Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[soren]

Still what you have postulated is not supported by the Bible. Jesus is saying that the Apostles will be one like He is one with the Father. I am sorry but there is ono other interpretation taht can be weened from these verses. It is very plain.

This is not an argument but a mere counter-assertion. I will willingly admit that the Mormon interpretation of John 17:21 is coherent. But I am not attempting here to disprove the Mormon reading, but to show that this is not a problem text for the Trinity.

You claimed,

"This argument assumes that a likeness of man to God implies a likeness of God to man, but it need not work that way."

No LDS assumes anything of the like. It only talkes about being one, not being like.

"One as we are" refers to a likeness in the mode of oneness. If you don't make that assumption that a likeness of man to God implies a likeness of God to man, then you cannot argue for your position from John 17:21. If you are going to take "one as we are" as a basis for defining the unity of the Father and Son that you must assume that the analogy is two ways. If a likeness of the oneness among God's people does not imply an likeness the other way 'round, there is no way for you to draw any conclusion about the nature of divine unity from this verse. This premise in the Mormon arguemnt is unstated in the Mormon argument, but that does not mean it isn't there. Your reading of the first logically depends on this premise absolutely.

IOW, the only way you can come to your conclusion is by reading things into the text taht arent there.

and

One thing is for sure, in order for your interpretation to carry out one must look at it they way you do. Because after all it need not work that way.

I appreciate your and Johnny's efforts here, the scriptures just dont back it up.

In my last post to Johnny I talked about the context of the verse and its relatedness to John 1. Can you justify "one in purpose" on a stronger basis that I provided there? If not, you will be guilty of a double-standard, since your own interpretation involves assumption that lass supportable from the text.

[Log]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

Would you agree that the Son and the Father are one because â??Father, art in me, and I in theeâ? (John 17:21)?

• John.17 ([21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. )
  

Do you believe that the apostles and Christ are one by the same standard, or does Christ's prayer to the Father go without effect?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

Would you agree that the Son and the Father are one because â??Father, art in me, and I in theeâ? (John 17:21)?

• John.17 ([21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. )
  

I would, but lets look at the context, shall we.

If CHrist is saying that the Apostles can be one like He and His Father are, then reason stands taht that doesnt mean literially. So in what wasy are teh Father one that Christ and His Apostles can be one?

Also verse 21 is a great example of being one in purpose and unity. They both want and work for the same thing. It deosnt mean that they are so much in unity taht they are the some in being. Otherwise the Apostles would need to join Christ to be one in being as He is one in Being with His Father. It just isnt supported.

[johnny]

Log

Do you believe that the apostles and Christ are one by the same standard, or does Christ's prayer to the Father go without effect?

After Christ ascended, I believe that the apostles were "one" with Christ in that the Father and the Son dwelt in the apostles.

I might add this oneness or unity is different than the christian teaching of "one God".

[Log]

Log

After Christ ascended, I believe that the apostles were "one" with Christ in that the Father and the Son dwelt in the apostles.

I might add this oneness or unity is different than the christian teaching of "one God".

It sounds like the apostles would have to have been one with Christ in exactly the same sense(s) that Christ was one with the Father - at least, that's the plain reading of the text. Is that what you believe?

[johnny]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

I would, but lets look at the context, shall we.

If CHrist is saying that the Apostles can be one like He and His Father are, then reason stands taht that doesnt mean literially. So in what wasy are teh Father one that Christ and His Apostles can be one?

In the way of "works", the Father that dwelt in the Son did the works (John 14:10). The Son and the Father are one, believe that the Father is in the Son (John 10:29,38)

• John.14 ([10] Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. [11] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
  
• -
  
• John.10 ([29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. [30] I and my Father are one. [38] But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.)
  

Also verse 21 is a great example of being one in purpose and unity. They both want and work for the same thing. It deosnt mean that they are so much in unity taht they are the some in being.

I would agree verse 21 is an example of "one in purpose and unity", the Son is doing the will of the Father because the Father dwells in the Son.

Verse 21 is NOT an example of the Christian teaching of "one God".

