Evangelical website recognizes LDS as being Christian in Foundation


Recommended Posts

Do you think that in defining whether a religion is Christian the definition and description of God plays a role?  The Bible describes God (god the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit - the Trinity)  as eternal- having always existed as the only God and the creator of all things and all-holy, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If someone doesn't believe these doctrines about God are they worshiping the same God?

 

What you correctly point out is that even if we find a way, such as discovering enough shared doctrines, to say that any two faiths are under the same broad religion, if there is too much belief that they don't share, it will be hard-to-impossible to declare that we have "like precious faith."  Maybe most of us find a constant tension between our friendly "agape" impulse to say, "Look what we agree on," and our 'maintain orthodoxy' impulse, that says, "Yes, but don't forget about THIS that we disagree on."  It's an amazingly interesting and difficult task to maintain boundries while attempting to build bridges. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane Doe--yes, there may be 30,000 denominations.  There are some significant disagreements among these groups--not to mention the independent and non-denominational churches.  However, there are not 30,000 different understandings of God's nature.  There is one major perspective (Trinitarian), and a few minor ones (modalism and subordinationism being the two that come to mind).  And yes, the Trinitarians tend to believe that those minor views are heresy, and adherents to them are not believers in Christian orthodoxy.

 

As for who gets to heaven, how wrong can we be about the God we say we love--the one we says fills us and directs us--and still be okay?  God has the answer to that one.  Nevertheless, I do not take the question lightly, and want to constantly be evaluating my faith, my doctrine, and my walk. 

 

BTW, you are absolutely correct that there will be some with rock-solid doctrinal understanding who, nevertheless, will not enter the Kingdom.  How said is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that in defining whether a religion is Christian the definition and description of God plays a role?  The Bible describes God (god the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit - the Trinity)  as eternal- having always existed as the only God and the creator of all things and all-holy, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If someone doesn't believe these doctrines about God are they worshiping the same God?

I'm not sure I know the answer to this. I think that, as I pick up bits and pieces of the debate, perhaps this is one of the central questions the debate is trying to understand.

 

Dr. Roberts, in the rationalfaiths essay (link in post # 23) specifically limits his definition to a very basic concept of who Christ is:

The basic Kerygma of 1 Corinthians 15 is I preach Christ and Him crucified and His resurrection on the third day. If one believes this statement, one qualifies as a Brother in Christ.
As I read this and the rest of his essay, he specifically seems to leave belief in  "Trinitarianism" or in "Christ's eternal nature" out of the definition of "Christian". It seems pretty clear to me that this is far from a universally accepted opinion -- maybe he is even in a significant minority in this opinion.

 

Perhaps because I am one of those "on the outside looking in" that would kind of like to see Christianity be more inclusive (or at least inclusive enough to let me in), I find myself somewhat in favor of a more inclusive definition of what it means to be "Christian". In the end, I'm not sure my opinion, as an outsider, really means much. In many ways, I think it is up to those decidedly on the inside of the Christian umbrella (to me this clearly includes Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches) to decide how inclusive they want to be. In the end, I am mostly worried about what God and Christ will say about it at the final judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jane Doe--yes, there may be 30,000 denominations.  There are some significant disagreements among these groups--not to mention the independent and non-denominational churches.  However, there are not 30,000 different understandings of God's nature.  There is one major perspective (Trinitarian), and a few minor ones (modalism and subordinationism being the two that come to mind).  And yes, the Trinitarians tend to believe that those minor views are heresy, and adherents to them are not believers in Christian orthodoxy.

 

30,000 different views of Christ-nature?  That would be mind boggling!  I didn't mean to imply that at all.  Thanks for pointing out the mis-commnuicate, PC.   :)   

 

As for who gets to heaven, how wrong can we be about the God we say we love--the one we says fills us and directs us--and still be okay?  God has the answer to that one.  Nevertheless, I do not take the question lightly, and want to constantly be evaluating my faith, my doctrine, and my walk. 

 

When it comes to my personal salvation, I try my hardest to discern the highest truth and live the highest standard.  That is the best I can do.  As to others, I share what light I can and pray all I can: that is the best I can do.  

 

 

 

BTW, you are absolutely correct that there will be some with rock-solid doctrinal understanding who, nevertheless, will not enter the Kingdom.  How said is that?

