Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[jwhitlock]

Salvation is by faith alone.

But this faith has to be placed in the one true and living God. If I believe that God is a Golden Calf and place faith in that God, then my faith is misplaced. If I place faith in a false God then my faith will do nothing. The big question is how far off can a persons concept of God be to qualify as still worshipping the true and living God, I do not know the answer to this question. If God was never a man and you believe that your God was a man is this OK? I don't know the answer to that question. If God does not have a wife, is it OK to say that he does, I don't know. But the further away of ones beliefs are from the true character of God, then the more likelihood that one will be to worshipping a false God.

Well, since EVs have a false, non-Biblical concept of God and salvation, then it appears your own faith is misplaced - and by your own words, you are under condemnation.

EVs believe in a God that doesn't look like man.

EVs believe that baptism isn't necessary for salvation.

EVs believe that we can't become like God, our Father.

EVs believe that God doesn't send prophets anymore.

EVs can't be Christians if they believe such non-Biblical things. They have faith in the wrong things. That puts them far away from God and true worship.

Gee, this is a fun game to play, Billy. I see why you like to play it.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Luke 24:39 as a "Proof-text" of a Literal Interpretation of John 4:24

As cited in some of the passages gleaned from anti-Mormon works, Luke 24:39 is often used to support their literal interpretation of John 4:24. The passage reads:

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)

This passage raises an entirely new set of problems for those who would interpret John 4:24 literally. Believers of the "God is Spirit" doctrine also usually hold to the doctrine that Jesus is the same ontological being (albeit with a different personality) as God the Father. If God is only a Spirit, then Jesus Christ is obviously not God, since he is not only a spirit. He has a resurrected, glorified body of flesh and bone as well as a spirit. He ate a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb to prove it, as well as inviting His disciples to come forward and feel His hands and side. If God is truly only a spirit, then Jesus Christ could not be Him. "For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

Another interesting problem is explaining why Christ, who they believe to be "fully God," could have a spirit and a glorified, resurrected body, and clearly be "fully God," while they deny the same possibility of the Father.

And finally, the most profound passage in relation to this issue is found in the epistle to the Hebrews, where Christ's glorified, resurrected body is called the "express image" of the Father's person: "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person." (Hebrews 1:1-3.)

How could Christ be the "express image of the Father's person" with a spirit and a glorified, resurrected body if the Father is only a spirit? If God, as Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes insist, does not have a face, how could Christ, who arguably did have one, be the "express image of [the Father's] person?"

Geisler and Rhodes even refute themselves within two paragraphs, when they assert that Christ is "fully God" and thus "as much God as is the Father," while at the same time admitting "The Father--who in his divine nature is spirit (as is Jesus in His divine nature)--never became incarnate (as Jesus became incarnate), and hence does not have a human body as does Jesus."

(Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes, When Cultists Ask: A Popular Handbook on Cultic Misinterpretations (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1997), 284. How Did The "Spirit Only" Concept Evolve? Richard Hopkins theorizes that the vilification of anything material or physical was straight out of Greek Hellenistic neo-platonic thought. One of the earliest evidence we have of this misinterpretation of scripture is from both Philo of Alexandria and Tatian. In true Hellenistic form, Tatian writes "God is a spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible thingsâ?¦" [Tatian, Address to the Greeks, as quoted in Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994), 131.]

As Hopkins points out, Tatian, of course, fell into apostasy as a natural result of this and other heretical theologies he espoused. For example, Tatian was largely responsible for promoting the Gnostic Basilides' doctrine of creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). Tatian, born a pagan who converted to Christianity in AD 150, later left the Church to form a Gnostic group. [barry R. Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Ben Lomond, California: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999), 100-101.])

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20..._Gods_Word.html

[Jaybear]

The simple answer is that some EVs say Mormons aren't Christian because they need Mormons to be "the Other," and "not us."

Simplistic and offensive answer. Pot meet kettle. That is usually how someone perceives and refers to "others."

Have you considered a simpler answer: EVs say Mormons aren't Christian, because EVs believe Mormons aren't Christians. A mormon baptism is not recognized by EV churches (or the catholic church).