Otherwise the Apostles would need to join Christ to be one in being as He is one in Being with His Father. It just isnt supported.

I did NOT say verse 21 supported the doctrine of "one in being". Verse 21 is NOT used to support the Christian teaching of "one God", other verses reveal the Christian teaching of "one God".

[johnny]

Log

It sounds like the apostles would have to have been one with Christ in exactly the same sense(s) that Christ was one with the Father - at least, that's the plain reading of the text. Is that what you believe?

Christ is "one" with the Father" in TWO sense(s) ... the FIRST being in oneness (the Son doing the will of the Father) ... the SECOND in "one in being", God was in Christ (2Cor 5:19).

[Log]

Log

Christ is "one" with the Father" in TWO sense(s) ... the FIRST being in oneness (the Son doing the will of the Father) ... the SECOND in "one in being", God was in Christ (2Cor 5:19).

Please address the question.

By your own citation: "John.17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

Do you believe that the apostles were one with Christ in exactly the same sense he was one with the Father (that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee... they also may be one in us), as he prayed to the Father for to happen?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Log

Christ is "one" with the Father" in TWO sense(s) ... the FIRST being in oneness (the Son doing the will of the Father) ... the SECOND in "one in being", God was in Christ (2Cor 5:19).

But there is still on problem Johnny, your interpretation is not supported by the text. I dont see any were were "one being" could even be infered.

You got anything else.

Even if there was a place, then that would mean that the Apsotles would aslo need to be one in being because Christ told them that they could be one as He is with His Father. You still havent addressed that.

[Akboy]

This is according to your narrow, self-defined definition of "Christian." Even the early Christian called others Christians even if some of the things they believed was very different, but then again, what did this early Christians know? They weren't as sophisticated and wise or even as close to God as some of today's mainstreamer Christians are.

Then what is your definition of "Christian," and where did you get that definition?

What were the differences between those early Christians?

Actually, I think Mormons can avail themselves of a better argument than that.

The scriptures teach that Christians are those who take upon themselves the name of Christ.

Where do the scriptures teach that? The word "Christian" comes up three times in the Bible, but none of those verses talk about taking on the name of Christ.

Which wh are, then by your own definition you are not Christian.

And I don't mind you saying that. EVs also believe they are right and following Christ's teachings accurately, and since we can't both be following Christ accurately, they believe Mormons aren't Christian.

[ttribe]

EVs also believe they are right and following Christ's teachings accurately, and since we can't both be following Christ accurately, they believe Mormons aren't Christian.

Question - you have created this distinction between EV's and Mormons regarding "following Christ accurately"; however, it is my perception that there continues to be significant doctrinal divisions amongst EV sects. Therefore, who of all EV's is following Christ accurately and why aren't other EV sects also "not Christian" if we Mormons fall into the same boat?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And I don't mind you saying that. EVs also believe they are right and following Christ's teachings accurately, and since we can't both be following Christ accurately, they believe Mormons aren't Christian.

Which BTW I think most people on this baord know that teh EVs believe that others taht dont believe as they do arent Christian. LDS just dont judge by those same standards. All that does is tear down bridges ins tead of building them.

One is more effective than the other. Care to guess which on is??

[Billy]

however, it is my perception that there continues to be significant doctrinal divisions amongst EV sects.

I think this is a misperception on your part

[emeliza]

I think this is a misperception on your part

Isn't predestination vs free agency a huge doctrinal difference?

[ttribe]

I think this is a misperception on your part

Oh really? So, I've attended a number of different types of EV services and met more of their members than I can count. Invariably, there are significant differences in doctrine which are obvious in their worship services and which have (in my experience) come out in conversation with those people who have been VERY critical of the beliefs of other EV sects.

Examples of such differences would include: method/necessity/timing of baptism, speaking in tongues, ordination to the priesthood/called to preach, role of works and their interaction with grace, treatment of homosexuality (sin or not), etc.

Frankly, I think you are trying to downplay these issues as my "misperception" to avoid having to address the inconsistency in the argument with respect to who is a Christian and who isn't.

[Billy]

Isn't predestination vs free agency a huge doctrinal difference?