 

 

It is a sad reality.  In the parable of the 10 virgins: they were all invited to the wedding (i.e., they were all members of the church), but sadly half of them did not truly know Christ.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for who gets to heaven, how wrong can we be about the God we say we love--the one we says fills us and directs us--and still be okay?
This is an intriguing question. I know it has kind of been hanging here un-answered (if it is even definitively answerable). A thought on it, though, as it applies (or doesn't) to the question at hand. Does our sense of who gets to call themselves Christian hinge on the question of the status of their salvation, or is it perhaps broader than that?

 

It seems that I have seen some try to distinguish between "sociological Christian" because their worldview seems rooted in generic Christianity, but they may not adhere to a traditional Christian theology.

 

It seems that many Evangelical Christians talk about their born again experience as "the moment when I became a Christian". Their life before that moment is often referred to as "before I became a Christian" or "when I was not yet a Christian" I suppose it is easy to make this kind of distinction when you believe strictly in "salvation by faith alone". Where does this "definition" of what it means to be Christian leave those of us who do not believe in "sola Fide"?

 

This has the potential, I suppose, to re-open the wounds of the Protestant-Catholic schism, since it seems that there was a time when Christians on both sides of that divide did not want to admit that the other side was still Christian. I find it interesting that a quick search for "are Catholics Christian" brings up several sites, some who argue that Catholics are Christians, and those who argue that Catholics are not Christians. It seems that many who argue that Catholics are not Christian seem to center many of their arguments on this question of "salvation by faith alone".

 

I don't know, maybe this just highlights the difficulty in  deciding how we will define who is allowed to call themselves Christian. If Sola Fide (and the other Protestant solae) are the defining characteristics of "Christian", then I suppose Mormons, like Catholics, need to be excluded from the umbrella of Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am willing to separate the question of who is truly redeemed from who is "Christian."  Further, we'll simply have to realize that some people have very set ideas about who is a Christian and who is not.  Some might say that I am not because I speak in tongues, and they believe such is of the Devil (or that it is gibberish, and I am falsely claiming Holy Spirit inspiration).  Some
Evangelicals do make salvation-by-faith-alone the dividing line--and they do exclude Catholics.  Others consider the doctrine of the Trinity a non-negotiable.  Then again, as I mentioned previously, the Jehovah's Witnesses have rebranded the term as "Christendom," and said they want nothing to do with it.

 

It is fair to say that most Trinitarians would struggle tremendously with the idea of having "like precious faith" with non-Trinitarians.  Further, while some Evangelicals consider Catholics to be Christians, we do struggle with their reliance on sacraments.  Spiritual fellowship is difficult, even if possible.

 

For myself, while a minority here might actually consider me a spiritual brother, I'd never insist upon the term.  We share some truths, and it is enjoyable to celebrate those areas, even as we discern the differences.  For me, it's enough.  I find no compulsion to force square pegs into round holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am willing to separate the question of who is truly redeemed from who is "Christian."  Further, we'll simply have to realize that some people have very set ideas about who is a Christian and who is not.  Some might say that I am not because I speak in tongues, and they believe such is of the Devil (or that it is gibberish, and I am falsely claiming Holy Spirit inspiration).  Some

Evangelicals do make salvation-by-faith-alone the dividing line--and they do exclude Catholics.  Others consider the doctrine of the Trinity a non-negotiable.  Then again, as I mentioned previously, the Jehovah's Witnesses have rebranded the term as "Christendom," and said they want nothing to do with it.

 

It is fair to say that most Trinitarians would struggle tremendously with the idea of having "like precious faith" with non-Trinitarians.  Further, while some Evangelicals consider Catholics to be Christians, we do struggle with their reliance on sacraments.  Spiritual fellowship is difficult, even if possible.

 

For myself, while a minority here might actually consider me a spiritual brother, I'd never insist upon the term.  We share some truths, and it is enjoyable to celebrate those areas, even as we discern the differences.  For me, it's enough.  I find no compulsion to force square pegs into round holes.

 

 

This is a topic that has weighed heavily on my mind for the last couple of years, motivated by the all my non-LDS friends, and Evangelical in-laws.  

