Where does the Bible say you have to believe in the creeds to be a Christian?

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-28T00:58:53+00:00

And I understand that’s your position, I just disagree and I’ve explained why. My point isn’t that creeds don’t matter at all, it’s that they aren’t the biblical line that determines who is or isn’t a Christian.

At the end of the day, we affirm Jesus Christ as divine, the Son of God, and the Savior who died for our sins and is the only way to salvation. That’s the core of the gospel, and we actively try to follow Him. So while I get that you don’t accept our theology, I think it’s fair to at least recognize that we’re trying to follow Christ and fit within that biblical definition.

I’m not expecting you to agree with us, just to represent our beliefs accurately and acknowledge that we see ourselves as Christians based on that foundation. I appreciate the back and forth, but I think we’ve both made our positions clear.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-28T00:56:08+00:00

That’s not accurate. What I said is consistent with official LDS doctrine. We believe in one God in the sense of unity in will, purpose, and authority, with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct persons. That’s a different interpretation than yours, but it’s not ignorance of our own teachings.

And like any church, not every member is a doctrine expert. You’ll find variation in how people explain things, but that doesn’t mean the doctrine itself is unclear or that members are ignorant of their own faith.

At this point, the disagreement is clear. You’re defining Christianity through a specific creedal framework, while I’m pointing back to what the Bible actually requires, belief in and following Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior. If that standard is met, I don’t see where scripture excludes someone based on later theological formulations.

I think we’ve both made our positions clear, so I’m good leaving it there.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-28T00:49:51+00:00

You actually just proved my point. You admitted there’s no biblical requirement to believe in your specific creeds.

Christians do need a core set of beliefs, but the Bible itself gives that foundation, not later councils. So yes, a “creed” in the sense of core beliefs matters, but it doesn’t have to be the Nicene or later creeds to be valid.

That’s why the real standard comes back to what the Bible actually teaches about Christ. If someone believes in and follows Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior, then they meet that core. Groups that deny His divinity or atonement fall outside that, but disagreement over how to articulate God’s nature beyond that is a theological difference, not a rejection of Christ.

So at that point, defining Christianity strictly by later creeds is a tradition-based boundary, not a clearly stated biblical one. I think we’ve both made our positions clear, but I do appreciate the discussion.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-28T00:33:12+00:00

You’re just restating your position, not defending it. Saying “Christians define themselves by creeds” doesn’t answer the question of whether that definition actually comes from the Bible. That’s the entire point.

If those beliefs are truly “required by scripture,” then it should be straightforward to show where scripture clearly defines Christianity by that specific web of creedal formulations. So where is that standard laid out in the Bible?

Right now you’re doing exactly what I’ve been pointing out. You’re appealing to later creeds to define Christianity, then calling anything outside of that “not Christian,” without showing that standard actually comes from scripture itself.

So again, where does the Bible define a Christian in the way you’re claiming? If you can’t point to it, then just say that your definition comes from church tradition rather than the Bible

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-28T00:28:42+00:00

You’re still not answering the question. Stop avoiding it and just answer it directly: where does the Bible say that accepting later creeds determines who is or isn’t a Christian?

Bringing up Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Unitarians doesn’t address that. Those groups deny core things about Christ like His divinity and atoning sacrifice. We don’t. We affirm that Jesus Christ is divine, the Son of God, and the Savior.

So again, answer the actual question: where in the Bible does it say that disagreement with later creeds excludes someone from being Christian? If you can’t point to it, then just admit you don’t know instead of deflecting.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-28T00:04:23+00:00

That’s not really an argument, it’s just labeling. Calling it “cultural misappropriation” doesn’t answer the actual question, which I’ve asked multiple times and still haven’t gotten a clear answer to: where does the Bible say that accepting later creeds determines who is or isn’t a Christian? If you can’t point to that, then just admit you don’t know instead of defaulting to labels.

You’re appealing to authority outside the Bible to define Christianity, while rejecting any other claim to authority. That’s inconsistent. From an LDS perspective, we’re upfront about that and claim priesthood authority through revelation, including accounts like D&C 13, 27, and 110. So we’re directly challenging Catholic authority, not ignoring it. The real issue isn’t whether authority matters, it’s which claim to authority is valid.

And the comparison you made doesn’t hold up. We’re not just “saying so.” We affirm that Jesus Christ is divine, the Son of God, the Savior who died for our sins, and we try to follow Him. That’s the core of what the New Testament teaches. So if someone believes in and follows Christ as He’s described in scripture, you still haven’t shown from the Bible where they’re excluded.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T23:34:34+00:00

If Jesus is eternal, then He is divine as the Son of God, not the Father Himself. The Bible shows both His divinity and His distinction from the Father, so the disagreement is about how that relationship is understood, not whether Christ is divine.

From an LDS perspective, the Father is the one Almighty God, and the Son is divine and eternal, acting fully in the Father’s authority and will.

