Is Mormonism a Christian faith?

lazygal

I've recently read a couple of books on the history of Mormonism and current followers. There's much mention of 'regular' gospel and the Book of Mormon. Is it a Christian faith? And why/why not?

martinedwards

Mormons say yes.

pretty much everyone else says no.

heres a fairly sane discussion.....

http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian

Benny_Cake

Good question, and a difficult one to answer definitively. On the surface, the LDS church is Christian in that it proclaims Jesus Christ as the son of God and Lord. However, as you have probably found out, it has some very unusual extra features which are radically different to historical Christianity, including as regards the nature of God. The concept of ancient Jewish tribes settling the Americas is pretty far out there for most non-Mormons, particularly given the lack of archaeological evidence after all this time. Of course, there have also been many misunderstandings too as to what Mormons believe (summarised in this very good article.

What is definitely the case is that Mormonism arose from a Christian context, uses much of the same language as mainstream Christians do, and while many of their beliefs are heterodox, there is no question that many Mormons love and follow Jesus as their Saviour with an intensity that would put many "orthodox" Christians to shame. I've met a few and I can honestly say they don't strike me as members of a cult, as some "counter-cult" organisations seem to think they are (although a number of groups in the US removed this designation when Mitt Romney was nominated as the Republican candidate for President - funny that). All in all, I think those of us who claim to follow Christ should probably spend more time looking at how we can be better disciples and less time trying to figure out who is "in" and who is "out" of the club.

philologos

I would say that it is based on Christianity, but due to additional teachings in the Book of Mormon / Doctrine and Covenants / The Pearl of Great Price I wouldn't say that it is orthodox Christianity.

totus tuus

From a Catholic perspective, Pope John Paul II officially declared that the baptism administered by Mormons is invalid, so no, they are not Christians.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

maguffin

totus tuus wrote: »

From a Catholic perspective, Pope John Paul II officially declared that the baptism administered by Mormons is invalid, so no, they are not Christians.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

Why? the link shows only the word 'Negative' as a response to the question....so what are the reasons??

From what I've read about Mormon baptism, they use similar terminology and whilst accepting that they do differ in that they immerse the person being baptised in water.
Their Baptism is seen as symbolic both of Jesus's death, burial and resurrection and is also symbolic of the baptized individual putting off of the natural or sinful man and becoming spiritually reborn as a disciple of Jesus.

Membership into a Latter Day Saint church is granted only by baptism whether or not a person has been raised in the Church.

When performing a baptism, the following instructions are followed:

"The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
"Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water."

Baptisms inside and outside the temples are usually done in a baptismal font, although, baptisms done outside the temples can be performed in any body of water in which the person may be completely immersed.

lmaopml

No, Mormons are not 'Orthodox' - that's fairly clear cut, I would imagine they would agree themselves - they have a 'new revelation' after Christ in the book of Mormon which started in the Americas, which I read many years ago, as a teen accepting a gift from a person who knocked on the door.

They have some beliefs that are not or very far from Orthodox, (Yikes ) but they do profess faith in Christ - and to be honest they, as Benny alludes would put most Christians to shame with how they adhere to that teaching - and they require a period of detachment from family in order to spread the faith in missionary work, which is a huge undertaking for any person if they are not quite ready.

Christian churches don't make those demands of every single family, but let the person choose how they can be effective in any community without laying down the path they should take..

In fairness, when I think of the Mormons I know, I 'smile' because they are really very cool people, I'm thinking specifically about the lovely Katie Taylor, who in my opinion as a Catholic is the bees knees and spiders ankles!

I think that possibly Jesus might agree - after all he is not bound by opinion, but has a much higher perspective.

I have a respect for the Mormons much like I do for the Quakers.

totus tuus

maguffin wrote: »

Why? the link shows only the word 'Negative' as a response to the question....so what are the reasons??

From what I've read about Mormon baptism, they use similar terminology and whilst accepting that they do differ in that they immerse the person being baptised in water.
Their Baptism is seen as symbolic both of Jesus's death, burial and resurrection and is also symbolic of the baptized individual putting off of the natural or sinful man and becoming spiritually reborn as a disciple of Jesus.

Membership into a Latter Day Saint church is granted only by baptism whether or not a person has been raised in the Church.

When performing a baptism, the following instructions are followed:

"The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
"Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water."

Baptisms inside and outside the temples are usually done in a baptismal font, although, baptisms done outside the temples can be performed in any body of water in which the person may be completely immersed.

They may use similar terminology but the 'intent' behind the baptism makes it invalid! The Mormon religion believe that there are 3 Gods, not one!

Do Mormons baptize with proper intent? No; for Mormons deny original sin, and that Jesus Christ established the sacrament of baptism, and that Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons in which subsists the one Godhead.

Rather they believe that they are three gods who form one divinity, that one is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372).

http://mattfradd.com/2013/01/09/is-mormonism-a-christian-religion/

lmaopml

I think that being a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints or the commonly known 'Mormons' is distinctive by how they see God in Scripture, and of course the Incarnate 'Word', and also the addition of the Book of Mormon too which colors this view with a new revelation...


From Wiki ( by no means exhaustive..or even trustworthy truth be told) but however:


In the Mormonism represented by most of Mormon communities (including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), "God" means Elohim (the Father), whereas "Godhead" means a council of three distinct gods; Elohim, Jehovah (the Son, or Jesus), and the Holy Spirit. The Father and Son have perfected, material bodies, while the Holy Spirit is a spirit and does not have a body. This conception differs from the traditional Christian Trinity; in Mormonism, the three persons are considered to be physically separate beings, or personages, but united in will and purpose.[1] As such, the term "Godhead" differs from how it is used in traditional Christianity. This description of God represents the orthodoxy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), established early in the 19th century. However, the Mormon concept of God has expanded since the faith's founding in the late 1820s.