A related question is why don't Mormons say that EVs aren't Christians. Afterall Mormons believe that Christ has only one church, and the EVs aren't members of His church, and Mormons don't recognize EV baptisms.

[Log]

A related question is why don't Mormons say that EVs aren't Christians. Afterall Mormons believe that Christ has only one church, and the EVs aren't members of His church, and Mormons don't recognize EV baptisms.

Because we are willing to allow men to declare that they follow Christ without contradicting them - we are willing to grant that they believe themselves to be Christians in all good faith, and leave it up to Christ at the final judgement to declare which are his sheep, and which aren't.

[John Williams]

Simplistic and offensive answer. Pot meet kettle. That is usually how someone perceives and refers to "others."

Have you considered a simpler answer: EVs say Mormons aren't Christian, because EVs believe Mormons aren't Christians. A mormon baptism is not recognized by EV churches (or the catholic church).

A related question is why don't Mormons say that EVs aren't Christians. Afterall Mormons believe that Christ has only one church, and the EVs aren't members of His church, and Mormons don't recognize EV baptisms.

Heh, now even fellow exmos are offended, too.

It's sort of like people who say that if you don't support some particular political issue, you aren't a real "liberal" or "conservative." To an outsider like me, people who believe in Jesus are Christians, so Mormons and Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox and JWs are all Christians. What EVs seem to be saying is that, if you don't subscribe to certain doctrines, you don't really believe in Jesus. That distinction seems based more in a desire to marginalize Mormons (and others) than it is in a real belief. If it's hypocritical to express my observations, so be it.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Simplistic and offensive answer. Pot meet kettle. That is usually how someone perceives and refers to "others."

Have you considered a simpler answer: EVs say Mormons aren't Christian, because EVs believe Mormons aren't Christians. A mormon baptism is not recognized by EV churches (or the catholic church).

A related question is why don't Mormons say that EVs aren't Christians. Afterall Mormons believe that Christ has only one church, and the EVs aren't members of His church, and Mormons don't recognize EV baptisms.

Using just 'Sola Scripta' to prove what a Christian is; 'follower of Christ' it not the same thing as what Church one belongs to. No where in the scriptures does it say to be a Christian one has to be baptized and that term is only used three times in the scriptures. Now, the term Saint is a whole different study.

Strong's Concordance:

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/...RK554.htm#S5546

Christianos

Christos; a Christian, i.e. FOLLOWER OF CHRIST:--Christian

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRGRK55.htm#S5546

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

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B44C026.htm#V28

1 Pe 4:16 Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B60C004.htm#V16

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B44C011.htm#V26

[Anijen]

kryoung1983

It appears you are ignorant of what the Bible teaches and of early Christianity.

A Christian is a disciple (Acts 11:26), a disciple continues in the word of Jesus (John 8:31). Disciples of Jesus believed in â??one Godâ? (Mark 12:32), disciples of Jesus did not believe in â??three Godsâ? like Joseph Smith taught because â??one Godâ? is contrary to â??three Godsâ?. The apostles, who were disciples of Jesus, taught â??one Godâ? (1Cor 8:4-6), they didnâ??t teach â??three Godsâ? like todayâ??s Mormon Church.

Disciples were first called â??Christianâ? at Antioch, we know from the writings of the early church that they must have believed in â??one Godâ? because this is what the Bishop of Antioch taught, he did not believe in the â??three Godsâ? like Joseph Smith. The bishop Ignatius of Anitioch was closer to the true teachings of Jesus than todayâ??s Mormons because he was ordained by the apostle Peter himself.

The ordained bishop Ignatius must have worshiped with Peter and Paul and John. Ignatius learned from the apostles. His writings date from the time of Johnâ??s Revelation and a little beyond. Ignatius wrote that "there is one God" and that "God existing in flesh".

Acts 11:26 "they were called Christians,"

"allows us to infer that the term was first used by non Christians. So we know that they did not at first, call themselves by that name."

~Dr. Peterson Offenders for a word pg 25.

