Rich Mouw, president at Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote a piece for CNN.com and in the piece argues that Mormons are not what they used to be. The question being asked is if Mormons are Christian? There is an issue of orthodoxy here, too: Mormons cannot affirm Nicea/Chalcedon’s statements on Christ, and they surely don’t believe in the atonement the way most traditional Christians believe.
What do you think? What makes a person a “Christian”?
Here is some of what Rich Mouw said:
So are Mormons Christians? For me, that’s a complicated question.
My Mormon friends and I disagree on enough subjects that I am not prepared to say that their theology falls within the scope of historic Christian teaching. But the important thing is that we continue to talk about these things, and with increasing candor and mutual openness to correction.
No one has shown any impulse to walk away from the table of dialogue. We do all of this with the blessing of many leaders from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some of whom have become good friends.
While I am not prepared to reclassify Mormonism as possessing undeniably Christian theology, I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior.
I find Mormons to be more Christ-centered than they have been in the past. I recently showed a video to my evangelical Fuller Seminary students of Mormon Elder Jeffrey Holland, one of the Twelve Apostles who help lead the LDS church. The video captures Holland speaking to thousands of Mormons about Christ’s death on the cross.
Several of my students remarked that if they had not known that he was a Mormon leader they would have guessed that he was an evangelical preacher.
What it comes down to is whether we’re saved by God’s grace, or by our orthodoxy. Of course Mormons are wrong, but does that therefore mean they are damned?
Mouw says, “I do accept many of my Mormon friends as genuine followers of the Jesus whom I worship as the divine Savior.” How are they “genuine followers” of Christ when they deny Christ’s own words that “I and the Father are one”?
Also, Mormons think that we orthodox Christians are the ones that are apostate and that they alone are the true church. They think we—and Mouw—are totally wrong about Jesus. I appreciate Dr. Mouw’s attempts at ecumenicism, but he’s merely muddying the waters and leading people into confusion.
I think there are enough differences that we should distinguish between Christianity and Mormonism. Better to think of Mormonism as a fourth “Abraham” faith. Again, that isn’t to condemn Mormonism any more than I would condemn Orthodox Judaism. It is simply to say that it is its own distinct religion, and that – on some issues – there are sharp differences.
We are saved by grace through faith in God’s Son Jesus Christ by the work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, orthodoxy does have some connection to our salvation.
If we say, strictly, “we’re saved by God’s grace,” and yet we can also believe very wrong, very unbiblical aspects as to who God is (as do Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Scientists et al.), then I suppose any one from any religion in the world can be saved. In that manner, God is not hampered to save “by grace” those who believe very wrong aspects of the Christian faith.
I disagree with this concept of “salvation.” This doesn’t mean I only want a few to be saved. Rather, it means that I want all others to embrace the true God (1 Thess. 1:9), and not some false gospel (Gal. 1:6-9) or false idea of who Christ Jesus is (2 Cor. 11:4).
I’m not privy to the conversations Mouw has had behind closed doors. I only know about the conversations I’ve had with Mormon young men who periodically come to my front door. Mouw’s argument sounds a little like “argument of the beard”. Despite points of similarity and being on a spectrum together there is a great divide between Mormonism and Christ-followers, at least the kind of Mormonism that the boys coming to my door keep sharing with me.
I read Mouw’s article for CNN. He repeats, “a cult doesn’t do that…”. I beg to differ with his definition of what a cult does or does not do. The comparison he makes with some other cult groups – and their lack of academics – is ridiculous as criteria. This is a very disappointing position that Mouw is taking.
I hope that the closed door meetings he is having produce some kind of good fruit but I’m afraid the young men who walk through my neighbourhood haven’t heard the Gospel, don’t acknowledge King Jesus and don’t seem to be as close as the people Mouw is meeting with to the Kingdom of God.
This would be an interesting and fruitful discussion if it didn’t come with so much election-year baggage. Why exactly is being an orthodox, evangelical, born-again Christian a requirement for US President? My guess is that GOP voters (as well as the rest of us) are much more interested in candidates’ views on taxation, Social Security, abortion, illegal immigration, gay marriage, and the like, than they are the state of Romney’s eternal soul.
Richard Mouw summed it up well: “Mitt Romney deserves what every politician running for office deserves: a careful examination of his views on policy and his philosophy of government.”
As a Canadian I don’t really care what the faith is of the people running for President. I do, however, as a Jesus follower, find Mouw’s reasoning flawed and disappointing regarding whether or not Mormons follow Jesus or not.
This is nothing new for Mouw, but—just to add to Joe’s point—nobody in the history of orthodox Christianity would call beliefs such as the ones Mormons hold (no matter evangelical they sound or Christ-centered they talk) Christian. The divinity of Christ is central to the Christian message—who God is and his salvation for us.
I’m wondering: isn’t there a concern for historicity in recognizing the validity of LDS faith as ‘Christian’? Part of the fundamental claim of Christianity is that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus are events that actually happened in history. By contrast, do we really believe Joseph Smith’s accounts of the golden plates, or of the Book of Mormon’s accounts of North American believers in Jesus? Mormonism is certainly a uniquely American faith, and is a huge part of the religious history of this country, but that doesn’t make the LDS faith Christian.
I agree with those who say it is unfortunate that politics was brought into this (or this into politics).
This issue brings to mind the current dust-up over James McDonald’s invitation to T.D. Jakes to come to “The Elephant Room”. Trinitarianism is not just a theological non-essential.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/09/28/not-your-grandpas-anti-trinitarianism-an-analysis-of-onenness-pentecostalism/
Umm… just because they use a lot of Christian terms, doesn’t make them Christians. Muslims are more Christian than Mormons on fundamental religious categories.
Agree with Joe (#6) that there are two questions here:
1) Are Mormons actually Christians?
2) Does the faith of a Presidential nominee matter or should the focus be on his views, philosophy of govt, and track record?
Underlying the first question is another – is the individual (Romney) a Christian or are Mormons (based on defined LDS doctrine) Christians? It is possible to find people who might practice / join a group whose doctrinal affirmations and denials would be outside the realm of Christianity and they themselves still have saving faith in Christ.
MikeB
@g1antfan
If there was one thing I could point people to … for them to see just how different Mormonism and Biblical Christianity are, it would be http://www.GodNeverSinned.com
It is a video project of mine where I have interviewed Mormons, asking them if they believe God was once perhaps a sinner.
