Are Mormons Christians?

[robtex]

How does it not make an adjective meaningless if said adjective can be applied to EVERYTHING, even opposite characteristics? Adjectives are just as important for what they exclude as what they include. For example, going back to short. I am tall in part because I am not short. I am Christian not only because of what I believe but what I don't believe. If the meaning of the adjective "christian" rested on a mutable, subjective, and ofttimes contradictory statement as "Christians are whoever chooses to call themselves a Christian" the word becomes meaninless because adjectives, inherent in adjectivity (if that's a word), describe what things aren't as much as what they are.

you are equating broad to meaningless. I am saying that the idea of christian is broad enough that any idea taken from the dozens of bibles and hundreds of denmoninations, which I hope you understand already exist, and none of them are identical,make qualifying and easily accessible idea. If one was found merit in one or more ideas than it couldn't be meaningless since that one idea would have meaning to them.

Look at this forum alone. Christianity has the largest, by far number of subdivisions and we haven't even named them all. Obviously what quaifies as a christan is, by the christians themselves, and extremely broad term. However, the one and only common characteristic between all of them is that they found or attached meaning to one idea they found to be christian, which again may be seen as unchristian by another christian group.

I would be bold enough to state one wouldn't even have to believe in a creator, and could only accept the parts of the bible on philosophical grounds (ie they make good moral stories but are'nt really true stories) and still make the cut as a christian. There really are not disqualifiers to christianty as a whole (as opposed to a specific denomination) except that merit is found in at least one idea of one of the hundreds of denominations of christianty. The splits are so broad and wide that the current groups, even if there aren't any new groups on the horizon (which they likely are), are very diverse on everything from how to interpret the bible (inherent vs inspired) to which bible is the "right bible" That doesn't make it meaningless but rather the meaning varies, or is broad, from group to group.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Mormons are Christians in as much that they believe in Jesus as the savior and live a life of following Him.

In certain beliefs they stray from the confines of Christianity in my opinion.

what he said.

 

[bible truth]

Hi Katzpur and other Mormon friends,

Yes, you are right to call Mormons Christians because you follow the teachings of Jesus created by “The Church of Latter Day Saints” through extra-biblical revelation (Book of Mormon, Doctrines & Covenants). However, “The Church of Latter Day Saints” follows a different Jesus than the biblical Jesus revealed in the Bible alone (see 2 Cor 11 below). The Mormon Church also believes in a different gospel than what can be found in the Bible alone. The Mormon Church worships a different god than the God revealed in the Bible alone. The Mormon Church preaches a different gospel than the Apostle Paul. The Mormon Church has changed the gospel found in the Scripture alone through revelation from Angel Moroni (see Galatians 1 below). When an organization adds to the Bible, they will always create a different faith, different Jesus, different God, and a different Gospel that is proclaimed by biblical revelation alone.

Historical Biblical Christianity proclaims that Jesus Christ is God in the Flesh. The Scripture also proclaims that Jesus Christ is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity.

The Westminster Confession of Faith – God and the Holy Trinity Chapter 2

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

2 Corinthians 11 -Paul and the False Apostles ​

I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way.

Galatians 1 - Different gospel​

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— and all the brothers with me,
To the churches in Galatia:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Yes, Mormons can call themselves Christians because they follow their own version of Jesus. The Mormon Church believes the Historical Biblical Christian church is apostate. I’m a Christian because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ who is revealed through the Bible alone.

The Mormon and Biblical Christians believe in a different Jesus, different gospel, and different God. Both belief systems are mutually exclusive of each other. The LDS Church and Bible Christians cannot both be right. Both Faiths can be wrong. One of the Faiths can be right. However, both cannot be right at the same time.

I wish church members of “The Church of the Latter Day Saints” would be honest with everyone. The Book of Mormon is considered to be more than another testament of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon changes the Jesus and gospel that are found in the Bible alone. We can debate which gospel is from God and which one is from an Angel of Light. But, please don’t deceive others that you are worshiping the same Jesus as Evangelical Christians. Proclaim the LDS faith and the restoration of the apostate Christian church. But, don’t deceive the readers on this site by blending “Historical Biblical Christianity” with “The Church of Latter Day Saints”. - BT

 

[nutshell]

I'll keep this short and simple. The Christ of the New Testament and the Christ of the Book of Mormon are the same Christ.

You claim they are different. The burden on you is to provide the support for your claim. Please share.

