Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[IloveaMormon]

I sometimes wish we would focus more on behaving like Christians than focusing on the lables and differences between faiths.

Edited October 15, 2011 by IloveaMormon

[Zakuska]

I sometimes wish we would focus more on behaving like Christians than focusing on the lables and differences between faiths.

Thats kind of what Mola, I and Rob spoke of at lunch today. We all admit that there are differences.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Zakuska

[Robert F. Smith]

I believe that Evangelicals are free to have their own private or idiosyncratic definition of the word "Christian." And, as long as they make it clear in public statements that they aren't speaking on behalf of all Christians, but simply for themselves, personally, when declaring who they believe are Christian or not, I have no problem with that. It is only when the choose to do otherwise (like dogmatically tell me I am not Christian) that I believe they have overstepped proper bounds. From what I can tell, leading Evangelicals are becoming increasingly sensitive to this, and either go with the standardized definitions and include the Church of Jesus Christ, or they are careful to say that "we don't consider them Christians," thus stepping away from the inane and exclusionary label propaganda of the past. This is progress, and credit is given where it is due.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Of course you are correct, and one leading evangelical Presbyterian minister very recently told his fellow evangelicals that he considered most Mormons he knew to be Christians. He told them that he was not concerned with distinctive LDS teachings, but rather with the fact that Mormons accept the saving blood of Christ. His fellow evangelicals accepted that inclusionary statement with obvious pleasure. Since that was a private meeting, I cannot disclose the names of the participants.

This does not mean that other evangelicals will not continue to plot, scheme, and hope for the demise of Mormonism. Nor will it prevent missionaries for both sides to continue attempting to convert one another. But it is nice to know that there are people out there who can be described as the honest in heart who are not out to destroy one another -- nor to lie in wait to deceive.

[Storm Rider]

I have offered this quote before, but it again seems apropos:

"All theologians bring certain doctrinal presuppositions and biases to Scripture as they seek to construct from Scripture their theologies. The true Wesleyan admits this and does not make correct doctrine a condition for salvation. We understand that if our sins are forgiven at the time of our death, we will be taken to heaven, even if our theology is off base a thousand miles. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. He is able to do this only because of the death and resurrection of the virgin-born God-man, Jesus Christ. But we do not need to believe in any given theory of the Incarnation or the Atonement in order to be forgiven through Christ." - J. Kenneth Grider

Grider was a member of the Church of the Nazarene and a theologian. What would it be like if we all left it up to God to determine who is or who is not a Christian and we simply treated each other as a brother and sister, ignoring church/religious affiliation?

[wenglund]

Wade,

Are you saying that it is meaningless and counterproductive for the LDS Church to claim to be the only true church?

No. Obviously. The LDS Church isn't involved here in interfaith discussion, though a few members are, and it is speaking for itself, and to its members, when it claims to be the only true church. How did you miss these two critical qualifiers in your failed attempt at a tu quoque?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

I deliberately did not answer these questions in my definition, in order to make the point that Mormons and evangelicals disagree about the source of those standards, who makes the determinations, and so forth.

That point has been repeatedly and explicitly made in this thread already.

My short answer is that Jesus Christ and his apostolic representatives in the NT have provided the authoritative revelations from which those standards derive. No one has been appointed arbiter over everyone else to determine what those standards are.

You've already asserted that God has endowed you with the authority to declare who is and not a theological Christian. Now you assert that no one has the authority even to identify the standards that determine who is and is not a theological Christian? Please explain how both can be true.

You wrote:

If this were so, then I would be arguing that Christians in the theological sense must accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy or some other such contemporary statement. I don't. For most purposes the Nicene Creed is sufficient to draw the lines,

So you do assert that you are the arbiter over everyone else concerning what standards determine who is and is not a theological Christian, and your standard has nothing to do with any declarations made by Jesus or his apostolic representatives.

and in fact the standards to which I would appeal are all explicitly biblical standards.

The Nicene Creed does not even come close to being explicitly biblical. It conflicts with the Bible in dozens upon dozens of places and only works if one superimposes a specific and presuppositional interpretive framework on the Bible.

For example, it is not the formal creedal doctrine of the Trinity per se that is the standard, but the biblical truths that doctrine systematized.

But those "truths" are inferences drawn from a specific interpretive framework overlaid on the scriptures. You can't point to a single scripture that supports your standard all by itself. You can only point to a series of scriptures and explain that they must be interpreted with a list of specific presuppositions in mind.

