Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[Akboy]

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?

Did we say ALL EVs are following Christ ACCURATELY?

[jwhitlock]

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?

It would be more correct - and accurate - to say that EVs make value judgments about Mormons (you're going to hell, you're not Christian, you're not saved, you have no relationship with God, etc.) that Mormons don't like, rather than EVs have beliefs Mormons don't like.

Rephrasing the real issue in the way you have misdirects the discussion.

[johnny]

Log

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?

Yes

[johnny]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

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.

John 17:21 is not used to support "one in being". I cited a 2Cor 5:19 to support "one in being".

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.

The Apostles are not "one in being" like the Father and the Son because the fulness of the Godhead does not dwell bodily in the apostles like it does in Christ.

[Billy]

I'm asking how EV's call ALL be following Christ ACCURATELY when there are significant differences in doctrine and practice amongst the sects.

The key to your answer is what is significant and what is not significant is differences between various EV churches.

I think that there are things that are vital to following God, and then there are things that are interesting and debatable, but not essential to salvation, and variation of opinions is OK in these areas.

Another area of differences among EV's is the pretribulation, midtribulation, or post-tribulation view of the rapture. There is some disagreement between the various scholars which one of these is the correct point of view. Although this is an interesting topic for discussion, the answer is really not important in the big scheme of things, and variation of opinions are normal and acceptable.

Mormon version, is it OK to drink Coke. Some say yes, some say no. In the big picture it doesn't really matter.

In the nonessential matters, members can and do have varying opinions.

But I think that the big issues surround 2 key areas. In these two areas, I think you will find good agreement within the EV communitiy.

1 God--what God do you worship, what are his characteristics, and is he the correct God. You can place all the faith in the world in the wrong God and get nowhere.

2. Requirement for salvation--Is it by grace alone, or is it by works and rituals. These are opposite positions, and both can be false, but both can't be true at the same time, this goes against the law of noncontradiction.

[ttribe]

Did we say ALL EVs are following Christ ACCURATELY?

Nice try at misdirection. So again, I ask the question - which EV's are not? You are obviously certain that you are, so tell me which are and which aren't so I, as a hell-bound Mormon, can know which are okay to investigate and which I should avoid if I want to be a "real" Christian.

[ttribe]

The key to your answer is what is significant and what is not significant is differences between various EV churches.

I think that there are things that are vital to following God, and then there are things that are interesting and debatable, but not essential to salvation, and variation of opinions is OK in these areas.

Another area of differences among EV's is the pretribulation, midtribulation, or post-tribulation view of the rapture. There is some disagreement between the various scholars which one of these is the correct point of view. Although this is an interesting topic for discussion, the answer is really not important in the big scheme of things, and variation of opinions are normal and acceptable.

Mormon version, is it OK to drink Coke. Some say yes, some say no. In the big picture it doesn't really matter.

I submit that the issue of baptism is a greater issue, for example, then whether some Mormons drink Coca-Cola or not; and I don't think I'd get a lot of argument in that. Again, this is not about us Mormons, it's about you EV's and the self-proclaimed accuracy of worship.

In the nonessential matters, members can and do have varying opinions.

But I think that the big issues surround 2 key areas. In these two areas, I think you will find good agreement within the EV communitiy.

1 God--what God do you worship, what are his characteristics, and is he the correct God. You can place all the faith in the world in the wrong God and get nowhere.

2. Requirement for salvation--Is it by grace alone, or is it by works and rituals. These are opposite positions, and both can be false, but both can't be true at the same time, this goes against the law of noncontradiction.

Again, the baptism issue needs to rear its head here. There are disparate opinions as to the necessity and form of baptism. I've certainly heard it said by Baptists that 1) Baptism is a MUST for entering the kingdom of heaven; and 2) it must be by immersion. Doesn't sound insignificant to me.

[Log]

Log

Yes

Then why not believe in a 15ity, which the text straightforwardly supports? Your secondary citation doesn't detract from this at all.

[Billy]

Again, the baptism issue needs to rear its head here. There are disparate opinions as to the necessity and form of baptism. I've certainly heard it said by Baptists that 1) Baptism is a MUST for entering the kingdom of heaven; and 2) it must be by immersion. Doesn't sound insignificant to me.

All the different churches that I have visited believe in baptism, and most believe it should be by immersion. There are two major difference between LDS and EV's in this area: 1 By what authority can someone baptize. 2. Is baptism required for salvation.

But as far as baptism goes, both LDS and EV's believe in it. (As with everything I am sure there are many exceptions)

Addendum

You state, "Baptists that 1) Baptism is a MUST for entering the kingdom of heaven."

This is not true.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...John 17:21 is not used to support "one in being". I cited a 2Cor 5:19 to support "one in being". The Apostles are not "one in being" like the Father and the Son because the fulness of the Godhead does not dwell bodily in the apostles like it does in Christ.