Who were these people designated as "Christian"? Who were these people at the church in Antioch? Well, these people believed in Prophets (Acts 13:1) and this is after Christ ascension.

Dr. Peterson writes this;

"This should give some critics of Mormonism food for thought, for they often claim that Jesus Christ is the final revelation of God, and that there can be consequentially be no prophets after him. Yet here, the first congregation of Jesus' followers to receive the title Christian is characterized precisely, by Christian prophets." Offenders for a word pg 26

[ttribe]

Because we are willing to allow men to declare that they follow Christ without contradicting them - we are willing to grant that they believe themselves to be Christians in all good faith, and leave it up to Christ at the final judgement to declare which are his sheep, and which aren't.

Exactly!

Heh, now even fellow exmos are offended, too. It's sort of like people who say that if you don't support some particular political issue, you aren't a real "liberal" or "conservative." To an outsider like me, people who believe in Jesus are Christians, so Mormons and Catholics and Protestants and Orthodox and JWs are all Christians. What EVs seem to be saying is that, if you don't subscribe to certain doctrines, you don't really believe in Jesus. That distinction seems based more in a desire to marginalize Mormons (and others) than it is in a real belief. If it's hypocritical to express my observations, so be it.

Not hypocritical at all and I think the issue is well summarized.

[johnny]

Anijen,

Acts 11:26 "they were called Christians,"

"allows us to infer that the term was first used by non Christians. So we know that they did not at first, call themselves by that name."

Sounds good â?¦ these folks called Christians believed in one God because this is what their bishop taught at Antioch. Thosed called Christians did not believe in "three Gods" like today's Mormon Church.

Who were these people designated as "Christian"? Who were these people at the church in Antioch? Well, these people believed in Prophets (Acts 13:1) and this is after Christ ascension.

Early Christians believed in many prophets and these prophets were judged by other prophets. Prophets were secondary in the early Christian church.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Anijen,

Sounds good â?¦ these folks called Christians believed in one God because this is what their bishop taught at Antioch. Thosed called Christians did not believe in "three Gods" like today's Mormon Church.

Early Christians believed in many prophets and these prophets were judged by other prophets. Prophets were secondary in the early Christian church.

Are you saying you are not like the early Christian church by your own words?

[Log]

Anijen,Sounds good â?¦ these folks called Christians believed in one God because this is what their bishop taught at Antioch. Thosed called Christians did not believe in "three Gods" like today's Mormon Church.

And that God was physically embodied. And they weren't speaking of Christ.

Are you saying you are not like the early Christian church by your own words?

No orthodox Christian cares, really, how close they are to the primitive Church, in my experience.

[urroner]

Anijen,

Sounds good â?¦ these folks called Christians believed in one God because this is what their bishop taught at Antioch. Thosed called Christians did not believe in "three Gods" like today's Mormon Church.

Dang Johnny, I read that verse and all those around it and nowhere does it say that they were called Christians becuase their bishop taught that. Maybe you have a different version of the Bible than I do. Could you point out to me where it says anything about a bishop teaching that doctrine?

[Anijen]

Dang Johnny, I read that verse and all those around it and nowhere does it say that they were called Christians becuase their bishop taught that. Maybe you have a different version of the Bible than I do. Could you point out to me where it says anything about a bishop teaching that doctrine?

I second Urroner's CFR

[Jaybear]

Heh, now even fellow exmos are offended, too.

I did not say I was offended. I say your comments were offensive.

What EVs seem to be saying is that, if you don't subscribe to certain doctrines, you don't really believe in Jesus. That distinction seems based more in a desire to marginalize Mormons (and others) than it is in a real belief.

Real beliefs:

EVs genuinely believe that you must accept Christ as your Lord and savior to be saved. EVs genuinely believe that mormons will NOT be saved. EVs genuinely believe that JS has led people AWAY from Christ.

You do not have to look for sinister motives to understand why EVs say mormons aren't christians.

If it's hypocritical to express my observations, so be it.

Its only hypocritical because you complain when mormons observe that apostates leave the church in order to sin or because they were offended, an attribution of motive which is both simplistic and offensive.