 

[bible truth]

Okay, so I already know the answer to the question.

A new poster by the name of Bible Truth, however, is of a different opinion, and has suggested that this question be debated by "all who have been granted spiritual ears to hear." If you believe the condition of your spiritual ears qualifies you, and you are interested in weighing in on this, please feel free.

Since Bible Truth asked me to start this thread for him, I hope he will be so kind as to begin by defining the term "Christian," as my definition clearly does not suit him. To the best of my knowledge, the Bible never actually makes a clear statement as to what a "Christian" is. Jesus did say, however, that men would know His disciples by the love they showed for one another. According to LDS belief, a Christian would be a person who believes that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God, who worships Him and looks to Him for salvation, and who strives to follow Christ's example in how he lives his life.

I would not presume to tell anyone who considers himself to be a Christian that he isn't one because he does not believe everything the Latter-day Saints do. I hope that Bible Truth will offer the Latter-day Saints the same courtesy. Otherwise, we might as well call off the debate entirely. This isn't, after all, a debate on "Are Mormons Lutheran?", "Are Mormons Catholic?", or "Are Mormons Baptist?"

Hi Katzpur and other Mormon friends,

If you can honestly agree with the two links to the Christian Faith, I will consider the Mormon Church to be another Christian denomination. Please study the two “Christian Statement of Faith” below and compare it with "The Church of Latter Day Saints Statement of Faith”. - BT

http://www.ligonier.org/thegospel_affirmations.php


http://www.t4g.org/T4TG-statement.pdf

 

[Prometheus]

I'll keep this short and simple. The Christ of the New Testament and the Christ of the Book of Mormon are the same Christ.

You claim they are different. The burden on you is to provide the support for your claim. Please share.

Nope. The LDS religion was organized after the other religions were established, so it is up to Mormons to prove things claimed about their gospel. Not the other way around.

 

[nutshell]

Nope. The LDS religion was organized after the other religions were established, so it is up to Mormons to prove things claimed about their gospel. Not the other way around.

In regards to the thread, Bible Truth posted after.

 

[s2a]

Heelo Aqualung,

When I said:

Hmmm. Would you object to a revised wording of robtex's sentiment, if it were expressed in this way (so that we might preserve the integrity of language before tossing all words aside as meaningless)?

You impotently replied:

I would object to you revising robtex's words for him.

Cheap dodge on your part.
As you well know, I do not presume to speak on robtex's editorial behalf. robtex has voluminous capacities of self-expression that require no aid or assistance from me.

I offered as prospective enhancement:
"I accept a self-identification/declaration from any person claiming to be a Christian, to therefore be a Christian from/within their own understanding of Christian teachings/beliefs."

You said:

I don't understand that.

OK. Which part don't you understand? Please be specific, as you deem yourself a master of parsimony. Please evince the expertise of your deconstructing capacities, instead of just playing dumb.

I inquired:
Are you in the habit of challenging other's in their faith-based declarations of self?

Yes. I am in the habit of challenging everybody in every way when they use words improperly (for example, I challenged Luke Wolf in his definition of Anarchist earlier today). People can call themselves whatever they want. I don't deny that some people may feel good calling themselves christian or calling mormons un christian. I will allow them to that. But they are wrong, and in the process of being wrong, they make the word meaningless.

I would suggest that your understanding/implication of "wrong" is purely subjective, and presents no substantiative objective merit on it's face. Your personalized estimations (ie, opinions) are boring and immaterial, lacking any compelling support.

I inquired:
How about self-identified Pagans? Satanists? Bahá'í? Do you really grill them on their adherence and piety in measured evaluation first, in order to accept their sectarian claim as being genuine (or at least earnest and sincere)?

You said:

I don't grill beliefs - I grill terminology. I grill on the basis of semantics.

OK. Please then refine (or obviate) the semantics of the given claim, "I am a Pagan". Wherein shall we search/identify the failed terminology of such a claim?

I inquired:
How would you know that I'm really an atheist?

I don't. But if make the following claims:

1: I am an atheist.
2: I believe in God.

Then I would debate you on that point, because atheists cannot believe in God.

Well, that's just stupid. Obviously, I have never presented such a dichotomous claim of/for myself (within RF), so your strawman contritely collapses before it can even be felled by your feathers of fallacious failings.

I don't care about YOUR belief or lack thereof. I don't even care if you're an atheist or not. What I care about is the fact that you are redefining a word such to make it completely meaningless.

