Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Jews deny further revelation, that Christians accept (ie the NT). Likewise, Christians deny further revelation that LDS accept (ie the BoM, BoA, D&C).

So, the difference is the acceptance of further revelation.

Accepting certain types of revelation is not what is required to be called a Christian. If a Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah they would be a Christian.

This is really simple.

But I understand certain people would like to find a way to exclude the LDS from the title of Christian. Have at it.

Like I care what other people think. I have not cared what people think since High School.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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

My claim is not that any religion of recent origin is not Christian, so what's your point?

You had asserted:

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

I said, "Not so.' You then replied:

Nice assertion, but CFR.

Excuse me, but you are the one who made the assertion. I simply disagreed with it. You need to back up your own assertion.

You wrote:

And just for fun.

http://www.born-agai...o/catholics.htm

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

http://www.landoverb...gcatholics.html

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

I don't accept the premise that Catholics aren't Christians.

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

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.

If you're right, then I'm a heretic. No offense taken. Feel free to make your case. Likewise, I maintain that the biblical model does not support continuing revelation as you mean it (and neither do the historical facts).

[CV75]

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

1. Generically<snip>

2. Theologically<snip>

3. Spiritually <snip>

Theology is an imperfect, man-made endeavor based on rational study and not divine revelation. You are labeling your theology as Christian and go on to define #2 and #3, asserting what other Christian theologies should or should not therefore conclude. No Christian theology is really any better than the next, for they are all man-made, and to a degree, all corrupt. Now what is best is that which transcends theology, which is the basis of the LDS Church.

Is #3 of greater worth to God and mankind than #2, and if so, why base your ministry on #2?

my authority to do so comes from God, because in Scripture he commands all believers in Jesus Christ to be discerning in this way.

This is just your theology speaking.

[shalamabobbi]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

If you're right, then I'm a heretic. No offense taken. Feel free to make your case. Likewise, I maintain that the biblical model does not support continuing revelation as you mean it (and neither do the historical facts).

Is prophecy revelation?

[Vance]

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.

I disagree that it is "no badge of honor". Try telling that to any "Christian" (by this definition) living in, say, Pakistan, or Egypt.

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.

So far, I agree, but then you attempt to throw, what you have said so far, under the bus, so you can have an excuse to exclude others that actually meet these criteria.

You want to step in and be the judge as to what is the "true gospel" and what are the correct "doctrinal and behavioral standards".

I suspect that you are doing this to simply provide an excuse to be able to justify the exclusion that you want to do.

The problem is that if you use "Evangelical" "doctrinal and behavioral standards" to make the judgement then you are simply distinguishing who is or is not "Evangelical Christian" and not "Christian".

BUT, as usual, you want to do a little prestidigitation to implement your double standard unseen. But is isn't working.

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.

No, we simply are distinguishing who is "Evangelical Christian" and who is "Latter-Day Saint Christan".

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.

No, we simply are distinguishing who is "Evangelical Christian" and who isn't and who is "Latter-Day Saint Christan" and who isn't. Nothing more.

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.

And this can only be revealed by the Holy Ghost, thus requiring extra Biblical revelation. Which is why you say this,

From an evangelical perspective, we cannot make definitive judgments about who is or is not a Christian in this spiritual sense.

But then, as usual you want to implement some contorted logic so as to justify bigoted behavior.

However, clearly, we can make some reasonable judgments.

Unfortunately, "reasonable" to often isn't "logical".

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.

Which is consistent with your #1. and has no place here.

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.

Actually, you are simply describing "Evangelical Christians" not "Christians".

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."

Actually, you are simply describing a "Baptist Christian".

Edited October 14, 2011 by Vance

[altersteve]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

If you're right, then I'm a heretic. No offense taken. Feel free to make your case. Likewise, I maintain that the biblical model does not support continuing revelation as you mean it (and neither do the historical facts).

There was continuing revelation during biblical times. Why did God stop?

[Vance]

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.

Ok, so, even in this sense there are "Christians" out side of "Evangelical Christians".

Something most of us already knew.

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.

Actually, some of the most "Christian" people I have ever met were "Jehovah Witness Christians". And they didn't have to leave their sect to do it.

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.

And I know personally several ex-Evangelical Christians that grew orders of magnitude spiritually by joining the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints. I don't know of any that went the other way, although, I suppose it may be possible.

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.