Viewed from a history of religions perspective, I think one has to place Mormonism, as a religion that centers its identity on Jesus, on the Xian spectrum (unless one is writing a more narrow history of a particular branch of xianity, of course). In the same way, an historian of early Xianity would be irresponsible to ignore the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, etc., though obviously they all hold to very different conceptions of Jesus.
As to the politics of religious identity, I think it’s a colossal waste of time. Of all the complex issues our country must navigate in the years ahead, whether the US Pres accepts a Nicene definition of Jesus, or for that matter whether s/he prays to Allah, is a pointless distraction. If this is a hang up for Republicans, then I think they may be rejecting they’re only candidate who could win in the general election. Sorry, I just don’t see Perry (or Bachmann) as a viable candidate in a general. [Full disclosure: I'm not a Republican, so would not be too sad to see them ruin their chances in this next election]
I should add that I have specifically asked Robert Millet, whom Mouw spoke of, whether he believed God the Father was once perhaps a sinner, and his answer was that he didn’t know.
Mouw states, “Several of my students remarked that if they had not known that he was a Mormon leader they would have guessed that he was an evangelical preacher.” I haven’t heard the message to which he alludes, but perhaps this statement speaks even louder about the state of modern evangelical preaching than it does about where Mormonism stands on the theological spectrum.
If we allow Scripture to be the standard for which we measure other beliefs against, then I think this should determine if Mormonism is Christian or not.
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder. (James 2:19)
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8)
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8)
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)
All Scripture (not the Book of Mormon) is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16)
“You believe that One is God, rightly so; the daemons believe this also, and bristle.” James made this statement to point out to his readers that orthodoxy is secondary, in God’s eyes, to fruit. Really, orthodoxy is a fruit.
I’m reminded of my years as a younger, more closed-minded Christian, when many of my beliefs were clearly wrong and based on personal prejudice rather than scripture. Had I died then, and stood before God, would His grace have extended to me simply because I got the Trinity right, even though I displayed little of the fruit of the Spirit, and was only interested in Jesus on a contractual get-out-of-hell-free basis? Was cheap grace enough to save me?
As offensive as this might be to many devoted Christians, I still hope so. I hope God’s grace extends farther than mine does.
Look, none of us have “arrived” theologically. All of us have flaws. Some of us are hunting down those flaws as best we can, whereas others of us are pretty sure all our ducks are in a row. Will those flaws, and the blind spots that conceal them from us, be enough to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus? Hope not.
Will the Mormons’ flaws? Again, hope not. Can I say they will? Not from the scriptures, I can’t; I can only make logical arguments like the commenters above. I can only speak out of my prejudices. So I won’t. I don’t know.
All I do know is that sometimes see more fruit of the Spirit produced by my Mormon neighbors than by my fellow Christians.
I think they’re Christians. They believe Jesus “of Biblical fame” is the Son of God.
The Gospel doesn’t eschew believers who don’t agree with everything documented in various councils or denominations.
We all have some weird beliefs and we all have some error in our doctrines. Mormons aren’t unique in that respect.
As a Mormon who has been following and appreciating this blog for a year now, I am a little disappointed to see that my brothers and sisters who have shared opinions here have such a low opinion of our belief in Christ. I imagine that for the most part it is a matter of misinformation or misrepresentation about my church’s central beliefs.
We believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world. We believe that without His atonement none of us would be saved. We believe that faith in Him is essential – in fact, it is the first of our “first principles and ordinances of the Gospel [which are]: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, second, repentance, third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, fourth, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
What about any of that is non-Christian? In Sunday School yesterday we discussed the Book of Ephesians – last week a friend of mine played as an extra in a church-produced film on the New Testament and was in the scene as a palm-waver during Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. What about any of that is non-Christian?
I spent a year and a half as a missionary in Japan wearing a nametag that read “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” where the name “Jesus Christ” was prominent, and spent my days answering questions about who He was and what He taught. What is non-Christian about that?
Even the Book of Mormon, which some of you have cited as being non-Biblical and therefore non-Christian, testifies of Jesus Christ. Do you know what it is primarily about? It’s the record of people who lived in the Americas and believed in the future coming of Jesus Christ. After His death and resurrection in Jerusalem, the Book of Mormon records his visit to these people, as some of the “other sheep” He spoke of in John 10:16. You are free to disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but it is not non-Christian. Every single page of it testifies of the role of Christ as our Savior and Redeemer and teaches of the faith in Him necessary for salvation.
What is non-Christian about that?
I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I pray morning and night to my Father in Heaven through the sacred name of Jesus Christ. I believe that He will come again to the earth in fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. You can say what you like about my theology, but I testify that I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe the holy prophesies written about Him in the Old Testament and in the records of His earthly life in the New Testament. I believe that He suffered and atoned for my sins, and that through repentance it is His suffering that grants me forgiveness. I believed that He died and was resurrected and that through that miracle, I will someday be resurrected to. I believe that He is my Lord and my living Redeemer. I believe in Christ.
I affirm Jesus’ words, “I and the father are one,” but I may mean something different by that than what Joe means. Am I a candidate for being denied the right to call myself Christian? If my Mormon friends are declared by some as yet to be agreed upon authority “not Christian,” what does that mean? Are we not allowed to discuss our faith with each other? Are we to assume our only conversation with Mormons can have the purpose of persuading them to reject their religion? Should we at the very least encourage them to realize they are condemned to the outer darkness forever? Must we advise our children to stay away from Mormons, lest they be corrupted? I would like to know just what the point is of our discussing whether or not Mormons, or any self identified group of believers, may accurately describe themselves as Christian.
Another resource, if you’re interested, is this famous address given by one of our Church’s 12 apostles, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, just before his death in 1985. It is a hallmark speech that members of the LDS church remember fondly and often refer to. In my view, it is entirely Christian in its message, and stands as a powerful witness of what Christ’s life and death means to us.
The full text of his address can he found here: http://lds.org/general-conference/print/1985/04/the-purifying-power-of-gethsemane/?lang=eng
The address is available as a video (slightly abridged, and with scenes from New Testament videos added) in three parts on youtube:
(edited: apparently, the blog software thinks my direct links here are spam. So I’ll just put the names of the youtube videos and let you search them.)