Yes I think that this is one area of major contention within the EV community, this is usually among the Calvanist verses Arminianism debate, because you have verses that say that you were predestined, and other verses hint at free choice. However, I think this argument is discussed WITHIN Mormonism as well and is not just a point of discussion only among EV's. When I was LDS, I was taught that the reason that I was born into a LDS home in the last days was because I was predestined to come at that time because of things that I did in the pre earth life. One of the reasons to get a Patriarchal Blessing is to see what God has foreordained (predestined) for the individual if he lives as he should live.

[ttribe]

Yes I think that this is one area of major contention within the EV community, this is usually among the Calvanist verses Arminianism debate, because you have verses that say that you were predestined, and other verses hint at free choice. However, I think this argument is discussed WITHIN Mormonism as well and is not just a point of discussion only among EV's. When I was LDS, I was taught that the reason that I was born into a LDS home in the last days was because I was predestined to come at that time because of things that I did in the pre earth life. One of the reasons to get a Patriarchal Blessing is to see what God has foreordained (predestined) for the individual if he lives as he should live.

Your tired effort to relate this back to the LDS Church notwithstanding, the argument for considering Mormons as non-Christian has been posited as based on "accurately" following Christ and that all EVs ACCURATELY follow Christ. How can that be given the contention you've admitted to and the ones I've already listed?

[Billy]

Examples of such differences would include: method/necessity/timing of baptism, speaking in tongues, ordination to the priesthood/called to preach, role of works and their interaction with grace, treatment of homosexuality (sin or not), etc.

Frankly, I think you are trying to downplay these issues as my "misperception" to avoid having to address the inconsistency in the argument with respect to who is a Christian and who isn't.

1. Tithing--In my experience this is probably the biggest contention within the EV community. All churches agree that it is a good thing to give with a joyful heart, but some push a 10% of your gross on their members and others teach that tithing is an OT ritual that is no longer applicable. Both sides generally agree it is not required for salvation, but the churches that teach it say that you will get blessings as dictated in Malachi chapter 3. I agree with the latter, that we are no longer under the law of tithing, I think that it is between you and God what you give, who you give to, and that you are under no obligation to give to a specific church. The only obligation is to give with a cheerful heart.

2. Speaking in tongues--this is a gift of the spirit and most churches will not deny this fact. The biggest bone of contention is whether or not this should be done in church services which could be considered a distraction during the service.

3. No Aaronic or Melchezedek Priesthood in EV's churches, but individual churches have their own internal structure and offices etc. which is unique to that particular organization.

4. Works versed Grace--you will have to give me an example of the conflict that you are speaking about here. I have been to many EV's churches of different denominations, and I have never heard of the requirement of works for salvation.

5. Homosexuality--most consider Homosexuality to be a sin like other sins, like adultery, fornication, robbery, lying etc.

[Akboy]

Question - you have created this distinction between EV's and Mormons regarding "following Christ accurately"; however, it is my perception that there continues to be significant doctrinal divisions amongst EV sects. Therefore, who of all EV's is following Christ accurately and why aren't other EV sects also "not Christian" if we Mormons fall into the same boat?

If two EV sects disagree on the basic fundamentals of Christ's teachings, then the same rule applies. One of them isn't a Christian.

Which BTW I think most people on this baord know that teh EVs believe that others taht dont believe as they do arent Christian. LDS just dont judge by those same standards. All that does is tear down bridges ins tead of building them.

One is more effective than the other. Care to guess which on is??

Would it be any better if EVs agreed to call Mormons Christians, but still maintained they're are going to hell? Would that build any bridges?

The fact of the matter is EVs have beliefs Mormons don't like. They could lie about those beliefs. They could hide them and not tell others. They could change their beliefs so they don't bother other people. Or they could have faith in their beliefs and not compromise them. Which is the Biblical option? Which option would Christ want them to do?

[ttribe]

1. Tithing--In my experience this is probably the biggest contention within the EV community. All churches agree that it is a good thing to give with a joyful heart, but some push a 10% of your gross on their members and others teach that tithing is an OT ritual that is no longer applicable. Both sides generally agree it is not required for salvation, but the churches that teach it say that you will get blessings as dictated in Malachi chapter 3. I agree with the latter, that we are no longer under the law of tithing, I think that it is between you and God what you give, who you give to, and that you are under no obligation to give to a specific church. The only obligation is to give with a cheerful heart.

