesus less than completely God, or puts themselves or others in the same position of jesus christ then you have the issue of how can Jesus' sacrifice help us. He know longer is a sinless sacrifice that can cover our sins, he simply becomes a human version of the OT sacrifices which didn't truly satisfy. When you mess with the divinity of Jesus, you mess with the ability for him to forgive us our sins. I would say it is impossible for jesus' sacrifice to save us without him being God, and that is where these certain groups begin to fall apart, no matter how much they say that Christ's sacrifice saves them, if he is not divine he has no ability to do so.
Jeff
· 1 year ago
Can we find a scriptural basis that we must believe or understand that Jesus Christ is God for his sacrifice to actually impact our status with God?
curtis
· 1 year ago
Don't have alot of time now, but here is what I came up with real briefly:
-Jesus was killed for saying he was God.
-Peters confession of faith.
2 cor. 5:21
Whole book of Romans (Rom 5, 3:24-25
Is. 53:5, 11 1 Pet. 2:24 2 Cor. 5:21 Gal. 3:10-13
Deity of Christ in NT John 1:1-3, John 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Gal 1:1, Phil 2:6, Col. 2:9 Titus 2:13, Heb. 1:3 2 Peter 1:1, 1 john 5:20
-We know the penalty of sin is death, and all have sinned, and all deserve death. Therefore the only way in which a sinful person can be saved is through a sinless sacrifice. The issue of a sinless sacrifice by a finite being is that it will only cover one persons’ sins. Thus a sinless, divine, infinite in nature God in human form is need to cover all man’s sins. A sinful sacrifice can’t redeem us!
Jeff
· 1 year ago
These verses teach us about the diety of Jesus but that is not the question being discussed. These verses do not declare we are saved because of a proper understanding of Jesus diety. I am not questioning the diety of Christ or his sinlessness. I am questioning the underlying issue that we believe that somehow our understanding or knowledge is how we are saved and therefore followers of Christ when the Bible clearly says we are saved by Jesus sacrifice. Faith alone is often touted as how we are saved. If that is true then how can we add additional qualifications to this? Either there is more than faith alone, or we are adding more to what saves someone than what Jesus has done. Is if Faith plus a proper understanding of how God is able to save and the details of His sacrifice and union with God the Father and the Holy Spirit that saves us? This is the question at hand, not the details for any specific piece of Theology. The basics of what makes a Christian a Christian.
Coming to understand who Christ is, is part of growing with Him. But if a believer has people teaching them false teachings that teach them things that are wrong about Christ and they believe those things and still hold to Jesus sacrifice and their faith in that as their salvation, are they still Christian or is their bad Theology now bad enough that their acceptance of Christ is null and void? I can't seem to find scriptural evidence for such a claim. I can find loads of evidence for Jesus being God and his sacrifice being perfect in that he lives a sinless life. But again, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not a proper understanding of that truth is a requirement for someone to accept Christ. You are saying that it is. So can we find scriptural evidence to make that claim?
curtis
· 1 year ago
Jeff,
your main point was that there are those who believe "Jesus Christ died for the remission of sin" yet are not considered Christian. This is the reason I focused on his deity. How can you put your faith in, and why would you put your faith in a person who can not remit our sins? A Jesus without being Deity has no means to forgive sins. I agree we don't have to have everything figured out about Jesus, I agree we all probably have areas that are not 100% accurate, I agree we are saved by Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross. But in order for me to believe that Jesus can take away my sins I have to believe he is God, otherwise he is not able to do so. The Jews seem to understand this - they don't think Jesus is the messiah, so why would, and how can they put their faith in him to take away their sins?
I just don't see how you can put your faith in Jesus for the remission of your sins without believing that he is capable of taking away your sins. I am not trying to add to the requirements of salvation, but If I don't have a proper understanding to begin with, how can I actually put my faith in him in the first place. If I believe that Jesus is not God, and thus able to take away my sins, how can I properly place my faith in him for the remission of my sins? I could put my faith in you for salvation, but if you can't deliver the goods what good does it do me? The difference is we know that Christ is capable to forgive. I still see where your question arises, and I don't know if there is a verse I can pick out, but I have a hard time thinking that Christ's blood covers a person who doesn't believe that Christ blood is capable of covering their sins, but believes in Jesus the person. Can you believe in Jesus without the Christ for the remission of sin?