Regarding the spiritual definition of a Christian, you asked:

It makes the point that the class of people who are saved in Christ is not identical to the class of people who outwardly conform to the doctrines and standards of orthodox Christianity. This is of immense practical importance, since salvation is a matter of the heart and not merely outward conformity.

So you're trying to take a matter of the heart that is really only between an individual and Christ and insist that Evangelicals not only can, but should make judgments about it based on broad theological conformity? You're basically saying that all spiritual Christians are also theological Christians, but not all theological Christians are spiritual Christians. Thus, conformity to your idea of what is correct theologically (more accurately, what is socio-religiously normative) is a prerequisite for being a spiritual Christian. This means it's not fundamentally a matter of the heart, but of orthodoxy. The whole heart issue is only at play if one has first satisfied the modern Evangelical idea of what is theologically correct.

You wrote:

I have noticed that you like to accuse evangelicals of sectarianism a lot, which is ironic, coming from a member of a sect that claims that it alone is the true church on earth.

A tu quoque fallacy. Conservative Evangelicals are far, far, far more sectarian than Latter-day Saints could ever hope to be.

You wrote:

No, of course not.

Why not? Many Evangelicals consider this to be quite fundamental.

No. One must show from the Bible not only that a particular standard is biblical, but that the Bible makes it an issue on which the church must be united.

Then the Nicene Creed very obviously does not qualify as a standard. A proper understanding of Christ's metaphysical relationship with and generation from the Father was an utter and complete non-issue for the authors of the biblical texts.

The deity of Christ is one such issue; the best way to understand the redemptive-historical development in the Bible is not.

Show me that the deity of Christ, and specifically that he is a separate person within a single being, was an issue determined in the Bible to be critical to the church.

You wrote:

That is where we disagree.

No, we disagree on quite a bit, including how oblique an answer may be while still being acceptable in this discussion.

[Hannah Rebekah]

I found this information very telling from:

Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints

by Daniel C Peterson & Stephen D. Ricks

Does the New Testament Define "Christianity"?

It pretty much covers it all. I'd like to see a response, a repudiation to the information contained here by the naysayers.

[Mudcat]

What would it be like if we all left it up to God to determine who is or who is not a Christian and we simply treated each other as a brother and sister, ignoring church/religious affiliation?

I think it would be a little like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfU17niXOG8

[maklelan]

For any interested, Matt Slick has provided a handy chart of the different Christian doctrines and broken them down according to the degree to which they determine if you are or are not a Christian. You can find it by googling "doctrine grid carm."

[shalamabobbi]

I think it would be a little like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfU17niXOG8

Heretic..

[Mudcat]

I found this information very telling from:

Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints

by Daniel C Peterson & Stephen D. Ricks

Does the New Testament Define "Christianity"?

It pretty much covers it all. I'd like to see a response, a repudiation to the information contained here by the naysayers.

I read the book quite some time back and did a post/thumb-sketch review of sorts, on it. It's been lost in the forum changeovers and though I served as an archivist for a bit, I didn't see any reason to keep it around.

I will respond to the opening of the article and see where it goes from there.

Does the New Testament Define "Christianity"?

Several leading anti-Mormons cite as their mandate for a crusade against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the two verses of Jude 3-4, wherein the New Testament admonishes them to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."⁶⁸

But how does this apply to the Mormons? Do the Latter-day Saints somehow deny the Father and the Son? Not according to the first Article of Faith, which specifically affirms belief in both. Are the Latter-day Saints peculiarly prone to "lasciviousness"? Where is the evidence for a claim like that? It seems quite clear that the admonition of Jude 3-4 for followers of Christ to "earnestly contend for the faith" against "ungodly men" cannot refer specifically to Mormons or Mormonism. And, in fact, since the Mormons don't really fit Jude's description particularly well, it seems rather difficult to apply these verses to them at all.So, having established the negative proposition that Jude 3-4 does not apply to the Latter-day Saints in any obvious way, we must ask ourselves what the occasion for Jude's exhortation actually was. The answer to that question is significant. A reading of the entire epistle makes it clear that Jude's concern was at least as much ethical as theological. The people he opposed were encouraging "lasciviousness"

I underlined the first rhetorical questions the article posits. They are problematic.

The article makes an assumption (bold mine) that the Jude v.4 means "the Father" when it says "Lord God". There seems to be good reason for this, given the first verse of Jude.

Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.

Clearly hear we see the Father referenced as "God". However such reasoning misses quite a bit of context.

I especially think this is haphazard though, given the closing of Jude.

Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Rather than recognize "God" as the Father, we see Jude indicating that Christ is God in v. 25. This would still seem to fit the LDS paradigm in some respect.. both Father and Son as a "God" in some respect, except it would lay a strikingly disparaging slam at "the Father", because it implies that Christ is the "only wise God". Such a statement would be highly conflicting and troublesome conundrum for any position that follows Christ.

Is the Father unwise? Surely not, but I don't think we are left at odds on the issue.

The key to the resolution of this, IMO, is found in the word "only" that we see appear in both verse 4 and 25. The Greek word used in both cases for "only" is "monos". It's been translated a number of ways: alone, even, just, mere, merely, only, only one, only thing, private, themselves.

The "only Lord God" in v.4 would be more agreeable directly as a reference to Christ, rather than the Father as the article pushes for, given v.25 as Christ being the "only wise God our Savior". However, IMO I actually think Jude actually offering strong support to Trinitarian doctrine.

Jude recognizes that both Father and Son are God, Jude also recognizes this "monos" position of singularity to God.

I understand LDS believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in purpose and thus "One God". However, v25 of Jude gives such a view difficulty.

Is the Father less wise than the Son?

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited October 16, 2011 by Mudcat

[Mudcat]

Heretic..

Typical response from an anti-Coke.

So much for serenity.

edit add-

I suppose the real question will always remain, "the choice of the new generation" or "the real thing."

Can there be no peace?

Edited October 16, 2011 by Mudcat

[altersteve]

I understand LDS believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in purpose and thus "One God". However, v25 of Jude gives such a view difficulty.

Is the Father less wise than the Son?

Regards,

Mudcat

I think it actually strengthens the LDS doctrine. Christ is the "only wise God our Savior" because the Father is also the only wise God. They are, individually and collectively, God. Anything you say about one can almost equally be applied to the other. I don't see any contradiction between Jude and LDS doctrine at all.

And They are more than just "one in purpose." They, with the Holy Ghost, are one in voice and thought, and one in love for us.

[CV75]

Can there be no peace?

The Restored Gospel is based on divine revelation (God’s will) and not human thinking and tinkering about what He said (theology). That the LDS Church promotes and emphasizes teaching and testifying by the Spirit, and the individual’s relationship with God in finding truth, show that it does not have a pro-theology r theologically-driven agenda.

The name of Christ and taking it upon us is so important. Once a Christian (by Rob's definition #1) latches onto this concept in mind and heart, regardless of their denomination, they can be led by the light of Christ into the doctrine of Christ and sooner or later to a personal spiritual witness of and conversion to Christ. Doctrine is not theology, it is God's will. This is why we should encourage people to live and keep their Christian identity as they pursue deeper spirituality and truth.

The power of the Holy Spirit is what draws people to Christ and into His simple doctrine (as explained in the Book of Mormon), not the management, genius and strength of the learned professors of religion in convincing them which way to go. Even the highest leaders of the LDS Church walk this talk.

[diglot]

The Nicene Creed does not even come close to being explicitly biblical. It conflicts with the Bible in dozens upon dozens of places and only works if one superimposes a specific and presuppositional interpretive framework on the Bible.

...

Then the Nicene Creed very obviously does not qualify as a standard. A proper understanding of Christ's metaphysical relationship with and generation from the Father was an utter and complete non-issue for the authors of the biblical texts.

These are two reasons as to why I personally don't make the Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian creeds a matter over which I would split fellowship.

Edited October 16, 2011 by diglot

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Bowman:

If you love me keep my commandments.

[One Clear Voice]

Wow! Great thread, great arguments! Ares was in here what four or five times and the thread was never locked out. I feel better now about starting a thread one day and having a chance of it staying open too.

[zerinus]

I don't understand why evangelicals should feel shy about denying that Mormons are "Christians" based on evangelical theology while Mormons need not feel shy about claiming that only the LDS Church is a true "church" based on its theology.

I for one am not expecting them to. You are perfectly entitled, and expected, to act within the dictates of your own theology, as we do within ours. However, at that point we come into conflict, and God will eventually decide who the winner is. From the perspective of our theology, we think that God has already made that decision, as attested by the following verses:

1 Nephi 22:

23 For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

2 Nephi 26:

20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.