Most early Latter Day Saints came from a Protestant background, believing in the doctrine of Trinity that had been developed during the early centuries of Christianity. Before about 1835, Mormon theological teachings were similar to that established view.[2] However, Smith's teachings regarding the nature of the Godhead developed during his lifetime, becoming most fully elaborated in the few years prior to his murder in 1844. Beginning as an unelaborated description of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as being "One", Smith taught that the Father and the Son were distinct personal members of the Godhead as early as 1832 (See D&C 76:12-24). Smith's public teachings later described the Father and Son as possessing distinct physical bodies, being one together with the Holy Ghost, not in material substance, but instead united in spirit, glory, and purpose–a view sometimes called social trinitarianism.[3]
[edit]Teachings in the 1820s and early 1830s

So, it's possibly pretty clear that the person of Jesus Christ and his divinity is not the same as what Christians see as fairly clear in the Gospels, or understand 'Jesus' to actually 'be'...

In Christianity, Orthodoxy is the earliest commonly held understanding as revealed by the Holy Spirit. Mormons are not Orthodox in this sense...

recedite

totus tuus wrote: »

The Mormon religion believe that there are 3 Gods, not one!
...that Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons in which subsists the one Godhead. Rather they believe that they are three gods who form one divinity, that one is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony /

Eh.. What's the difference here? Would you deny the divinity of Jesus?
One God composed of three divinities, either way of looking at it.
A divinity= a deity= a god.

lmaopml wrote: »

So, it's possibly pretty clear that the person of Jesus Christ and his divinity is not the same as what Christians see as fairly clear in the Gospels, or understand 'Jesus' to actually 'be'....

Is it?

lmaopml

Well you explain how you see the 'Trinity' so recidite? No point in just dabbling.

How have you read the Gospels and perceived Christ?

recedite

Muslims and Jews accept Jesus as a holy man, but deny his divinity. Mormons accept Jesus's divinity, as do Christians.
Its a three-in-one deity situation. Make of it what you will, but that is the traditional explanation AFAIK, for both Mormon and Christian.

lmaopml

Are you an atheist Recedite?

The OP asked a question, and the Christians on the Forum answered it to the best of their ability in so far as they view themselves as Christians in the earliest reading of scripture and revelation from earliest times as a presentation of what is an orthodox understanding.

You merely answered what 'others' believe - which is decidedly off topic.

What do 'you' believe?

Fanny Cradock

This interview with Bobby Gilpin might be of interest. If you do a search on the site you will find more.

maguffin

lmaopml wrote: »

Are you an atheist Recedite?

The OP asked a question, and the Christians on the Forum answered it to the best of their ability in so far as they view themselves as Christians in the earliest reading of scripture and revelation from earliest times as a presentation of what is an orthodox understanding.

You merely answered what 'others' believe - which is decidedly off topic.

What do 'you' believe?

This 'Christianity' forum is not exclusively for christians only to debate on!! We all have a right to freedom of speech irrespective of what our 'belief' system is. Your questioning whether or not Recedite is an atheist implies he/she shouldn't be contributing to ths particular topic.

Pointing out what others believe is a valid support to Recedite's answer, and not 'off topic'.

I do not follow the christian faith but that does not stop me from having an opinion nor voicing that opinion when necessary.

Benny_Cake

maguffin wrote: »

Why? the link shows only the word 'Negative' as a response to the question....so what are the reasons??

From what I've read about Mormon baptism, they use similar terminology and whilst accepting that they do differ in that they immerse the person being baptised in water.
Their Baptism is seen as symbolic both of Jesus's death, burial and resurrection and is also symbolic of the baptized individual putting off of the natural or sinful man and becoming spiritually reborn as a disciple of Jesus.

Membership into a Latter Day Saint church is granted only by baptism whether or not a person has been raised in the Church.

When performing a baptism, the following instructions are followed:

"The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
"Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water."

Baptisms inside and outside the temples are usually done in a baptismal font, although, baptisms done outside the temples can be performed in any body of water in which the person may be completely immersed.

As far as I know, the reasoning behind the rejection of the validity of Mormon baptisms (and they are also rejected by the Orthodox and most Protestant churches), is that Mormons mean something rather different to mainstream Christians when they use the words "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" (I did a search myself and all I could find by way of an official statement is the same, rather unhelpful one-word answer!). It's a bit of an awkward one though as traditionally the Catholic Church as well as a number of other churches would recognise any baptism according to the above formula as valid regardless of who performed it, so it must come down to the intent of the person performing the baptism.

As it relates to the OP though, does not having a formula of baptism which is accepted by other churches make the LDS Church un-Christian? There are other denominations, which are accepted by most people as Christian, and which sit with other Christian groups in organisations such as "Churches Together in Britain and Ireland" which don't perform baptisms of any description - namely the Quakers and the Salvation Army. Most people would automatically describe them as Christian. So I don't think baptism can be the deciding factor.

Oh, and lmaopml, Katie Taylor is a Pentecostalist (in case any of her brethren get upset that Ireland's most famous evangelical Christian has been stolen!).

recedite

lmaopml wrote: »

Are you an atheist Recedite?
You merely answered what 'others' believe - which is decidedly off topic.

Yes I am atheist, but the topic is whether or not Mormonism is a Christian faith.
All I am saying is that to answer the question you need to look at how Mormonism differs from other Christian sects. In terms of the concept of Holy trinity, or Baptism, there is no significant difference IMO. But there are big differences elsewhere.
The Book of Mormon was first published by Joseph Smith in 1830, allegedly translated from ancient texts, contemporary with the biblical scriptures, which were written in an otherwise unheard of language called "Reformed Egyptian."
Compare this to people like Luther and Calvin whose treatises resulted in new Christian sects being formed. They never tried to pass off their writings as ancient scriptures. All they were proposing was a different "take" on the existing scriptures.
Then, looking even closer at Mormonism, you find the really strange stuff concerning the planet Kolob.