The Purifying Power of Gethsemane – Part 1
The Purifying Power of Gethsemane – Part 2
The Purifying Power of Gethsemane – Part 3
I’m sure wikipedia is far from perfect, but if 10% of it is accurate, then there certainly are some serious differences. It is interesting to see there are specific comments on “lack of delineation between Christians and Mormons” and “Downplaying of differences” — quite similar to the topic at hand above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity
I’m (personally) more inclined to be concerned with the methods or character of a candidate for president, so I might understand how he or she would lead and approach difficult problems.
In response to RobS, I acknowledge that there are differences between LDS teachings and those of many Protestant denominations. But are there not also such differences between Protestant and Catholic theology? What about Eastern Orthodox and Coptic theology? There are apocryphal texts that the Catholics consider part of the Bible that Protestants do not. And yet, Catholics are considered Christians. Of course there are theological differences, and of course we see these as significant – otherwise we wouldn’t feel the need to belong to different sects, be they Catholic, LDS, Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc. There are also significant differences among sects of Judaism, Islam, and all kinds of differences in various approaches to Eastern religions. Yet we still acknowledge that their core beliefs are similar enough to categorize them together.
I recognize significant differences between my church and other Christian denominations. Yet, I still acknowledge those denominations as Christian. They do not teach the same things my church teaches, but they teach faith in Jesus Christ and that the Bible is the word of God. I believe that those are the things Christians believe.
As C.S. Lewis said in his preface to Mere Christianity, “We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to “the disciples,” to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some
refined, spiritual, inward fashion were “far closer to the spirit of Christ” than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said.”
I think the main point of Mouw’s article is not whether or not Muslim’s are Christians, but whether or not they should be categorized as a cult. I can’t bring myself to call them Christians, but I think we have to deal with the fact that the traditional Christian definition of cult and the modern world’s definition of cult are quite different.
Jesus said that you’d know His followers by their love for one another. And based on the Mormons that I’ve known, they love God and love others. Concerning their theology being right or wrong, I believe that salvation is based on the grace of God, not upon our correct understanding of anything. Of course, this is only augmented by my faith that one day every knee shall bow in worship and every tongue shall joyfully proclaim allegiance to Jesus. And when I say “every”, I mean “every” and believe that Paul meant “every” (Christian Universalism).
I too was raised in a very exclusive group of followers of Jesus. Shoot, we didn’t know for sure we were saved but were was pretty sure that everyone not part of our little group was not. Sad but true! This exclusivism cut us off from the greater body of Christ and empowered us to be pretty judgmental of others.
So, do I consider Mormons to be my brothers and sisters in Christ? Absolutely. Do I believe they are wrong in some of their theology? Absolutely. But then again I believe that you and I are in the same boat.
Based on my understanding of scripture, my experience of the Lord’s grace and love, and reason I’ve come to have faith in Jesus not only for my salvation but for yours also. I’ve come to have faith in Jesus for everyone even me! And I appreciate James more each day in that he emphasized that how we live is so much more important that just what we believe.
Mormonism can never reject their original belief that they are the true church and that other “Christians” are therefore apostate. Such a claim muddies the significance of this post’s question in the first place.
Mormons believe that Jesus was literally born and therefore is a literal son of God (one of many real sons and daughters). This, and many other beliefs make it difficult to say they are Christians.
Lastly, I tend to be less concerned with what people struggle to affirm than with what they directly and wholeheartedly reject. As Scot pointed out, they can’t sign onto the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds. Most (not all) reject salvation by grace alone, through faith alone. What about their fourfold canon of scriptures? etc. I know it kills my Mormon friends to hear this, but I cannot agree that they are Christians in the least sense.
Anneke, thanks for sharing and being so authentic, respectful, and irenic. And if anyone hasn’t read your responses @ 22 & 24, I recommend them whole heartedly.
Anneke,
For those of us who aren’t familiar with Mormonism could you please look at a copy of the nicene creed and tell us which parts you could, or could not affirm? (whichever list is shortest) I would like to get your direct perspective.
I talked today with a former Mormon who characterized Mormonism as a cult.
Sherman – thank you! And thank you for your comment @26. It is much appreciated.
Robin – Sure! I looked at this translation of the Nicene creed: http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm
I don’t, of course, speak officially for my church, but a careful reading to me shows that I can affirm all of the text, though we would clarify one statement: “of one Being with the Father.”
We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate entities but are one in purpose. There are scriptures in our own Book of Mormon that also describe the members of the Godhead as “being one,” but while some Christian sects have interpreted this as the mystery of the Trinity, we interpret it to mean that they are one in purpose – one God because their wills and purposes are thoroughly aligned. We believe that this is the same unity of will and purpose that Christ spoke of in John 17:21 and prayed that His followers could also “be one” with the Father and the Son. We do not believe that this “being one” means that they are the same person. We believe that the Father and the Son possess glorified and perfected physical bodies of their own and that the Holy Ghost does not possess a body but is a personage of spirit.
While our doctrine affirms the intention and spirit of the Nicene Creed, we also do not believe that that creed was an authoritative statement given through the Holy Ghost in the same way that the scripture of the Bible was. We believe that it was put together by well-intentioned people who were trying to come to a consensus of what the Christian church believed. The original apostles that Christ chose and ordained (including Paul, whom He chose and ordained after His death and resurrection) had all been killed, and had not chosen and ordained new apostles to take their places, and so the Christian creeds created after that time were made through the best attempts and intentions of individual people and were not the official word of God.
I can see how those who would define Christianity as those who affirm the Nicene Creed would discount Mormonism on that account, but also keep in mind that there were other groups in the early Christian church with a variety of beliefs around the time the creed was written, not to mention the followers of Christ we read about in the New Testament who were known as Christians hundreds of years before it existed.
Anneke,
I respect your answer but would ask for follow up. You seem to say that you believe in 3 distinct Gods with separate “bodies”…are all 3 co-eternal existing separately from eternity or is one “more eternal” than the others? Was any of the 3 created by the others or different in essential godhood than the others? Is any of the 3 part of ” the creation” rather than “the creator”
I am well aware of the early “Christians” who couldn’t affirm the nicene as well, and sometimes the line between Christian teaching and heresy was blurry and people, even church fathers who were hugely influential in church history, owent back and forth between the two.
Hmmmmmm. In answer to the question in the post, what makes someone a Christian, I am really wondering about that.
Reading this thread, I realize I’ve been thinking of a “follower of Jesus” as something distinct from a Christian; I think for example many Muslims and Hindus could legitimately call themselves followers of Jesus, as could many people who have, say, some New Age views or who would consider themselves spiritual but not religious.