Correct. Your 2Cr 5:19 says nothing about one being. Try again. So far you have offered up nothing that could possibly explain how Christ and Apostles can be one as He and His Father are one. If anything the more you cite the more it appears that they are one in purpose.

Then why not believe in a 15ity, which the text straightforwardly supports? Your secondary citation doesn't detract from this at all.

Careful. It is starting to look like a globular mass. J/K. Maybe.

[johnny]

Log

Then why not believe in a 15ity, which the text straightforwardly supports? Your secondary citation doesn't detract from this at all.

I believe in John 17:21. My secondary citation (2Cor 5:19) was for a secondary and different point I was trying to make.

[ttribe]

All the different churches that I have visited believe in baptism, and most believe it should be by immersion. There are two major difference between LDS and EV's in this area: 1 By what authority can someone baptize. 2. Is baptism required for salvation.

But as far as baptism goes, both LDS and EV's believe in it. (As with everything I am sure there are many exceptions)

Addendum

You state, "Baptists that 1) Baptism is a MUST for entering the kingdom of heaven."

This is not true.

I stand corrected on Baptists. Nevertheless, it is obvious from things like this: http://careyford.com/theologicalstudies/baptism.html, that there is debate in the EV community about baptism and that it is SIGNIFICANT.

Now, let me ask this - are Catholics Christian Billy?

[Log]

Log

I believe in John 17:21. My secondary citation (2Cor 5:19) was for a secondary and different point I was trying to make.

The different point (one in being as a unique property of the relationship of the Father and the Son) is not supported by the text, and, moreover, in the light of John 17:21, it takes on an entirely new meaning, and not one congenial to the Catholic view of the Godhead.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All the different churches that I have visited believe in baptism, and most believe it should be by immersion. There are two major difference between LDS and EV's in this area: 1 By what authority can someone baptize. 2. Is baptism required for salvation.

But as far as baptism goes, both LDS and EV's believe in it. (As with everything I am sure there are many exceptions)

Addendum

You state, "Baptists that 1) Baptism is a MUST for entering the kingdom of heaven."

This is not true.

let me ask you just one question, do you feel that baptism is something that not every body is able to do?

I disagree that Baptism isnt required. If that were the case they just shouldnt have every talked about it.

[johnny]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

Correct. Your 2Cr 5:19 says nothing about one being. Try again.

Do you believe "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself"?

Explain how God was in Christ ... thanks

• 2Cor.5 ([19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.)
  

So far you have offered up nothing that could possibly explain how Christ and Apostles can be one as He and His Father are one.

They are one in "will", they do the will of the Father. To do the "will" of the Father is be one in purpose with the Father.

If anything the more you cite the more it appears that they are one in purpose.

I have no problem saying "they are one in purpose".

[johnny]

Log

The different point (one in being as a unique property of the relationship of the Father and the Son) is not supported by the text, and, moreover, in the light of John 17:21, it takes on an entirely new meaning, and not one congenial to the Catholic view of the Godhead.

"one in being" is supported by 2Cor 5:19.

Both John 17:21 and 2Cor 5:19 support the Catholic View of the Godhead, the Athanasian Creed say "the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one".

[Log]

Log

"one in being" is supported by 2Cor 5:19.

Then the apostles also are one in being with Christ and the Father, as per John 17:21.

Both John 17:21 and 2Cor 5:19 support the Catholic View of the Godhead, the Athanasian Creed say "the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one".

Is it now the Catholic teaching that the relationship between the Father and the Son is not unique?

[Tanyan]

Whoever wrote that website you linked knows absolutely nothing about the subject. First it claims that Catohlicism denies the subordination of the Son to the Father. This charge is only true in term of the son's divine nature which is eaul to the father, but not true in terms of his human nature which although he was in the form of God, he did not consider equlaity with God a thing to be exploited but empitied himself, tkaing the form of a servant, and became obedient even unto death... If christ "became" obedient when he took on flesh, he was not subordinate to God beforehand.

It is also wrong that the caztholic Trinity speaks where the Bible is silent one the nature of God's oneness. The Catholic Trinity is explicit where the Bible is cryptic.

The accusation that the Catholic Trinity speaks of the "mechanical make-up" of God on and almost "atomic level" is depressingly ignorant. The nature of Catholic monotheism is such that it precisely denies that God has a mechanical make-up at all. The reason that the persons ofthe Trinity are one in being is precisely because pure monotheism excludes the idea that God has parts. For this reason, the three persons cannot be parts of God or possess parts of divinity; each must be God entire or not be God at all. Using the image of atoms as if the person were parts and treating it as a machine composed of pieces misses the point altogether. This is a radical error, so fundamental as to make the entire doctrine of the Trinity immediately unintelligible from the start. It is itself sufficient evidnce of the total ignorance ofthe author of the website you linked to.

