Are Mormons Christian: Continue The Discussion

[KevinG]

It has nothing to do with the fact that Rob makes a living managing a counter-cult ministry specializing in Mormons and a few other sects. He has assured me of that.

[thesometimesaint]

cassieblanca;

Welcome to the glass menagerie.

[Rob Bowman]

JarMan,

Hi there. If we've interacted before I don't remember. Nice to do so now. You asked:

Rob Bowman, why does it matter to you whether Mormons are Christians?

Actually, what I've been trying to explain in this and other threads here is that I don't think that question, framed in that way, is a very helpful one. What I've said repeatedly is that different kinds of definitions of Christian are possible, no one has any control over how others define the term, anyone who wants to call himself a Christian is free to do so, and what really matters is what people actually believe and do not what label they give themselves.

The fact is that in discussions with Mormons I never bring this up. It is always the Mormons who bring it up. It's actually gotten humorous at times. I can be discussing something such as whether Joseph's view of Luke 23:43 is correct or whether Lorenzo Snow's couplet is a recognized part of LDS doctrine, and some Mormon will complain that I am supposedly just out to deny that they are Christians. The strategy, at least in some instances, seems to be that of misdirection using a form of appeal to pity ("How dare you pick on us poor defenseless Mormons, you evangelical bullies who won't even acknowledge that we are Christians!"). You may think I am exaggerating, but just in the past day or two at least one Mormon on this forum has brought up intolerant actions of some Christians in centuries past, burning people at the stake or the like, as if an evangelical who denies that Mormonism is Christian intends to incite bodily harm against Mormons. For some Mormons, it seems all-important to them to maintain this idea that any evangelical critic is imperiously claiming exclusive rights to the use and definition of the term Christian, even if, as I have, the evangelical repeatedly says exactly the opposite. There is apparently too much rhetorical gain to be had in their mind by characterizing all of their evangelical critics as bigots who won't acknowledge Mormons to be Christians. If an evangelical critic won't conform to this stereotype, this kind of Mormon apologist will do everything he can to make the critic fit.

As an evangelical Christian, I am convinced that what people believe about God, about Jesus Christ, about human beings and their ultimate purpose, and about salvation are of crucial relevance to whether they hear the authentic gospel and come into a saving relationship with God in Christ. I could care less what people call themselves; in and of itself this is of no consequence. But I do get concerned about it when someone speaks as if the mere fact that they believe in Jesus, regardless of who they think he is and what they think that means, is enough to guarantee their salvation. That concern arises whether the individual who proceeds on the basis of that assumption is a Mormon, a Catholic, or a Baptist. Thus the concern has nothing to do with protecting religious "turf" (as Mormons here have charged ad nauseum) but with protecting the integrity of the gospel and caring for people's eternal welfare enough to risk their displeasure by confronting false doctrines that might be keeping them from salvation. Nor is the point that all people in evangelical churches are saved and all people in the LDS Church are lost; neither I nor any other evangelical I know thinks that is the case. I have evangelical friends who were raised in evangelical churches and realized only well into their adult years that they had not actually come into a genuine, saving relationship with Christ. I also know Mormons whom I think and hope may be saved despite the bad theology they try to defend. But as I said, doctrine matters because it can mislead people as to what the gospel is and what it means to know Christ, and that is why it is important to address such issues candidly, speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) even if it means someone will think I am their enemy for trying to do so (Gal. 4:16).

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

He's concerned because he thinks that we are not sufficiently in touch with our Lord for salvation. Of course salvation centers in the atonement of Jesus and somehow this means that if we attempt(that is all we are capable of in his view) to be righteous we are placing our faith in something other than Jesus.

Wrong. There is nothing amiss with attempting to do good and righteous things. There is nothing wrong with trying to be as righteous as you can. The error (or more accurately one error of direct relevance here) is in thinking that one's efforts to be righteous or to do good are conditions for attaining salvation. Trying to do good works is good, but trying to attain salvation by works, or by a combination of works and faith, is bad, because trying to be saved even in part by works negates the character of salvation as a gift, as the undeserved favor ("grace") of God. "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Rom. 11:6 KJV).

Jesus did say "many shall say unto me in that day, did we not prophesy in thy name, etc to which he'll reply depart from me all ye who work iniquity" so maybe Rob thinks that we should avoid bad works only, dunno.

I'm glad you admitted that you don't know. Again, no, that's not my position.

This whole movement of modern Christiandom around a misunderstanding of the words of Paul, taking them completely out of the context of what he was trying to accomplish (bringing the house of Israel and the converted gentiles to an understanding that the law of Moses had come to an end and there was no more need to engage in the works of the law (of Moses)) and misapply Paul's words to all works, including works of righteousness (a misunderstanding that Paul was quick to correct within his own epistles and Peter warned against) based upon a mechanistic blind adherence to the plain(or not so plain) meaning of the words (as mfbukowski tried to point out to no avail) of the text, is an example of the dark abyss into which modern thinkers about religion have plummeted.(The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life).