[johnny]

Hannah Rebekah

As cited in some of the passages gleaned from anti-Mormon works, Luke 24:39 is often used to support their literal interpretation of John 4:24. The passage reads:

Other passages that reveal God the Father is spirit are the following,

• Eph.4 ([6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.)
  
• -
  
• 1Kgs.8 ([27] But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?)
  

This passage raises an entirely new set of problems for those who would interpret John 4:24 literally. Believers of the "God is Spirit" doctrine also usually hold to the doctrine that Jesus is the same ontological being (albeit with a different personality) as God the Father. If God is only a Spirit, then Jesus Christ is obviously not God, since he is not only a spirit. He has a resurrected, glorified body of flesh and bone as well as a spirit. He ate a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb to prove it, as well as inviting His disciples to come forward and feel His hands and side. If God is truly only a spirit, then Jesus Christ could not be Him. "For a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."

Clearly you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The Son of God is distinct from God the Father. The Son of God has glorified resurrected body. God the Father is spirit only, he has no body of flesh like the Son of God.

Another interesting problem is explaining why Christ, who they believe to be "fully God," could have a spirit and a glorified, resurrected body, and clearly be "fully God," while they deny the same possibility of the Father.

Christians deny that God the Father has a body of flesh because this contrary to what scripture reveals and what the early Christians taught.

How could Christ be the "express image of the Father's person" with a spirit and a glorified, resurrected body if the Father is only a spirit? If God, as Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes insist, does not have a face, how could Christ, who arguably did have one, be the "express image of [the Father's] person?"

â??express imageâ? is referring to the Sonâ??s glory. The Sonâ??s glory is equal to the Fatherâ??s glory. â??express imageâ? is not referring to a physical image.

[John Williams]

I did not say I was offended. I say your comments were offensive.

Real beliefs:

EVs genuinely believe that you must accept Christ as your Lord and savior to be saved. EVs genuinely believe that mormons will NOT be saved. EVs genuinely believe that JS has led people AWAY from Christ.

You do not have to look for sinister motives to understand why EVs say mormons aren't christians.

Its only hypocritical because you complain when mormons observe that apostates leave the church in order to sin or because they were offended, an attribution of motive which is both simplistic and offensive.

I should have qualified my observation by saying that "some" EVs do so to marginalize Mormons and others. I have seen such, but you are right that I should not have extended that to EVs at large.

[johnny]

Hannah Rebekah

Are you saying you are not like the early Christian church by your own words?

The apostolic Catholic Church has those who have the spiritual gifts to be called apostle and prophet, the first-centruy bishop Polycarp â??combined both apostle and prophet in his own personâ?, see quote below:

• The Martyrdom of Polycarp "Polycarp was . . . bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna, and a teacher in our own day who combined both apostle and prophet in his own person. For indeed, every word that ever fell from his lips either has had or will have its fulfillment" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 5, 16 [A.D. 155]).
  

[johnny]

Log,

And that God was physically embodied. And they weren't speaking of Christ.

They were speaking of Christ, the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14).

[johnny]

urroner

Dang Johnny, I read that verse and all those around it and nowhere does it say that they were called Christians becuase their bishop taught that. Maybe you have a different version of the Bible than I do. Could you point out to me where it says anything about a bishop teaching that doctrine?

Either you mis-understood or I didnâ??t make myself clear. Scripture reveals that Christians are disciples. I am not saying â??they were called Christians becuase their bishop taught thatâ?. Their bishops taught these disciples or those called Christians â??one Godâ?.

[Log]

Log,

They were speaking of Christ, the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14).

No, they weren't.

[soren]

Hannah Rebekah

Other passages that reveal God the Father is spirit are the following,

• Eph.4 ([6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.)
  
• -
  
• 1Kgs.8 ([27] But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?)
  

Clearly you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The Son of God is distinct from God the Father. The Son of God has glorified resurrected body. God the Father is spirit only, he has no body of flesh like the Son of God.

Christians deny that God the Father has a body of flesh because this contrary to what scripture reveals and what the early Christians taught.