Is being a follower of Jesus enough to make one a Christian? Still pondering that one.
I also want to say something general
About heresies. Early false torching in the NT sounded authentic, authentic enough to even fool Peter. It sounded good enough to fool the apostolic churches and Paul was constantly writing to distinguish between the gospel and false doctrine. On up thru the council of Nicea heresies always contained enough truth, twisted, that even devout believers would get snagged and have to be corrected. I say all of that to make it clear that just because something sounds similar to authentic Christianity doesn’t mean it is, and just because someone may sit under heretical teaching, that might not give a proper understanding of their devotion to Christ or relationship with him.
Tim Challies recently said that if you have a slightly differing view of The Trinity then “you are not a Christian. Period.”
Well, for me the trouble with false teaching and true teaching and heresies and all that, is that I grew up hearing Protestants were all going to hell because Protestants were not real Christians; they were not members of the One True Church, they did not recognize Peter as the first pope, and they did not recognize the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic church or the necessity of receiving its sacraments.
So was the nun who taught my religious class right? Or is Tim Challies right? (She and Tim Challies may have agreed on the nature of the Trinity, and she surely affirmed the Nicene creed, but surely they would not agree on things like apostolic succession or how we determine what has teaching authority or how we think of sacraments, if we think of them at all.)
I left the Catholic church, but I still wonder how we figure out who is right.
I really appreciated Sherman Nobles comments. There are so many differences in each of the various religions and even within the different Christian churches beliefs that it seems pretty risky for us to decide which criteria should include or exclude what we believe is truth. I think it can be very tempting and even easy to discount the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because of a few of the distinct differences that are taken as truths…primarily the Book of Mormon and the belief that Joseph Smith was a modern day Prophet. It can be easy to discount what others believe because it doesn’t fit in with our current knowledge and beliefs. If you take the Book of Mormon and belief that Joseph Smith restored lost truths away from the LDS Church then it would blend in with the rest of Christianity very nicely. I guess that’s why there’s such a big focus on them, because they set the “Mormon Church” apart from main stream Christianity and that can be alarming for some and very intriguing for others. Often times it’s more comforting to go with things that don’t seem so risky.
Just as Anneke had the opportunity to serve a mission in Japan, I had the opportunity to serve an LDS mission in the Netherlands and Belgium. It was during that time that I learned a few important lessons. I wont share them all, but here are a couple.
First, Just because I THOUGHT I was correct, didn’t mean that I was. Second, the best way to find out if something is true is to research the root, come to the best decision I could, then ask God if it is the right decision. The hard part is being open for and accepting what God has to say.
I used to think I had it all figured out. Based on what knowledge I had at the time my views made sense. Over time, as I’ve accumulated knowledge and been open to other options, my views have consistently been changing and molded into what I see today. This is not to say I have had dramatic changes in my views but I understand that I still have a lot to learn and a long way to go as far as understanding the whole scope of Gods plan.
I would like to share my testimony of Jesus Christ along with Anneke’s. As a “Mormon”, I have faith that Jesus Christ died for me and all of my fellow men. It doesn’t matter the religion, He is all of our Savior and Redeemer. I believe that Jesus teaches us to love our Neighbors as our selves. It is through Jesus Christ that I will one day be with my family again and His teachings give me that hope. I love Him and worship My Lord, My God.
For those who are interested in differences between mormons and Christians, http://mormoninfo.org/ has a very helpful side-by-side graph that highlights the significant differences between Christianity and mormonism.
Interesting debate, which I believe is sparked because Mormonism is so prominent in the American public (read: political) sphere.
Mormonism believe that God reveal himself trough prophets, and the latest revelation (the texts of Joseph Smith) will always be weighted highest, also over the Bible in cases where there are conflicts betweet the texts. This makes it highly problematic for ortodox Christianity to embrace Mormonism, but I have seen many mainstream American Christian leaders say things like “as long as they proclaim Christ” later years.
But what about the other American religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses, what do the readers of the Jesus Creed label them? Unlike Mormonism, which has their own texts as the highest authorithy, they base their teachings on the Bible, the same as rest of Christianity.
For us with anabaptist leanings, we can sympathize with many of the doctrines of JW when it comes to the Kingdom of God and the “King Jesus Gospel”, while disagree on other points, as with any Christian creed. I find it much easier to see them as brothers and sister when we have the same starting point with Bible, and the Bible only. If I had to choose, I rather go to bible study at Kingdom Hall than a Catholic mass (FYI: I never done neither).
The comments here really begs the question of “What is a Christian?” or “Who is a Christian?”. But then again, I’m not sure that’s the question(s) Jesus is asking. I think Jesus was more interested in “who are my disciples?” rather than who are the people who adhere to doctrines historically developed by people in a movement called Christianity who sometimes showed little concern for living as Jesus did.
Though I don’t think we should completely disregard how the Christian faith has developed theologically within history, we seem to give way too much weight to later doctrinal development as the measure by which we are judged as being the people of Christ. When we appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive according to what we have done (2 Cor 5.10, Rev 22.12), do we actually think Jesus will be holding a copy of the Nicene and Apostle’s Creed in his hands to judge us against?
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Matt,
Thank you for sharing the mormoninfo website. I found it very interesting and informative. After taking a look at it there are many points of doctrine that are spot on and then others that are not completely accurately depicted about the “Mormon Church”. If I might add the official LDS website about our beliefs- http://mormon.org/faith/. They’ve also got some pretty good videos if you’re into visuals- http://mormon.org/videos/ ….or feel free to talk to a Mormon near you
How many Gospels are there?
Personally, I don’t believe in a Gospel that states “you must agree with X group”.
That’s not The Gospel, that’s another gospel. Paul didn’t have nice things to say to purveyors of those.
These folks meet John 3:16,3:36,20:31,etc. that’s the offer, they accepted it. Who cares about differences?
Didn’t The Lord pray we’d have unity like He and the Father did? Unity around this at least, we believers have enough enemy outside the faith.
Putting in context we must realize that Joseph Smith would bristle at the idea of Mormons being considered just another denomination of Christianity. Also, until the last couple of decades Mormons had absolutely no desire to be seen as such, but seemed to have now pushed quite strongly to be seen as “Christian” for cultural assimilation purposes.