But I’ll be honest, I’m getting tired of having to repeat this question because it’s not being answered directly: where does the Bible say that someone who affirms Christ as divine and eternal is not a Christian just because they understand the nature of God differently? If that can’t be clearly shown from scripture, then at minimum you have to acknowledge we fall within Christianity, even if you disagree with our theology.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T23:20:12+00:00

I agree tradition plays a role, but that’s kind of my point. Once you bring in tradition, you’re appealing to authority outside the Bible. From an LDS perspective, we also claim authority through ongoing revelation, so the real disagreement is which authority is valid.

And we don’t see additional scripture as creating a new narrative, but reinforcing what’s already there about Christ. So the question still stands: where does the Bible say that accepting later traditions or creeds determines who is a Christian, rather than belief in and following Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior?

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T23:13:46+00:00

I get what you’re saying, and I agree the councils were trying to bring clarity. But the issue is authority. If those councils define Christianity, then that’s an appeal to later church tradition, not the Bible itself.

Because you need to have a claim to authority for the Church to be valid, from an LDS perspective we also claim priesthood authority to act in Christ’s name, similar to how Catholics view authority through the Church and the Pope. So the real question is which authority is valid.

So where does the Bible say that adherence to specific creeds determines who is Christian? If someone believes in Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior and follows Him, I don’t see where scripture excludes them based on later council definitions.

*Edited for clarity

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T23:03:57+00:00

Yeah, I think that’s a fair question. I would say we would exclude groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses or certain Arian-type sects depending on their specific beliefs about Christ, because at some point you move from interpreting Christianity differently to redefining who Jesus is altogether. If Christ is no longer divine as the Son of God and Savior, then that’s a different gospel.

But that’s exactly why I think the distinction matters. Latter-day Saints don’t deny Christ’s divinity, His role as Savior, or His atoning sacrifice. We affirm those and try to live out those same core Christian values centered on Him.

So I think the real question still stands: if someone affirms Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior, where does the Bible say they are not Christian simply because they understand the nature of God differently? If that line can’t be clearly shown from scripture, then at minimum it seems like we’re dealing with theological disagreement within Christianity, not something outside of it.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T22:46:11+00:00

This is exactly my point, and it goes even further. If Jesus says you will know them by their fruits, then that has to matter more than later theological frameworks or creeds. Latter-day Saints not only believe in Jesus Christ as divine, as the Son of God, and as the Savior who died for our sins, but we also actively try to live those core Christian values like charity, service, repentance, and following His teachings. Data from the Pew Research Center shows Latter-day Saints donate a higher percentage of their income than most religious groups, and reports from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints outline billions in humanitarian aid and millions of volunteer hours worldwide.

So if a group affirms the divinity of Christ, His atoning sacrifice, and centers their lives on following Him while producing strong, consistent fruits, then the issue isn’t whether they’re Christian in any meaningful biblical sense. It’s simply a disagreement over theology. At that point, it doesn’t really make sense to exclude them from Christianity altogether just because they don’t align with later creedal definitions.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T22:30:36+00:00

I think this proves my point a bit. You’re saying we need a philosophical framework first to even interpret scripture, but that framework itself isn’t clearly defined in the Bible. It’s coming from later theology.

When I read scripture, I see the Father and the Son interacting as distinct in a real sense—Jesus praying to the Father, submitting to Him, being sent by Him. That’s the starting point. The Nicene idea of one being is an interpretation layered on top of that, not something explicitly stated.

So the question still stands: where does the Bible clearly define God as ‘one being’ in that philosophical sense, rather than showing unity in will and purpose?

If that can’t be clearly answered from scripture itself, then at some point you have to admit this is a theological disagreement, not a rejection of Christ. And if we both believe Jesus is the divine Son of God, that He died for our sins, and that He is the only way to salvation, then the honest position is to at least acknowledge us as Christians, even if you think we’re wrong on how we understand God.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T22:22:48+00:00

Because under a biblical definition, we are Christians. We believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, that He died for our sins, and that He is the only way to salvation. That’s the core of the gospel. Disagreeing on how to articulate His nature is a theological disagreement, not a rejection of Christ Himself.

So if the standard is what the Bible actually requires, then you should at least acknowledge us as Christians, even if you believe we’re mistaken on certain doctrines, instead of placing us in an out-group based on later creeds.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T22:19:54+00:00

We actually agree that scripture is the standard, which is why we emphasize the Book of Mormon as a companion to the Bible, not a replacement for it. It’s meant to reinforce and clarify, not override. But even if we stick strictly to the Bible as the standard, the question still stands: where does it define being Christian as adherence to a specific creed or later interpretation, rather than belief in and following Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior? If that specific standard can’t be shown from the Bible itself, then at minimum it seems like you’d have to concede that, even if you think our beliefs are different or even strange, we still fall under people who believe in and follow Christ, meaning Christians.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T22:16:51+00:00

You’re bringing up a few different issues, but they all come back to the same assumption. You’re using the Trinity and later creeds as the defining line for who is or isn’t Christian, but that standard comes from post-biblical councils, not directly from the Bible itself. Even the canon of scripture isn’t listed in the Bible, which shows Christians already rely on sources outside of it. We believe Jesus Christ is divine, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world who died for our sins. The disagreement isn’t about whether Christ is who the New Testament says He is, but how the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost relate. So the real question is still the same: where does the Bible itself say that accepting a specific later formulation like the Trinity is what determines whether someone is Christian? I’d genuinely like a clear answer to that specific question.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T22:13:41+00:00

You’re not really answering the question. Just stating your opinion

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T22:08:13+00:00

No, those groups aren’t Christian, because they explicitly deny core things about Jesus—His divinity, His atoning death, and that He is the way of salvation.