â??express imageâ? is referring to the Sonâ??s glory. The Sonâ??s glory is equal to the Fatherâ??s glory. â??express imageâ? is not referring to a physical image.

The key to figuring out the meaning of "God is [a] spirit" is to look at the question it answers. In its context, it is answering two questions: "What is God?" and "Where is God?" By answering these question it leads to a conclusion as to what constitutes acceptable worship. The Samaritan woman challenges Jesus about where God is to be worshipped, in Zion of Gerezim. Which Temple is God truly present in? ("Where is God?") Jesus responds by saying that the Samaritans do not know what they worship as the Jews do. ("What is God") Jesus resolves the dilemma by stating what God is - "spirit" - by which he implies the answer to where God is - he is as omnipresent as truth. God is therefore not present only in Zion or Gerzim, but exists everywhe re and so can be worshipped everywhere, "in spirit and in truth."

Unless "God is [a] spirit" implies omnipresnce, none of this follows, and the Samaritan woman's question gets no real answer. Mormon interpretations of this verse, which read "God is spirit" either as a qualitive statement or as an appeal to the spirit-body dichotomy that identifies the self with the spirit only, is plausible from a grammatical/syntacitcal stadnpoint, but it has no relevance in the argument of the chapter.

[johnny]

Log,

No, they weren't.

Clearly they were, see below

• Ignatius of Antioch "Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. . . . [T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 6â??8 [A.D. 110] emphasis added)
  
• -
  
• Ignatius of Antioch "We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin " (Ephesians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,1:52)
  
• -
  
• Ignatius of Antioch "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ephesians,7(A.D.110),in ANF,I:52)
  
• -
  
• Ignatius of Antioch "There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; one who is, and there is no other besides him, the only true [God]. For â??the Lord your God,â?? says [the Scripture], â??is one Lordâ?? [Deut. 6:4]. . . . And there is also one Son, God the Word. . . . And there is also one Paraclete" (Letter to the Philadelphians 2 [A.D. 110])
  

[Log]

Read my reference. Then talk.

[Log]

And there was a follow up for the inevitable attempt at a rebuttal.

[Bat-Man]

[*]Ignatius of Antioch "Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father and is with and has gone to one [Father]. . . .

Ignatius of Antioch seemed to realize that Jesus Christ and the Father are two separate persons, Jesus Christ being with the Father at one point, coming forth from the Father at another point later, and then going back to the Father at another point even later than that.

So, so far, Ignatius seems to be in agreement with us (LDS) and our (LDS) concept of God (our Father) and Jesus Christ being two separate persons who can separate from each other at one point and yet return to each other at another point later.

[T]here is one God, who has manifested himself by Jesus Christ his Son, who is his eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased him that sent him" (Letter to the Magnesians 6â??8 [A.D. 110] emphasis added)

To us (LDS), there is only one God, our Father, as well as our Lord, Jesus Christ, beside Him.

So, so far, again, Ignatius still seems to be in agreement with us (LDS).

[*]Ignatius of Antioch "We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin " (Ephesians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,1:52)

Here Ignatius seems to be indicating that Jesus Christ is (also) God, as well as our Father (God), with Jesus being the only-begotten Son and [Word (of our Father, God) before time began].

So, so far, again, Ignatius still seems to be in agreement with us (LDS).

[*]Ignatius of Antioch "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." (Ephesians,7(A.D.110),in ANF,I:52)

Looks to me like Ignatius is still in agreement with us (LDS).

[*]Ignatius of Antioch "There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; one who is, and there is no other besides him, the only true [God]. For â??the Lord your God,â?? says [the Scripture], â??is one Lordâ?? [Deut. 6:4]. . . . And there is also one Son, God the Word. . . . And there is also one Paraclete" (Letter to the Philadelphians 2 [A.D. 110])

Ignatius seemed to have some trouble connecting the dots at this point.

True, there is one God and Father, but to say there is "not" two or three (who are God) is to deny the truth we (LDS) know concerning Jesus Christ who is also God and the Father of all those who are begotten (again) through Him (Jesus Christ).

... and, personally, I see no good reason to try to agree with Ignatius of Antioch.