New Nondenominational Christian Forum needs Mormons

[rameumptom]

Athanasias, you raise a good question that gives rise to another. What does it mean to be a true Christian? You answer that, in part, it is believing in the correct Christ? Or, more specifically, believing correctly about who and what Christ is.

So...how wrong can we be? For example, my church teaches a cristology that is identical to yours (Assemblies of God is trinitarian). But, what of the Oneness folk who believe that God is absolutely one person, Jesus, who expresses himself in three modalities--Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To be simplistic, they believe in ONE in THREE, rather than THREE in ONE. They are wrong. But, is their error unforgivable? And then, likewise, what of the LDS belief that Jesus is God the Son, 2nd person of the Godhead--but just not of one essence with Father and Spirit? We disagree, but is the error forgivable?

And the reality is, most traditional Christians, though they proclaim the Trinity title, are actually modalists. If you were to ask the average Christian to explain the Trinity, they are going to use similes that describe modality, not Trinity.

Some of these examples are: the egg, the hand, 3 people in one vehicle, etc.

The Trinity would have to be described as one person in three vehicles, but that still does not fully describe the mystery of the Trinity. But at least it is not modalism.

But then, how do we know the modalists are "wrong" as you state? They are wrong from your Trinitarian view. But I still do not see within the Bible a categorical description of the Trinity. The debate went on for centuries between Trinity and Godhead, even beyond the Nice and Chalcedon councils. And to this day, Trinitarians are fighting against modalism within their own ranks, and Origenism (belief in Father and Son being separate beings) from the outside.

In my mind, does it really matter as long as we profess Christ to be God and Savior of mankind? Does he not have the power and ability to save Trinitarians, modalists, LDS, and anyone else he likes?

[Athanasias]

Athanasias, you raise a good question that gives rise to another. What does it mean to be a true Christian? You answer that, in part, it is believing in the correct Christ? Or, more specifically, believing correctly about who and what Christ is.

So...how wrong can we be? For example, my church teaches a cristology that is identical to yours (Assemblies of God is trinitarian). But, what of the Oneness folk who believe that God is absolutely one person, Jesus, who expresses himself in three modalities--Father, Son and Holy Spirit. To be simplistic, they believe in ONE in THREE, rather than THREE in ONE. They are wrong. But, is their error unforgivable? And then, likewise, what of the LDS belief that Jesus is God the Son, 2nd person of the Godhead--but just not of one essence with Father and Spirit? We disagree, but is the error forgivable?

This is a good point. Is the error forgivable? Well it depends on what you mean by forgivable. We cannot ultimately judge anybodies eternal soul. Jesus told us not to. God will judge that. However we can judge doctrine that may lead souls astray. St. Paul was very clear that proper doctrine is important to salvation, especially when it comes to knowing who God is. We need know who God revealed himself to be. I would handle the problem of modalist and Tritheist ( early heresies) the same as the early Church would, I would correct those opinions as the ecumenical counsels did. Gods nature is a very serious thing. That is why several Church counsels were held to deal with it. Church counsels do not get called for minor reasons. Remember the first Church councils of Jerusalem in Act 15. I bet some might have said "well it doesn't matter if the person was circumcised or not before becoming a Christian" yet it was important enough for the church to come to gather in counsel and decide. When the Church proclaimed that one does not need to be circumcised to be Christian it became doctrine and this decision was guided by the Holy Spirit(Act 15:28).

Now afterward there was still a problem historically with those who denied the apostles teaching. Certain heretics (judiazers) were still teaching that you must obey the mosaic law before you become Christian. Did St. Paul just say "Well were all Christians with different opinions?" No he did not! Paul called the Judaisers on their heresy and corrected them in the book of Galatians and Romans. Paul reprimanded them saying they are preaching a different gospel and Christ(Gal 1:6-9).

