Why Do Christians Say Mormons Are Not Christian?

[soren]

soren,

Do you disagree or agree with the following from ETWN?

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.as...C&start_at=

• Although Mormons certainly consider themselves to be Christians, the Catholic Church does not consider them to be Christians, either sacramentally or theologically. The Church has ruled that Mormon baptism is not valid, which means that Mormons are not Christians by baptism. Since Mormons believe in a plurality of gods and do not believe in Christ's divinity (as it is understood by orthodox Christians), they are not theological Christians either.
  

http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.as...C&start_at=

• Those who deny the doctrine of the Holy Trinity deny that Christ is God. Now if one denies that Christ is God, he is denying an essential aspect of Christianity. So you are right in this regard and your Catholic friends are wrong. So instruct them on the meaning of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
  

At EWTN, they are using the term Christian in the sense that it is used by the Second Vatican Council, which differentiates between Christian and non-christian religions in terms of whtether they both believe in the Trinity and have valid baptism. In that sense, Mormons are not "Christian," and Vatican II when it speaks of "Christians" should be understood as referring to something that does not include Mormons. And therefore the document on interreligious dialogue rather than the document on ecumenism should be interpreted as applicable to our dialogue with Mormonism.

But that is not the whole story. The meaning of "Christian" at Vatican II is not the same as the meaning of "Christian" simply. Throughout Christian history, saints and even doctors of the Church have used the term Christian in a variety of ways, some more and some less inclusive, some broadly and some rigorously. And that is my point about the semantical range.

The meaning of a word ultimately is defined by the intention of the person who is speaking at the moment, and that intention may not match the way it is used by everyone else. Mormons use "Christian" in an inclusive sense, and it iis a meaningful sense of the word. We can use it in an inclusive sense too. Admittedly Mormons are not Christians in the sense used by Vat II, but then again, they themselves don't claim to be, and so that is not the sense of "Christian" that is even being debated.

[johnny]

soren,

At EWTN, they are using the term Christian in the sense that it is used by the Second Vatican Council, which differentiates between Christian and non-christian religions in terms of whtether they both believe in the Trinity and have valid baptism. In that sense, Mormons are not "Christian," and Vatican II when it speaks of "Christians" should be understood as referring to something that does not include Mormons. And therefore the document on interreligious dialogue rather than the document on ecumenism should be interpreted as applicable to our dialogue with Mormonism.

But that is not the whole story. The meaning of "Christian" at Vatican II is not the same as the meaning of "Christian" simply. Throughout Christian history, saints and even doctors of the Church have used the term Christian in a variety of ways, some more and some less inclusive, some broadly and some rigorously. And that is my point about the semantical range.

The meaning of a word ultimately is defined by the intention of the person who is speaking at the moment, and that intention may not match the way it is used by everyone else. Mormons use "Christian" in an inclusive sense, and it iis a meaningful sense of the word. We can use it in an inclusive sense too. Admittedly Mormons are not Christians in the sense used by Vat II, but then again, they themselves don't claim to be, and so that is not the sense of "Christian" that is even being debated.

If I am understanding you correctly when my Catholic wife ask me if Mormons are "Christian" ... I can say Mormons are not Christians.

[soren]

soren,

If I am understanding you correctly when my Catholic wife ask me if Mormons are "Christian" ... I can say Mormons are not Christians.

Only if you qualify the sense of the word in terms of Vat II usage, which is based upon Catholic sacramentology rather than historical usage. I would not, however, say they are not Christian in the absolute sense that people who make of point of denying that Mormons are Christian generally intend to indicate.

[Hannah Rebekah]

We don't believe there is a 'true Church,' and most of those 10,000 groups don't claim to be the 'true Church.' Many of the churches agree on the fundamentals, so they could all be Christian. Mormons and Baptists, for example, disagree on what the fundamentals, so one of them isn't Christian.

I happen to know from the scriptures that Christ taught baptism yet I know of traditional Christian Churches who feel there is no need for baptism. Wouldn't you say baptism is one of the fundamentals? Sounds like some holier than thou's got together and decided to make up the rules as they went along about who could use the title of Christian. Must be ones with a Pharisee syndrome. The traditional Christians don't even look like the Ancient Christians and yet they are the ones who think they can dictate the rules that I for one choose to ignore. It seems to me if a person wants to call themselves a Christian then that is good enough and is no ones business to impose non Biblical rules...unless you preach another gospel and worship another Jesus. And I think all Mormons everywhere and on every forum need to put 'LDS Christian' under their name on their signature. We get to define who we are and what we believe.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Daniel Peterson

So do you consider Mormon's "Tritheists", since Mormon confess the existence an infinite line of gods?

