Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hannah Rebekah

Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

Recommended Posts

The Bible tells me so….Sola Scriptura! For those Christians who say Mormons are not Christian….well...they are adding to the Bible? Since they claim they are bound by the Bible as their only and final authority…then they are not bound to their Pastors, the demagogues, other Anti-Mormons, the counter-cult movement, other books & websites that say so because it's just someone's opinion (Anti-Mormon polemics). The Bible has already defined it and is the final authority. If they are not bound by the Bible (Sola Scriptura) as they claim, they are then the biggest hypocrites, they talk out of both sides of their mouths and have lose all creditability…they turn on their own true authority and make it up as they go along.

Mormons do not need anyone else to define who we are because the Lord has already done that, in the Bible and in modern day revelation. The name given to his saints in this day, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bears this out.

Since the “less than Christian” remarks of the Texas Pastor the conversation has been pretty interesting of how many others hold his views as well as those who may not speak it outloud. I’ve seen a number of appeals that Mormons are Christians based on definitions in dictionaries. I just wanted to take that one step further using the Bible to prove that Mormons are Christians and making an appeal to their Sola Scriptura belief. We know that southern Christians used the Bible (Sola Scriptura) to defend slavery even unto death (Civil War). I’m curious how they are going to dance around this one…because they will or probably already have. If they do then they are turning on their Sola Scriptura belief.

AND…I would like our very astute LDS minds and scholars here to elaborate on this argument and put forward the very best parts to make a clear, succinct statement that is to the point. Let’s see who can frame it the very best.

In the Bible the word Christian is used three times in reference to Christ’s followers or disciples. (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28 & 1 Peter 4:16.)

This is how Strong’s Bible Concordance defined “Christians” and “disciples” as used Acts 11:26.

CHRISTIAN:

Christianos - Christos; is Greek; a Christian, i.e. FOLLOWER OF CHRIST:–Christian

http://www.sacrednam...GRK55.htm#S5546

DISCIPLE:

Manqanw - Manthano; is Greek; a learner, i.e. pupil: disciple.

http://www.sacrednam...GRK31.htm#S3101

The Lexicon tell us this:

Christian:

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G3101&t=KJV

post-12661-0-82860900-1318532159_thumb.j

Disciple:

http://www.bluelette...1&t=KJV&page=10

post-12661-0-88586400-1318532188_thumb.j

Edited by Hannah Rebekah

Share this post


Link to post

the only problem with using the "bible says we are Christian" argument is that it doesn't literally say the "mormons are christian" rather it sets out several basic beliefs and evangelicals will argue until they are blue in the face that mormon beliefs are contrary to those basic beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a good succinct statement on our belief in Christ...

Hymns, I Believe in Christ, no. 134

1. I believe in Christ; he is my King!

With all my heart to him I’ll sing;

I’ll raise my voice in praise and joy,

In grand amens my tongue employ.

I believe in Christ; he is God’s Son.

On earth to dwell his soul did come.

He healed the sick; the dead he raised.

Good works were his; his name be praised.

2. I believe in Christ; oh blessed name!

As Mary’s Son he came to reign

’Mid mortal men, his earthly kin,

To save them from the woes of sin.

I believe in Christ, who marked the path,

Who did gain all his Father hath,

Who said to men: “Come, follow me,

That ye, my friends, with God may be.”

3. I believe in Christ—my Lord, my God!

My feet he plants on gospel sod.

I’ll worship him with all my might;

He is the source of truth and light.

I believe in Christ; he ransoms me.

From Satan’s grasp he sets me free,

And I shall live with joy and love

In his eternal courts above.

4. I believe in Christ; he stands supreme!

From him I’ll gain my fondest dream;

And while I strive through grief and pain,

His voice is heard: “Ye shall obtain.”

I believe in Christ; so come what may,

With him I’ll stand in that great day

When on this earth he comes again

To rule among the sons of men.

Text: Bruce R. McConkie, 1915–1985. © 1972 IRI

Music: John Longhurst, b. 1940. © 1985 IRI

Share this post


Link to post

Hannah Rebekah,

Your topic title says, "Evangelical's highest authority says Mormons are Christians." By "evangelical's highest authority" you mean the Bible. in your post, you cited the three uses of the term Christian in the New Testament and quoted Strong's dictionary on the meaning of the Greek term Christianos ("follower of Christ"). However, you did not explain how this shows that the Bible identifies Mormons as Christians. I think your reasoning is that Mormons are followers of Christ and therefore fit the definition of Strong's dictionary. Is that your argument?