Jeff
· 1 year ago
I didn't make the claim that someone would put their faith in Christ for the remission for their sins and then not believe that Christ is capable of doing that. I have yet to meet someone who has made that claim. I am talking about people who put their faith in Christ because they do believe that he is fully able to forgive them of their sins.
The issue is people who do believe that Jesus is fully capable to forgive them of their sins. But those same people do not believe that Jesus is God. We understand that He is God. But why does their lack of understanding that He is God make their belief in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins less valid? We can break apart their bad theology rather quickly and show them that Jesus is in fact God. But again it goes back to how we are saved. Is it from a proper understanding of Jesus or through Faith in Jesus?
I now see Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses as people who have been deeply deceived by false teachings and we need to teach them the truth. We shouldn't ignore these theological issues, but I question calling one of these people 'non-Christian' over their bad theology when the core of what makes us Christian is what these people have placed their faith in. Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.
curtis
· 1 year ago
Jeff,
You said, "The issue is people who do believe that Jesus is fully capable to forgive them of their sins. But those same people do not believe that Jesus is God." how is he capable of forgiving their sins if he is not God??? That is my issue, how can he forgive if he is not God? What are they putting their faith in? Why and how can they put their faith in him?
Their lack of understanding that Jesus is God makes their belief less valid because the jesus they are putting their faith in is not the Jesus of the bible, and is not able to forgive their sins. Basically they are putting their faith in a jesus other than the biblical one, in another Jesus who can't forgive their sins. Jesus has to be able to forgive my sins for them to be forgiven, right?
curtis
· 1 year ago
What makes Jesus able to forgive their sins if he is not God? That is the core of my questions/problem with their belief. I think when you get to the heart of this question you will get into a works salvation or some other form of salvation other than purely by the blood of Christ.
Jeff
· 1 year ago
I agree that posing that question to someone who does not believe that Jesus is God is very valid and valuable to get them to see the truth. I agree that Jesus sacrifice would not be valid if Jesus were not God. But does someone failing to know this or understand this make their acceptance of Jesus Christ any less valid? I know my acceptance of Christ as savior was not because He was God, it was because He was and is able to forgive my sins. these deeper discussions and understandings unwrapped as I learned more about Christ and matured in my faith. The ins and outs and whys of how that salvation works is not foundational in my acceptance of Jesus Christ. It is not my knowledge or understanding that saves me. It is Jesus perfect sacrifice that saves me.
Just because someone does not believe that Jesus is God does not make it so that Jesus is no longer truly God. It simply means they do not understand that He is. So does someone need to understand or know that Jesus is God to be able to accept Jesus as savior? I can't find scripture to support this claim which is clearly grounds that I have used to define someone as being Christian.
Curtis
· 1 year ago
You said that your acceptance of God was not based on Jesus being God, but being able to forgive. Yet his ability to forgive/save is because he is God whether you recognize it or not you were saying he was God. Now to say he isn't God then takes away his ability to save, and without Jesus being God he is just a good moral teacher who died who has no ability to forgive my sins. People who say they believe in jesus for forgiveness of sins and don't believe he is God are simply people who believe in a person by the same name as the guy in the bible, but not him. Why don't we call him Joe. I can believe that Joe died for my sins and put faith in him, but if has no ability to do so does it save me? No. Same thing with those who believe in a Jesus who has no ability to forgive sins.
I understand where you are coming from and think we are in a cyclical discussion now. Don't know if I can say anymore, but it again sounds like they have the Jesus without the Christ, and I don't know that a Jesus without the Christ can save!?
Curtis
· 1 year ago
Read Acts 2:36-38. This seems to give a pretty clear indication. This is what Peter said to convince the Jews Jesus was the messiah, and they turned to him. maybe this helps
Jeff
· 1 year ago
Acts 2:36-38
"So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!" 37 Peter's words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This again is a verse that highlights that Jesus is more than just a man. (v.36) That He is God through the use of the word Lord. But it still makes no claim that understanding this truth is necessary for someone to accept Jesus. This is not to say that this very truth can not be what compels someone to come to Christ as occured in this instance in Acts. This is the very argument that some make for speaking in tongues being the sign that you have been saved. Because there are examples of this happening when people became believers in Acts. Yet a wholistic approach shows us that not all believers will speak in tongues so how can we use it as a basis for someone being saved?