Which word have I "redefined"? Have I even sought to define the word "Christian"? I would not propose such a qualification, but I would reference a few "word sources" if I chose to advance such a qualified definition, like:

Christian--
"..the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus. It was first used at Antioch. The names by which the disciples were known among themselves were "brethren," "the faithful," "elect," "saints," "believers." But as distinguishing them from the multitude without, the name "Christian" came into use, and was universally accepted. This name occurs but three times in the New Testament (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16)."
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Christian:
adjective.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

Christian
noun.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Christian
adjective.
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike
5. decent; respectable
6. human; not brutal; humane

noun.
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

NOW...as you are a self-appointed enforcer of specific word meanings and semantics, please illustrate the fatal flaws inherent within these lent (above) definitions that serve to support your perspective.

You absurdly proposed:

If atheism is allowed to cover both belief in deity and non-belief in deity, there is no point in the word existing, because it doesn't define anything.

There is no valid presented dilemma in an argument borne of false choice (an "either-or"), especially when the premise is an invented one bearing a uncanny resemblance to a scarecrow.
Atheism does not predeterminably preclude any/all access or understanding as to myth, legend, superstition, or any religious claims of estimable fact. This is where faith-based adherents fail in their protestations and argumentations. Acceptance of a claim (on face value) is not requisite to an understanding of a claim (on it's provisional merits alone).

It's not about people or beliefs. It's about words, and the invalidation of words that comes from such broad definitions.

And so, you are again invited to present your own (unique?) definition in challenge/augmentation, or even [as] replacement, of the referenced sources quoted above.
Be bold.
Narrow the bandwidth.
Be specific.
Dare to propose your own unequivocal definition of the word "Christian".
Buck the system.
Share your most unique insight and revealed wisdom with the rest of us, if you might grace us with such.

Out of complete context, you cited me as saying:
Tolerance of differing religious beliefs

You are confusing the issues. I am not intolerant.

No, I'm not. I did not say you were intolerant. I only outlined what an intolerant perspective entails. If you felt that my observation encompassed your perspective, then that's your millstone to wear.

I don't care what you believe. I care that you are abusing words.

I feel so...dirty...

People can believe what they want; they just have to realise that calling their belief something it isn't does an injustice to words and language.

Or perhaps you might consider concerning yourself more in your own redemption/salvation, and less in the machinations/identities of others...it's just a thought...

I said:
Obviously, you are of the opinion that not all claimants of "Christian beliefs" are necessarily "Christians". But yours is not an argument of definition (or words), so much as a personalized position of testified and practiced faith.

That's where you're wrong. It's all about definitions.

Cool. Again, you are invited to suffer us all with your "definitive" definition of a real/true" Christian. Maybe then, we'll all have a solid foundation from which to positively identify/discredit any and all claimants of self-identified "Christian" belief.

I said:
As a self-identified "LDS Christian" yourself, I should think you would be especially cautious in disqualifying alternate understandings/revelations within any self-identified Christian sect as being illegitimate, or unworthy.

You said:

Why do you think that?

Are you playing dumb, or does this simple observation truly escape your understanding?

I said:
But hey...I'm an atheist...and I really don't care. ;-)

You offered conspicuous challenge in saying:

Well, I hope you care enough to have the respect to respond to my response, instead of just throwing out a perfectly debatable point with no intention of debating.

Oh please. When have I ever run away from a debatable point in RF?
You are not the first to cast such vague aspersions, and you will not be the last. Innuendo is not evidence, and vapid/fallacious argument is poor defense of any asserted position.

I have offered you the courtesy of pointed reply. I might hope that you would extend similar courtesy in return.

I will even allow your opinion as being one of a believing "Christian". How's that for parity and fair play?

 

[bible truth]

I'll keep this short and simple. The Christ of the New Testament and the Christ of the Book of Mormon are the same Christ.

You claim they are different. The burden on you is to provide the support for your claim. Please share.

Read the Bible. Then read the Book of Mormon. And for emphasis, read the Quran.
If you do this, you will get three different Jesus’. Which one is the living and true Jesus Christ?

1. Christian Jesus - God incarnate, the 2nd person in the Godhead (Trinity)

2. Mormon Jesus - Created being who is the spirit brother of Lucifer.

3. Islamic Jesus - Created being who was a great prophet, but Mohammed was a greater prophet than Jesus.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It's been my experience that, per capita, Mormons are better Chistians than most other demoninations that profess to be Christian. After all, didn't Jesus say that you know them by their fruits?