2. Speaking in tongues--this is a gift of the spirit and most churches will not deny this fact. The biggest bone of contention is whether or not this should be done in church services which could be considered a distraction during the service.

3. No Aaronic or Melchezedek Priesthood in EV's churches, but individual churches have their own internal structure and offices etc. which is unique to that particular organization.

4. Works versed Grace--you will have to give me an example of the conflict that you are speaking about here. I have been to many EV's churches of different denominations, and I have never heard of the requirement of works for salvation.

5. Homosexuality--most consider Homosexuality to be a sin like other sins, like adultery, fornication, robbery, lying etc.

This is getting sidetracked. I'm not asking you to specifically address these issues; I'm asking how EV's call ALL be following Christ ACCURATELY when there are significant differences in doctrine and practice amongst the sects. You replied by saying I have a "misperception". Are you now trying to talk me out of the idea that these differences exist?

[consiglieri]

I may be a tad early, but I just wanted to say I've got dibs on post 666.

[LeSellers]

This is getting sidetracked. I'm not asking you to specifically address these issues; I'm asking how EV's call ALL be following Christ ACCURATELY when there are significant differences in doctrine and practice amongst the sects. You replied by saying I have a "misperception". Are you now trying to talk me out of the idea that these differences exist?

Oh, no! There are deifferences, but they are "insignificant" or "trivial". The "important things", they all agree on.

Or so I've been told, ad infinitum.

Lehi

[ttribe]

If two EV sects disagree on the basic fundamentals of Christ's teachings, then the same rule applies. One of them isn't a Christian.

Which one(s) then do you believe are not Christian?

Would it be any better if EVs agreed to call Mormons Christians, but still maintained they're are going to hell? Would that build any bridges?

Ahh, you reveal your hand now. It's not really about having to share the name "Christian" with us; it's because we are going to hell for the sole reason that we are Mormon. How very interesting that you have the ability to judge such things. Here I was thinking that was the role of Christ and not of man; but then that goes back to my original argument - it is presumptuous for MAN to determine who is Christian when, in fact, it is a matter between the individual and Christ Himself.

The fact of the matter is EVs have beliefs Mormons don't like. They could lie about those beliefs. They could hide them and not tell others. They could change their beliefs so they don't bother other people. Or they could have faith in their beliefs and not compromise them. Which is the Biblical option? Which option would Christ want them to do?

No. You are not turning this around on us Mormons. You created the dichotomy now deal with it. If the motivation for your activities with respect to Mormonism is actually "love", then it's up to you to find a loving way to express your concerns regarding LDS teachings. However, if your motivations are based on HATE, then carry-on with the half-truths, mis-quotes, and telling me us we are going to hell because you don't like the way we interpret the teachings of Jesus (even though we are in agreement on the MOST important aspect of His teachings - that the Atonement of Christ is 100% necessary for salvation in the Kingdom of God).

[ttribe]

Oh, no! There are deifferences, but they are "insignificant" or "trivial". The "important things", they all agree on.

Or so I've been told, ad infinitum.

Lehi

And I have heard the same things. However, we have here a new definition - following Christ ACCURATELY. How can disparate groups be following Christ differently and yet fall under the same heading of accurate? That's the question I am posing to our EV friends here who insist I am a hell-bound sinner because I haven't ACCURATELY confessed and followed Christ.

[soren]

You can "prove" almost anything from the Bible, especilay when starting from an erroneous assumption. Any church is in trouble when it's recourse is to learned men woth Phd's rather than revelation from God. The trinity is a concept that evolved over a long period of time and is not explicit or implicit in the Bible.

I don't think that any LDS will be disturbed by a pronouncement from a Phd. when there are prophets on the earth to lead via the more sure word of prophecy.

Glenn

And to think, not forty minutes prior to sitting down and reading this post, I explained to one of my students what "peremptory" meant.