I am seriously looking for a scripture that backs up the idea that our proper understanding or Theology of God or Christ is a basis for our salvation. We teach this concept to people without backing it up. I want to know the truth, not just what we think is the truth. And the truth will be backed up by scripture.
Curtis
· 1 year ago
I am not sure I am really tracking with you anymore. Because in one sense you will use a holistic approach (tongues), but for what is needed to accept Christ you will not (you are seeking a magic bullet verse). With what you are saying about these particular groups, why couldn't a person pull that over to any religion that says that they believe whoever for the remission of theirs sins. They believe in that person, so Christ should cover them right??? It would be no different from a Jesus who is not God and therefore can't forgive.
What separates Jesus as the only way to salvation for you if it is not that he can indeed forgive sins by being God?
I think in the holistic sense of scripture understanding the messiah going to the jews you see very clearly that it is very critical that Jesus is God and able to forgive our sins which is necessary for the Jews to understand in order to accept Christ. those who couldn't believe this didn't accept christ. the whole of scripture proves this and there is no need for one magic verse to tell the Jews that. Why do the gospels focus so much on his Lordship and being the Christ if this is not the critical step for the Jews to get to in order to accept Jesus. It seems like this argument is going to the place of you need an explicit verse when the whole of scripture is implicitly pointing to it.
Curtis
· 1 year ago
Jeff,
I suppose theoretically what you are saying could be true: A person could put their trust and belief in Jesus for the Remission of Sin (singular) and not believe that he is God. However the practical implications of this would be that Jesus would be like the OT sacrafices and as soon as a person sinned since Jesus is finite he would have to die all over again for our sin. each time we subsequently sinned Jesus would have to die on the Cross, thus having Jesus not be God means he has to probably die millions of times each day for each individual sin. that is why we need Jesus to be infinite. As scripture tells us Jesus died once for all.
Jeff
· 1 year ago
I agree with the Lordship of Christ completely. I think you are missing my actual point by getting bogged down on Theological details that are true without question. I am asking a question that I have honestly never seen anyone ask, and I am guessing you have never seen asked in this way.
I am asking about what actually makes us Christian. We define groups as being Christian or non-Christian based on their Theology (understanding of God or Christ) yet it is not our Theology that saves us. So either our proper understanding of Christ's sacrifice is essential for our salvation or God is able to save us by Christ's sacrifice even if we don't really understand it.
You are saying that we must have a proper understanding or our Faith and how it all works between Jesus and the Father or the person is following the wrong Jesus. But does the New Testament teach us this? Did Paul write to Churches and tell them they were following the wrong Jesus or did he teach them the truth about Jesus and shed light on the false teachings that they were hearing and believing?
Does understanding and knowledge about God come after acceptance or before? If it is before then our Theology must be correct for our acceptance of Christ to have value. If understanding can come after then Christs sacrifice can be valid and then the believer can begin to see the truth. But for them to see the truth they need to be taught the truth. If they are hearing false teachings it should be expected for them to believe false things about Christ. I see Paul writing to clear up false teachings to Churches, not declaring those believers to be outside of the flock, but believers being led astray by false teachings.
But hey, I could be completley wrong. :)
Jeff
· 1 year ago
I used to buy the different Jesus concept. That is until I began to think about this.
If someone believes the following are they a Christian?
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." —John 3:16 (NIV)
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." —Romans 3:23 (NIV)
"For the wages of sin is death." —Romans 6:23 (NIV)
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." —Romans 5:8 (NIV)
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." —Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." —Revelation 3:20 (NIV)
"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." —John 1:12 (NIV)
These are the most common verses that are used to share the Gospel message to someone.
You are saying that someone who accepts Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins but does not understand that Jesus is God has somehow placed their faith in a different Jesus. Seems to me that they need more teaching rather than to meet a different Jesus.
Jeff
· 1 year ago
You are assuming that someone who believes that Jesus is not God is also making the logical conclusion that Jesus is incapable of saving them. That is our logical conclusion based on scripture and what we know to be true about Christ. But for people who fail to see Jesus divinity, they do believe that Jesus is fully capable of saving them as scripture describes. You would think they would see the flaw in their understanding but they do not. If they did then their faith would be phony. How could anyone trust in Christ to save them if they do not have faith that he can actually do that? The issue is when they do have faith that he can do just that yet they do not understanding that He and God the Father are one and the same.