Joseph Smith said,

• Joseph Smitth's King Follett Sermon "... you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, ... when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself."
  

Shoot Johnny,

Just becuase we acknowledge that there are infinite number of gods, does not mean we worship and infinite number.

[johnny]

soren,

Only if you qualify the sense of the word in terms of Vat II usage, which is based upon Catholic sacramentology rather than historical usage. I would not, however, say they are not Christian in the absolute sense that people who make of point of denying that Mormons are Christian generally intend to indicate.

Thanks that helps me better understand the Vat II aspect ... you mention historical usage, at the time of New Testament, would a person believing "three Gods" be considered a Christian since neither Jesus nor the apostle Paul taught "three Gods". Both Jesus and the apostle Paul taught "one God".

• Mark.12 ([29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: [32] And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: )
  
• -
  
• 1Cor 8 ([4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. [5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.)
  

[Log]

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.)

That seems to be an anti-Trinitarian observation by Paul, as a side note, clearly separating Jesus from the denominator "God."

[soren]

soren,

Thanks that helps me better understand the Vat II aspect ... you mention historical usage, at the time of New Testament, would a person believing "three Gods" be considered a Christian since neither Jesus nor the apostle Paul taught "three Gods". Both Jesus and the apostle Paul taught "one God".

• Mark.12 ([29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: [32] And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: )
  
• -
  
• 1Cor 8 ([4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. [5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.)
  

I don't know the answer to that. I certainly don't think they thought that there was more than one God and do not at all believe that "One God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ" should be taken to indicate anything but monotheism.

As far as I can guess, I think the early Church conceived of the gospel as nothing other than the proclamation that Jesus is Messiah/Lord/King. Just this afternoon I read a good book by N.T. Wright called What St. Paul Really Said that makes a very strong case for this. This makes me wonder of the mere confession of the name of Jesus was enough for them (although the concept of a false gospel as discussed in Galatians mays stand as a serious objection to my theory).

I do know, and I documented this on a thread many months ago, that in the second cnetury Justin Martyr referred to the Marcionites as Christians in his First Apology. The Marcionites were a semi-gnostic sect that believe the God of the Old Teastament was evil, in its own way a worse error than tritheism. Of course, Justin himself was a subordinationist (although I have a buddy who makes a suprisingly coherent case that he wasn't).

[johnny]

Log

That seems to be an anti-Trinitarian observation by Paul, as a side note, clearly separating Jesus from the denominator "God."

It seems like you are not familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity, in the doctrine of the Trinity the Son and the Father are distinct just like 1Cor 8 reveals.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Log

It seems like you are not familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity, in the doctrine of the Trinity the Son and the Father are distinct just like 1Cor 8 reveals.

But the same. Deisctinct means speperate Johnny.

Stop confusing terms.

[johnny]

soren,

I don't know the answer to that. I certainly don't think they thought that there was more than one God and do not at all believe that "One God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ" should be taken to indicate anything but monotheism.

I would agree that they didn't think "there was more than one God". The second century bishop Ignatius, who was ordained by the apostle Peter, wrote,

• 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)
  

[soren]

But the same. Deisctinct means speperate Johnny.

Stop confusing terms.

No confusion of terms ic ocming from Johnny. "Distinct" and "separate" are manifestly differents, and can be proved by example: The mass of my body and its volumes cannot be separated from each other, yet they are distinct, as are the color of my skin and the surface of it. Neither of these are analogies for the Trinity, but they are enough to show that distinct and separate are not the same concept.

[soren]

soren,

I would agree that they didn't think "there was more than one God". The second century bishop Ignatius, who was ordained by the apostle Peter, wrote,

• 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)
  

the key to understadning Paul when he speaks of One God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ, is to see how he is updating the Shema: "Hear Oh Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one." Because the name Yahweh means "I am" this is a statment about a single being, by inserting the distinction of the Father and Son into the Shema, Paul is distinguishing them personally whil asserted their unity as existentially one God. It is thoroughly Trinitarian.