We would say the same thing. We Believe, along with the majority of Christendom that those counsels and their decisions were guided by the Holy Spirit as the church is(Jn 16:12-14) when proclaiming the dogmas of truth in counsel just like Acts 15. So to us it is a "Thus saith the Lord"just like in the book of acts. Since the early Counsels hammered out the question of the nature of God and condemned the heresies that taught the opposite view and since the early Christian counsels did not consider the modalist and trithiest true Christians then we cannot either. We then believe that God revealed his nature to us in a infallible way through the counsels. For someone to not believe in the counsels decision would be just as bad as those judaizers who rejected the apostles decsion in the councils of acts. To reject the teaching then of the counsel to us would be like slapping Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the face and rejecting his revelation of who he is. So this is why we cannot call others Christians who do not beleive in the same Jesus or God.

It is just a basic, logical, and historical theological principle we cannot avoid. Now this is not to say that I can judge somebody souls. I believe as my church does that if a person is invincibly ignorant through no fault of their own then the Lord may have mercy on them and they may get to heaven as God will se what is in their heart, but they only get to heaven by the real Jesus, the second person of the blessed Trinity not a false Jesus even if they do not realize it. So I am not saying that I am better than they are. But I would say as my Church has that Christ calls all to know him personally as the second person of the Blessed Trinity. Christ calls us to know God as the Holy Trinity. It is part of his mystery revealed to us out of love. He reveal this to us in time so we could understand him, salvation, and love him and each other more.

But I can say as the Church has for centuries that those who deny this teaching are not true Christians in the formal sense because they do not hold to the revealed Trinitarian truth given by Christ Church.

I am again not trying to debate at all. I will not debate this with anyone. This board is not a debate board. I respect that. I also am not trying to insult or disrespect anyone. Nor Am I pointing the finger to any one person or denomination or Church. I am using truthful Catholic principles when dealing with this issue. I am very ecumenical and am on the ecumenical board in my diocese. My Church is very ecumenical. But in oder to have true ecumenism one must first lay down truthfully what ones faith teaches in a honest manner. Then after both sides lay down the official teachings then one can start to work on similarities and difference's. But I am just trying to lay down the theological principles that the early Christian Church and almost all Christian chruches use when dealing with this question.

Again I am not going to debate anyone on this issue not am I trying to. I just wanted to give the rest of you a honest understanding of where my Church and others are coming from, from a theological perspective.

Thanks Prison Chaplain. Gods bless you!

In Christ the King through Mary Immaculate,

Athanasias

[rameumptom]

The difference between early Biblical church councils and later ecumenical councils is who was in attendance. It is one thing to have apostles, who are actual witnesses of Jesus' resurrection discussing who God is. It is another thing for a bunch of Hellenistic Christian bishops to vote on whether they were going to have Origenism, Arianism, or Athanasianism as the core doctrine on God.

Recently, the Catholic Church came out with a statement saying that only the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox are true churches. All Protestants are heretics from the truth. And Mormons and other Restorationist churches are in another apostate group of our own.

That being the case, where do Protestants of any type stand? If ecumenical councils count for something, then why did Protestants break away? How can they consider themselves saved after making such a political move?

If the RCC/EO aren't the only true churches on the Earth, and any belief in Christ will do, then we have another question: why must any of us accept the ecumenical councils, as they are obviously part and parcel of this damaged religion?

[rameumptom]

Athanasias wrote:

But I can say as the Church has for centuries that those who deny this teaching are not true Christians in the formal sense because they do not hold to the revealed Trinitarian truth given by Christ Church.

And just how was the Trinity "revealed"? In an ecumenical council? If so, then you are giving it equal weight, or greater weight than the Bible! Just as early, if not earlier, is the concept of an anthropomorphic God. Was that revealed first, and then suddenly God changed to a Spirit? Why did Stephen claim to see Jesus standing on the right hand of God, if God does not have a right hand? There are issues with the Trinity for any honest person to see. It was not taught clearly in the bible, as was the concept of an anthropomorphic God. The Bible is the revealed word, not the ecumenical council. And if the Bible reveals God as man-like, then how can we dispute the overwhelming evidence?