Share this post


Link to post

The Bible tells me so….Sola Scriptura! For those Christians who say Mormons are not Christian….well...they are adding to the Bible? Since they claim they are bound by the Bible as their only and final authority…then they are not bound to their Pastors, the demagogues, other Anti-Mormons, the counter-cult movement, other books & websites that say so because it's just someone's opinion (Anti-Mormon polemics). The Bible has already defined it and is the final authority. If they are not bound by the Bible (Sola Scriptura) as they claim, they are then the biggest hypocrites, they talk out of both sides of their mouths and have lose all creditability…they turn on their own true authority and make it up as they go along.

Mormons do not need anyone else to define who we are because the Lord has already done that, in the Bible and in modern day revelation. The name given to his saints in this day, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bears this out.

Since the “less than Christian” remarks of the Texas Pastor the conversation has been pretty interesting of how many others hold his views as well as those who may not speak it outloud. I’ve seen a number of appeals that Mormons are Christians based on definitions in dictionaries. I just wanted to take that one step further using the Bible to prove that Mormons are Christians and making an appeal to their Sola Scriptura belief. We know that southern Christians used the Bible (Sola Scriptura) to defend slavery even unto death (Civil War). I’m curious how they are going to dance around this one…because they will or probably already have. If they do then they are turning on their Sola Scriptura belief.

AND…I would like our very astute LDS minds and scholars here to elaborate on this argument and put forward the very best parts to make a clear, succinct statement that is to the point. Let’s see who can frame it the very best.

In the Bible the word Christian is used three times in reference to Christ’s followers or disciples. (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28 & 1 Peter 4:16.)

This is how Strong’s Bible Concordance defined “Christians” and “disciples” as used Acts 11:26.

CHRISTIAN:

Christianos - Christos; is Greek; a Christian, i.e. FOLLOWER OF CHRIST:–Christian

http://www.sacrednam...GRK55.htm#S5546

DISCIPLE:

Manqanw - Manthano; is Greek; a learner, i.e. pupil: disciple.

http://www.sacrednam...GRK31.htm#S3101

The Lexicon tell us this:

Christian:

http://www.bluelette...ngs=G3101&t=KJV

post-12661-0-82860900-1318532159_thumb.j

Disciple:

http://www.bluelette...1&t=KJV&page=10

post-12661-0-88586400-1318532188_thumb.j

Excellent work.

Latter-Day Saints are Christians, anti-Mormon bigots not withstanding.

Edited by Vance

Share this post


Link to post

Rob:

Those early members in Biblical times called themselves Saints. They were called Christians by others. Sounds a lot like the Saints of today. We call ourselves Saints, and our detractors call us Mormons.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob:

Those early members in Biblical times called themselves Saints. They were called Christians by others. Sounds a lot like the Saints of today. We call ourselves Saints, and our detractors call us Mormons.

My friends call me Mormon too. They just don't grit their teeth and spit when they do it. :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post

I think the main reason why many Evangelicals do not consider Mormons to be Christian is because the Mormon definition of Jesus is different from the trinitarian definition of Jesus. Therefore, the two groups worship different Christs. From a Mormon perspective, that difference is insubstantial, so we have a hard time understanding what all the hoopla is about. But to Evangelicals, the nuances of the Trinity are a big deal.

Also, from a scholarly (not necessarily Evangelical) perspective, there were sufficient differences between 19th century Mormonism and traditional Christianity that you could consider Mormonism's relationship to Christianity to be similar to the relationship of early Christianity with Judaism. But when you look at post-19th century Mormonism, I think that parallel is a bit overdrawn, given that Mormonism has moved significantly closer to traditional Christianity since it gave up polygamy in the early 20th century.

Share this post


Link to post
the only problem with using the "bible says we are Christian" argument is that it doesn't literally say the "mormons are christian" rather it sets out several basic beliefs and evangelicals will argue until they are blue in the face that mormon beliefs are contrary to those basic beliefs.
Those early members in Biblical times called themselves Saints. They were called Christians by others. Sounds a lot like the Saints of today. We call ourselves Saints, and our detractors call us Mormons.