Since you bring up Paul:

"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:3-7 KJV).

Again, Paul was not saying, and evangelicals do not say, that there is no need to do works of righteousness, but that doing works of righteousness is not a precondition or prerequisite to receiving God's mercy and grace to save us.

And then Rob wonders why no one here is interested in listening to what he has to say. Stumper eh Rob?

The wonder is that I have hung in here as long as I have and put up with these sorts of comments.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

It has nothing to do with the fact that Rob makes a living managing a counter-cult ministry specializing in Mormons and a few other sects. He has assured me of that.

Good ol' Kevin, always ready with an ad hominem.

[shalamabobbi]

Rob,

Luke 10:25-28 Yah well if you are going to continue to support a false dichotomy between the words of Paul and the words of Jesus, I'm going to have to go with the words of Jesus.

Of course I don't accept the false dichotomy that you posit.

It is simply true that without the atonement of Christ nothing we do could save us one way or the other. Salvation is in Christ. But when we accept the gospel we enter into a covenant relationship with Christ. That entails two parties and there are conditions and obligations incumbent upon us to maintain the validity of that covenant relationship. Repentance as often as necessary is one of those requirements. Does that destroy grace? Not at all for without Christ repentance avails nothing. But with that grace those works required of us by Christ himself become efficacious. Of course you've invented your own private interpretation of the word repentance as well as you've done for the word grace..

Again, Paul was not saying, and evangelicals do not say, that there is no need to do works of righteousness, but that doing works of righteousness is not a precondition or prerequisite to receiving God's mercy and grace to save us.

What do you imagine it is that Christ is saving us from??

[Tacenda]

Rob,

Luke 10:25-28 Yah well if you are going to continue to support a false dichotomy between the words of Paul and the words of Jesus, I'm going to have to go with the words of Jesus.

Of course I don't accept the false dichotomy that you posit.

It is simply true that without the atonement of Christ nothing we do could save us one way or the other. Salvation is in Christ. But when we accept the gospel we enter into a covenant relationship with Christ. That entails two parties and there are conditions and obligations incumbent upon us to maintain the validity of that covenant relationship. Repentance as often as necessary is one of those requirements. Does that destroy grace? Not at all for without Christ repentance avails nothing. But with that grace those works required of us by Christ himself become efficacious. Of course you've invented your own private interpretation of the word repentance as well as you've done for the word grace..

What do you imagine it is that Christ is saving us from??

Well ....death?

[cassieblanca]

The error (or more accurately one error of direct relevance here) is in thinking that one's efforts to be righteous or to do good are conditions for attaining salvation. Trying to do good works is good, but trying to attain salvation by works, or by a combination of works and faith, is bad, because trying to be saved even in part by works negates the character of salvation as a gift, as the undeserved favor ("grace") of God. "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Rom. 11:6 KJV).

"But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:3-7 KJV).

Here's my two cents, for what it's worth.

The Book of Mormon has some lovely scriptures which agree with the one above, from Paul. There's plenty of stuff in there about being saved by grace. I've always been confused that born again Christians seem to think that not only can we not think of being saved by works (which we don't, if we really understand our religion), but we cannot even combine works with faith and think that pleases the Lord. Doesn't the Bible say that faith without works is dead? I believe that works without faith are also dead. But don't you believe that faith is required to access the Lord's grace? Can you receive His grace without having faith in Him?? If so, I need someone to explain that please.

In my opinion, faith is an action word. Faith is not just something you think - it's something you do. Hasn't the Lord given us commandments? Why would He give us commandments if He didn't want us to keep them? And if I profess to have faith in Him, how is that faith worth anything if I ignore His will? To me, if I have faith in the Lord, then I do my best to keep His commandments and live the way I think He wants me to live. Does that mean I am thinking that every time I do good works, I am saving myself? NO!! It means that as unworthy as I am, at least I can do my piddly little best to show Him my faith.

In my marriage, my husband gives me gifts sometimes. I do not love him because of the gifts he gives me, and I would not love him any less if he stopped. He does not earn my love by giving me things. But he gives me things as an outward display of his love for me, and his love for me is why I love him.

This is how I see faith and works. I can receive grace by my faith in the Lord, and I show the Lord my faith by the way I live my life. I think my faith would be worthless if I didn't try to live for Him and try to keep His commandments.

[shalamabobbi]

Well ....death?

Well yes death is overcome for all w/o any conditions on our part but I don't believe that is what Paul is referring to. Even in the quote given by Rob from Titus reference is made to the requirements of baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

You wrote:

Luke 10:25-28 Yah well if you are going to continue to support a false dichotomy between the words of Paul and the words of Jesus, I'm going to have to go with the words of Jesus.