But does having add-on beliefs mean Mormons are not Christians? I know lots of people who believe in astrology, and they are still Christians.
IMO the core belief of Christianity is that you must believe in the divinity of Jesus, and if you believe in that you will follow his teachings, whatever you believe those to be. Hence you will study the gospels looking for guidance. Beyond that, whatever other beliefs you may have is not really relevant, as long they as they don't actually contradict the core beliefs.

philologos

recedite wrote: »

Yes I am atheist, but the topic is whether or not Mormonism is a Christian faith.
All I am saying is that to answer the question you need to look at how Mormonism differs from other Christian sects. In terms of the concept of Holy trinity, or Baptism, there is no significant difference IMO. But there are big differences elsewhere.
The Book of Mormon was first published by Joseph Smith in 1830, allegedly translated from ancient texts, contemporary with the biblical scriptures, which were written in an otherwise unheard of language called "Reformed Egyptian."
Compare this to people like Luther and Calvin whose treatises resulted in new Christian sects being formed. They never tried to pass off their writings as ancient scriptures. All they were proposing was a different "take" on the existing scriptures.
Then, looking even closer at Mormonism, you find the really strange stuff concerning the planet Kolob.

But does having add-on beliefs mean Mormons are not Christians? I know lots of people who believe in astrology, and they are still Christians.
IMO the core belief of Christianity is that you must believe in the divinity of Jesus, and if you believe in that you will follow his teachings, whatever you believe those to be. Hence you will study the gospels looking for guidance. Beyond that, whatever other beliefs you may have is not really relevant, as long they as they don't actually contradict the core beliefs.

Having add-on beliefs that compromise the Gospel certainly brings the teaching into question.

On the Trinity I found looking through Doctrine and Covenants very interesting. For example this:

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 wrote:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Christians don't believe that the Father or the Son are corporeal. Jesus took on human flesh while on earth (Philippians 2:1-10).

In Galatians 1:8 it also says that if anyone presents to you a gospel other than Christ that they will be accursed:

Galatians 1:6-9 wrote:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Calvin and Luther taught truth that is in the Bible. As a result their views are orthodox. Joseph Smith taught stuff that isn't in the Bible and is contrary to the Bible in a number of areas.

recedite

The main heresy of Christianity, from the point of view of Islam or orthodox Jews, is the idea that a person in human form (Jesus) would claim to be "God" who they believe would never appear in corporeal form.
And should never even be depicted in idol or image form. He should remain as an abstract.
In Christianity and/or Mormonism, you have the idea of the trinity, where it is possible for the abstract "God" to appear in various forms; as a ghost/spirit or indeed as a corporeal human.

philologos

recedite wrote: »

The main heresy of Christianity, from the point of view of Islam or orthodox Jews, is the idea that a person in human form (Jesus) would claim to be "God" who they believe would never appear in corporeal form.
And should never even be depicted in idol or image form. He should remain as an abstract.
In Christianity and/or Mormonism, you have the idea of the trinity, where it is possible for the abstract "God" to appear in various forms; as a ghost/spirit or indeed as a corporeal human.

Yes, but lazygal's question regards how orthodox Christians view Mormonism.

Mormonism deviates from orthodox Christianity. As I pointed you to, thinking that the Father, the Son and the Spirit have corporeal form in Christianity is unbiblical and as a result heretical.

Christianity does not present God as corporeal other than Jesus taking on human flesh for a temporal time.

recedite

But having done it once, is there not an implication that the Christian God can come back again a second time, or multiple times, taking on a human form?

newmug

Mormons are to Christianity as what Dubs are to Irishness.

philologos

recedite wrote: »

But having done it once, is there not an implication that the Christian God can come back again a second time, or multiple times, taking on a human form?

God the Father being in human flesh has never been a consideration in Judaism or Christianity.

God the Son being in human flesh before and indeed after he was in the world isn't orthodox.

If I see texts like the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants and so on making claims contrary to Scripture when Galatians 1:8 says let the one who brings another gospel be accursed, or when Hebrews 1:1-2 says that in the last days God has spoken to us through Jesus Christ there starts to be questions surrounding whether there can be extra-Biblical and unbiblical revelation.

Especially when these texts allegedly come from "ancient Egyptian" texts that we have no access to this makes it a little bit more difficult for me to justify.

Let me put it another way. If Mormonism was the same as orthodox Christianity why is there a need to regard the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl Of Great Price as Scripture?

martinedwards' link provides a lot of interesting thoughts on this issue.

philologos

recedite wrote: »

Eh.. What's the difference here? Would you deny the divinity of Jesus?
One God composed of three divinities, either way of looking at it.
A divinity= a deity= a god.

Is it?

No, that's not the orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity.

Christians believe in one God, we are monotheists.

One God, three persons. Not three gods.

Pwpane

philologos wrote: »

No, that's not the orthodox Christian understanding of the Trinity.

Christians believe in one God, we are monotheists.

One God, three persons. Not three gods.

Philologos, can you expound on that a little, please? It's a long time since someone tried to explain that to me - how three persons can be one being, or conversely how one being can be/have three persons. It is difficult to see how three gods being one godhead is different to three persons being one god. Is it not just a difference of terminology? If the Mormons believe in one godhead how is that not monotheistic?

Also, I was not aware that Jesus does not have corporeal form now - did the apostles not watch him, body and all, ascend into heaven?

And if Jesus could take on human form, how do we know that God the Father never did or would? Perhaps he did, and has a body in heaven too - how could we know? It does seem wrong to think of God walking among us on earth and not existing as a pure spirit - I have sympathy for the Jewish and Muslim view here.

recedite

philologos wrote: »

Galatians 1:8 says let the one who brings another gospel be accursed, or when Hebrews 1:1-2 says that in the last days God has spoken to us through Jesus Christ there starts to be questions surrounding whether there can be extra-Biblical and unbiblical revelation.