The real problem is the Bible does not define "Christian" at all. The word only show up three times, and none of those is unambiguously positive.

In my mind, in the I, "Christian" was a pejorative, much like "Mormon" started as. "Christ" was the "Crown Prince", but one Who did not achieve His throne, therefore, He failed, in the eyes of the Jews and of the Greco-Romans. Therefore, to be a Christina was to follow a failure.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post

Rob:

Those early members in Biblical times called themselves Saints. They were called Christians by others. Sounds a lot like the Saints of today. We call ourselves Saints, and our detractors call us Mormons.

You need to put a little more disdain in your voice... Mooor-mons.

Share this post


Link to post

The real problem is the Bible does not define "Christian" at all. The word only show up three times, and none of those is unambiguously positive.

In my mind, in the I, "Christian" was a pejorative, much like "Mormon" started as. "Christ" was the "Crown Prince", but one Who did not achieve His throne, therefore, He failed, ion the eyes of the Jews and of the Greco-Romans. Therefore, to be a Christina was to follow a failure.

Lehi

More importantly, every definition that churches have developed to define what a Christian is (and excludes LDS) would also exclude the first apostles and all the disciples of Christ. None of them meet any of the these definitions. People followed Jesus because they each felt he was the Messiah, the Son of God, the intermediary to the Father, and the only path to Eternal Life.

The requirement to believe in the Trinity was absent entirely. In fact, all that was asked was to believe, to repent, and to be baptized. Doctrinal requirements simply did not exist and would not exist for another 300 years. The definitions that we find today find their genesis in the 4th century.

Share this post


Link to post

More importantly, every definition that churches have developed to define what a Christian is (and excludes LDS) would also exclude the first apostles and all the disciples of Christ. None of them meet any of the these definitions. People followed Jesus because they each felt he was the Messiah, the Son of God, the intermediary to the Father, and the only path to Eternal Life.

The requirement to believe in the Trinity was absent entirely. In fact, all that was asked was to believe, to repent, and to be baptized. Doctrinal requirements simply did not exist and would not exist for another 300 years. The definitions that we find today find their genesis in the 4th century.

Hey hey hey, now,

Don't bother the bigots with facts.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey hey hey, now,

Don't bother the bigots with facts.

I have been so acerbic today with other threads I was really trying to just calm down and be kind too. I promise to do better.

Share this post


Link to post

Storm Rider,

Before a person is baptized in the LDS Church, is he expected to express agreement with LDS doctrine, or is simply affirming that he believes in Jesus and that he has repented sufficient?

More importantly, every definition that churches have developed to define what a Christian is (and excludes LDS) would also exclude the first apostles and all the disciples of Christ. None of them meet any of the these definitions. People followed Jesus because they each felt he was the Messiah, the Son of God, the intermediary to the Father, and the only path to Eternal Life.

The requirement to believe in the Trinity was absent entirely. In fact, all that was asked was to believe, to repent, and to be baptized. Doctrinal requirements simply did not exist and would not exist for another 300 years. The definitions that we find today find their genesis in the 4th century.

Share this post


Link to post

Storm Rider,

Before a person is baptized in the LDS Church, is he expected to express agreement with LDS doctrine, or is simply affirming that he believes in Jesus and that he has repented sufficient?

They have to express a willingness and ability to live according to the covenants they make at baptism. Those covenants are all about following Christ, taking His name upon them and living according to His laws. It is an informed choice on the part of the convert.

I hope you aren't implying Evangelicals don't expect converts to strive to act according to Christ's laws after baptism. It would be a poor Evangelical or Mormon who verbally claimed to follow Christ and then spent their life acting against Him.

Share this post


Link to post

Storm Rider,

Before a person is baptized in the LDS Church, is he expected to express agreement with LDS doctrine, or is simply affirming that he believes in Jesus and that he has repented sufficient?

Yes.

He believes Jesus and what He has revealed in all ages of the world.

"Upon this rock I will build my church" and Jesus handed Peter a Bible..