[Athanasias]

And just how was the Trinity "revealed"? In an ecumenical council? If so, then you are giving it equal weight, or greater weight than the Bible! Just as early, if not earlier, is the concept of an anthropomorphic God. Was that revealed first, and then suddenly God changed to a Spirit? Why did Stephen claim to see Jesus standing on the right hand of God, if God does not have a right hand? There are issues with the Trinity for any honest person to see. It was not taught clearly in the bible, as was the concept of an anthropomorphic God. The Bible is the revealed word, not the ecumenical council. And if the Bible reveals God as man-like, then how can we dispute the overwhelming evidence?

Thanks for your query, Sorry you take this so offensively. I meant no offense to you. But I had to be truthful and straight with you about our beliefs before we can enter into ecumenical dialog. I was just laying down the principles in Catholic and Christian theology for this doctrine. I will not debate this with you or anyone else. But since you ask a question i will answer that question.

The Trinity was revealed by God in scripture implicitly and apostolic oral tradition explicitly. Like all dogma's the Holy Spirit gave the church a deeper and deeper understanding of this revealed truth as found in scripture and tradition in the years that went on until the councils formally defined it. That is how Catholics ands most protestants also see it. I hope that helps. Again I will not debate you on this. Nor will debate anyone on this. I was just trying to stick to the principles of Christian and Catholic theology when explaining how we determine who is truly Christian and who is not.

May God richly bless you always

In Christ the King through Mary Immaculate,

Athanasias

[abqfriend]

Hi from Carol -I am just your average "pew" Catholic here. I am not a theologian.

You are correct in stating that the Catholic Church defined "true church as being the Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches. -this has to do with Apostolic Succession more than anything. It is in defining the Catholic view of the word "church."

Many churches other than the Roman Catholic Church- say similar about themselves-that they are the" True Church." We are not unique in that.

You are incorrect to say that the Catholic church called other Christian Churches as heretical. -there is no reference to that in the official documents of the church -which I attach as a source and quote part of the document itself.

Here is the official document that you make reference to:

Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church

Here is one small part of that document:

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.

-so this hardly makes other Christian churches as heretical.

The document goes on to further explain: related to Reformation era churches:

"According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense"

Again-the document is referring to the word Church and not Christian-there is a difference.

To be a Church-in the Catholic sense of the understanding of the word-involves Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders or Priesthood as the Catholic Church defines it--which the Catholic Church believes it has.

Churches that do not have this are not considered as a "church" in the Catholic understanding of the word "Church." So the emphasis is on defining the word Church and not Christian.

The document speaks for itself.

-Carol

The difference between early Biblical church councils and later ecumenical councils is who was in attendance. It is one thing to have apostles, who are actual witnesses of Jesus' resurrection discussing who God is. It is another thing for a bunch of Hellenistic Christian bishops to vote on whether they were going to have Origenism, Arianism, or Athanasianism as the core doctrine on God.

Recently, the Catholic Church came out with a statement saying that only the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox are true churches. All Protestants are heretics from the truth. And Mormons and other Restorationist churches are in another apostate group of our own.

That being the case, where do Protestants of any type stand? If ecumenical councils count for something, then why did Protestants break away? How can they consider themselves saved after making such a political move?

If the RCC/EO aren't the only true churches on the Earth, and any belief in Christ will do, then we have another question: why must any of us accept the ecumenical councils, as they are obviously part and parcel of this damaged religion?

[MrNirom]

The late Elder Orson F. Whitney, of the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, related the following incident under the heading "A Catholic Utterance":

Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue's end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy.

One day he said to me: "You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that's all there is to it. The Protestants haven't a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago.

If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism's attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."

[rameumptom]

Abqfriend,

I am aware that the statement did not use the word "heresy." Nonetheless, previous statements and actions of the Catholic Church has considered other Christian religions as heretic and apostate. In this statement, it does not recognize them as Churches, nor does it recognize them having any authority to baptize, or do any of the saving ordinances that the RCC views as necessary for salvation.

I have no problem with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believing and making the claim of apostolic succession. Nor do I have a problem with them following their own ecumenical councils.

What does bother me are the Christian sects that use the ecumenical councils as authoritative, when they view the RCC as having erred, fallen away, apostatized, or even as non-Christian itself.