 

[s2a]

Read the Bible. Then read the Book of Mormon. And for emphasis, read the Quran.
If you do this, you will get three different Jesus’. Which one is the living and true Jesus Christ?

1. Christian Jesus - God incarnate, the 2nd person in the Godhead (Trinity)

2. Mormon Jesus - Created being who is the spirit brother of Lucifer.

3. Islamic Jesus - Created being who was a great prophet, but Mohammed was a greater prophet than Jesus.

I have read all textual iterations (repetitively).

If I answer, "none of the above", what am I then? Could I yet be a Christian even if I did not ardently support/ascribe to the three qualified premises lent above?

Why, or why not?

 

[s2a]

s2a >: (

I remain a constant disappointment to my anonymous fans.

Somehow, I trudge along, both confident and unconcerned.

But hey, minimalist input will be regarded for what it offers in earned circumspection...

*yawn*

 

[James the Persian]

I’m a Christian because I am a disciple of Jesus Christ who is revealed through the Bible alone.

Really? I beg to differ. If you believe in the Bible alone, why did you offer this quotation?

The Westminster Confession of Faith – God and the Holy Trinity Chapter 2

3. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

That is not from the Bible and, to compound matters still further, the doctrine of the filioque (the part I underlined and italicised) cannot be derived from the Bible alone. To make matters even worse, the early Church didn't believe this at all as it is a unilateral and uncanonical addition to the Creed made in 6th century Spain and contradicts the Creed as originally written.

Clearly you don't believe in the Bible alone, and even if you did, how would that make you more Christian than those who do not? After all, there wasn't even a Bible to believe in 'alone' for several centuries and absolutely nobody held to belief in it alone until the Reformation - 1500+ years of Christians are an awful lot of people to condemn for not adhering to a doctrine (sola scriptura), that they'd never heard of.

I'd reiterate what one of our RC members previously wrote about those not against us being for us and if I were you I'd be a lot less hasty to judge another's faith. I'm sure that Christ knows who follows Him no matter how few or how many heresies they espouse and I'm quite certain that nobody will be damned for having an incorrect understanding of the nature of God (or we're all probably doomed - how can created ever really understand Creator?).

Whilst I disagree with much of what they believe, I am certain that Mormons are doing their best to follow Christ and I certainly couldn't say they aren't Christian as a result. Although, if I did, to be consistent, I'd have to deny you the title Christian too. After all, you obviously believe in a different God to me and the Ecumenical Councils, don't you? (As opposed to the filioque being a different view of the same God, which is what I would actually describe it as).

James

 

[SoyLeche]

Read the Bible. Then read the Book of Mormon. And for emphasis, read the Quran.

Just curious, (and maybe you have answered in a different thread - I haven't been checking the forum much).

Have you actually read the Book of Mormon? I somehow doubt it. I have the feeling that what you are actually wanting is for people "Read the Bible. Then read some website that I found that describes Mormon beliefs. And for empahsis, read some other website that describes Muslim beliefs". If I am wrong, I appologize.

(hint - the BoM says NOTHING about Christ being a "created being" or the "spirit brother of Lucifer")

Also, reading the Book of Mormon is only a part of the equation for Mormons. What you should acutally do is read the Bible AND the Book of Mormon. We believe them both to be scripture, and one is not greater than the other (although one has had less "lost in translation").

 

[bible truth]

Just curious, (and maybe you have answered in a different thread - I haven't been checking the forum much).

Have you actually read the Book of Mormon? I somehow doubt it. I have the feeling that what you are actually wanting is for people "Read the Bible. Then read some website that I found that describes Mormon beliefs. And for empahsis, read some other website that describes Muslim beliefs". If I am wrong, I appologize.

(hint - the BoM says NOTHING about Christ being a "created being" or the "spirit brother of Lucifer")

Also, reading the Book of Mormon is only a part of the equation for Mormons. What you should acutally do is read the Bible AND the Book of Mormon. We believe them both to be scripture, and one is not greater than the other (although one has had less "lost in translation").