This list of antitheses lower on the page is absolutely horrible since there is nothing in the "Biblical" column that Catholicism denies. The false antithesis between the economic and imminent Trinity is a clear example since Catholic sees the economic Trinity as both real and as analogous to the imminent one. Indeed, it is by observing thee works pf the economic Trinity that the imminent Trintiy is principally knowable to us! A significant work recently published on this subject os Thomas Weinandy's The Father's Spirit of Sonship which argues an entire theology of the Holy Spirit in the imminent Trinity on the basis of the Spirit's role in the economy.

Even if the Trintiy were false, these argument are utterly sophomoric.

Perhaps you can e-mail them and let them know of there sophmoric structure.

[soren]

I have no problem saying "they are one in purpose".

You should. God is our purpose; we are not his. The purpose of a thing is by definition greater than the thing itself. God is the purpose of all things and so does not have a purpose of his own; it is his intrinsic goodness, which is objective without refernce to any additional purpose that makes it possible for him to endow other things with purpose and to give meaning to life itself.

If the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were one in purpose, and that purpose were the happiness of man, then we should not conclude that they are one God. We should conclude that we are one God.

Note: In the sense that "one in purpose" can indicate agreement in will, the phrase does not offend, yet Mormonism goes farther than this by purpose definitional of Godhead on an ontological level.

[johnny]

Log

Then the apostles also are one in being with Christ and the Father, as per John 17:21.

The apostles are NOT "one in being with Christ and the Father", because "the fulness of the Godhead" (Col 2:9) does not dwell in the apostles bodily.

Is it now the Catholic teaching that the relationship between the Father and the Son is not unique?

To help me understand what you are talking could you cite the Catholic teaching you are referring to?

[consiglieri]

May I interrupt this fascinating argument to mention something I have noticed?

There seems to be a direct corrolary among EV Christians as follows, which I will set forth as a working hypothesis:

Those Evangelical Christians who are certain Mormons are going to hell seem less likely to call Mormons Christian than those Evangelical Christians who think that individual Mormons may be in a saved state.

That may be too dense (like its author).

In othe words, some evanglical Christians are convinced that all Mormons are going to hell by virtue of membership in the Mormon Church. These evangelical Christians seem unlikely to call Mormons "Christian."

Other evangelical Christians are open to the possibility that God's grace can reach certain individual Mormons while still in the Mormon church, based upon whether the individual Mormon is in a "right relationship" with God. This group of evangelical Christians seem more likely to call Mormons "Christian."

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ra...

Do you believe "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself"?

Explain how God was in Christ ... thanks

• 2Cor.5 ([19] To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.)
  

They are one in "will", they do the will of the Father. To do the "will" of the Father is be one in purpose with the Father.

I have no problem saying "they are one in purpose".

It is all about the will of the Son being swallowed up by the will of the Father. The Son always did the will of the Father.

Common in this is really simple.

It is a whole lot easier to see that all of the "one" is talking about purpose and wills than it is to see one in being. As we know that There is but one God. That means there is but one God that we recognize. That is God the Father. WE know more exsist for scripture hath delcared it.

Further more Because God the Father was Jesus mortal Father He was in Him.

Just as I am in my kids. THere is no escaping that. But the scriptures arent talking about that aspect.

[Log]

Log

The apostles are NOT "one in being with Christ and the Father", because "the fulness of the Godhead" (Col 2:9) does not dwell in the apostles bodily.

Did the fullness of the Godhead dwell in Christ by virtue of his relationship with the Father? If so, how then can you avoid the conclusion that it did dwell in the apostles bodily, as per John 17:21, in which Christ expresses it as his will that the same relationship Christ has with the Father should also be the Apostles' relationship with Christ and the Father?

To help me understand what you are talking could you cite the Catholic teaching you are referring to?

Maybe I am misunderstanding you - you seemed to be telling me that the Apostles did not have the same relationship with Christ and the Father as Christ had with the Father. If that is not what you are saying, then the error is mine.

[Akboy]

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

According to a few people on this board, there's around 10,000 different EV groups, and I have no reason to doubt that. I don't go to each group to investigate their beliefs.

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.

EVs don't say you're going to hell because you're a Mormon, they say you're going to hell because Mormon doctrine rejects Christ's plan of salvation. EVs aren't saying they get to judge. They've never claimed to have that role. They believe Mormons are going to hell, not because they say so, but because they believe Mormon doctrine rejects Christ's plan of salvation.

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).

Most EVs are doing this out of love, not hate. They are trying to send their message in a loving way, but they aren't perfect and they can't plan for every possible response.

Try to put yourself in their shoes. If you believed a group was rejecting Christ's doctrine and going to hell for it, how would you reach out to them?

[Tanyan]

We are the same race/family/kin to GOD according to Acts 17;28 - Offspring - Greek - "genos".