I have known several Baptists that believe Catholics will burn in hell for not accepting Christianity. Then again, I know a baptist minister who is very uncomfortable with Billy Graham having Catholics and Presbyterians on his crusades. To me, it is a form of intolerance to insist that one group is Christian and another is not.

That definition must come solely from the Bible, as the pre-Nicene Christians were of varying views on what constituted the Godhead/Trinity, yet were still considered Christian. Was Origen a Christian? In his day, he was considered the leading expert and apologist for the orthodox Church. Yet, a few centuries later, St Augustine condemned him for Origen's views on the Trinity, and called him a heretic! When does one stop being a Christian hero and become a heretic?

I have no problem in calling anyone a Christian who wishes to be called one. I would have a problem with having someone call him/herself a Catholic, if that person had not followed the requirements to fit into that group. I would also have a problem with someone calling him/herself a Baptist, if he did not submit to their belief system. The same with the term "Mormon." FLDS and Community of Christ/RLDS are welcome to use the term, as it remains an open term for all those who believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. However, the term "LDS" has a different criteria, and should not be stolen by them.

In this same way, we should be glad to consider all who embrace Christ in his many flavors, as Christian. Though we should also recognize that does not make us all the same class of Christian.

[abqfriend]

You are indeed correct that in the early church there were major discussions and disagreements in councils on the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The early Christian Church after much discussion among the leaders of that time defined the doctrine that is now called Trinity. This became a benchmark for the next 1700 years of what church group fell into the understanding of the term Christian. Despite the passage of history and the less than stellar example of some Catholic popes and religious leaders of Reformation era churches, the doctrine of Trinity as agreed upon by the early church is still the official dividing line between Christian and non-Christian as defined by the churches of the time. This view is shared by not just Catholic or Orthodox, but by most Reformation Era churches including Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist and more recently-most Baptist. The Reformation Era churches and their successors accepted the decisions and ramifications of the early church councils. This statement of faith with the focus on the understanding of Trinity-was put into a formal statement of faith or creed-called the Nicene Creed-after the Council of Nicea. This statement of faith is said by many church groups within their worship services or liturgy. It is learned and studied in their classes of religious instruction just as your Articles of Faith may be learned in yours.

With regard to sacraments:

The Catholic Church does not recognize LDS Sacraments

but- Likewise -the LDS Church also does not recognize Catholic Sacraments

-if you are I were to convert to each others church-both of us would need to be baptized again. Both of us would need to receive the Holy Ghost again with the laying on of hands.

Both Churches believe in Apostolic Succession

Both Churches believe in a male priesthood.

There are obvious differences between them.

Outside of the "official" pronouncements of our respective Church bodies-what is important to me-as just your average Catholic Christian is what people have in their hearts. How their faith journey affects them. Do they live their faith?

That is why I am here-to learn of the LDS Church, It's doctrines and teachings and to read and learn is Sacred Texts including the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

I think our respective official Church bodies can agree to disagree-We Catholics are called Apostates and You- LDS are called Heretics-neither word helps bring people together.

I do not know if we can change history-but we can move forward as individuals getting to know each other as fellow believers in a God of 3 parts-or The Godhead as you define it or The Trinity as I define it. Let us not let such things keep us from learning of each other and working together in reaching out to a hurting world for the good of the kingdom of God.

-Carol

Abqfriend,

I am aware that the statement did not use the word "heresy." Nonetheless, previous statements and actions of the Catholic Church has considered other Christian religions as heretic and apostate. In this statement, it does not recognize them as Churches, nor does it recognize them having any authority to baptize, or do any of the saving ordinances that the RCC views as necessary for salvation.

I have no problem with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believing and making the claim of apostolic succession. Nor do I have a problem with them following their own ecumenical councils.

What does bother me are the Christian sects that use the ecumenical councils as authoritative, when they view the RCC as having erred, fallen away, apostatized, or even as non-Christian itself.

I have known several Baptists that believe Catholics will burn in hell for not accepting Christianity. Then again, I know a baptist minister who is very uncomfortable with Billy Graham having Catholics and Presbyterians on his crusades. To me, it is a form of intolerance to insist that one group is Christian and another is not.