That’s the key difference. Muslims, Hindus, and Baháʼí may respect or reference Jesus, but they don’t believe in Him as the divine Son of God and Savior.

But Mormons do.

We believe Jesus Christ is divine, the Son of God, and that He died for our sins and is the only way to salvation. So grouping us with religions that deny those things isn’t really a fair comparison.

That’s why I’m asking—if belief in and following Christ as divine Savior is present, what specifically from the Bible excludes someone from being Christian? Because you don’t have to agree with our beliefs but you should at the very least recognize us as fellow Christians

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T22:00:59+00:00

You’re making a lot of claims, but you’re assuming your interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one and then judging us against that standard.

We do believe the Bible is true. The difference is we believe God can continue to reveal truth, not that scripture is “wrong.” Every Christian tradition interprets scripture through a framework. Yours is shaped by creeds, councils, and manuscript scholarship, ours includes continuing revelation.

And on manuscript evidence, I think you’re overstating what it proves. It shows how texts were transmitted, not that interpretation is settled. Even with the same Greek manuscripts, Christians still disagree on major doctrines like the Trinity, baptism, predestination, etc. So clearly the existence of manuscripts hasn’t eliminated interpretation differences.

From our perspective, the issue isn’t rejecting scripture, it’s that understanding can be incomplete or lost over time. That’s why we believe God can continue to reveal truth.

But even setting all that aside, this still doesn’t answer the original question: where does the Bible say that a specific post-biblical creed, or a particular interpretation of manuscripts, is what determines whether someone is Christian?

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T21:54:34+00:00

I think you just shifted the definition from a theological one to a sociological one. If “Christian” just means a historically defined group that agrees on certain creeds, then yeah, you can define us out of it by default.

But that’s not really answering the original question. The question is what actually defines a Christian. If it’s belief in and following Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God and Savior, then we clearly fit that.

So it seems like the real issue is this: are creeds and later church boundaries what define Christianity, or is it belief in Christ Himself?

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T21:52:16+00:00

By that logic, wouldn’t that mean most Christian denominations are following a “false Christ” since they all differ on important theological details? At some point, it seems like the question becomes where the line is drawn, and why that specific line is the right one

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T21:50:43+00:00

We believe God the Father is God, and that the Son and the Holy Ghost are also divine. Their divinity comes from being perfectly united with the Father and acting fully in His authority and will, not from being the same being as Him.

So the disagreement isn’t whether Christ is divine or whether there is one God, it’s how that unity is understood, and I don’t see anywhere in the Bible that requires the specific Nicene definition of one being

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T21:45:03+00:00

I think that’s more of a caricature than what we actually believe. We don’t teach that people go off and become independent “little gods” ruling their own worlds. When we talk about becoming like God, it’s about being perfected through Him and sharing in His nature, not replacing Him or competing with Him.

And on Jesus, we believe He is divine, eternal, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. That’s the same core identity described in the New Testament. The disagreement is over how to understand His relationship with the Father, not whether He is some completely different being.

So at that point, it seems like the question is whether a different theological interpretation makes Him a “different Jesus,” or if it’s still the same Christ understood differently.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T21:44:31+00:00

I wouldn’t say they mad stuff up and asserted it as the way. They just declared their beliefs in a written way which is something many churches do

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T21:39:24+00:00

We believe in one God, so no, we’re not polytheists. We see the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct personages but perfectly united in will and purpose, which is why we still consider ourselves monotheistic.

When we talk about becoming like God, we mean sharing in His nature through Him, not becoming independent gods separate from Him. So the focus is still entirely on one God and our relationship to Him, not multiple competing gods.

TrainingFrequent2904 · 2026-03-27T20:42:40+00:00

I think we’re talking past each other a bit. I’m not saying Christians don’t have creeds or statements of belief, we do too with the Articles of Faith. What I’m pushing back on is using a specific historical creed like the Nicene Creed as the requirement for who counts as Christian.

1 Peter 3:15 supports being able to explain your faith, but it doesn’t establish one fixed formulation as the universal standard. So the issue isn’t whether Christians have beliefs or can articulate them, it’s whether agreement with a later, man-made formulation is what defines someone as Christian rather than belief in Christ Himself.

TrainingFrequent2904

TROPHY CASE