 

I used to really get irked when people said I wasn't a Christian.  It's just irritating when I devote my life to Christ and His teachings to be told "oh, you don't know Jesus".  But then... I realized it doesn't matter what other people think, only Christ, and He knows my heart.  So today I try to show/tell others I'm a Christian, and if they insist on not listening... well, that's their loss.

 

Through the years, labels have grown to mean very little to me.  I don't need someone else to be "Mormon", "Christian", or anything else for me to talk about spirituality with them.  I see you as a person, and I want to know you as a person, not a label.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find no compulsion to force square pegs into round holes.
I think that this is kind of where I am getting on this issue, too. As interesting as it is to discuss whether Mormons are Christians, I'm no longer sure it is worth the effort to try to "force" the issue one way or the other.

 

One interesting thought -- This might be one of those "essay" questions where, there really is not a "right" or "wrong" answer. The bulk of the "score" is in how well you demonstrate understanding through your arguments for or against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a wrench in this whole discussion, if LDS theology is correct, there will be a lot of non-Christians in the same Terrestial heavenly kingdom as all of us Trinitarians.  If others here have taught me correctly, there may even be a few LDS.  :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a wrench in this whole discussion, if LDS theology is correct, there will be a lot of non-Christians in the same Terrestial heavenly kingdom as all of us Trinitarians.  If others here have taught me correctly, there may even be a few LDS.  :cool:

 

You got it right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was especially intrigued by the couple's statements that each of them separately had been praying, and believed they received a revelation from God about the Christian-ness of the LDS faith. This sounds quite similar to the challenge missionaries usually give, and fits well with the couple's Charismatic faith.

As am I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me and many LDS, another reason Mormons won't let go on the Christian thing is because, to us, Mormonism IS the first century Christianity that Christ established (something which has at least some surprising support in the writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers!)  

 

With that in mind, from the LDS perspective, Protestants and Catholics are really somewhat heterodox Mormons.   :D

 

Seriously, though, I don't take it too personally if someone does not think I am a Christian (even if, in my opinion, they are dead wrong).  Here in Texas, no matter who you are and what you believe, someone thinks you are going to not go to heaven (no joke!  I recently saw an essay called "Christianity vs. the United Methodists!)

 

I have investigated and continue to investigate Protestantism, Catholicism, and Islam very, very closely.  I know why I am LDS, I understand my own relationship with God better than anyone else in the world, and I know why I believe I am Christian, and I am content with that despite what anyone else says.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw a wrench in this whole discussion, if LDS theology is correct, there will be a lot of non-Christians in the same Terrestial heavenly kingdom as all of us Trinitarians.  If others here have taught me correctly, there may even be a few LDS.  :cool:

 

The main thing I think I would take exception to is the idea that "all" Trinitarians will be in the Terrestrial kingdom. IMO, when we reach that final judgement, whether we believed in Nicene Trinitarianism, social trinitarianism (my personal preference for now for the LDS view of God), henotheism (another possible description of the LDS view of God), or Modalism, or binatarianism, or whatever your " 3 in one - one in 3" philosophy wants to be called, God will affirm the parts we have right, correct the parts we didn't understand (because we see God through a glass darkly), and then move on to the more important parts of judgement. (Did we accept Christ, did we repent of sin, did we strive to be obedient).

Edited by MrShorty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose some Trinitarians won't even make the Telestial Kingdom.  Or, as I would say--they will end up in the Lake of Fire.  Adherence to teaching does not a redeemed Follower make.

 

Mr. Shorty, might there be a precious few Trinitarians in the Celestial Kingdom?  Some here have hinted at that before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose some Trinitarians won't even make the Telestial Kingdom.  Or, as I would say--they will end up in the Lake of Fire.  Adherence to teaching does not a redeemed Follower make.

 

Mr. Shorty, might there be a precious few Trinitarians in the Celestial Kingdom?  Some here have hinted at that before.

 they'd have to hate god a lot to end up there.... or really really love the sinful stuff, whichever one keeps them from repenting.

 well by the time they got to the celestial kingdom they'd be believin a lot of the stuff lds believe and accept ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose some Trinitarians won't even make the Telestial Kingdom.  Or, as I would say--they will end up in the Lake of Fire.  Adherence to teaching does not a redeemed Follower make.