Moroni 8:

35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

36 And I know that ye do walk in the pride of your hearts; and there are none save a few only who do not lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts.

37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?

D&C 10:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

The die has already been cast. The winner has already been declared. But as Peter said: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). I suggest you make best use of your chance while you have it, because the winner has already been declared in the foreknowledge of God; and you haven't got a lot of time left to join the winning side.

[Mudcat]

I think it actually strengthens the LDS doctrine. Christ is the "only wise God our Savior" because the Father is also the only wise God. They are, individually and collectively, God. Anything you say about one can almost equally be applied to the other. I don't see any contradiction between Jude and LDS doctrine at all.

And They are more than just "one in purpose." They, with the Holy Ghost, are one in voice and thought, and one in love for us.

Bold mine. This isn't what Jude seems to be suggesting.

[maklelan]

An update on Matt Slick: I challenged him on his assertion that the Bible denies the existence of other gods and he completely deleted the entire thread. He also put up another thread insisting Mormonism is false, based exclusively on his criticisms of the Book of Abraham. I challenged him on that as well, arguing that he cannot defend his own dogmas on the academic grounds he insists Mormons defend their dogmas, but must accept them on faith (while denying Mormons the right to do the same). I put my post online here in case he decides to delete this entire thread as well.

Edited October 16, 2011 by maklelan

[altersteve]

Bold mine. This isn't what Jude seems to be suggesting.

When read in light of what God's prophets have said elsewhere, there is no contradiction.

[altersteve]

An update on Matt Slick: I challenged him on his assertion that the Bible denies the existence of other gods and he completely deleted the entire thread. He also put up another thread insisting Mormonism is false, based exclusively on his criticisms of the Book of Abraham. I challenged him on that as well, arguing that he cannot defend his own dogmas on the academic grounds he insists Mormons defend their dogmas, but must accept them on faith (while denying Mormons the right to do the same). I put my post online here in case he decides to delete this entire thread as well.

That was awesome. I salute you.

[zerinus]

Bold mine. This isn't what Jude seems to be suggesting.

I think the mistake you are making is that you are assuming that the word "savior" must always apply to Jesus Christ, whereas it need not do so. It is true that Jesus is called our Savior in a very specific sense—i.e. saving or redeeming us by His suffering and death on the cross. But in a wider sense, the Father can also be called our Savior, because He is in fact the ultimate source of our salvation, through whose mercy and grace Jesus was appointed to be our Savior. There are a number of verses in the Bible where the adjective savior is applied in a sense that could be applied to the Father or the Son:

Psalms 106:

21 They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt

Luke 1:

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

1 Timothy 1:

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope

1 Timothy 2:

3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.

And on the flip side, there are passages where the "only wise God" is applied to the Father, distinguished from the Son:

Romans 16:

27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

1 Timothy 1:

17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

D&C 132:

24 This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.

Edited October 16, 2011 by zerinus

[Mudcat]

I think the mistake you are making is that you are assuming that the word "savior" must always apply to Jesus Christ, whereas it need not do so.

I think the clearest understanding is the Jude is saying that the only wise God is our Savior. I don't think anything but a reference to the person of Christ makes much sense, so I don't feel mistaken.

It is true that Jesus is called our Savior in a very specific sense—i.e. saving or redeeming us by His suffering and death on the cross. But in a wider sense, the Father can also be called our Savior, because He is in fact the ultimate source of our salvation, through whose mercy and grace Jesus was appointed to be our Savior. There are a number of verses in the Bible where the adjective savior is applied in a sense that could be applied to the Father or the Son:

Psalms 106:

21 They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt

The Psalm in context is referring to Jehovah, though in this verse we do see the appearance of El . The synonymous usage of El and Jehovah in the passage doesn't do you any favors, unless you believe Jehovah is the Father.. I suppose.

But rather than derail the subject, the article sited Jude, rather than any of the verses you mentioned and I don't feel like getting into a protracted debate on other Biblical verses from other writers. So, Is your position that Jude is referring to Christ in v.25 , the Father or something else?

[zerinus]

So, Is your position that Jude is referring to Christ in v.25 , the Father or something else?

I think that it can be applied to either, and it would be equally valid. They share the same mind, the same intellect, the same infinite wisdom. The only difference between them is that the Son is subordinate to the Father; but that does not mean that one is any wiser than the other, or smarter than the other, or knows something that the other doesn't.