"The Bible" means different things to different people though. There are less books in the Protestant version than the RC version, while the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the most books in its "Bible."
Yes, the Mormons have a few extra books that you or I might well consider to be 19th Century forgeries, but the Mormons believe those books to be ancient scriptures. From their point of view, they just recognise a few extra books, pretty much like the Ethiopians do.

I accept your point that Mormons seem to believe that Jesus could appear in human form even while off planet Earth, whereas orthodox Christianity generally only depicts him as human while he is on Earth. But there is no huge contradiction there. Is there anything in Christianity to say that Jesus absolutely could not appear in human corporeal form, except while on Earth?

lmaopml

O Dear, I completely messed up as far as Katie Taylors religion. I always thought she was a Mormon. Sorry Katie!!

Also, Recidite apologies, there are so many fly bys on the forum sometimes that it gets right on my nelly - however, I shouldn't have presumed anything about your post. Truly sorry.

lmaopml

Pwpane, i'll just post this youtube clip for you that may go some way to at least try to explain the Trinity in orthodox thought.....It's very difficult to describe a 'mystery' tbh and not a little disconcerting to presume we know too much either - actually sometimes I think we can only say what we know about God in loose terms, we do know what God is NOT as revealed in Scripture as opposed to a full explanation as to every aspect of God. It might help...( I've forgot how to embed it, so I'll just post a link )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMI4rA4cuiM

Pwpane

lmaopml wrote: »

Pwpane, i'll just post this youtube clip for you that may go some way to at least try to explain the Trinity in orthodox thought.....It's very difficult to describe a 'mystery' tbh and not a little disconcerting to presume we know too much either - actually sometimes I think we can only say what we know about God in loose terms, we do know what God is NOT as revealed in Scripture as opposed to a full explanation as to every aspect of God. It might help...( I've forgot how to embed it, so I'll just post a link )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMI4rA4cuiM

That sounds like you don't actually know, yourself?

Do you think that other Christians and Mormons would be the same - that the leaders of the religion have a definite explanation that the common or garden believers don't understand and cannot pass on?

Peregrinus

Whether Mormons are Christians depends on what the word “Christian” means.

Arguing over the definition of words is very much a human activity. The bible is many things, but it’s not a dictionary, so it’s not going to give us a conclusive answer to the question of whether Mormons are “Christians” or not.

And in fact maybe the bible suggests that that’s not a terribly important question. The word “Christian” occurs twice in scripture: once in Acts 11:26 when we are told that Antioch is where the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians”, and once in 1 Peter 4:16, Peter offers consolation to those who “suffer as a Christian”. In both instances, the word “Christian “ is clearly being framed and applied by non-Christians - the Antiochans in the first place, and those who are persecuting the followers of Jesus in the second.

So, originally, it’s not Christians who get to decide who’s Christian or not. And, historically, the followers of Jesus usually got labelled as Christians in the context of being excluded, cut off or even persecuted.

So there’s something unedifying about the sight of believers debating whether the Mormons are Christian or not for the purpose of highlighting the heterodoxy of their beliefs. Most followers of Jesus hold beliefs which, by the standards of other followers of Jesus, are heterodox. This is true in spades for the Mormons. I’m not saying differences in belief are unimportant, but I don’t think our response to them should be to start fretting about the correct label to distinguish them from us.

philologos

I couldn't disagree more Peregrinus. In order to protect against false teaching we need to evaluate it in light of God's word. Both Jesus and the apostles warn of this.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

In both instances, the word “Christian “ is clearly being framed and applied by non-Christians - the Antiochans in the first place, and those who are persecuting the followers of Jesus in the second.

Interesting, so the word "Christian" seems to have been a pejorative term originally.

newmug

recedite wrote: »

Interesting, so the word "Christian" seems to have been a pejorative term originally.

I wouldn't see it as a pejorative, it was more likely it was just a label.


And to answer the OP's question, NO! Mormons, Westboro Baptists, aswell as certain others are NOT Christians! Matthew spells this out, Matt7:15-20

Basically its the sum of your actions, not your words, that define you.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Interesting, so the word "Christian" seems to have been a pejorative term originally.

Pretty much. At least, it was coined by people who were not themselves Christians to be used mostly pejoratively of Christians.

newmug wrote: »

And to answer the OP's question, NO! Mormons, Westboro Baptists, aswell as certain others are NOT Christians! Matthew spells this out, Matt7:15-20

Basically its the sum of your actions, not your words, that define you.

Gosh! Lots of thoughts on that.

First, the casual bracketing of the Mormons and the Westboro Baptists is uncharitable, to say the least. If we apply the test by which the Mormons are usually judged not to be Christian, the orthodoxy or otherwise of their Christological and Trinitarian beliefs, then the Westboro Baptists are most definitely Christian. On the other hand if we judge the Westboro Baptists not to be Christian because of their egregiously uncharitable behaviour and witness, well, whatever other criticisms you may have to make of the Mormons they are not remotely like the Westboro Baptists in that regard.

And Matt 7 doesn’t address either doctrinal orthodoxy or charitable behaviour; it addresses true versus false prophecy. Nothing in Matt 7 suggests that it’s actions, not words, that count; you’re projecting that onto it yourself, by assuming that “fruits” means actsions. It need not mean that. A very strong Christian tradition puts faith, not works, at the centre of Christian identity and, while you may not accept that yourself, you can’t say that it’s not a pretty mainstream position.

newmug

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty much. At least, it was coined by people who were not themselves Christians to be used mostly pejoratively of Christians.


Gosh! Lots of thoughts on that.

