Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Flyonthewall]

Christians indeed were called a "Jewish Sect" in the beginning. However, Jews deny Christians being Jewish.

Do Christians and Jews accept the same deity? When it comes to religion, Deity plays a major role don't you think?

The comparison is simple on purpose, because it's easy to get bogged down into details that don't really matter.

It does get easy to use any comparison when you aren't concerned with accuracy. I would say who they worship would not be something that "doesn't really matter"

As the OP stated, Christians believe the Biblical text is all there is, as far as revelation is concerned. LDS accept further revelation. There in lies the difference.

That would certainly exclude the 12 Apostles from being Christian because the only scripture they had was the OT. As you say, they did accept further revelation...sounds like we are in good company.

[Zakuska]

Using the logic that LDS are Christian based on their professions, then it follows that Christians are Jews, yes?

No because Jews do not believe as per 1 John Anti-Christ verses that the Messiah has come in the flesh yet.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You have complained that I did not answer your question. Are you referring to the following paragraph?

I am absolutely baffled by that reply. I cannot understand why that should be. Why can't we both agree (within the context of the Bible) on a standard or criteria by which we can judge someone's Christian dedication or commitment? If you are going to judge that Mormons are not Christians, then you must apply a standard which is at least biblical; and if we are to say the same thing about Evangelicals, we would have to apply a similar standard. Why can't we all agree what that standard should be? If we both accept the Bible as the legitimate source of that standard, then surely we can come to an agreement as to what that standard should be, and therefore agree on who can legitimately be called a Christian or not. Don't you think so?

I think I answered this question. I do believe there is a biblical standard that can be used to define the term Christian. However, in my opinion this is not about judging someone's dedication or commitment--what others here have called a person's depth of commitment. I think it is even possible for us to come to agreement on what that standard is, but probably not without one of us changing our theology.

[randyj]

juliann,

You now appear to be badgering me, which Ares has said is unacceptable. But I will use a particular definition, since you refuse to answer my question (which came before yours and must be answered first in order to answer your question), and give you an answer. Yes, I am a judge as to who is a Christian.

" Yes, I am a judge as to who is a Christian."

It would appear then that you and Pastor Jeffress are "birds of a feather". It strikes me as arrogance in the extreme for a person to be able to make such a claim. It does make me smile however, to see how the LDS church handles such bigotry and blatant prejudice such as was spewed forth from Pastor Jeffress in Dallas, Tx. and to which you evidently agree.

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

No kidding. Context counts. Yet you judge the Mormons here for not providing a unified simple definition for you.

No, they are free to put forward different definitions for different contexts. All I'm asking for is clarity.

[Rob Bowman]

Hannah Rebekah,

You wrote:

I feel that the reason they make these claims about Mormons comes down to "boundary maintenance" and "sheep stealing." They have said as much.

You have things turned around. Evangelical Baptists do not view Evangelical Presbyterians as engaging in "sheep stealing" if a Baptist becomes a Presbyterian, and Baptists don't worry about "boundary maintenance" in that context. The "boundary maintenance" characterization of evangelicals who are critical of Mormonism does not come from them, but from sociologically oriented critics of those evangelicals!

Evangelicals sincerely believe that the LDS religion is a heretical form of Christianity that does not have the true gospel and that is leading people away from salvation in Jesus Christ. We say the same thing about Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Unity School of Christianity, the polygamous LDS groups, and many other modern sects that claim to have restored true Christianity to the earth. Naturally, you will not agree with us about your modern sect, but we would be inconsistent to take such a view of those other groups but not of the LDS Church.

[Rob Bowman]

randyj,

You wrote:

"Yes, I am a judge as to who is a Christian."

It would appear then that you and Pastor Jeffress are "birds of a feather". It strikes me as arrogance in the extreme for a person to be able to make such a claim. It does make me smile however, to see how the LDS church handles such bigotry and blatant prejudice such as was spewed forth from Pastor Jeffress in Dallas, Tx. and to which you evidently agree.

It makes me cringe that you feel that no one has the right to judge a religion as not "Christian" but that you have the right to judge an individual as arrogant, bigoted, and prejudiced--and to do so before hearing his reasons for the view he takes.

[Rob Bowman]

ldsfaqs,

You wrote:

You don't have to believe us, but believe Christ's own words on the subject in Mark 9 & Luke 9, when the Apostles tried to act like you anti-mormons do and be critical of other believers that didn't have their authority, weren't with the Church etc. Christ clearly said we mormons or anyone else are also his children.