Share this post


Link to post

the only problem with using the "bible says we are Christian" argument is that it doesn't literally say the "mormons are christian" rather it sets out several basic beliefs and evangelicals will argue until they are blue in the face that mormon beliefs are contrary to those basic beliefs.

Nor does it literally say the "southern baptist are christian."

Share this post


Link to post

Hannah Rebekah,

Your topic title says, "Evangelical's highest authority says Mormons are Christians." By "evangelical's highest authority" you mean the Bible. in your post, you cited the three uses of the term Christian in the New Testament and quoted Strong's dictionary on the meaning of the Greek term Christianos ("follower of Christ"). However, you did not explain how this shows that the Bible identifies Mormons as Christians. I think your reasoning is that Mormons are followers of Christ and therefore fit the definition of Strong's dictionary. Is that your argument?

Pretty much...yet you left out the disciple part.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the main reason why many Evangelicals do not consider Mormons to be Christian is because the Mormon definition of Jesus is different from the trinitarian definition of Jesus. Therefore, the two groups worship different Christs. From a Mormon perspective, that difference is insubstantial, so we have a hard time understanding what all the hoopla is about. But to Evangelicals, the nuances of the Trinity are a big deal.

Also, from a scholarly (not necessarily Evangelical) perspective, there were sufficient differences between 19th century Mormonism and traditional Christianity that you could consider Mormonism's relationship to Christianity to be similar to the relationship of early Christianity with Judaism. But when you look at post-19th century Mormonism, I think that parallel is a bit overdrawn, given that Mormonism has moved significantly closer to traditional Christianity since it gave up polygamy in the early 20th century.

I'm cool with being called a "non-traditional LDS Christian" or "non-historical LDS Christian" or non-creedal LDS Christian"......

Share this post


Link to post

The real problem is the Bible does not define "Christian" at all. The word only show up three times, and none of those is unambiguously positive.

In my mind, in the I, "Christian" was a pejorative, much like "Mormon" started as. "Christ" was the "Crown Prince", but one Who did not achieve His throne, therefore, He failed, in the eyes of the Jews and of the Greco-Romans. Therefore, to be a Christina was to follow a failure.

Lehi

It may have been used as a pejorative by some but I don't get that from these scriptures especially this one:

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Unless.....Agrippa was being sarcastic....but I don't get that....but I could be wrong.

Edited by Hannah Rebekah

Share this post


Link to post

More importantly, every definition that churches have developed to define what a Christian is (and excludes LDS) would also exclude the first apostles and all the disciples of Christ. None of them meet any of the these definitions. People followed Jesus because they each felt he was the Messiah, the Son of God, the intermediary to the Father, and the only path to Eternal Life.

The requirement to believe in the Trinity was absent entirely. In fact, all that was asked was to believe, to repent, and to be baptized. Doctrinal requirements simply did not exist and would not exist for another 300 years. The definitions that we find today find their genesis in the 4th century.

Obviously they should be more accurately called "4th Century Traditional Christians" or "4th Century Historical Christians."

Edited by Hannah Rebekah

Share this post


Link to post

Hannah,

You wrote:

Pretty much...yet you left out the disciple part.

Okay, thanks for pointing that out.

Now, what I want to understand is this: Is it your position that everyone who considers himself or herself to be a follower and disciple of Christ is a "Christian," or that everyone who genuinely is a follower and disciple of Christ is a "Christian"?

Share this post


Link to post

Hannah,

You wrote:

Okay, thanks for pointing that out.

Now, what I want to understand is this: Is it your position that everyone who considers himself or herself to be a follower and disciple of Christ is a "Christian," or that everyone who genuinely is a follower and disciple of Christ is a "Christian"?

I would point out that man cannot really judge if some one else is genuinely (the heart) a follower.

Share this post


Link to post

Hannah,

You wrote:

Okay, thanks for pointing that out.

Now, what I want to understand is this: Is it your position that everyone who considers himself or herself to be a follower and disciple of Christ is a "Christian," or that everyone who genuinely is a follower and disciple of Christ is a "Christian"?

Am I to understand that you are asking this because there are those throughout history who have made a claim of being Christian who had questionable beliefs? And what do think a Catholic would say to Protestants about them being a genuine follower and disciple of Christ....did they think they were considered Christians at first?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...