First, the casual bracketing of the Mormons and the Westboro Baptists is uncharitable, to say the least. If we apply the test by which the Mormons are usually judged not to be Christian, the orthodoxy or otherwise of their Christological and Trinitarian beliefs, then the Westboro Baptists are most definitely Christian. On the other hand if we judge the Westboro Baptists not to be Christian because of their egregiously uncharitable behaviour and witness, well, whatever other criticisms you may have to make of the Mormons they are not remotely like the Westboro Baptists in that regard.

And Matt 7 doesn’t address either doctrinal orthodoxy or charitable behaviour; it addresses true versus false prophecy. Nothing in Matt 7 suggests that it’s actions, not words, that count; you’re projecting that onto it yourself, by assuming that “fruits” means actsions. It need not mean that. A very strong Christian tradition puts faith, not works, at the centre of Christian identity and, while you may not accept that yourself, you can’t say that it’s not a pretty mainstream position.

Well I'm sorry to tell you that mainstream position doesn't mean its right! Acceptance of homosexuality and sex before marraige is mainstraem position nowadays, does that make it ok? And as for that "Christian" tradition you refer to, I'm afraid they're wrong aswell!!!

Matt DOES mean "you will know them by their actions", and it can be expanded with relevance to include entire religions, not just individuals or prophets. Think about it, the word "fruit" is obviously a metaphor, not specifically tied to any one or any group. People dont go around growing oragnes from their ears! And what is a religion or faith if not a group of people who follow a prophet?

And its quite an apt metaphor too, it means "the sum of" what you produce, not each individual fruit itself. A good example of this is the thief on the cross. He obviously did something wrong to be up there. That was a bad action. But then he did a good action, by repenting. The SUM of his life was such that Jesus alowed him into Heaven.

And I'm afraid its as simple as that. To call yourself Christian, you have to A) Acknoweledge the existance of the supernatural, and that Jesus Christ is God, and Genuinely try to live out your life the way Jesus thought.

WBC and Mormons dont conform to B, therefore they're not Christian. They actually fly in the face of it! On the other hand, Bhuddists are peace-loving, spiritual etc., but they dont conform to A, so they are not Christian either!!!

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

And I'm afraid its as simple as that. To call yourself Christian, you have to A) Acknoweledge the existance of the supernatural, and that Jesus Christ is God, and Genuinely try to live out your life the way Jesus thought.

WBC and Mormons dont conform to B, therefore they're not Christian. They actually fly in the face of it! On the other hand, Bhuddists are peace-loving, spiritual etc., but they dont conform to A, so they are not Christian either!!!

That may be what your definition of a Christian is, but it's not one that I've sent anyone else use.

In any case, I've met a few Mormons, and while I'd disagree with them about quite a few things, all of whom have conformed to "B" above - peace-loving, spiritual and charitable. They have absolutely nothing in common with the Westboro Baptist Church. Just because you don't like them doesn't make it so.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

A very strong Christian tradition puts faith, not works, at the centre of Christian identity and, while you may not accept that yourself, you can’t say that it’s not a pretty mainstream position.

I think this part of your post is brilliant.

Your claim that Christian was used solely in the pejorative is questionable. Can you show me some Scripture?

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

I think this part of your post is brilliant.

[Blush]

philologos wrote: »

Your claim that Christian was used solely in the pejorative is questionable. Can you show me some Scripture?

I’ll admit that it’s somewhat speculative, but my reasoning is scriptural.

As I pointed out in post #30, the word “Christian” only occurs twice in scripture; Acts 11:26, and 1 Peter 4:16.

Acts 11:26 tells us that the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” in Antioch. As I read it, I don’t think Luke is saying that they called themselves Christians, but that they were so called by others. And while Acts doesn’t directly say why the Antiochans found it necessary to coin a word for the followers of Jesus, the obvious inference is that it’s at this time that they come to be regarded as a community sufficiently distinctive, and distinct, to require their own name. Why? Well, all this happens just after Peter has ruled against the need for Gentile followers of Jesus to observe Jewish dietary laws (Acts 11:1-10), and just after the church has begun actively proselytising Gentiles, including in Antioch (Acts 11:20). In Chapter 12 we’re told that it was “about this time” that Herod started persecuting the followers of Jesus - James the brother of John is beheaded, Peter is arrested, escapes execution and goes into hiding, etc. So it looks to me that the label “Christians” was coined in the context of Christianity separating from Judaism, partly because of its own outreach to Gentiles but partly because of the attitude of the “mainstream” Jewish authorities (though no doubt the two things were linked).

So, in summary; the term “Christian” is devised by non-Christians to refer to the followers of Jesus at a time when those followers are being excluded from Judaism and persecuted; I don’t think it’s a huge leap to think that it was used pejoratively.

And I think this impression is reinforced by the other reference, in 1 Peter 4:16, which offers consolation to those who “suffer for being a Christian”, indicating that being identified as a Christian exposed you to persecution. The author assures those people that “there must be no shame, but thanksgiving to God for bearing this name”. And I don’t think he would have needed to say that unless the name had a pejorative association.

I should add that, while the name may have started out as a pejorative coined by others, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, very early on, the followers of Jesus had embraced this name as their own, and stripped it of its pejorative content. On one view, that is exactly what 1 Peter 4:16 is urging them to do.

philologos

Speculation is a dangerous beast. If there is no warrant for assuming something why do it?

Suffering for being a Christian needn't imply that it was a pejorative. The whole of that letter explains why the Christ-believer is like a sojourner in a foreign land. An idea that the Bible puts across in numerous places.

The same in terms of the Acts reference. What is interesting is Paul's arrest before Felix in Acts 24 they are called Nazarenes by others.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

Suffering for being a Christian needn't imply that it was a pejorative. The whole of that letter explains why the Christ-believer is like a sojourner in a foreign land. An idea that the Bible puts across in numerous places.