Perhaps you have a different version of the Bible in which Mark 9 and Luke 9 read differently than in any version I have seen.

I think you have things backwards here. It is the LDS Church that came along in the nineteenth century and claimed that everyone outside its membership were outside the only true church and did not have the authority to baptize or to preach the gospel. That is still the doctrine of the LDS Church.

[Saints Alive]

I will say the ecumenicalism has been a very limited focus of the Church. All the same, I see no virtue in arguing about who is or isn't Christian. If you feel that my beliefs won't offer me salvation, thats fine show me that. But, it isn't necessary to deny one group or another a title especially when religion is concerned.

[CV75]

That seems to be a good effort to find that fine line that would allow you to acknowledge me as a Christian while still maintaining that a Christian is someone who follows Christ. But I would simply point out that the crack in the wall has already appeared. Being a Christian, by that definition, is more than claiming to be one.

Let’s begin with the least common denominator so as to invite all to come unto Christ from wherever they stand: being a Christian is at the very least claiming to be one

As far as I’m concerned, you not only claim but are following Christ as much as you are currently able and that qualifies you as Christian. It is not for me but for Him to judge whether you meet all of His criteria in heart and deed.

You seem intent on trying to get LDS to condemn you as not being Christian. I am not about to deny you your Christianity simply because of your disagreeable approach to some things or your shortcomings (perceived and actual). Why should I feel or behave like you do? Condemning a child of God wholesale and proselytizing against his church is simply unbecoming to me, especially when the biblical expectations are arguably misapplied.

Granted, one characteristic of a Christian is his willingness to suffer or be persecuted for his belief, grace or lifestyle, but it doesn’t really count if you keep begging for it to demonstrate how another is not Christian. That we welcome you as a fellow Christian should tell you something about how weak your position is.

[zerinus]

I think I answered this question. I do believe there is a biblical standard that can be used to define the term Christian. However, in my opinion this is not about judging someone's dedication or commitment--what others here have called a person's depth of commitment. I think it is even possible for us to come to agreement on what that standard is, but probably not without one of us changing our theology.

Okay; so tell us what is your criteria for determining if someone is a true Christian or not, and what is your biblical basis for that.

[Vance]

It is the LDS Church that came along in the nineteenth century and claimed that everyone outside its membership were outside the only true church and did not have the authority to baptize or to preach the gospel. That is still the doctrine of the LDS Church.

Yeah, OF COURSE they are within "the only true church", but does that require that they are not "Christian"?

And, Evangelicals came along when? The late 16th century? Early 17th century? And then they claimed the everyone outside their membership were outside the true church. WOW!!! It looks like you are arguing that Catholics are they only real "Christians".

[Vance]

Suppose an Evangelical pastor beat his wife of Friday night, committed adultery on Saturday night, preached a rousing sermon about Jesus suffering for our sins on Sunday, and sent a check to IRR on Monday, would he be a "genuine" Christian?

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

I wonder if Bowman would care to answer these questions. It would certainly help us understand what he is trying to do here.

[Rob Bowman]

Let me explain my position on this subject. In my view, the term Christian has three distinct uses.

1. Generically, a Christian is anyone who professes to be one, and a Christian church, sect, denomination, etc., is any such group that professes to be Christian. On this definition, the worst hypocritical evangelicals and the most theologically off-the-wall religious groups that claim to be Christian are Christian. Making it into the category of "Christian" by this definition is no badge of honor, and no one should care whether they are considered "Christians" in this generic sense. But by this definition, both evangelicals and Mormons are Christians.

2. Theologically, a Christian is someone who professes to accept the true gospel of Jesus Christ, who accepts the doctrinal and behavioral standards to which followers of Jesus Christ are expected to abide, and who has been baptized in association with other such persons. To the extent to which we disagree as to what the true gospel is and what those doctrinal and behavioral standards are, we will inevitably disagree as to who qualifies as a Christian in this sense. By this definition, Mormons should not view non-Mormons (such as evangelicals) as Christians, because we don't accept what the LDS Church teaches is the true gospel or its doctrinal and behavioral standards. Of course, Mormons are not obliged to use this definition, but the fact is that evangelicals do use it. From an evangelical perspective, it is not possible to be a Christian in this theological sense and be outside the true church. Thus, from our perspective, when the LDS Church claims to be the only true church, that is equivalent to claiming (in our understanding of the terms) that evangelicals are not Christians.