Here is the official website of the LDS Church for all to read. I suggest that others read sites beyond the offiical LDS site:

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg

Hi SoyLeche,

I'm 46 years old and professed the Biblical Christ at 18 years old. However, I believe I was actually granted salvation in my late twenties. Over the years, I have spoken to many Mormon young missionaries, older LDS elders, and many friends who are of the LDS Faith. I have had numerous copies of the Book of Mormon throughout the years. I also worked for as a Real Estate Appraiser. The owner of the company was Mormon and all the other Real Estate Appraisers were of the Mormon Faith. The office secretary and I was the only non-Mormon employee. I also have roots from Hawaii and have seen various Mormons come out of Mormonism and embraced the historical Biblical Jesus.

I also used to participate in an evangelical door to door ministry. One of my Christian friends used to carry the Mormon quad (4 books in one?) when we went door to door. God gave me a greater passion for learning about Roman Catholicism than Mormonism. I consider both institutions to be the mission field. I believe there are converted Roman Catholics that are truly united to Christ. I believe Mormonism is in another category than Roman Catholicism. Therefore, I am not ignorant about the damnable doctrines of Mormonism. I hope we can discuss the various doctrines that do not line-up with the historical biblical Jesus (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholicism). - BT

 

[Aqualung]

you are equating broad to meaningless.

I know. Once something is so broad that it can encompass everything (ie, once the only criteria is a declaration) then it is meaningless.

I am saying that the idea of christian is broad enough that any idea taken from the dozens of bibles and hundreds of denmoninations, which I hope you understand already exist, and none of them are identical,make qualifying and easily accessible idea.

Of course I understand that, but that's not the quetsion. You are raising straw men.

Obviously what quaifies as a christan is, by the christians themselves, and extremely broad term.

Wow, I'm seeing a lot of is/ought problems lately. The fact that this board IS a certain way in no way entitles anybody to logically make a statement about the way Christian OUGHT to be defined. You can't have factual premeses and make a perscriptive conclusion.

I would be bold enough to state one wouldn't even have to believe in a creator, and could only accept the parts of the bible on philosophical grounds (ie they make good moral stories but are'nt really true stories) and still make the cut as a christian.

Now you are broadening it even more, and making it more meaningless. If everybody is a Christina, there is no point in having this word, because it doesn't set anybody apart. The only point in having words is to distinguish things from other things. If Christian doesn't distinguish, it's meaningless.

 

[SoyLeche]

Here is the official website of the LDS Church for all to read. I suggest that others read sites beyond the offiical LDS site:

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg

Hi SoyLeche,

I'm 46 years old and professed the Biblical Christ at 18 years old. However, I believe I was actually granted salvation in my late twenties. Over the years, I have spoken to many Mormon young missionaries, older LDS elders, and many friends who are of the LDS Faith. I have had numerous copies of the Book of Mormon throughout the years. I also worked for as a Real Estate Appraiser. The owner of the company was Mormon and all the other Real Estate Appraisers were of the Mormon Faith. The office secretary and I was the only non-Mormon employee. I also have roots from Hawaii and have seen various Mormons come out of Mormonism and embraced the historical Biblical Jesus.

I also used to participate in an evangelical door to door ministry. One of my Christian friends used to carry the Mormon quad (4 books in one?) when we went door to door. God gave me a greater passion for learning about Roman Catholicism than Mormonism. I consider both institutions to be the mission field. I believe there are converted Roman Catholics that are truly united to Christ. I believe Mormonism is in another category than Roman Catholicism. Therefore, I am not ignorant about the damnable doctrines of Mormonism. I hope we can discuss the various doctrines that do not line-up with the historical biblical Jesus (Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholicism). - BT

With all due respect, you didn't answer my question.

 

[Aqualung]

Heelo Aqualung,

When I said:


You impotently replied:

:biglaugh: It was just a joke, brother. I then went on to answer, after all.

OK. Which part don't you understand? Please be specific, as you deem yourself a master of parsimony. Please evince the expertise of your deconstructing capacities, instead of just playing dumb.

You make me out to be more wiley than I am. I just don't understand it; I'm not playing dumb. I think I managed to answer it anyway as the debate wore on.

I would suggest that your understanding/implication of "wrong" is purely subjective,

So be it. I think everything is subjective. Heck, I might not even exist, after all. It's not really a practicle standpoint from which to act, though, in my opinion.

Your personalized estimations (ie, opinions) are boring and immaterial, lacking any compelling support.

:biglaugh: You're awesome. But, again, this is a thread asking for people's opinions on the meaning of Christian. It's ALL opinion, and it's ALL subjective. If you don't like it, leave.