Of course I don't accept the false dichotomy that you posit.

CFR that I posited any such dichotomy between the words of Paul and Jesus.

[shalamabobbi]

CFR that I posited any such dichotomy between the words of Paul and Jesus.

You're stipulating that the proper understanding of the terminology "to be saved by grace" does not allow for the inclusion of the requirement of works of righteousness.

That contradicts the words of Jesus who said, "this DO and thou shalt live."

How hard can it be?

The only resolution is to understand Paul's words to mean that the atonement itself is not the result of our works of righteousness, not that works of righteousness are not a requirement for salvation.

Indeed salvation if it means anything at all is the quality of becoming righteous as God is righteous. You cannot be saved in your sins. You can only be saved from your sins.

Hope that helps..

[JarMan]

Rob, so you don't take issue with Mormons self identifying as Christians, but you disagree with some fundamental Mormon doctrines concerning the nature of Christ, among other things. Is that a fair assessment?

[Thinking]

Mormons believe in Christ. Evangelicals believe in Christ. Catholics believe in Christ. Many others believe in Christ. What each group believes about Christ, however, may have some significant differences. I wonder if every evangelical believes exactly the same things about Christ. If not, does it mean that some evangelicals are Christian and some aren't?

[mfbukowski]

....But I do get concerned about it when someone speaks as if the mere fact that they believe in Jesus, regardless of who they think he is and what they think that means, is enough to guarantee their salvation. That concern arises whether the individual who proceeds on the basis of that assumption is a Mormon, a Catholic, or a Baptist. Thus the concern has nothing to do with protecting religious "turf" (as Mormons here have charged ad nauseum) but with protecting the integrity of the gospel and caring for people's eternal welfare enough to risk their displeasure by confronting false doctrines that might be keeping them from salvation. Nor is the point that all people in evangelical churches are saved and all people in the LDS Church are lost; neither I nor any other evangelical I know thinks that is the case. I have evangelical friends who were raised in evangelical churches and realized only well into their adult years that they had not actually come into a genuine, saving relationship with Christ. I also know Mormons whom I think and hope may be saved despite the bad theology they try to defend. But as I said, doctrine matters because it can mislead people as to what the gospel is and what it means to know Christ, and that is why it is important to address such issues candidly, speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) even if it means someone will think I am their enemy for trying to do so (Gal. 4:16).

The usual accusation against Mormons made by Evangelicals is that we worship a "different Christ"- if that was the case it would not be EVER possible for a Mormon to be "saved" according to an Evangelical.

We hear repeatedly that the Christ we worship is the brother of Satan etc and therefore is not even the "same Christ" that EV's worship, and so it is impossible that we could be "saved"

If Evangelicals admit that even ONE Mormon could be saved, then it must not be the case that we are worshiping a "different" Christ- since only Christ is the source of our salvation.

So either that EV position is incorrect, or Mormons worship more than one Christ, some worshiping the "correct" one. You can't have it both ways.

So which is it?

[zerinus]

Mormons believe in Christ. Evangelicals believe in Christ. Catholics believe in Christ. Many others believe in Christ. What each group believes about Christ, however, may have some significant differences. I wonder if every evangelical believes exactly the same things about Christ. If not, does it mean that some evangelicals are Christian and some aren't?

According to Rob Bowman, that appears to be the case.

[Robert F. Smith]

Pa, Pa said:

Quote

Also EV's do not own the definition of the word Christian, no more than we do.

I don't think evangelicals own the definition. I have stated repeatedly in this very thread that I don't even think that there is only one correct definition. So far, only one Mormon in the thread seems to have gotten this point.

When I said "there can be only one," I did not have this in mind . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

Before you posted that the LDS are so far "off the mark" that you believed our religion incapable of establishing personal salvific relationships with the Savior. I might guess this has to do with the emphasis upon good works? If so, how do you establish this false dichotomy between good works and humble dependence upon the Lord in view of the writings of James? (Show me your faith w/o your works and I'll show you my faith by my works). How do good works show any disrespect for the Savior's atonement in your view?

Martin Luther handled the Epistle of James with a wave of the hand, terming it "an epistle of straw." Had he been able to do so, he would have removed it from the Canon.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Rob Bowman, why does it matter to you whether Mormons are Christians?

It seems clear to me at least that Rob would like to put Mormons on the path to the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Most of them are resisting, believing that they have already been "saved." Some feel offended. However, I consider it helpful for all parties to think through the various theological positions which they hold -- even though that is not the normal reason for conversion from one religious tradition to another.