I grew up around Mormons and have spent years reading and studying The Pearl Of Great Price and The Doctrine and Covenants, which they consider to be holy books. The teachings in these books reveal foundational beliefs such as polytheism, God being a created being, denial of the Trinity, and a view of the atonement in which Jesus makes up the difference after we do all we can. Along with a teaching that we are able to progress into becoming gods ourselves (a simple reading of Genesis 1-3 should have shot that notion down).
No where in historical Christianity of any stripe have beliefs like these been seen as even remotely Christian. This is not even remotely close to comparing the differences between Protestants and Catholics.
I say none of this to be inflamatory or insulting toward Mormons, but for the sake of clarity. Mouw has done a disservice to the students and Christians that look to him for truth and wisdom on such a delicate issue. I am all for the conversation with our LDS friends continuing, but let it be one that is honest.
For a helpful book that has primary source documentation on all of the LDS doctrines and theological teachings I mentioned should read Andrew Jackson’s book “Mormonism Explained.”
http://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-Explained-Latter-day-Saints-Practice/dp/1581349351/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318293287&sr=8-1
Mouw is the same guy that apologized to the Mormons and embarrased himself a few years back. I respect him less now than then.
I am willing to call anyone who is trying to follow Jesus a Christian. Given that we cannot know the state of someone’s heart, we have to take the claim at face value.
I am certain that I currently believe things about Jesus (and the trinity) that are not true.
The question is which Jesus DRT? The one from the Bible? The one that Muslims believe in? That which Jews believe in? Or the one that Mormons believe in?
Robin,
In response to your comment in #32, I’d like to chip in as another Latter-day Saint (for reference, if it’s meaningful to someone, I know Anneke personally, but would never pretend to be able to tell you what she thinks about the subtleties of her/my/our faith — this is my own thought).
I think it’s relevant to note that our leaders have defined “eternal” in a way that may have shades of variance from what you meant. We believe that all beings’ existence is without end — that all mankind existed as “intelligences” prior to their spiritual birth in God’s kingdom. In that way, all beings are timeless. However, the word “eternal” is usually used to indicate the nature of God, Godhood, itself. Personally, I connect it as well to the belief that’s God’s will is eternal, his power without end and without limit, while human will is not. In this way, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all without beginning and without end, because all intelligences have always existed, and eternal, because they are all one in Godhood. With their wills and purposes completely and perfectly united, there is no need for primacy or the raising of one above the other.
In terms of what is creator and what is creation, I admit to finding the question either unnecessarily simplistic (is the point whether the Father created the Son and Holy Ghost?) or a seeking for deeper clarification on our belief that Christ is the literal Son as well as Jehovah of the Old Testament. Can you clarify?
Many Christians understandably want to distance themselves from the recent comments of Pastor Jeffress. Predictably, folks like Newt said Mormonism is not a cult.
Here is what muddies things: There are those like myself who agree with Jeffress that the Mormon religion is heterodox while vehemently disagreeing with Jeffress on Mitt’s suitability to be president. I will gladly cast my vote for Mitt over Rick! I find Jeffress incoherent on his reasoning to back Rick.
I admit I don’t know all that the Mormon/LDS claim to believe or reject. However, my understanding of Mormon teaching is that it is polytheistic. So I think a simple question that might help in this debate is – Does the Mormon/LDS church unequivocally accept this statement as true:
“I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God.” (Isaiah 45:5, NASB)
There is one God – the Great I AM. That means there are no other gods. There is no room for men/women becoming gods. And there is no gods creating other gods.
If they can’t then IMO we have a clear break with Biblical Christianity.
MikeB
@g1antfan
Ann,
My core concerns are multi-faceted. The more mormonism has been illumined on this thread it is clear that you process theology in categories that are as alien to my historic Christian understanding as L.Ron Hubbard. I’m not saying Mormons cannot follow Jesus, even repent and believe and trust in him for salvation, it just seems that your categories for understanding the Christian faith are light years away from historic Christian theology. Maybe there is room in there for lots of common ground, but all that is evident is that mormonism and traditional christian theology share a common appearance with vastly different foundations.
It kinds of reminds me of the early Christian church and the divide between orthodoxy and Marcionism. Two movements that to all outsiders would appear to be identical. They both claimed allegiance to Jesus, repentance, belief, etc., but once you scratch the surface you realize that their operating presuppositions about the true identity of Jesus, identity of Yahweh, role of the O.T., reality of the resurrection, etc. were completely different.
Certainly Mormon are heretical according to historical Christianity. Are they any more heretical than, say, Calvinists by the same measure? That’s hard to say. We live in a world where the classical demarcations of Christianity hardly seem to matter anymore.
Scott,
Could you please indicate how you believe calvinism violates the Apostle’s Creed or Nicene Creed and therefore is heretical according to historical Christian standards? Or indicate what other recognized historical standards for heresy you are utilizing in your assessment of calvinism?
@ Pete #16… I think you nailed it there! It seems some of the commenters here must be in such churches. Wow, folks, the level of ignorance on what Christianity is or is not displayed in some of these responses is simply astounding.
Of course, the more important point of this whole Romney/Mormon debate is probably that we should focus on a candidate’s position on various important issues, their integrity, and the implications of their worldview on their thought process, rather than their religion. Our current president and the previous one both profess to be Christians, yet neither turned out to be worth a hill of beans.
The pastor who made the comments about Romney was academically correct in calling it a cult… though I think it was a mistake to use the term (because so few today understand that definition). But, if he was using it in a sense to try and disqualify Romney, then I’d have to disagree.
Hi, I’m another Mormon friend of Anneke’s–although my thoughts are my own (and I had already read Mouw’s piece prior to reading this thread).
I think there’s a basic disagreement of terminology here, with one side asserting that “Christian” is a term that implies adherence to very technical, specific beliefs–a definition that Jeffress and others are calling the “historic” meaning of the word Christian. The other side–the side I agree with–thinks of the word “Christian” as an umbrella term for followers of Jesus Christ who believe in his divinity. In my opinion the second definition of “Christian,” as a term encompassing all professed followers of Christ, is the true “historic” definition, and I think Jeffress knows very well that most casual listeners will assume, when you say someone’s not a Christian, that they must not believe in the divinity of Christ nor consider themselves His followers. While it would be absurd for someone to call him or herself a Catholic (or some other specific denomination) while rejecting all the major tenets of Catholicism, to call oneself a Christian while disagreeing with some of the tenets of some of the Christian denominations is a well-understood way of speaking that’s been around for a couple thousand years.
