Are Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science actually Christian?

[ComplineSanFran]

Let’s take the hypothetical member of "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster " (henceforth FSM). If that person (under their definition) call themselves a Christian—

A) That does not mean God automatically recognizes them as His true followers (that’s for Him to judge, not man).

B) Are they Christian in my definition? If said person recognizes Christ as a Savior and try to follow Him (my definition) then yes they pass my definition. This doesn’t mean I don’t think they’re “weird”, or I agree remotely with their doctrine, or that I think they’re on the right path, or that I won’t try to share a better way with them if given the chance. (I also do the same with some Catholics, Baptists, non-denims, JW’s, and Mormons)

C) If “The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” member does not recognize Christ as a their Savior (fails my definition) and still wants to be called a Christian. Well I can’t really stop them from calling themselves a “Christian”, can I? So the fact that I don’t like what they do is irrelevant.

Agreed.

 

[Della]

Let’s take the hypothetical member of "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster " (henceforth FSM). If that person (under their definition) call themselves a Christian—

A) That does not mean God automatically recognizes them as His true followers (that’s for Him to judge, not man).

B) Are they Christian in my definition? If said person recognizes Christ as a Savior and try to follow Him (my definition) then yes they pass my definition. This doesn’t mean I don’t think they’re “weird”, or I agree remotely with their doctrine, or that I think they’re on the right path, or that I won’t try to share a better way with them if given the chance. (I also do the same with some Catholics, Baptists, non-denims, JW’s, and Mormons)

C) If “The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” member does not recognize Christ as a their Savior (fails my definition) and still wants to be called a Christian. Well I can’t really stop them from calling themselves a “Christian”, can I? So the fact that I don’t like what they do is irrelevant.

The very definition of relativism–what man thinks a thing is it is that thing. However, what God thinks a thing is–is another matter altogether. There is ultimate truth whether any man recognizes it or not. And it is important for salvation. It isn’t enough to have been a “good person” and have believed in Jesus. We must seek the truth, for only the truth sets us free, as Jesus plainly told us.

 

[arthra]

Baha’is accept Jesus as a Manifestation of God but we do not claim to be Christians.

 

[Pythons]

Thanks Della, what you just said is VERY accurate, and CORRECT.

The very definition of relativism–what man thinks a thing is it is that thing. However, what God thinks a thing is–is another matter altogether. There is ultimate truth whether any man recognizes it or not. And it is important for salvation. It isn’t enough to have been a “good person” and have believed in Jesus. We must seek the truth, for only the truth sets us free, as Jesus plainly told us.

 

[Horton]

My personal viewpoint is I don’t deny the salvation or Christianity of other people who call themselves Christian. Their salvation is between them and God. I’ve been told that when I was a Mormon I wasn’t Christian (which came as a great shock to me) and now I get told by my protestant boss and his wife that Catholics aren’t ‘saved’. Having been on the receiving end of someone else denying that I’m a Christian, I make it a point not to do that to someone else.

Do you now feel LDS are not Christians? I think many on this thread are equating Christianity with being good people. Not all Christians are good people and not all good people are Christians.

Likewise anyone can claim another person is not Christian. They can setup their own standards and insist they are right. In my experience this has to do with exclusion and labels.

We haven’t set up our own standards, we use the standards set by Jesus Christ when He established His church on earth. That same church that continues, without interruption, today. My “label” is a Christian in communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The very definition of relativism–what man thinks a thing is it is that thing. However, what God thinks a thing is–is another matter altogether. There is ultimate truth whether any man recognizes it or not. And it is important for salvation. It isn’t enough to have been a “good person” and have believed in Jesus. We must seek the truth, for only the truth sets us free, as Jesus plainly told us.

Mormonism teaches a pragmatic view of morality, which IMHO, has been applied in this thread by LDS posters.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Let’s take the hypothetical member of "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster " (henceforth FSM). If that person (under their definition) call themselves a Christian—

A) That does not mean God automatically recognizes them as His true followers (that’s for Him to judge, not man).

B) Are they Christian in my definition? If said person recognizes Christ as a Savior and try to follow Him (my definition) then yes they pass my definition. This doesn’t mean I don’t think they’re “weird”, or I agree remotely with their doctrine, or that I think they’re on the right path, or that I won’t try to share a better way with them if given the chance. (I also do the same with some Catholics, Baptists, non-denims, JW’s, and Mormons)

C) If “The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” member does not recognize Christ as a their Savior (fails my definition) and still wants to be called a Christian. Well I can’t really stop them from calling themselves a “Christian”, can I? So the fact that I don’t like what they do is irrelevant.

Would you say the same about anyone who believes they are going to the Mormon celestial kingdom? That is, that if I say I am going to the CK, do you believe me? Or, do you think I am speaking in ignorance?

Don’t think I’m beating up on you here. I know more Mormons than Catholics, IRL, and in general the Mormons I know seek to be disciples of Christ, according to what they understand. That, is not something to take lightly, in my book.