Jeff
· 1 year ago
The challenge is: What makes someone a follower of Christ? It is no longer as simple as the Sunday School answer when you begin to think about the variant beliefs of different groups that hold Jesus Christ to be their savior.
I believe you are placing a belief that Jesus is God as a central core piece of knowledge for someone to be a follower of Christ. But I must question if any specific piece of knowledge is what makes us followers of Christ. If so, then which ones? How do I know I have the proper understanding or piece of knowledge to make me a true follower? Or should I base my understanding of who a follower of Jesus is by his sacrifice and not my own understanding?
I believed that Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses were not Christian even a few weeks ago. But as I am reading through the New Testament I am seeing that the Gospel is far more simple than we make it out to be. And I am no longer certain that traditionally 'heretical' beliefs disqualify someone from being a follower of Christ. This is not to say those beliefs are any more valid or true, but I can't seem to see how those beliefs or bits of understanding disqualify someone from being a follower of Christ. Is Jesus sacrifice big enough to cover even our sin of believing false things to be true, even about God?
Curtis
· 1 year ago
Bristow,
I can't help but reply! Your central theme seems to be that a christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Good and true, but I think the problem that begins to emerge is what does this look like, how is it expressed. The difficulty it seems that you are having is that even those who are often considered heretical groups call themselves followers of jesus christ. Two thoughts, 1. Even Jesus said that some would call on him lord, lord, and he would respond that he never knew them. 2. How well do I have to follow Jesus Christ to be a Christian? If I say that I follow Muhammed, Budha, or some other person how closely do I have to align with them to truly be a follower of them? I think this question emerges when you use the broad definition of a christian as a follower of JC. Some 80-90% of americans call themselves christians, but look, and act little like JC, even those in the church sometimes don't look and act like JC. This isn't a question of theology, but rather of living out and acting like Christ, believing like he believed, believing what he believed about himself, not theology, but Christology! I'm not a very good follower if I don't believe what he did right, or even what he believed about himself. This puts JC as central, what he thought and did central, and if a Christian is a follower of JC then these things must be central, otherwise I can make Jesus into whoever and whatever I want and say I am a follower of his with the bits and pieces I have taken of him and be okay.
Jeff
· 1 year ago
You are building on my premise. That there are people who live out their faith, act like Christ, and believe the words of scripture. They are committed and devoted to Jesus Christ for their salvation. Genuine followers of Christ. I acknowledge that there are many who claim to be Christian who are not because they do not follow Christ in how they live their lives. Jesus affirms that these people are out there. I am talking not about those who are Christian by name alone, but those who follow Jesus Christ in every aspect of their life. I am not concerned with the name someone calls themselves. You can call yourself a Christian all you want but if Jesus Christ is not who has saved you then you are not a follower of Jesus Christ. If you call yourself a Bovitite and have accepted Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, then you would be a follower of Christ regardless of the name you define yourself with.
I am talking about those who do believe in Jesus Christ have accepted him and place their salvation in His hands. Yet they believe things that are not true about Jesus or about God the Father. For example the Trinity, or Jesus divinity. Is it these false things that disqualify some from being 'Christian'? That sounds rather Gnostic. If so how can we then claim to be saved if we too have some false understanding or belief about God? I would argue that it is Jesus sacrifice that saves us and not our fully accurate understanding of that sacrifice. We are called to accept his sacrificet, not to fully understand it. How can we make an argument that we must have proper Theology when we know that it is not our Theology or understanding of God that saves us?
I am not saying that a false belief is in any way valid or true. But I am seriously questioning what truly makes a Christian a Christian. It is either very simple and many people can be considered Christian, even those who hold to some false beliefs. Or there is far more to being a Follower of Christ.
So this goes back to the original question. Who is a Christian? or Who is a Christ Follower? How can we define this? The definitions that are commonly held to would not disqualify some 'heretical' groups. So either our definition is not correct, or our acceptance of other followers of Christ is flawed.
Amy
· 1 year ago
Do Mormons really believe Jesus died for the remission of their sins? It seems to me that good works are what is central to their belief of salvation. Yes, I do believe Jesus' sacrifice is big enough to cover all bad theology....but I think you have to accept the sacrifice.