OK, so you got your authority by reading the Bible, I and many LDS have also read the Bible, so, logically, we have ALL of the authority that you have.

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).

Ok, so they aren't Evangelical Christian. So what? Did they ever claim to be?

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.

Ok, so they aren't Evangelical Christian. So what? Did they ever claim to be?

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.

Ah, but it certainly comes across as animosity. So, why do it?

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.

Ok, so they aren't Evangelical Christian. So what? Did they ever claim to be?

[Hughes]

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

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"

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.

Jews would say that Christians worship a different deity. Hence, they wouldn't call us Jewish.

Are you saying that it's not an accurate description, that accepting new revelation causes a name change?

The 12 Apostles are the writers of the new revelation that Christians accept.

The LDS accept further revelation that Christians don't accept.

[Calm]

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

IIRC, weren't Protestants called heretics by Catholics? If so, it would appear the only saving any Protestant sect from being a cult would be a lack of fervency to their beliefs.....

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

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".

No. I hold that both orthodoxy and orthopraxy must be taken into consideration.

You wrote:

But, one thought is that we could consider anyone who accepts the NT as scripture as a "Christian".

But what if a particular religion's founder doctored the NT to fit what he thought was the true Christian doctrine? What then?

[Vance]

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

Indeed.

I have never seen a live branch taken from a dead tree.

[shalamabobbi]

Jews would say that Christians worship a different deity. Hence, they wouldn't call us Jewish.

Are you saying that it's not an accurate description, that accepting new revelation causes a name change?

The 12 Apostles are the writers of the new revelation that Christians accept.

The LDS accept further revelation that Christians don't accept.

Mark 16:15 go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature..

So God didn't know about America??

Wow, case closed. That proves traditional Christianity is false.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

Theology is an imperfect, man-made endeavor based on rational study and not divine revelation. You are labeling your theology as Christian and go on to define #2 and #3, asserting what other Christian theologies should or should not therefore conclude. No Christian theology is really any better than the next, for they are all man-made, and to a degree, all corrupt. Now what is best is that which transcends theology, which is the basis of the LDS Church.

By that reasoning, I have no right to my own opinion as to what is Christian. Right?

Theology may be imperfect, but so is a Mormon's grasp of its own supposed modern revelation. So that argument goes nowhere as far as I can see.

Religion X claims to be Christian, but defines "Christ" to mean the mind of the cosmos, denies that Jesus really died, and depends on messages from a supposed ascended spirit from the ancient civilization of Atlantis to explain the true meaning of Jesus. Is my imperfect grasp of theology insufficient to dare to conclude that such a religion does not qualify as authentically or genuinely Christian?

You wrote:

Is #3 of greater worth to God and mankind than #2, and if so, why base your ministry on #2?

Because #2 is God's means to bringing people to #3.

[Rob Bowman]

shamalabobbi,

You asked:

Is prophecy revelation?

Yes.

[altersteve]

As for the thread topic... all I have to say is that rejecting someone as a Christian, a fellow disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, is a downright offensive, absolutely disgusting, and (ironically) completely un-Christian thing to do. It breaks my heart to see someone who I accept as a follower of Christ do this, and I know for a fact that God doesn't approve of it either. Anyone who does this should should probably take the Savior's words in Mark 9:42 to heart. He's talking about people like you.

Edited October 14, 2011 by altersteve

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

BUT, as usual, you want to do a little prestidigitation to implement your double standard unseen. But is isn't working....

But then, as usual you want to implement some contorted logic so as to justify bigoted behavior.

I have no more patience for these kinds of accusations.

[Zakuska]

Indeed.

I have never seen a live branch taken from a dead tree.

It's also ironic that protestants miss the meaning of the parable of new wine in old bottles. Or the applied patch that rends the whole cloth.

It would take much more than a mere "reformation".

Edited October 14, 2011 by Zakuska

[shalamabobbi]

Yes.

Rev 19:10

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, See you do it not: I am your fellow servant, and of your brothers that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

So either you don't have a testimony of Jesus and are not heretical, or you have a testimony of Jesus and are heretical..

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

As for the thread topic... all I have to say is that rejecting someone as a Christian, a fellow disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ, is a downright offensive, absolutely disgusting, and (ironically) completely un-Christian thing to do. It breaks my heart to see someone who I accept as a follower of Christ do this, and I know for a fact that God doesn't approve of it either. Anyone who does this should should probably take the Savior's words in Mark 9 and Luke 9 to heart. He's talking about people like you.