However, the Mormon Church is not a Christian religion.

 

[Della]

Mormonism teaches a pragmatic view of morality, which IMHO, has been applied in this thread by LDS posters.

Pragmatic is just another word for relativism. No matter how it’s dressed up to sound appealing–that’s what it is just the same.

 

[pacloc]

JWs do not believe that the new testament was written for the majority of it’s members. Only 144,000 total people throughout these last 2,000 years are written to. All the promises of the Kingdom of God are for the few anointed ones left, I think there about 10,000 people alive claiming to be part of the elect. So technically you could make a case that this small group are “Christians” because they do think that they are born again, bringing them into a covenant with God and will be made spiritual sons of God in Heaven. They have some really weird points that most Christians would find puzzling, but the case could be made. I personally do not think that even these are Christian because of their lack of understanding who Jesus is, God, not a created angel that became man and is no longer man. And they baptize to join a religion not to live in Heaven. The ones who later claim to be heaven-bound do not get baptized again, their previous baptism that was not a baptism of rebirth to heavenly life I guess changes to that of rebirth.

The remaining 8,000,000 JWs are denied heavenly life, and are told that they will benifit from the covenant between the “anointed” Christians and God. They will live in paradise, and will never be immortal like the anointed, but will live forever as long as they do not sin. To them, Jesus does great things that they will benefit from, but indirectly. So they credit Jehovah for all good things, and condemn the worship of Jesus.

The word Christ, means anointed one, so since the majority of JWs reject the title of anointed it is strange that they would call themselves Christians.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Pragmatic is just another word for relativism. No matter how it’s dressed up to sound appealing–that’s what it is just the same.

Agreed, just adding my own (name removed by moderator)ut as to where the relativism is coming from. For LDS, what is morally wrong can be made morally right, by circumstance, or by justifying the means to an end. All within a framework, of course.

The end here, is viewing Jesus as Savior, and the justification is that as long as the end is met, it’s all good.

But we know this is not the true view of Mormonism, otherwise they would not have tens of thousands of missionaries trying to remove Christians from their faith.

 

[jane_doe]

Would you say the same about anyone who believes they are going to the Mormon celestial kingdom? That is, that if I say I am going to the CK, do you believe me? Or, do you think I am speaking in ignorance?

Whether or not I believe someone has belief in Christ, is a different question about than whether or not I believe someone is going to heaven (or Celestial kingdom in Mormon-speak). I can ask them if they believe in Christ, but I cannot assess whether or not they are His true followers going to Heaven (that’s God’s place to judge, not mine).

There are plenty of folks that profess belief in Christ, but their hearts are far from Him. Likewise, there are folks whom do not know Christ through situational-induced-ignorance, but exemplify God’s Truth the best they know and will possibly join Him in Paradise.

 

[Horton]

Whether or not I believe someone has belief in Christ, is a different question about than whether or not I believe someone is going to heaven (or Celestial kingdom in Mormon-speak). I can ask them if they believe in Christ, but I cannot assess whether or not they are His true followers going to Heaven (that’s God’s place to judge, not mine).

There are plenty of folks that profess belief in Christ, but their hearts are far from Him. Likewise, there are folks whom do not know Christ through situational-induced-ignorance, but exemplify God’s Truth the best they know and will possibly join Him in Paradise.

Please tells us who you believe Jesus Christ to in relation to God

 

[jane_doe]

Please tells us who you believe Jesus Christ to in relation to God

I’d perfer to keep this thread focused on the OP. However, Horton (or anyone else), if you would like to chat about my beliefs, feel free to PM and we can chat.

 

[Horton]

I’d perfer to keep this thread focused on the OP. However, Horton (or anyone else), if you would like to chat about my beliefs, feel free to PM and we can chat.

The question is quite relevant and focused on the OP. The LDS claim Christianity because the believe in Jesus Christ. However the point is the LDS have a different view of WHO Jesus Christ actually is and who God is.

The OP asked if several religions are Christian, including the LDS. As I have said before many people are capable of Christian behavior but not be Christians as defined in the Bible when Jesus Christ started His church. That same church that has been in existence since
33 AD with clear & documented Apostolic succession.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

The question is quite relevant and focused on the OP. The LDS claim Christianity because the believe in Jesus Christ. However the point is the LDS have a different view of WHO Jesus Christ actually is and who God is.

The OP asked if several religions are Christian, including the LDS. As I have said before many people are capable of Christian behavior but not be Christians as defined in the Bible when Jesus Christ started His church. That same church that has been in existence since
33 AD with clear & documented Apostolic succession.

You say that the LDS have a different view of who Jesus Christ - and God - are. That is their right. They can have a theology that is different than yours and still, because they DEFINE themselves as Christian, can make that claim in all integrity. You may believe and define the Mormon Church as not Christian just as many do. But if an organization says it is a church and the members say that they believe in Jesus, they have a right to call themselves Christian.