Jeff
· 1 year ago
I have no doubt that there are Mormons that believe they need to work their way to salvation. Just as there are many 'Christians' who believe the same. So the labels seem to mean very little. I have talked with a few Mormons over the past few years and have always heard a very clear gospel message from them. So I know that there are Mormons that believe the sacrifice of Christ and their acceptance of that is why they are saved. The other side of the coin is that they have some wacky Theology that I can't ever endorse or even begin to consider to be valid. I believe that due to this that many Mormons are being deceived by the ones teaching them the bad Theology which prevents them from living a full life here and now. And I used to think that due to this bad Theology that they are not Christians. My motivation was to reveal Jesus Christ to them as their savior. When the real issue was to bring the teachings of Jesus Christ to them so they can live a full life now and follow his true words. I see this as being a very different issue than them being saved or not saved. I think more Mormons are pushed away from the true teachings of Jesus because many 'Christians' have declared them to not be followers of Christ, rather than trying to show them Jesus true teachings.
All Comments
I agree with your premise that we each apply our own distinct theological baggage to God, and that imperfect theology doesn't disqualify us for salvation. However, Christ and his sacrifice are, in fact, central. (We agree on that, too.)
I do not believe that the two particular groups you mentioned (Mormons & Jehovah's Witnesses) actually hold Him as central. Therefore, they are not just outside the mainstream, they are outside the fold, according to my understanding.
This view of who Jesus is, is clearly not scriptural. The New Testament has a good number of verses that deal with this idea since there were some who believed this in the early days of the Church. I would even say that this is clearly 'false teaching'. But for those who have been deceived by these false teachers and believe in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins, is it their Theology that makes them non-Christian? It sounds like that is the essential argument. But then is making that claim scriptural?
the issue with some groups that are not considered christian is that they mess with the deity of jesus Christ. If someone makes jesus less than completely God, or puts themselves or others in the same position of jesus christ then you have the issue of how can Jesus' sacrifice help us. He know longer is a sinless sacrifice that can cover our sins, he simply becomes a human version of the OT sacrifices which didn't truly satisfy. When you mess with the divinity of Jesus, you mess with the ability for him to forgive us our sins. I would say it is impossible for jesus' sacrifice to save us without him being God, and that is where these certain groups begin to fall apart, no matter how much they say that Christ's sacrifice saves them, if he is not divine he has no ability to do so.
-Jesus was killed for saying he was God.
-Peters confession of faith.
2 cor. 5:21
Whole book of Romans (Rom 5, 3:24-25
Is. 53:5, 11
1 Pet. 2:24
2 Cor. 5:21
Gal. 3:10-13
Deity of Christ in NT
John 1:1-3, John 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Gal 1:1, Phil 2:6, Col. 2:9
Titus 2:13, Heb. 1:3
2 Peter 1:1, 1 john 5:20
-We know the penalty of sin is death, and all have sinned, and all deserve death. Therefore the only way in which a sinful person can be saved is through a sinless sacrifice. The issue of a sinless sacrifice by a finite being is that it will only cover one persons’ sins. Thus a sinless, divine, infinite in nature God in human form is need to cover all man’s sins. A sinful sacrifice can’t redeem us!
Coming to understand who Christ is, is part of growing with Him. But if a believer has people teaching them false teachings that teach them things that are wrong about Christ and they believe those things and still hold to Jesus sacrifice and their faith in that as their salvation, are they still Christian or is their bad Theology now bad enough that their acceptance of Christ is null and void? I can't seem to find scriptural evidence for such a claim. I can find loads of evidence for Jesus being God and his sacrifice being perfect in that he lives a sinless life. But again, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not a proper understanding of that truth is a requirement for someone to accept Christ. You are saying that it is. So can we find scriptural evidence to make that claim?
your main point was that there are those who believe "Jesus Christ died for the remission of sin" yet are not considered Christian. This is the reason I focused on his deity. How can you put your faith in, and why would you put your faith in a person who can not remit our sins? A Jesus without being Deity has no means to forgive sins. I agree we don't have to have everything figured out about Jesus, I agree we all probably have areas that are not 100% accurate, I agree we are saved by Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross. But in order for me to believe that Jesus can take away my sins I have to believe he is God, otherwise he is not able to do so. The Jews seem to understand this - they don't think Jesus is the messiah, so why would, and how can they put their faith in him to take away their sins?