3. Spiritually, a Christian is someone who is genuinely in a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ and as a result has assurance of eternal life. From an evangelical perspective, we cannot make definitive judgments about who is or is not a Christian in this spiritual sense. However, clearly, we can make some reasonable judgments. We may presume that anyone who openly rejects Christianity in any form is not a Christian in this sense. I presume that Richard Dawkins, for example, is not a Christian in this sense. In general, evangelicals accept as Christians in the spiritual sense anyone who is a Christian in the theological sense, but with the caveat that many people who are Christians theologically are not actually Christians spiritually. For example, I know a Baptist pastor who, by his own testimony, did not become a Christian in this spiritual sense until after he had become a pastor! So we don't use the term Christian in this spiritual sense to refer to everyone inside our "boundary." We also recognize that there are many Christians, spiritually speaking, outside that "boundary" of the theological definition, because there are many individuals who have come into a genuinely saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ who are working through those doctrinal and behavioral standards. For example, I personally know people who by their own testimony became Christians in this spiritual sense while they were still Jehovah's Witnesses, and they went through a process of reexamining their beliefs that led them out of that religion and into an authentically Christian church. That's why I would not claim that no Mormons are Christians in this spiritual sense, because I believe that some Mormons are also in such a process. Furthermore, I don't know which Mormons are Christians in this sense, and it isn't my responsibility to make such judgments.

However, I do have a responsibility to discern what is truly "Christian" in the theological sense and what is not, and my authority to do so comes from God, because in Scripture he commands all believers in Jesus Christ to be discerning in this way. For example, I reject Christian Science as Christian in the theological sense because its founder produced fraudulent scripture (the book Science and Health) that redefined Christian beliefs in a way that radically deviates from the doctrinal standards of Christianity (e.g., teaching that death is an illusion). I reject the Jehovah's Witness religion as Christian in the theological sense because it denies that Jesus Christ is God, it denies that he rose physically from the grave, and it adheres to other similarly serious false beliefs. Yet most JWs that I have known are sincere, hard-working, dedicated people with high moral values. So for me, saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians is not a statement of animosity, hostility, or prejudice against them, but a statement of theological conviction. Likewise with the LDS Church. I find most Mormons to be sincere, dedicated, morally upright people, and many of them are quite likable. My view that Mormons are not Christians in the theological sense is based on theological differences as to the minimal doctrinal and behavioral standards (especially doctrinal) of Christianity. We have different views as to what is the true gospel. We have radically different doctrinal positions on the most basic issues, such as the nature of God, the relation of Jesus Christ to God, the meaning and basis of salvation, and what is and is not the true church. Those are the considerations that lead me and other evangelicals to conclude that the LDS religion is not authentically Christian in what I am calling the theological sense.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Suppose an Evangelical pastor beat his wife of Friday night, committed adultery on Saturday night, preached a rousing sermon about Jesus suffering for our sins on Sunday, and sent a check to IRR on Monday, would he be a "genuine" Christian?

If not, why not?

If so, why so?

See my previous post on the three sense of the word Christian. In the generic sense, such a pastor would be a Christian. In the theological sense, he would not be, because he would have clearly expressed his disdain for some of the minimal behavioral standards of the Christian faith. (If he repented, he could eventually be accepted as a Christian in this sense.) In the spiritual sense, one would presume that such a hypocrite was not a Christian, although ultimately that would be beyond our capacity to judge definitively.

So what do you think? Would you view such a person as a Christian? Can you be consistent on this issue?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

And, Evangelicals came along when? The late 16th century? Early 17th century?

Try the early sixteenth century.

And then they claimed the everyone outside their membership were outside the true church.

Not so.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Try the early sixteenth century.

Ok, so it is just not as recent as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Got it.

Not so.

Nice assertion, but CFR.

And just for fun.

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/cath.htm

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/dangcatholics.html

It is rather simple logic, if Catholics aren't Christian, then they are outside the true church.

[altersteve]

Vance,

You wrote:

See my previous post on the three sense of the word Christian. In the generic sense, such a pastor would be a Christian. In the theological sense, he would not be, because he would have clearly expressed his disdain for some of the minimal behavioral standards of the Christian faith. (If he repented, he could eventually be accepted as a Christian in this sense.) In the spiritual sense, one would presume that such a hypocrite was not a Christian, although ultimately that would be beyond our capacity to judge definitively.

So what do you think? Would you view such a person as a Christian? Can you be consistent on this issue?