As for the the above comments wondering whether Jews or Muslims should be called Christians since they recognize Jesus on some level, to me the answer seems fairly straightforward: neither Islam nor Judaism believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and neither asks to be considered Christian. Mormons do assert that we’re Christians, we do love and worship Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world, and we ask to be considered His followers. To continue to deny us this seems not only to be rather tedious hairsplitting, but even, well, at least a little un-Christian.
Ryan @ #42 and MikeB @ #48 make the best points of all here so far. Really, since the _Doctrines and Covenants_ and _The Pearl of Great Price_ contain genuine Mormon beliefs that aren’t even taught to the typical Mormon missionary we would all do well to come to terms with the rather extreme divergence from biblical Christian they present. As noted: “polytheism, God being a created being”
definitely put Mormonism outside biblical Christianity. All you Mormons out there take note! Oh, and as for all you evangelical orthodoxers who appeal to classical and “historical” creedal christianity, you aren’t doing anyone any great favor by appealing primarily to the Extra Biblical teaching of The Creeds to make your case; Mormons also appeal to extra-biblical teachings.
So, pay attention to what MikeB and Ryan say here, and get with the info MattK linked at: since that focusses on some major differences between biblical Christianity and Mormonism. Mormonism is IMO a Non-Christian religion, despite its name, because of its divergence from Biblical monotheism, and not because it is anti-Nicene, or anti-Constantinoplian, etc.
Now, on to the really snarky stuff: Mitt Romney, as a not-quite-Christian is probably just as qualified as any presumably evangelical or mainline Christian for the highest political office in this country since every one who has taken that office so far has implicitly committed the idolatry of putting country over obligation to obey Jesus as part of doing the will of “the people.” This side of Christ’s return even the USA is but another “kingdom” of this world, still ruled by Satan. Both those politically left and right at least seem to be coming to the appropriate realization that idol Mammon rules; the former believing that it is through Wall Street and the lobbyists, and the latter through the Federal government and the lobbyists, but both sincerely concerned about governmental lack of responsiveness to the needs and desires of most of its citizens.
Jesus says that taking up one’s cross and denying one’s self-interest (above others) in following Him is what qualifies one to be His disciple, what makes one a Christian. There is more to it than that, since repenting and believing in Christ and the Gospel story of God’s mission of promised redemption and salvation through Him, obeying God by loving Him and acting in love towards others, and being faithful to this calling until the end is all required.
All the best to all in Christ.
Oops, got the More Info on Mormonism link deleted, but it came from MattK @ #37 http://mormoninfo.org/
This is a no-brainer. We talk about Jesus, who he is and what he has done for me, for you, for humanity, and for the world in terms of “renewal, restoration, reformation, redemption, and resurrection.” We relate our personal narratives to their personal narratives within the large story of Jesus’ narrative and the even larger meta-narrative of God’s restorative, renewing, reforming, redeeming (key term: salvific) work within his creation.
There are a few things on this thread that are alarming to me.
The first is that by talking about “historical” Christianity, it’s beliefs, doctrines, and theologies; we believe we have the answers. No matter how we look at any of these, there are flaws in any branch or denomination who follow Christ. Many who are Calvinist say they are the “historical” Christianity while many emergents claim that they are trying to rediscover the “historical” faith. Which is it? When Jesus met the Samaritan woman at the well, her theology was incredibly wrong as compared to the proper Judean theology of the day. What was Jesus’ response to her? I am not saying that theology is unimportant, I am wondering if we make it more important than stating that Jesus is King.
The second is that we are so quick to condemn others who may be following Christ. I think we have come to divide religions by the small things instead of remembering the biggest of all. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior who died for our sins. When we preach messages from Revelation about people who “add” to the Book and apply it to Mormons, Catholics, Arminians, Calvinists, etc; we create a dividing line which does not allow for discussion instead of looking at the Cross of Christ as an instrument for commonality.
The third is that we often throw words and ideas around when we may not grasp them ourself. We claim that the Mormon Gospel is a different Gospel than that which Paul taught in Galatians and therefore they are cursed. When Paul preached a Gospel, he preached one in which action was a necessity, yet; in our own Churches most people attend on Sunday and leave their faith at the Church during the week. Instead of finding world-changers, we find people who are just as greedy, selfish, proud and lustful as those in the world around them. Meanwhile, I know a few Mormons who have lived overseas, who have participated in Missions, and who have seemingly followed Jesus as Lord. Perhaps the problem isn’t that we believe the Gospel but that we may not understand the magnitude or we may not truly know the Gospel itself.
I cannot tell you what Mormons believe as a whole. If you read much of my argument, I can also say that it relates to Catholicism (which I was born and raised into before becoming Protestant). In both cases, there are many men and women whose faith drives their lives to see Kingdom-living here, and there are also many men and women who love Jesus as their King, Savior and Example. I know that not ALL Catholics do this and I am doubtful that ALL Mormons do as well, but than again neither do all Protestants.
I have heard it said that many of the people we weren’t expecting to see in Heaven we will find there while some of the people we were most expecting we will not. It makes me often wonder how the following verse will play out, “Not all who say Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
If you don’t like allusions to the creeds themselves, please understand that I was trying to find out if mormons believed in the very things that have defined Christians for millenia.
Namely, (1) do they believe in monotheism (2) do they believe in the trinity (3) do they believe both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both fully God, as fully as the father is (3) Do they believe any persons in the trinity were created by the others (4) Do they believe that Jesus REALLY was born into a physical body, died a physical death, was resurrected and ascended in a physical body. These are all points on which, if a teaching disagrees, then it is simply not Christian. Period.
That doesn’t mean that anyone who fails to hold any of these beliefs cannot be a true Christian, a babe in Christ, or a believer who is incorrect on a doctrinal issue, but it does mean that the teaching itself is heretical.
Here is an example…the 3,000 people that were converted at pentecost. They were genuine believers by Luke’s account. I cannot guarantee that all of their beliefs, at the moment of conversion, or even on their deathbeds years later, would have lined up with issues above (developed monotheism and trinity, Godhood of the Holy Spirit, etc.) but I am confident that when these 3,000 men and women went to the apostles and asked to be taught about who Jesus was, how he related to the Father and Spirit, about the physical resurrection, etc. The apostles and their successors would have taught them a faith similar to what is found in the nicene creed and that if other teachers had come around the church teaching some of the things Mormons apparently believe, the apostles or their successors would have run them off.