Same can be said for Mormons.

Mr. Shorty, might there be a precious few Trinitarians in the Celestial Kingdom?  Some here have hinted at that before.

Well see... here's the thing PC - in LDS belief, death does not stop learning. So, sure, there could possibly be lots and lots of people who died Trinitarians in the Celestial Kingdom... but they wouldn't be Trinitarians anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose some Trinitarians won't even make the Telestial Kingdom.  Or, as I would say--they will end up in the Lake of Fire.  Adherence to teaching does not a redeemed Follower make.

 

Mr. Shorty, might there be a precious few Trinitarians in the Celestial Kingdom?  Some here have hinted at that before.

I don't want to presume to make any judgements that should be God's to make. Considering demographics (2000 years and 100x as many Trinitarians vs 200 years and much fewer Mormons), I would not be surprised if there are more "Trinitarians during mortality" in the CK than "Mormons during mortality". I could be wrong, but, like I tried to suggest earlier, I am not sure that I expect the question of Trinitarianism vs. Modalism vs. whatever picture of 3 in 1/1 in 3 that makes sense to you is a major question when God passes final judgements.

 

The old joke this kind of topic reminds me of is the one where St. Peter is showing the newly deceased around heaven. Here are the Baptists, here are the Catholics, ... and who is in this building? Shhh. These are the Mormons. They think they are the only ones here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought is, God will judge us, not give us a theological exam that requires a passing grade.

I prefer to go with what people tell me they are, and leave the judging to God.

Administratively, a church may make a ruling on whether or not a baptism is required, for someone who is already baptized. And then it is necessary to make a judgement, but I wouldn't say that is judging the person themselves, by rather, the validity of a previous baptism according to the norms of the church one is joining.

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

To me and many LDS, another reason Mormons won't let go on the Christian thing is because, to us, Mormonism IS the first century Christianity that Christ established (something which has at least some surprising support in the writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers!)  

 

With that in mind, from the LDS perspective, Protestants and Catholics are really somewhat heterodox Mormons.   :D

 

Seriously, though, I don't take it too personally if someone does not think I am a Christian (even if, in my opinion, they are dead wrong).  Here in Texas, no matter who you are and what you believe, someone thinks you are going to not go to heaven (no joke!  I recently saw an essay called "Christianity vs. the United Methodists!)

 

I have investigated and continue to investigate Protestantism, Catholicism, and Islam very, very closely.  I know why I am LDS, I understand my own relationship with God better than anyone else in the world, and I know why I believe I am Christian, and I am content with that despite what anyone else says.

I like what you state about being 'content'.

Even though I've read many of the responses here, I still don't understand why it should bother LDS people if someone refuses to call you Christian. You have the restored gospel don't you? Well then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like what you state about being 'content'.

Even though I've read many of the responses here, I still don't understand why it should bother LDS people if someone refuses to call you Christian. You have the restored gospel don't you? Well then...

 

It bothers Mormon folks because, we devote every fiber of our lives to Christ, and to be then told "you're not a follower of Christ" (i.e., Mormon definition of Christian) is very irksome.  Eventually, most Mormons do grow thick skin about it, but still...

 

To be told "you're not a mainstream Christain as defined by the extra-biblical creeds", that's cool.  I'm not one and I don't want to be.  But I do devote my life to Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It bothers Mormon folks because, we devote every fiber of our lives to Christ, and to be then told "you're not a follower of Christ" (i.e., Mormon definition of Christian) is very irksome.  Eventually, most Mormons do grow thick skin about it, but still...

 

To be told "you're not a mainstream Christain as defined by the extra-biblical creeds", that's cool.  I'm not one and I don't want to be.  But I do devote my life to Christ.

Thank you for your reply.

But, (and I'm sure you've come across this before}; they don't believe that the Jesus you worship and follow is the real Jesus, the Jesus of the gospel; of their  gospel. if you like. If their gospel is unrestored, or incomplete, then it's apples and oranges anyway, isn't it? 

     When I hear people talk about Jesus as if he's a "Judge not", rainbow flag draped, champion of some, I know that that's a Jesus who lives just mostly in some people's minds, if at all-it may be a crutch for their own societally destructive desires. As you say; irksome, but people can be ignorant.

Edited by lonetree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share