To me if he accepts Christ as his Savior, then yes, he would be a Christian. Not a good one, but a Christian all the same.

Edited October 14, 2011 by altersteve

[Ron Beron]

Vance,

You wrote:

Try the early sixteenth century.

Not so.

The evangelical and particularly the fundamentalist movements came about as a response to the growing scientific enlightenment of the U.S. and specifically Darwinism in the late 19th century. In a series of conferences held at Niagara, Ontario beginning in 1868, a group of evangelicals constructed a challenge to the modernity of the time.

edit...a slight correction to the above. Evangelicism began in Germany between 1730 and 1790 with an increased emphasis on biblical inerrancy, personal relationships and a downplay of ritual.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

See my previous post on the three sense of the word Christian. In the generic sense, such a pastor would be a Christian. In the theological sense, he would not be, because he would have clearly expressed his disdain for some of the minimal behavioral standards of the Christian faith. (If he repented, he could eventually be accepted as a Christian in this sense.) In the spiritual sense, one would presume that such a hypocrite was not a Christian, although ultimately that would be beyond our capacity to judge definitively.

So, you are arguing for orthopraxy as the priority over orthodoxy as the criterion for judging the "Christian-ness" of others in the "theological sense". By this criterion you can't exclude Mormons or Mormonism in the "theological sense" as you attempted to do in your previous post.

So what do you think?

I haven't fully settled this issue in my own mind. Certainly context is important.

But, one thought is that we could consider anyone who accepts the NT as scripture as a "Christian". This, of course, is similar to considering anyone who professes to be a "Christian" as being a "Christian". This approach, for the most part also rejects "orthodoxy" as the standard. But not totally, I suppose.

Would you view such a person as a Christian?

Yes, but just a very very bad one.

Can you be consistent on this issue?

More so than you.

[Vance]

The evangelical and particularly the fundamentalist movements came about as a response to the growing scientific enlightenment of the U.S. and specifically Darwinism in the late 19th century. In a series of conferences held at Niagara, Ontario beginning in 1868, a group of evangelicals constructed a challenge to the modernity of the time.

edit...a slight correction to the above. Evangelicism began in Germany between 1730 and 1790 with an increased emphasis on biblical inerrancy, personal relationships and a downplay of ritual.

I was simply using the starting of the "Baptist Church" as a rough beginning of "Evangelicalism". Either way, my point is that it is, without question, predated by Catholicism, which they, reject as being "Christian".

[Zakuska]

I was simply using the starting of the "Baptist Church" as a rough beginning of "Evangelicalism". Either way, my point is that it is, without question, predated by Catholicism, which they, reject as being "Christian".

Its funny how the branch attacks its own root isn't it?

[Zakuska]

If foung this online and thought I would share...

Christian apologist Robert Bowman defines a cult theologically as

A religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy. Adj.: "cultic" (may be used with reference to tendencies as well as full cult status).

Source: Robert Bowman, A Biblical Guide To Orthodoxy And Heresy.

http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-perspectives.html#Subject2

Edited October 14, 2011 by Zakuska

[Mudcat]

Do you not believe in Sola Scriptura?

Yes I do. Perhaps the word "primacy" is what caused confusion?

I was simply stating, that in the absence of guidance from the Holy Spirit, Spirit led teachers or something to that effect, the Bible is unintelligible. There is a Scriptural precedent for this, so this belief is internally consistent with its teachings.

I think if you would read my other post you would see that I agree with you about it being in general...so we are in agreement. So the solution would be to declare the specific along with the title of Christian. It's a win, win!! For Mormons it could look like:

non-Traditional LDS Christian

non-Historical LDS Christian

non-Creedal LDS Christian

non-Trinitarian LDS Christian

For others it could look like:

Evangelical Christian

Southern Baptist Christian

Lutheran Christian

Catholic Christian

Methodist Christian

and so on....

I don't see the sub titles as much help, other than to offer sense of doctrinal disposition of ourselves. And such things could/and are misunderstood.

Doesn't matter if I do or do not believe you have a relationship with our Lord and are covered by his grace. It only matters if you know him. What I think about what a person is or isn't, is not even ancillary to the point I think. At the end of the day, it's only what Christ thinks of us that counts.

Regards,

Mudcat

[shalamabobbi]

A religious group originating as a heretical sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy. Adj.: "cultic" (may be used with reference to tendencies as well as full cult status).

Well good. The model of the Bible is one of continuing revelation. So it is heretical to believe that revelation must cease as well as being non biblical.