Jim (currently #59 but comments appear to change # sometimes)
“The first is that by talking about “historical” Christianity, it’s beliefs, doctrines, and theologies; we believe we have the answers. No matter how we look at any of these, there are flaws in any branch or denomination who follow Christ.”
True. But would you agree that some doctrines or flaws in doctrines are more “fatal” to adhering to Biblical Christianity? Wouldn’t polytheism be a flaw that would move one outside of Christianity no matter what other differences may exist?
“The second is that we are so quick to condemn others who may be following Christ.”
Jesus and the apostles all were quick to correct those who thought they were following God but were not. I think the goal here is to try to help those who may be following their own version of God or Jesus (see Ryan #46) instead of the Messiah and the Father who sent Him where eternal life is found.
“The third is … Paul preached a Gospel, he preached one in which action was a necessity,”
I agree. Many people can appear to follow Christ because they live out what appears to be the “golden rule”. But is living the golden rule what saves? Jesus said not all who call me Lord will enter heaven. But He also said anyone who does not believe in Him who sent Me will not enter either.
The Reformer’s phrase – Faith that saves is alone, but saving faith is never alone – comes to mind. Following Christ involves both solid doctrine and practical application.
MikeB
@g1antfan
Robin, while I see your point that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints part ways with other Christians on specific doctrinal points, I still maintain that the term “Christian” has almost always been used much more broadly. I’ll do my best, though, to answer your questions about our similarities or differences on the 5 points you listed (and if I get anything wrong, any other members of my church may feel free to correct me):
1) We consider ourselves to be monotheists; we believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are completely united in purpose and are therefore one God.
2) We do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by the Nicene creed; we do believe that the three members of the Godhead are separate individuals.
3-4) We believe that Jesus’ mission is infinite and eternal and that he was always intended to fulfill it; we also believe He was born as the literal son of our Heavenly Father, enabling Him, as a perfect being, to pay the price for the sins of all who repent, and then to literally die, following which He rose from the tomb and overcome death for everyone. We believe that He was resurrected into a perfect body that will no longer die.
While I can agree that some of the specifics of my beliefs differ from some of the specifics of your beliefs and those of other Christians, it’s still true that if you say Mormons aren’t Christians, it’s misleading to the majority of people who use the term in a much more general way: to describe someone who believes in Jesus Christ’s divinity and worships Him.
from the article:
“Religious cults are very much us-versus-them. Their adherents are taught to think that they are the only ones who benefit from divine approval. They don’t like to engage in serious, respectful give-and-take dialogue with people with whom they disagree.”
That sounds like a whole lot of evangelicals that I know…
Mike (61):
Thanks for the good response. I do enjoy the discussions on these topics.
1) In response to the “fatal” flaws of doctrine, I feel like most of the problem is our continual game of semantics. For example, when I was overseas in North Africa, I learned a lot about Islam. Interestingly enough, the greatest issue Muslims had with the Christian beliefs was the issue of Trinity. They would call all Christians polytheistic because they don’t see how all three can be one. That is part of the mystery of the Godhead.
Now, this also seems to be the key components of Mormonism we are attacking. According to what I have read on this board (I can tell you while I know Islam and Catholicism, I have not studied Mormonism in depth), the claim is that each person of the Trinity is distinct from the other but One in purpose. This really doesn’t sound much different from what we say when we explain the Trinity. So are they polytheistic? Are we? Perhaps Muslims didn’t understand the concept because they are outsiders to our faith; could that be the reason we don’t understand the Mormon concept?
I am not saying that I have answers, I am just asking questions to get us thinking.
2) In regards to which Jesus should we follow/believe; the Christ from the Bible, the Mormon Christ, the Jewish Christ, the Muslim Christ, etc. I would say that it is unfair to lump the beliefs of a group who claims Jesus’ sacrifice to those who do not.
The Christ in Islam was not the Christ at all. He was a perfect man and a prophet but he did not die on the cross. The Christ in Judaism was also not the Christ at all. They discount what he says and refuse to believe in him.
Even a Biblical Jesus in a post-modern society may change from person to person and group to group. While I read verses and stories about Him, I still find that more and more is being realized through understanding of His context and His society. And I can tell from my reading, that while He is the same Jesus; people like John Piper, NT Wright, Rob Bell, Rick Warren and Billy Graham all see Him differently. And there are times when there are disagreements on Him so which is right?
What I am trying to say is perhaps there is more mystery to Jesus than we comprehend.
3) Finally, I am not saying deeds alone will give us eternal life just as I will not say faith alone will give us eternal life. But if someone trusts the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for their atonement and goes on in their life to live as a blessing to others, I have faith that Jesus will honor that no matter what they call themselves!
Again, this has been a great dialogue and these are important questions in important times. God bless each of us as we look to Him to guide us!
Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions. Jim, that last one was especially insightful.
It seems to be boiling down to a few sticky points: the idea of the LDS concept of God being polytheistic, and the concept that the LDS Jesus is somehow not the same Jesus.
Jim explained my thoughts on the issue of polytheism better than I could have. To us, the Godhead are one God in will and purpose, and I have always felt monotheistic. There are a lot of things we still don’t know about the nature of God – scripture doesn’t say much and frankly, I don’t think mankind at our current state of development is ready to understand all the cosmic realities. I don’t know who created God, how long He’s been around, or any of those things. But I don’t think many religions claim to.
As far as the ideas of a “different Jesus,” that’s all hinging on the idea that groups who share different views on the nature of the Godhead are heretical, but throughout Christian history there are always groups that view other groups as heretical. The Catholics view the Protestants as heretics – the Eastern Orthodox view the Catholics as heretics – the Christian groups that followed the Nicene Creed called the Arians heretics. It’s one long history of groups breaking away from one another.
But what do we all have in common? We all have the Bible. We all believe that Jesus Christ in the New Testament was who He said He was. We believe that the apostles that He called and ordained were authorized to teach in His name. We believe the things that He taught in His ministry.
I think this is a pretty good yardstick – since we only have a few existing records of what Jesus actually did, said, and taught in His life, people who believe those records probably believe in the same Jesus. I believe in the same Jesus who gave the sermon on the mount and I strive to follow those teachings. I believe in the Jesus who broke bread and told His disciples to partake of the bread and the wine in remembrance of Him, and I do that weekly.