I just don't see how you can put your faith in Jesus for the remission of your sins without believing that he is capable of taking away your sins. I am not trying to add to the requirements of salvation, but If I don't have a proper understanding to begin with, how can I actually put my faith in him in the first place. If I believe that Jesus is not God, and thus able to take away my sins, how can I properly place my faith in him for the remission of my sins? I could put my faith in you for salvation, but if you can't deliver the goods what good does it do me? The difference is we know that Christ is capable to forgive. I still see where your question arises, and I don't know if there is a verse I can pick out, but I have a hard time thinking that Christ's blood covers a person who doesn't believe that Christ blood is capable of covering their sins, but believes in Jesus the person. Can you believe in Jesus without the Christ for the remission of sin?
The issue is people who do believe that Jesus is fully capable to forgive them of their sins. But those same people do not believe that Jesus is God. We understand that He is God. But why does their lack of understanding that He is God make their belief in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins less valid? We can break apart their bad theology rather quickly and show them that Jesus is in fact God. But again it goes back to how we are saved. Is it from a proper understanding of Jesus or through Faith in Jesus?
I now see Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses as people who have been deeply deceived by false teachings and we need to teach them the truth. We shouldn't ignore these theological issues, but I question calling one of these people 'non-Christian' over their bad theology when the core of what makes us Christian is what these people have placed their faith in. Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.
You said, "The issue is people who do believe that Jesus is fully capable to forgive them of their sins. But those same people do not believe that Jesus is God." how is he capable of forgiving their sins if he is not God??? That is my issue, how can he forgive if he is not God? What are they putting their faith in? Why and how can they put their faith in him?
Their lack of understanding that Jesus is God makes their belief less valid because the jesus they are putting their faith in is not the Jesus of the bible, and is not able to forgive their sins. Basically they are putting their faith in a jesus other than the biblical one, in another Jesus who can't forgive their sins. Jesus has to be able to forgive my sins for them to be forgiven, right?
Just because someone does not believe that Jesus is God does not make it so that Jesus is no longer truly God. It simply means they do not understand that He is. So does someone need to understand or know that Jesus is God to be able to accept Jesus as savior? I can't find scripture to support this claim which is clearly grounds that I have used to define someone as being Christian.
I understand where you are coming from and think we are in a cyclical discussion now. Don't know if I can say anymore, but it again sounds like they have the Jesus without the Christ, and I don't know that a Jesus without the Christ can save!?
maybe this helps
"So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!"
37 Peter's words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This again is a verse that highlights that Jesus is more than just a man. (v.36) That He is God through the use of the word Lord. But it still makes no claim that understanding this truth is necessary for someone to accept Jesus. This is not to say that this very truth can not be what compels someone to come to Christ as occured in this instance in Acts. This is the very argument that some make for speaking in tongues being the sign that you have been saved. Because there are examples of this happening when people became believers in Acts. Yet a wholistic approach shows us that not all believers will speak in tongues so how can we use it as a basis for someone being saved?
I am seriously looking for a scripture that backs up the idea that our proper understanding or Theology of God or Christ is a basis for our salvation. We teach this concept to people without backing it up. I want to know the truth, not just what we think is the truth. And the truth will be backed up by scripture.
What separates Jesus as the only way to salvation for you if it is not that he can indeed forgive sins by being God?
I think in the holistic sense of scripture understanding the messiah going to the jews you see very clearly that it is very critical that Jesus is God and able to forgive our sins which is necessary for the Jews to understand in order to accept Christ. those who couldn't believe this didn't accept christ. the whole of scripture proves this and there is no need for one magic verse to tell the Jews that. Why do the gospels focus so much on his Lordship and being the Christ if this is not the critical step for the Jews to get to in order to accept Jesus. It seems like this argument is going to the place of you need an explicit verse when the whole of scripture is implicitly pointing to it.
I suppose theoretically what you are saying could be true: A person could put their trust and belief in Jesus for the Remission of Sin (singular) and not believe that he is God. However the practical implications of this would be that Jesus would be like the OT sacrafices and as soon as a person sinned since Jesus is finite he would have to die all over again for our sin. each time we subsequently sinned Jesus would have to die on the Cross, thus having Jesus not be God means he has to probably die millions of times each day for each individual sin. that is why we need Jesus to be infinite. As scripture tells us Jesus died once for all.
I am asking about what actually makes us Christian. We define groups as being Christian or non-Christian based on their Theology (understanding of God or Christ) yet it is not our Theology that saves us. So either our proper understanding of Christ's sacrifice is essential for our salvation or God is able to save us by Christ's sacrifice even if we don't really understand it.