If you read the 1 Peter reference in context, it's fairly clear that the suffering being referred to is persecution. He contrasts suffering for being a Christian with suffering for being a murderer, a thief, an informer, etc. That suggests to me that the "suffering" in question is social disapprobation and rejection.

philologos wrote: »

The same in terms of the Acts reference. What is interesting is Paul's arrest before Felix in Acts 24 they are called Nazarenes by others.

Yes, that's interesting. It may be relevant that it's Tertullus - not a Jew himself, but a Roman advocate retained by the Temple priests to represent them before Felix - who uses the term "Nazarene sect". To the Romans, the followers of Jesus as still a sect within Judaism, and in fact Paul seeks to reinforce this by mentioning in his response that he has just been "up to Jerusalem on pilgrimage" (verse 11), that he worships the God of his ancestors, retains his belief in the Law and the Prophets, etc, and he refers to the Jesus-movement as "the Way".

It may be that "Christian" was the preferred term of those who stressed the separateness of Jews and Jesus-followers, and "Nazarene" and/or "the Way" did not have the same implication. If this is so then "Christian" would have been employed by Jews seeking to exclude Jesus-followers, and Jesus-followers themselves would have embraced the term as they came to see the church as post-Jewish rather than Jewish.

philologos

I agree that the letter is about persecution. They are being persecuted and this is why Peter goes to great lengths to explain why. However the letter itself doesn't say the name Christian was a derogatory one, and indeed if it was you have to ask as to why Peter is using it in that way. I think its a real stretch.

They were being rejected because they followed Jesus not because of the name they used. Using this to say that there us no such thing as Christian doctrine is also over the top. We can tell from the New Testament what was believed by the early church. If something radically departs from this then one is perfectly entitled to ask how X teaching lines up with Scripture.

newmug

Benny_Cake wrote: »

That may be what your definition of a Christian is, but it's not one that I've sent anyone else use.

In any case, I've met a few Mormons, and while I'd disagree with them about quite a few things, all of whom have conformed to "B" above - peace-loving, spiritual and charitable. They have absolutely nothing in common with the Westboro Baptist Church. Just because you don't like them doesn't make it so.

I'm sorry, but Mormons dont conform to B, what Jesus taught us in the Bible. They conform to what Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus, which is complete and utter fabrication.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

I agree that the letter is about persecution. They are being persecuted and this is why Peter goes to great lengths to explain why. However the letter itself doesn't say the name Christian was a derogatory one, and indeed if it was you have to ask as to why Peter is using it in that way. I think its a real stretch.

No, it doesn’t say in as many words that “Christian” is a derogatory term, but it suggests strongly that the social consequences of been seen as a Christian are comparable to the social consequences of being seen as a thief or an informer. And when Peter tells his readers that they should feel no shame in being regarded as Christians, that does strongly suggest that they lived in a world where that appellation was regarded as shameful. And we have no hint, anywhere in scripture, that in the apostolic period the followers of Jesus called themselves Christians. So I still think all this points to the term “Christian” initially being coined and used by people hostile to the Christian community, and only subsequently being claimed by Christians themselves.

philologos wrote: »

Using this to say that there us no such thing as Christian doctrine is also over the top. We can tell from the New Testament what was believed by the early church. If something radically departs from this then one is perfectly entitled to ask how X teaching lines up with Scripture.

Oh, you’re way ahead of me there. I wouldn’t make that claim at all. There’s plenty of teaching about Christ in scripture; the letters of Paul are largely concerned with this and, in our time, I’d have no hesitation about describing this as Christian teaching. Even if we take it that the word “Christian” did start out as a pejorative, it certainly didn’t retain that sense for very long.

When it comes to the question of whether this or that group is Christian today, I don’t think we can say they’re not Christian simply because Christology is different from ours. Most people who are legitimately called Christians have beliefs which some other group of Christians would differ from. Galling as it may be to admit it, the Westboro Baptists are Christian. They look to the same scriptures that we do for their understanding of Christ and of redemption, and the fact that they play their faith out so differently in how they live may be very confronting to us, and may challenge our faith in the communion of saints, but it doesn’t mean they’re not Christian. They are. They may be on the more exotic fringes of Christianity, but if Christianity is defined by faith, they’re Christians.

Similarly, while the Mormons accept other sources of revelation as well as the NT and the OT, they don’t reject the NT or the OT; they affirm their authority. And while the Christology they build on this foundation is in many ways quite different from more mainstream positions, to my mind that’s not in itself enough to say that they are not Christian in the way that, say, Jews or Muslims or Hindus are not Christian. Mormons acknowledge and affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ, and see him as the incarnation of God and the redeemer of the world. Their faith, their hope, is in Jesus. That seems to me to put them very definitely in the “Christian” camp, even if, e.g., their Trinitarian beliefs are less than Orthodox.

philologos

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it doesn’t say in as many words that “Christian” is a derogatory term, but it suggests strongly that the social consequences of been seen as a Christian are comparable to the social consequences of being seen as a thief or an informer. And when Peter tells his readers that they should feel no shame in being regarded as Christians, that does strrongly suggest that they lived in a world where that appellation was regarded as shameful. And we have no hint, anywhere in scripture, that in the apostolic period the followers of Jesus called themselves Christians. So I still think all this points to the term “Christian” initially being coined and used by people hostile to the Christian community, and only subsequently being claimed by Christians themselves.

We're not told in any passage in Scripture that it was a derogatory term. Therefore assuming it is wrong.

Acts 11 said that it was at this point they were first called Christians, and Peter seems to be more than happy to use the term later on. Indeed as does King Agrippa at the end of Acts when Paul is witnessing to him:

Acts 26:28-29 wrote:

For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak boldly. For I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this has not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe.” And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?” And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”

Paul doesn't seem to have much issue with the term.