I understand that from one historical viewpoint that relies heavily on the decisions of 4th century church leaders, there are beliefs that are considered heretical. But this is all based on that one viewpoint. There were other Christian groups between the time of Christ and the time that the Catholic church established itself with the Nicene Creed, and what all of these Christian groups had in common was a belief in the things Jesus said we should do and a belief that He was the Son of God that He said he was.
I don’t feel like using a definition of “Christian” from one historical viewpoint is helpful when we’re dealing with discourse in a religiously diverse world. I don’t feel like the use of the word “cult,” when what you mean is a “theological cult” according to your definition of orthodoxy, is a good idea in a world where dangerous cults isolate vulnerable people from their families and encourage them to commit group suicide. It is for these reasons that I hope for a broader acceptance of the word “Christian” as “one who believes in the divinity of Christ.”
Jim/Zina
This has been a good discussion. It has made me do some digging.
However, if we are going to have a discussion we need to be clear about our terms. The definition of polytheism is not worship of one God but “belief in more than one god or in many gods”(dictionary.com). Therefore if one accepts there is more than one god then they are polytheistic based on a normal use of the word and are not monotheistic.
And this is not just a misunderstanding or difference in how we view the Trinity which can be seen in this quote from Joseph Smith(link #2) …
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!” – J.Smith Sermon on Plurality of God
However, moving past the Trinity the LDS does teach that people will become gods. Not that they will be given immortal bodies and live with God but actually become gods (see point #2 under Blessings and Exaltation). This would mean there are even more gods than the Father, Son, and HS.
Furthermore LDS teaches that God the Father was a man who walked on a created earth and became a God. How did the earth get here? Who created the man that became our heavenly father? This also would mean there are even more gods than the Father, Son, and HS.
These clearly contradict Isaiah 43:10
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me
read it for yourself, don’t take my word for it.
“This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. Joseph Smith taught: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46).” (Link #1)
“If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also?” – J.Smith Sermon on Plurality of God (Link #2)
MikeB
@g1antfan
#1 LDS Exaltation
#2 http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/smithpluralityofgodssermon.htm
MikeB
Again, thank you for the insight on Mormon faith. As I said, I have never really dug into it like I have other faiths. Due to being raised in Catholic family, I have learned about Catholicism at a young age. When I came to faith in Jesus and joined an Evangelical community, I still dug into the Catholic doctrine to better understand what I left. Also, due to life circumstances I had opportunities to study both Islam and Judaism in their contexts as I have lived in North Africa and Israel.
Anyway, I will obviously disagree with the eternality of God in the Mormon faith. While I believe God walked the Earth, I don’t agree He did so as man nor do I believe He had a father. But, if I did agree, would that disqualify me from God’s reconciliation through the cross? Because I don’t comprehend God’s mystery properly, would I not be included in God’s family?
Is it our faith in Jesus Christ that includes us in God’s family (and subsequently to act as a blessing to those around us) or is it understanding all the doctrines of historical Christianity as it has been passed down to us?
Also, on the corresponding verses about man becoming gods, I want to bring up an interesting passage of Scripture. When Jesus declared Himself the Great Shepherd, He also said, “I and the Father are one.” Immediately, the crowd picked up stones to stone Him. His response was remarkable. He states (paraphrased), “How can you say I am blaspheming when I call myself the Son of God? Don’t your own Scriptures say, ‘You are Gods?’” This is in John 10 and He is quoting Psalm 82.
It’s a passage I don’t claim to understand, but am wondering how and if it can apply to this discussion?
“Anyway, I will obviously disagree with the eternality of God in the Mormon faith. While I believe God walked the Earth, I don’t agree He did so as man nor do I believe He had a father. But, if I did agree, would that disqualify me from God’s reconciliation through the cross? Because I don’t comprehend God’s mystery properly, would I not be included in God’s family?”
This may sound harsh but God never made understanding Who He is a mystery. Sure we don’t know everything we would like to know about God and it is true that we as humans can’t fully grasp God. But I think Commandments 1 and 4 in Exodus 20 are pretty clear. There is One God and there is no other and He created the earth. We can’t please God without faith and that includes believing that He is who He says He is (Heb 11:6).
This too may sound harsh but the gospel does not make room for polytheism. At the heart of the gospel is the reconciliation of sinners to the One true God through the shed blood of Jesus. Jesus said we must believe in the One that sent Him in order to have eternal life (John 5:24). How are we trusting the Father if we ignore the most basic of messages – I AM, there is no other.
Consider this passage:
… when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (2 Thess 1:7-8)
MikeB
@g1antfan
@MikeB
I would skeptical engaging some of these posts here. For example I have seen #67 posted almost verbatim in other forums by internet Mormon apologists pretending to be someone else.
The John 10 argument is one that Mormons try to manipulate all over the internet in support that Jesus taught we could become gods.
My apologies John if your post is genuine but I know for a fact that FAIR LDS has a host of people will google readers who scour the internet for anything related to Mormonism in order to defend it.
This was posted in the thread Scot has on here about Al Mohler and Mormonism and I think it about sums up how different Christianity and Mormonism are.
http://carm.org/teachings-of-mormonism
Ryan,
I find it interesting that you have compared me with a regular Mormon apologist. I have not scoured any internet sites for anything I posted. I have gone off of what I have read on this thread (and the other one that was put up today) and what was on my heart as I read various comments.
Anyway, I’m an Evangelical Christian who lives outside New York City. I came to Christ a little over 10 years ago (right around September 2001. I have served in my Church in various capacities and lived overseas in North Africa in order to live the Gospel and reach Muslims there.
When I was overseas, I realized how much I needed to keep an open-mind in understanding other people and where they come from if I was to live as a follower of Christ around them. When I came home and started studying the history of my own faith along with various new theories and trends (emerging Church ideas, NT Wright ideas, etc) I realized how little I did comprehend.
I guess in studying I realized how insufficient my mind is to understanding the beauty of God. Because of that, I will refuse to say who is or isn’t a Christian or who will or will not enter His Kingdom.
MikeB,
I think we are running in circles again
Anyway, please know that I enjoyed the conversation brother. I also did learn some things that I did not before (about the Mormon faith), so in that way it was fruitful.
I hope to dialogue with you again and God bless!
Fair enough Jim and I will take you at your word. Only pointing out that I have never heard anyone give the John 10 exegetical argument you put forth outside of devout Mormons.