[Robert F. Smith]

As an evangelical Christian, I am convinced that what people believe about God, about Jesus Christ, about human beings and their ultimate purpose, and about salvation are of crucial relevance to whether they hear the authentic gospel and come into a saving relationship with God in Christ. I could care less what people call themselves; in and of itself this is of no consequence. But I do get concerned about it when someone speaks as if the mere fact that they believe in Jesus, regardless of who they think he is and what they think that means, is enough to guarantee their salvation. That concern arises whether the individual who proceeds on the basis of that assumption is a Mormon, a Catholic, or a Baptist. Thus the concern has nothing to do with protecting religious "turf" (as Mormons here have charged ad nauseum) but with protecting the integrity of the gospel and caring for people's eternal welfare enough to risk their displeasure by confronting false doctrines that might be keeping them from salvation. Nor is the point that all people in evangelical churches are saved and all people in the LDS Church are lost; neither I nor any other evangelical I know thinks that is the case. I have evangelical friends who were raised in evangelical churches and realized only well into their adult years that they had not actually come into a genuine, saving relationship with Christ. I also know Mormons whom I think and hope may be saved despite the bad theology they try to defend. But as I said, doctrine matters because it can mislead people as to what the gospel is and what it means to know Christ, and that is why it is important to address such issues candidly, speaking the truth in love (Eph. 4:15) even if it means someone will think I am their enemy for trying to do so (Gal. 4:16).

I'm touched, and I hope that others here are touched by your long-term devotion to a very tough ministry to the Mormons. I imagine that you and your family might find it more rewarding to be in a pastorate over a nice evangelical congregation somewhere (even in Utah), or to have a teaching position in a congenial Baptist seminary somewhere. Instead you chose a harder path. So, thank you for putting up with all the guff on this board. Any of us would no doubt love to have you as our neighbor, and we would certainly enjoy serving with you on a local interfaith council of some sort. Of course you must know that doctrine is almost never the reason for conversion . . .

Aside from the "bad theology" which you think we exhibit, was there at one time a key reason why you felt "called" to minister to the Mormons? How did the call come?

Edited September 7, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[DBMormon]

ROB - What is your definiton of "Christian"

What is your major interest and purpose in participating here? just curious

[GingerRed]

We already HAVE a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I, without a doubt, feel that way. I know through personal revelation. I don't understand why Rob thinks HIS way of having a " saving relationship with God in Christ" is better than ours. I can't even fathom how I can possibly be any closer to our Father in Heaven ( whom we are His literal sons and daughters! ) and to Jesus ( our Brother) than I already am!! I am a daughter of GOD, for Pete's sake!! It doesn't GET any better than this!

[Bart Burk]

We already HAVE a close personal relationship with Jesus Christ. I, without a doubt, feel that way. I know through personal revelation. I don't understand why Rob thinks HIS way of having a " saving relationship with God in Christ" is better than ours. I can't even fathom how I can possibly be any closer to our Father in Heaven ( whom we are His literal sons and daughters! ) and to Jesus ( our Brother) than I already am!! I am a daughter of GOD, for Pete's sake!! It doesn't GET any better than this!

I think some of the objection may come from the LDS reticence to pray directly to Jesus.

[zerinus]

It seems clear to me at least that Rob would like to put Mormons on the path to the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It seems clear to me that he wants to put them on the path that leads them away from the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

Most of them are resisting, believing that they have already been "saved." Some feel offended.

I am neither offended nor feel "saved". Not sure who else might be.

However, I consider it helpful for all parties to think through the various theological positions which they hold -- even though that is not the normal reason for conversion from one religious tradition to another.

O yea? Did you want to tell me more about it? Don't let me stand in your way.

Edited September 7, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

I'm touched, and I hope that others here are touched by your long-term devotion to a very tough ministry to the Mormons. I imagine that you and your family might find it more rewarding to be in a pastorate over a nice evangelical congregation somewhere (even in Utah), or to have a teaching position in a congenial Baptist seminary somewhere. Instead you chose a harder path. So, thank you for putting up with all the guff on this board. Any of us would no doubt love to have you as our neighbor, and we would certainly enjoy serving with you on a local interfaith council of some sort. Of course you must know that doctrine is almost never the reason for conversion . . .

Aside from the "bad theology" which you think we exhibit, was there at one time a key reason why you felt "called" to minister to the Mormons? How did the call come?

I am sure he would do a great job as a religion teacher at BYU, especially Book of Mormon 101.

[GingerRed]

I think some of the objection may come from the LDS reticence to pray directly to Jesus.

Interesting....

We are told to pray to Heavenly Father only. The Lord Jesus Christ commanded, “Ye must always pray unto the Father in my name” (3 Nephi 18:19). I don't know where in the Bible that Jesus says to pray to HIM only. Even Jesus prayed to the Father!

Edited September 7, 2012 by GingerRed