[Log]

It appears, not to put too fine a point on it, that Paul did not consider Jesus to be God. Certainly Jesus seems to be making the same point when he said "Why callest thou me good? There is no man good but one, which is God."

[Log]

No confusion of terms ic ocming from Johnny. "Distinct" and "separate" are manifestly differents, and can be proved by example: The mass of my body and its volumes cannot be separated from each other, yet they are distinct, as are the color of my skin and the surface of it. Neither of these are analogies for the Trinity, but they are enough to show that distinct and separate are not the same concept.

Yes, they can be separated. The volume of your body is independent from its mass, and can be calculated and spoken of without reference to it. The color of your skin can also be referenced without taking note of anything underneath it. Your proof seems to not be a proof.

[Log]

By the by, I'd appreciate it if you gave us an example that was analogous to the Trinity.

[soren]

By the by, I'd appreciate it if you gave us an example that was analogous to the Trinity.

The Trinity is one of a kind, and the concepts involved are contradictory if they are not conceived as applying to an infinite substance. But the only infinite substance is God himself, who is not analogous to the Tirnity but is the Trinity itself. This means the intellgibility of Thrinity is not based upon analogy to the created world, but by allowing the mind to free itself from the limitation involved in the way we think about created things.

[soren]

Yes, they can be separated. The volume of your body is independent from its mass, and can be calculated and spoken of without reference to it. The color of your skin can also be referenced without taking note of anything underneath it. Your proof seems to not be a proof.

This reinforces my point rather than refutes it, because you are explaining how mass and volume can be distinguished, but not how they can be separated. You cannot have a physical mass without a coextensive volume, even though the two things are not the same and can be considered and calculated apart from each other. Hence, they are distinct but not separate.

[Billy]

It appears, not to put too fine a point on it, that Paul did not consider Jesus to be God. Certainly Jesus seems to be making the same point when he said "Why callest thou me good? There is no man good but one, which is God."

What do you make of what Thomas said in John 20?

John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God."

If Jesus didn't agree with this, don't you think he would of corrected Thomas?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What do you make of what Thomas said in John 20?

John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God."

If Jesus didn't agree with this, don't you think he would of corrected Thomas?

SAme arguement could be said with Paul,

""Why callest thou me good? There is no man good but one, which is God.""

If Jesus is God whit would have been an awsome time to say taht He was. He could have said there is none good but me, for I am God.

[Billy]

SAme arguement could be said with Paul,

""Why callest thou me good? There is no man good but one, which is God.""

I thought Christ was perfect, doesn't that qualify as good?

[Log]

This reinforces my point rather than refutes it, because you are explaining how mass and volume can be distinguished, but not how they can be separated. You cannot have a physical mass without a coextensive volume, even though the two things are not the same and can be considered and calculated apart from each other. Hence, they are distinct but not separate.

Only because, by your own admission, you are equivocating on what "distinct" and "separate" mean - this isn't an analogy with the Trinity, after all.And by equivocation, black is white, round is square, and all words lose meaning.

I thought Christ was perfect, doesn't that qualify as good?

Christ apparently didn't think so, according to his statement.

[Billy]

Billy states,

I thought Christ was perfect, doesn't that qualify as good?

Log replies,

Christ apparently didn't think so, according to his statement.

Matthew 19:17". . .Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. . ."

This is an interesting verse for me and somewhat of a puzzle. It implies that either 1. Jesus is not good, but we know that he is perfect., OR 2. That Jesus is God because we know that he is good. I obviously lean towards number 2 and think that maybe he was pointing out to the man in a round about way that he is God.

[revelation]

When LDS use the term "Christian", we generally simply mean anyone who believes in Christ as Lord and Savior.

What does Savior mean?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What does Savior mean?

What do you think it means.

Matthew 19:17". . .Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. . ."This is an interesting verse for me and somewhat of a puzzle. It implies that either 1. Jesus is not good, but we know that he is perfect., OR 2. That Jesus is God because we know that he is good. I obviously lean towards number 2 and think that maybe he was pointing out to the man in a round about way that he is God.

Well Im sure there is more than jsut those 2 interpretations. It would seem that Jesus wouldnt even call himself good.When did being perfect mean "good"?