Um, Steve, those passages don't discuss the term Christian. And you are being inconsistent: you are complaining about anyone saying that someone is not a Christian, but then turning around and describing such persons' behavior as "un-Christian." Who set you up as judge of what is and is not Christian behavior?

Is Matthew 7:15-23 in your Bible, and do you think it might also be at least as relevant to this discussion as the passages you mentioned?

[CV75]

Because #2 is God's means to bringing people to #3.

I don’t think so -- #2 is aptly labeled because professional ministers get so constipated on their own theology that they cannot be fed or feed others spiritually, and end up constipating their charges as well.

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

Rev 19:10

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, See you do it not: I am your fellow servant, and of your brothers that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

So either you don't have a testimony of Jesus and are not heretical, or you have a testimony of Jesus and are heretical..

Your argument does not follow from what Revelation 19:10 says. Evangelicals have the spirit of prophecy in the form of the revelations preserved in Scripture that provide the knowledge on which the testimony of Jesus is based. So I don't have a problem with this verse.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

I don’t think so -- #2 is aptly labeled because professional ministers get so constipated on their own theology that they cannot be fed or feed others spiritually, and end up constipating their charges as well.

This statement appears to be a discussion-derailing comment.

[Zakuska]

Thought I'd share this here too...

I am curious about what you all think about Pastor Jeffress 's comment last friday on Mormonisn being non Christian and a cult. Are Mormons Christian ? are the a cult? Thank You in advance for your answers

I found it funny that the following day Rev. Jeffress' date=' when Interviewed on CNN and MSNBC and such, had to soften and redifine his meaning to the LDS are a "Theological Cult".

Ironically, Rev. Jeffress' defintion of "theological cult" would make his own [i']Southern Baptist Convention a Theological Cult as well.

Anti-Mormon Pastor’s Definition of “Cult” Includes Christianity

Mitt Romney’s Mormonism was cast in the spotlight Sunday when a Baptist pastor affiliated with Rick Perry said the former Massachusetts governor’s religion was a “cult.”

Perry distanced himself from the comment, which drew heavy criticism. The pastor, Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church in Dallas, backpedaled and tried to draw a distinction between a “sociological cult” and a “theological” one, as if it so say he didn’t mean that Mormons are dangerous like David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite, they just fit the clinical and scholarly definition of “cult.”

Unfortunately, his definition of that word is so broad it can include mainstream Christianity.

"Mormonism was invented 1800 years after Jesus Christ and the founding of Christianity,” Jeffress told Fox news, “and it has its own founder, Joseph Smith, its own set of doctrines and its own book, the Book of Mormon. And that by definition is a theological cult, that's all I'm saying."

Try this one for size, pastor.

Christianity was invented 1,800 years after Abraham and the founding of Judaism and has its own founder, Jesus Christ, its own set of doctrines, and its own book, the New Testament. And that by Jeffress’ definition is a theological cult, that’s all I’m saying.

Jeffress’ failed to realize his mistake and even went on to say that Mormonism wasn’t a Christian religion. I suggest the pastor goes to mormon.org and looks in big, bold letters where it says “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”, and under Who We are, where it says “We believe first and foremost that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and the Son of God.” Then I invite him to look at the first six letters in the word “Christian”.

Jeffress’ attempt to shoehorn Mormonism into a non-Christian cult isn’t motivated by any sound theological argument—he just doesn’t agree with the faith, which is fine. I’m not a Mormon, either.

However, I’m not arrogant enough to call all other religious sects that I don’t belong to a cult.

http://www.redcounty.com/content/anti-mormon-pastor%E2%80%99s-definition-%E2%80%9Ccult%E2%80%9D-includes-christianity

[Vance]

My claim is not that any religion of recent origin is not Christian, so what's your point?

Simply that "Evangelicalism" is not ancient Christianity. It has no roots in the ancient Church. It is simply less modern than the Church of Jesus Christ.

I said, "Not so.' You then replied:

Excuse me, but you are the one who made the assertion. I simply disagreed with it.

Yes, you simply asserted that I was wrong. You provided no support for your asserted rejection of my assertion.

You need to back up your own assertion.

Which I did.

I don't accept the premise that Catholics aren't Christians.

Well, certainly a lot of your fellow Evangelicals are very vocal about their disagreement with you on this subject.

Are they religious bigots?

Edited October 14, 2011 by Vance