That definition must come solely from the Bible, as the pre-Nicene Christians were of varying views on what constituted the Godhead/Trinity, yet were still considered Christian. Was Origen a Christian? In his day, he was considered the leading expert and apologist for the orthodox Church. Yet, a few centuries later, St Augustine condemned him for Origen's views on the Trinity, and called him a heretic! When does one stop being a Christian hero and become a heretic?

I have no problem in calling anyone a Christian who wishes to be called one. I would have a problem with having someone call him/herself a Catholic, if that person had not followed the requirements to fit into that group. I would also have a problem with someone calling him/herself a Baptist, if he did not submit to their belief system. The same with the term "Mormon." FLDS and Community of Christ/RLDS are welcome to use the term, as it remains an open term for all those who believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. However, the term "LDS" has a different criteria, and should not be stolen by them.

In this same way, we should be glad to consider all who embrace Christ in his many flavors, as Christian. Though we should also recognize that does not make us all the same class of Christian.

[rameumptom]

The Trinity is not the only early Christian description of God. And while it is ONE of the ecumenical decisions made 1700 years ago, history shows that it was not fully adopted for almost a century after the Nice Council. And then, adaptations had to be made during the Council of Chalcedon and others.

No where in the bible is there a requirement to believe in the Trinity. Either we must make the Nice Creed a scriptural/biblical level requirement, or it must not apply as a requirement for using the name "Christian."

Otherwise, you have to decide whether people like Origen and the historian Eusebius were Christian or heretic, when the Nice Council had not even convened as of yet. Also, what about those believers in Christ, prior to the Bible being compiled?

For a new, non-ancient, form of belief in Christ to be rejected is understandable. But what about those who do believe in an ancient and at one time, accepted view of Christ?

While I disagree with the concept of the Trinity, I have no problem calling Catholics or Baptists, Christian. They meet the minimal requirement of the Bible. And there is nothing in the Bible that states we must accept the decisions of later ecumenical councils in order to be Christian.

[abqfriend]

I think our respective church bodies can agree to disagree on this subject and others.

So what next?-how do we move forward in reaching out to a hurting world and understanding each other?

Do we cast stones-or do we embrace?

The Initial Post of this thread-invited members of this board to join a new web site founded by a member of this web site and a member of the LDS Church. I encourage every member of this web site to join that ecumenical web site. It can become a place to learn about each other's beliefs and grow in our knowledge of each other as individuals.

We cannot change our church bodies history-but we can move forward as individuals:

Here is the link again:

http://www.ctr1.org/

The Trinity is not the only early Christian description of God. And while it is ONE of the ecumenical decisions made 1700 years ago, history shows that it was not fully adopted for almost a century after the Nice Council. And then, adaptations had to be made during the Council of Chalcedon and others.

No where in the bible is there a requirement to believe in the Trinity. Either we must make the Nice Creed a scriptural/biblical level requirement, or it must not apply as a requirement for using the name "Christian."

Otherwise, you have to decide whether people like Origen and the historian Eusebius were Christian or heretic, when the Nice Council had not even convened as of yet. Also, what about those believers in Christ, prior to the Bible being compiled?

For a new, non-ancient, form of belief in Christ to be rejected is understandable. But what about those who do believe in an ancient and at one time, accepted view of Christ?

While I disagree with the concept of the Trinity, I have no problem calling Catholics or Baptists, Christian. They meet the minimal requirement of the Bible. And there is nothing in the Bible that states we must accept the decisions of later ecumenical councils in order to be Christian.

[justamere10]

A new nondenominational Christian discussion board opened this week and it has a forum for "Mormons". When there's a lull on this board why not wander over and see if there's a bit of cyber missionary work needing to be done there?

http://www.ctr1.org

Any more Mormons willing to help out on the new board? Here's a recent unanswered post in the Mormon forum:

"Any Mormons here? I have 3 questions posted.

I am here to learn-I would love to hear from you."

http://www.CTR1.org

.