You can say they are not - that is your right. But you cannot take away their right to define themselves in their own belief system.

 

[Horton]

The very definition of relativism–what man thinks a thing is it is that thing. However, what God thinks a thing is–is another matter altogether. There is ultimate truth whether any man recognizes it or not. And it is important for salvation. It isn’t enough to have been a “good person” and have believed in Jesus. We must seek the truth, for only the truth sets us free, as Jesus plainly told us.

Agreed, just adding my own (name removed by moderator)ut as to where the relativism is coming from. For LDS, what is morally wrong can be made morally right, by circumstance, or by justifying the means to an end. All within a framework, of course.

The end here, is viewing Jesus as Savior, and the justification is that as long as the end is met, it’s all good.

But we know this is not the true view of Mormonism, otherwise they would not have tens of thousands of missionaries trying to remove Christians from their faith.

You say that the LDS have a different view of who Jesus Christ - and God - are. That is their right. They can have a theology that is different than yours and still, because they DEFINE themselves as Christian, can make that claim in all integrity. You may believe and define the Mormon Church as not Christian just as many do. But if an organization says it is a church and the members say that they believe in Jesus, they have a right to call themselves Christian.

You can say they are not - that is your right. But you cannot take away their right to define themselves in their own belief system.

And that is relativism. My truth is my truth because I believe it to be my truth. Christians, Catholic or Protestant, have the same basic belief of who Jesus is and who God is. The LDS do not. They believe God was once man and was “exaulted”. They believe Jesus is the biological son of God and the Blessed Mother, conceived through actual intercourse. They believe man can become a god and have his own celestial kingdom if he is good enough on earth.
I respect anyone’s right to believe the way they want to but it doesn’t make them Christians by definition. I can say a cat is a dog all day long and that is my belief but it doesn’t make it true.

 

[cmodrmac]

Christian would be one who follows Christ-I do agree that the use of the Nicene Creed seems like a good idea although it would rule out some clear followers of Christ such as many evangelical Churches-do you have to believe that Jesus is divine to be a follower of the Teachings of Jesus? -probably not

to me to be a Christian is to put into operation in the world actions that are compatible with the Teachings of Jesus and to try to our ability to promulgate them in our Society -likely with results that may annoy many people

I have trouble with viewing the LDS Church as Christian from a view of the Nicene creed but also view them as trying to follow some of the teachings of Jesus - the JW do not appear to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and have some very obtuse theology -for the JW I would be hard pressed to call them Christian

The 7th day Adventists to me fit well into the Christian camp-all though Christian Scientists do some very bizarre things including indirectly killing people by denying medical care - they do attempt tp follow the teaching of Christ

It is an interesting question - I have 2 friends who define themselves as Unitarian Christians

 

[Pythons]

You say that the LDS have a different view of who Jesus Christ - and God - are. That is their right. They can have a theology that is different than yours and still, because they DEFINE themselves as Christian, can make that claim in all integrity. You may believe and define the Mormon Church as not Christian just as many do. But if an organization says it is a church and the members say that they believe in Jesus, they have a right to call themselves Christian.

You can say they are not - that is your right. But you cannot take away their right to define themselves in their own belief system.

This is like saying two gay men call themselves Christian, they belong to a Church who’s Pastor is gay and lives with a man…
…The two men are subsequently “married” in the “Christian Church” and the ceremony is officiated by the gay Pastor, who also is a practicing homosexual.

True, all these folks have a right to call themselves whatever they want…
…I also have the right to say I’m really J Edgar Hoover but at the end of the day I’m NOT.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This is like saying two gay men call themselves Christian, they belong to a Church who’s Pastor is gay and lives with a man…
…The two men are subsequently “married” in the “Christian Church” and the ceremony is officiated by the gay Pastor, who also is a practicing homosexual.

True, all these folks have a right to call themselves whatever they want…
…I also have the right to say I’m really J Edgar Hoover but at the end of the day I’m NOT.

There must be a library of quips that people use. It gets a bit old.

If a believing person of faith stands up in Christian belief, then it’s not up to you to say otherwise. The law of this land, as well as in other lands, has proclaimed that same sex marriage is legal. The law of my church, as well as other churches, have proclaimed that people of the faith can get married within their Christian community. It’s the new normal. Wrap your head around it. Your neighbors and fellow Christians will appreciate your kindness.

 

[Ricardo_Gomez]

I remember one time I talked to a priest about this subject. He said people from other denominations could call themselves Christians but they’re not in the Christian practice. That did not make much sense to me but I have a lot of respect for the Church and I was not about to question his comments. I thought about it for quite some time and came to realize that in fact some one who does not participate in the Sacrament of the Eucharist could not call him/herself Christian.
This won’t make much sense to a few but I heard the Bible does not have the term New Gospel written but it has the term New Pact instead. The New Pact is the bridge between Christ and his Christian followers: The Eucharist.
Make sense?