OK. Please then refine (or obviate) the semantics of the given claim, "I am a Pagan". Wherein shall we search/identify the failed terminology of such a claim?

What?

Well, that's just stupid.

Thanks. But if you can't carry on a debate without criticising so superficially, I don't think I'll really have anything to debate with you at all.

I have to go to class. I'll get to the rest of this later.

 

[michel]

Maybe we should also consider looking at the following criteria. Which of them do you all think should figure in?

1. Belief in Christ as the Son of God and as the Savior.
2. Acceptance of certain doctrines (i.e. the Trinity, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Predestination).
3. Having received water baptism.
4. Having been "born again".
5. Attending a Christian Church.
6. Seeing ones self as a Christian.

From my perspective, I would list 1. and 6. as the "base requirements" - anything else is a "plus".

Are Mormons Christians ? Yes, of course you are; I have never understood why people have tried to say otherwise..

There is a LDS church just down our road; I am plucking up courage - one day - to going in to "sample the atmosphere"- very sadly, the local Anglican church is "dry" and doesn't feel at all welcoming - which is why I rarely go there.

 

[bible truth]

Really? I beg to differ. If you believe in the Bible alone, why did you offer this quotation?

That is not from the Bible and, to compound matters still further, the doctrine of the filioque (the part I underlined and italicised) cannot be derived from the Bible alone. To make matters even worse, the early Church didn't believe this at all as it is a unilateral and uncanonical addition to the Creed made in 6th century Spain and contradicts the Creed as originally written.

Clearly you don't believe in the Bible alone, and even if you did, how would that make you more Christian than those who do not? After all, there wasn't even a Bible to believe in 'alone' for several centuries and absolutely nobody held to belief in it alone until the Reformation - 1500+ years of Christians are an awful lot of people to condemn for not adhering to a doctrine (sola scriptura), that they'd never heard of.

I'd reiterate what one of our RC members previously wrote about those not against us being for us and if I were you I'd be a lot less hasty to judge another's faith. I'm sure that Christ knows who follows Him no matter how few or how many heresies they espouse and I'm quite certain that nobody will be damned for having an incorrect understanding of the nature of God (or we're all probably doomed - how can created ever really understand Creator?).

Whilst I disagree with much of what they believe, I am certain that Mormons are doing their best to follow Christ and I certainly couldn't say they aren't Christian as a result. Although, if I did, to be consistent, I'd have to deny you the title Christian too. After all, you obviously believe in a different God to me and the Ecumenical Councils, don't you? (As opposed to the filioque being a different view of the same God, which is what I would actually describe it as).

James

Hi James,

I think we may have a different understanding of Sola Scriptura. The Westminster Confession is the reformation confession. God brought out the truth of Sola Scriptura during the protestant reformation. The real issue is about final authority resting with Scripture Alone as compared to creeds, councils, and confessions. The Westminster Confession also states this same principle as yielding to Scripture authority. I believe creeds and councils are reactions to heresy attacking the church. They are responses to false teachings inside the church. Do you agree? I embrace the historical creeds and councils that defend the truths defined in Scripture alone. I reject the councils that contradict the Scriptures. For example, I reject the "Council of Trent" because it is non-scriptural in what Trent proclaimed. The Council of Trent’s numerous anathemas are aimed at Biblical truths of the Christian gospel. Therefore, by the light of Scripture, The Council of Trent is rejected from being from God.

Christianity is confessional by nature, consisting of doctrine about God Himself, redemptive history, what He expects of His creatures, etc... I believe some contemporary Christians like to proclaim no creeds but Christ. When contemporary Christians proclaim "no creeds but Christ", that have developed a brand new creed…lol. I embrace the lessons and truths revealed through Church History!

Yes, I embrace the truth of Sola Scriptura as final authority regarding the Christian Faith and practice. I reject the idea of the Roman Catholic Magestrium is binding over Scripture alone. I embrace all historical creeds and confession that defend Biblical truth.

James, are you of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Being from America, I have not had a chance to understand the distinctive of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I believe the three branches of Christendom (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism) have the same Christ. All three Christian communities have converted sinners that have been truly united to Christ.

I believe Mormonism is outside the orthodoxy of the Christian Faith. How much Mormon doctrine do you know? How do you determine who the mission field is and who you can embrace as Christian brothers and sisters? - BT