You are saying that we must have a proper understanding or our Faith and how it all works between Jesus and the Father or the person is following the wrong Jesus. But does the New Testament teach us this? Did Paul write to Churches and tell them they were following the wrong Jesus or did he teach them the truth about Jesus and shed light on the false teachings that they were hearing and believing?
Does understanding and knowledge about God come after acceptance or before? If it is before then our Theology must be correct for our acceptance of Christ to have value. If understanding can come after then Christs sacrifice can be valid and then the believer can begin to see the truth. But for them to see the truth they need to be taught the truth. If they are hearing false teachings it should be expected for them to believe false things about Christ. I see Paul writing to clear up false teachings to Churches, not declaring those believers to be outside of the flock, but believers being led astray by false teachings.
But hey, I could be completley wrong. :)
If someone believes the following are they a Christian?
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." —John 3:16 (NIV)
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." —Romans 3:23 (NIV)
"For the wages of sin is death." —Romans 6:23 (NIV)
"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." —Romans 5:8 (NIV)
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." —Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)
"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." —Revelation 3:20 (NIV)
"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." —John 1:12 (NIV)
These are the most common verses that are used to share the Gospel message to someone.
You are saying that someone who accepts Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins but does not understand that Jesus is God has somehow placed their faith in a different Jesus. Seems to me that they need more teaching rather than to meet a different Jesus.
I believe you are placing a belief that Jesus is God as a central core piece of knowledge for someone to be a follower of Christ. But I must question if any specific piece of knowledge is what makes us followers of Christ. If so, then which ones? How do I know I have the proper understanding or piece of knowledge to make me a true follower? Or should I base my understanding of who a follower of Jesus is by his sacrifice and not my own understanding?
I believed that Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses were not Christian even a few weeks ago. But as I am reading through the New Testament I am seeing that the Gospel is far more simple than we make it out to be. And I am no longer certain that traditionally 'heretical' beliefs disqualify someone from being a follower of Christ. This is not to say those beliefs are any more valid or true, but I can't seem to see how those beliefs or bits of understanding disqualify someone from being a follower of Christ. Is Jesus sacrifice big enough to cover even our sin of believing false things to be true, even about God?
I can't help but reply! Your central theme seems to be that a christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Good and true, but I think the problem that begins to emerge is what does this look like, how is it expressed. The difficulty it seems that you are having is that even those who are often considered heretical groups call themselves followers of jesus christ. Two thoughts, 1. Even Jesus said that some would call on him lord, lord, and he would respond that he never knew them. 2. How well do I have to follow Jesus Christ to be a Christian? If I say that I follow Muhammed, Budha, or some other person how closely do I have to align with them to truly be a follower of them? I think this question emerges when you use the broad definition of a christian as a follower of JC. Some 80-90% of americans call themselves christians, but look, and act little like JC, even those in the church sometimes don't look and act like JC. This isn't a question of theology, but rather of living out and acting like Christ, believing like he believed, believing what he believed about himself, not theology, but Christology! I'm not a very good follower if I don't believe what he did right, or even what he believed about himself. This puts JC as central, what he thought and did central, and if a Christian is a follower of JC then these things must be central, otherwise I can make Jesus into whoever and whatever I want and say I am a follower of his with the bits and pieces I have taken of him and be okay.
I am talking about those who do believe in Jesus Christ have accepted him and place their salvation in His hands. Yet they believe things that are not true about Jesus or about God the Father. For example the Trinity, or Jesus divinity. Is it these false things that disqualify some from being 'Christian'? That sounds rather Gnostic. If so how can we then claim to be saved if we too have some false understanding or belief about God? I would argue that it is Jesus sacrifice that saves us and not our fully accurate understanding of that sacrifice. We are called to accept his sacrificet, not to fully understand it. How can we make an argument that we must have proper Theology when we know that it is not our Theology or understanding of God that saves us?
I am not saying that a false belief is in any way valid or true. But I am seriously questioning what truly makes a Christian a Christian. It is either very simple and many people can be considered Christian, even those who hold to some false beliefs. Or there is far more to being a Follower of Christ.
So this goes back to the original question. Who is a Christian? or Who is a Christ Follower? How can we define this? The definitions that are commonly held to would not disqualify some 'heretical' groups. So either our definition is not correct, or our acceptance of other followers of Christ is flawed.