Even if the term Christian is infrequently used there are two things to note:
1) Not one of these passages says it is a derogatory term, nor implies it. Therefore it is wrong to assume this.
2) Even if it isn't used frequently, we still have criteria in the New Testament for what Christ-believers believed, and for what Christ-belief (Christianity) was all about.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, you’re way ahead of me there. I wouldn’t make that claim at all. There’s plenty of teaching about Christ in scripture; the letters of Paul are largely concerned with this and, in our time, I’d have no hesitation about describing this as Christian teaching. Even if we take it that the word “Christian” did start out as a pejorative, it certainly didn’t retain that sense for very long.

I don't take it as a pejoritative, but I'm more than happy to let you continue assuming this.

Peregrinus wrote: »

When it comes to the question of whether this or that group is Christian today, I don’t think we can say they’re not Christian simply because Christology is different from ours. Most people who are legitimately called Christians have beliefs which some other group of Christians would differ from. Galling as it may be to admit it, the Westboro Baptists are Christian. They look to the same scriptures that we do for their understanding of Christ and of redemption, and the fact that they play their faith out so differently in how they live may be very confronting to us, and may challenge our faith in the communion of saints, but it doesn’t mean they’re not Christian. They are. They may be on the more exotic fringes of Christianity, but if Christianity is defined by faith, they’re Christians.

That's not what I'm saying. What I am arguing is that we test all things by Scripture. If group X presents a Christology that is far removed from Scripture then it is time to question, indeed whenever group X uses material that isn't the Bible as Scripture that's time to raise the suspicion meter for me.

I believe that Mormonism at the very least undermines the Christian sense of God by making the Father and the Son corporeal (prior to Jesus taking that form before coming to earth - see Phillippians 2).

I might come mid-way and say that their beliefs are based on Christianity, but are not in and of themselves Christianity.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Similarly, while the Mormons accept other sources of revelation as well as the NT and the OT, they don’t reject the NT or the OT; they affirm their authority. And while the Christology they build on this foundation is in many ways quite different from more mainstream positions, to my mind that’s not in itself enough to say that they are not Christian in the way that, say, Jews or Muslims or Hindus are not Christian. Mormons acknowledge and affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ, and see him as the incarnation of God and the redeemer of the world. Their faith, their hope, is in Jesus. That seems to me to put them very definitely in the “Christian” camp, even if, e.g., their Trinitarian beliefs are less than Orthodox.

In some ways yes, in other ways no. I don't believe that you affirm the authority of the Bible if you teach what is contrary to it.

Peregrinus

I don't have a problem with people taking competing Christologies and testing them against scripture.

My problem is where people move, in effect, to saying "I don't think your Christology measure up against scripture [as I interpret it]; therefore you are not a Christian". Not least because, if we take this to its logical conclusion, an awful lot of people generally regarded as Christians would be denouncing an awful lot of other people generally regarded as Christian as not, in fact, Christian. And vice versa. Which would be less than edifying, and a very ineffective witness to the gospel.

For example, in this thread back in post #18 you wrote that “Jesus took on human flesh while on earth”, and in post #22 you said “Christianity does not present God as corporeal other than Jesus taking on human flesh for a temporal time”. I didn’t respond to that because, by the time I saw those posts the discussion had moved on, but I did pause over them. They seem to me, if not wrong, then at least incomplete. The Incarnation didn’t come to an end with the Ascension and when Paul describes the Church as the “Body of Christ”, that’s not a metaphor.

Now, these were just one-liners and we might find if we discussed the matter further that we are in agreement about this, and in any case what you wrote was a comment on Mormon positions rather than a full exposition of your own. Still, our christologies differ to at least this exent; you were happy to write something about the nature of the Incarnation that I would not have written.

No doubt we could discuss this to the profit of at least one of us, and hopefully both. But I don’t think a promising start would be for me to denounce you as “not Christian” because I feel your Christology (in so far as I have grasped it from these rather terse comments) is not supported by [my reading of] scripture.

And, on a separate note, thank you for pointing me to Acts 26: I had missed it on my previous survey. Maybe I read too much of it, but it’s Aggrippa who uses the term “Christian”, in I think a sarcastic fashion. And, while Paul in his response doesn’t reject the term, he doesn’t exactly embrace it either. I do get the sense that this term is mainly used by non-Christians, and that Christians themselves are at least ambivalent about it.

philologos

It just seems that you're doing eisegesis (postulating assumptions into Scripture) rather than exegesis (extracting Biblical truth from Scripture). All of the assumptions surrounding how the term Christian was used are not warranted from any passage cited.

This has spurred my curiosity is that Isaiah before commenting on the nature of the New Heavens and the New Earth in Isaiah 65 mentions that His servants will be called by another name (65:15 and 62:2). I should spend a bit more time in it. I won't say anything of certainty yet

By the by. I do believe that the church functions as Christ's body on earth but I don't think that the Son is a corporeal entity.

Now whatever about that God the Father is never presented as corporeal. That does compromise the Trinity heavily.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

It just seems that you're doing eisegesis (postulating assumptions into Scripture) rather than exegesis (extracting Biblical truth from Scripture). All of the assumptions surrounding how the term Christian was used are not warranted from any passage cited.

I don’t think that’s entirely fair, Phil. It’s not an assumption that scripture only records the term “Christian” being used of the followers of Jesus by non-Christians; it’s a fact. It’s not an assumption that in two (and arguably three) out of the three scripturally-recorded instances of the word, it’s used in contexts where the followers of Jesus are being victimised; it’s a fact. It’s not an assumption that in his exchange with Agrippa, Paul rather pointedly declines to adopt the term for himself; it’s a fact.

philologos wrote: »

By the by. I do believe that the church functions as Christ's body on earth but I don't think that the Son is a corporeal entity.

Mmm. If we say that Christ has a body but is not corporeal, there’s obviously a tension in there that could stand to be unpacked a bit. Not that I think we’re in fundamental disagreement; just that a claim by either of that that our understanding was the “Christian” understanding and the other was not would not be a useful way of entering into the mystery. Claiming ownership of the term "Christian" is just not that important.

philologos wrote: »

Now whatever about that God the Father is never presented as corporeal. That does compromise the Trinity heavily.

Well, not to nitpick or anything, but in the OT God is variously presented has having a face, hands, feet and even on one occasion “back parts”. And he also turns up as a burning bush, a pillar of cloud, a pillar of fire and other things which, while admittedly not corporeal in the human sense are certainly material, physical.

(Which is not to defend a Mormon understanding of the Trinity; just to point out that the view that it’s contradicted by scripture may depend on how we read scripture.)

philologos

I won't pass this off as my own but here's an excellent summary:
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-physical-body.html

It explains anthropomorphic language rather nicely.

These questions have to do with Bible handling. You seem to have a very postmodern anything goes paradigm to hermeneutics. However some arguments are stronger than others.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

I won't pass this off as my own but here's an excellent summary:

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-physical-body.html

It explains anthropomorphic language rather nicely.

These questions have to do with Bible handling. You seem to have a very postmodern anything goes paradigm to hermeneutics. However some arguments are stronger than others.

No, you misunderstand me. I'm fully on board with understanding scripture as employing anthopomorphic language with respect to the Father. (There's a clue in the word "Father", when you think about it!) I don't think he actually has hands, in the sense that Jesus of Nazareth had hands.

My point is that others may not be on board. If others take a more literal or literalistic or simplistic interpretation of scritpure than I do, or than I am comfortable with, or than I find persuasive or even plausible, I'm fully entitled to disagree with, criticise or reject their position. What I'm not entitled to do is to say that it's not a "Christian" position, simply on the basis that I find it unpersuasive. I can say -if it is the case - that it's not an orthodox or mainstream Christian position, but even unorthodox and non-mainstream Christians can still be Christians. And I could say - if anybody cared - that it's not a Peregrinian position. But I can't say that it's not a Christian position, because the term "Christian" is not owned by me, or by me and all the other Christians whose hermeneutic stance happens to align with mine.

What bothers me is a particular hermeneutic tradition claiming authenticity, and as a result of that claiming ownership of the label "Christian", with the corollary that Christians who adhere to other hermenuetic traditions are not, in fact, Christian at all. Pretty obviously, all Christian believers consider their particular hermenuetic tradition to be authentic; if they didn't, they would reject it in favour of one whose authenticity they accepted. It would follow that if one Christian beleiver can claim that his position is the only authentically Christian one and the others are not Christian, they can all claim that. And nothing at all is acheived by their advancing such a claim. (Or, at least, nothing that you would want to acheive; if your object is to bring Christianity into general disrepute, you might achieve that.)

philologos

I disagree. There needs to be lines drawn. We need to have a definition of what it could mean. The Bible gives us criteria for what constitutes Christianity, it warns us against false teachers and treats this as extremely serious.

If we have no criteria established for this then anything including stuff which flies in the face of Scripture can be Christian.

Your example pointing to anthropomorphic language can be refuted by a broad reading of Scripture rather than an isolated one.

It reminds me of a story a friend told me of his student days in Leeds where the atheist society put up a poster that the Bible says there is no God. Except the passage actually says "The fool says in their heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1). It's by a fuller contextual reading that we see the true meaning.

That's Bible handling 101.

Peregrinus

philologos wrote: »

I disagree. There needs to be lines drawn. We need to have a definition of what it could mean. The Bible gives us criteria for what constitutes Christianity, it warns us against false teachers and treats this as extremely serious.

But this is a circular argument. If my reading of the Bible differs from yours, what give your reading priority over mine as a standard against which to measure “Christianity”?

philologos wrote: »

Your example pointing to anthropomorphic language can be refuted by a broad reading of Scripture rather than an isolated one.

It reminds me of a story a friend told me of his student days in Leeds where the atheist society put up a poster that the Bible says there is no God. Except the passage actually says "The fool says in their heart there is no God" (Psalm 14:1). It's by a fuller contextual reading that we see the true meaning.

That's Bible handling 101.

Of course. But people who agree about this still manage to come up with diverse and often inconsistent understandings of the Bible, don’t they? I don’t think we can say that one of these understandings must be the Christian one, and the others not. Still less can we come up with any defensible basis for saying which of them is the Christian one.

The bottom line here is that “Christian” is a word, and what a word means depends on how it is used. There is no language pope to decree that everybody must use the word this way, and not that way. Even dictionaries don’t tell people how they must use words; they try to describe how people do in fact use words.

So, the only honest answer to the question raised by lazygal in the OP, is Mormonism a Christian faith, must be “that depends, lazygal, on what you understand by ‘Christian’”. If you think “Christian” means “understands and interprets the bible in the same way as Philologos” then, no, Mormons are not Christians. If you think it means “believe Jesus Christ to be the incarnation of God and the redeemer of the world, and place their faith in and hope of salvation in him” then, yes, they are Christians. And if you think it means something else, then the answer to the question is going to depend on exactly what that something else is.

The upshot of all this is that attempts to answer lazygal’s question turns into an exploration of lazygal’s beliefs, or alternatively of the beliefs of those who attempt a definitive answer for her - but the latter will only yield an answer satisfactory to lazygal if the people concerned are people whose beliefs she accepts as authoritative, so again we come back to an examination of lazygal’s beliefs. And the answer which does satisfy lazygal won’t necessarily satisfy anyone else, except for people who already agree with lazygal, or who accept her beleifs as authoritative.

You see the problem?