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

[heart4home]

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.

Your analogy seems flawed. Calling a cat a dog is clearly a statement that can be disproved by the scientific definition of what a cat or dog is. Using DNA etc.

Being a follower of Christ, the Son of God, and believing in His Cross and Resurrection for Salvation seems to fit the standard definition in society of what being a Christian is.

The Catholic Church through the ages came to a fuller understanding of who Christ was and recognized that Jesus wasn’t just the Son of God, but actually was God coming to earth in human form and is therefore part of the one and only triune God.

However, do you believe that the first apostles understood the trinity? Yes, Simon Peter announced what he did know, which was that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God, but do you really believe that they fully understood the trinity? Would you dare to not call them Christians?

I do not know in depth what LDS beliefs are but I understand that they believe you need faith in Jesus Christ for salvation and so I can understand why they call themselves Christians, even if their understanding of that need is not fully developed and is skewed by false doctrines. Will they see Heaven through the mercy of God? That is for God alone to judge.

 

[jane_doe]

Your analogy seems flawed. Calling a cat a dog is clearly a statement that can be disproved by the scientific definition of what a cat or dog is. Using DNA etc.

Being a follower of Christ, the Son of God, and believing in His Cross and Resurrection for Salvation seems to fit the standard definition in society of what being a Christian is.

Very well said.

 

[Horton]

Your analogy seems flawed. Calling a cat a dog is clearly a statement that can be disproved by the scientific definition of what a cat or dog is. Using DNA etc.

However, do you believe that the first apostles understood the trinity? Yes, Simon Peter announced what he did know, which was that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God, but do you really believe that they fully understood the trinity? Would you dare to not call them Christians?

I do believe the apostles understood the trinity, why else would they baptise in the name of the "Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit…ie the trinity.

My analogy was in reference to the theory of relativism, not whether someone is Christian or not.
Full Definition of RELATIVISM
a : a theory that knowledge is* relative to the limited nature of the mind** and the conditions of knowing
b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them
*
From Wikipedia:
*Catholic Church and relativism[edit]
The Catholic Church, especially under John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, has identified relativism as one of the most significant problems for faith and morals today.[15]

According to the Church and to some theologians, relativism, as a denial of absolute truth, leads to moral license and a denial of the possibility of sin and of God. Whether moral or epistemological, relativism constitutes a denial of the capacity of the human mind and reason to arrive at truth. Truth, according to Catholic theologians and philosophers (following Aristotle) consists of adequatio rei et intellectus, the correspondence of the mind and reality. Another way of putting it states that the mind has the same form as reality. This means when the form of the computer in front of someone (the type, color, shape, capacity, etc.) is also the form that is in their mind, then what they know is true because their mind corresponds to objective reality.

The denial of an absolute reference, of an axis mundi, denies God, who equates to Absolute Truth, according to these Christian theologians. They link relativism to secularism, an obstruction of religion in human life.

Leo XIII[edit]
Pope Leo XIII (1810–1903) was the first known Pope to use the word relativism in the encyclical Humanum genus (1884). Leo XIII condemned Freemasonry and claimed that its philosophical and political system was largely based on relativism.[16]

John Paul II[edit]
John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor

As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person’s intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature.
In Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), he says:

Freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.
Benedict XVI[edit]*

 

[Horton]

Continued:

In April 2005, in his homily[17] during Mass prior to the conclave which would elect him as Pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger talked about the world “moving towards a dictatorship of relativism”:

How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. **Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error **(cf Ephesians 4, 14). Having a clear Faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. **Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude acceptable to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true **humanism. Being an “Adult” means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today’s fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth.
On June 6, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI told educators:

Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own ‘ego’.[18]
Then during the World Youth Day in August 2005, he also traced to relativism the problems produced by the communist and sexual revolutions, and provided a counter-counter argument.[19]

In the last century we experienced revolutions with a common programme–expecting nothing more from God, they assumed total responsibility for the cause of the world in order to change it. And this, as we saw, meant that a human and partial point of view was always taken as an absolute guiding principle. Absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism. It does not liberate man, but takes away his dignity and enslaves him. It is not ideologies that save the world, but only a return to the living God, our Creator, the Guarantor of our freedom, the Guarantor of what is really good and true.

 

[Pythons]

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.

I just made that up myself - it describes the situation as it is…
…What this issue all about is pouring new definitions into already established terms.

Look, I don’t have an axe to grind against practicing homosexuals in the least - their sin is no different than premarital sex between heterosexuals…
…Sin is sin according to God and we ALL FALL SHORT.

Apply your reasoning to some other sins and tell me if it computes.

Christian Swingers / Christians for pre-marital sex / Christians for bestiality, etc.

Does it compute that any of the above could form a “Christian Church” and worship Christ while participating ( and encouraging others to participate in the same )…
…I say it doesn’t.

We humans have a hard enough time walking the straight and narrow without an organized Church encouraging the very behavior prohibited in Sacred Scripture.

It’s idiotic frankly.

 

[jane_doe]

Horton, do you have a scientifically proven and testable method to diagnose accurately who (by individual name) is going to Heaven?

 

[meltzerboy]

I have heard views from both sides, that they either are or are not. Now I ask this because ironically, some Protestant Christians claim that Catholics are not really Christian. However, the notion that just because someone believes in Jesus does not make someone a Christian. I say this because even in Islam, Jesus is regarded as a major prophet. Do these groups meet the definition of Christianity or do their beliefs make it so they actually are not Christians? I know all of these groups self identify as Christian, but does someone actually have to believe in the trinity to be a Christian? Or does that alone make someone not? I just wanted opinions on this. I know people who are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses and they adamantly claim that they are in fact “true” Christians.

My understanding is that according to the Catholic Church, to be considered Christian, one would have to be baptized in terms of the traditional Trinitarian manner based on the Nicene creed. This definition probably also applies to certain Protestant denominations. (Perhaps a knowledgeable Catholic could tell me if a married couple who is Catholic do NOT baptize their child at all, does that mean the child is not Christian?) I believe only the Seventh-Day Adventists follow the traditional Trinitarian formula, while neither JW’s, Mormons, nor Christian Scientists do. Please correct me if I am wrong.

However, according to the religions THEMSELVES, they are Christian, and perhaps some of them believe it is they who are the ONLY true Christians. IOW, it depends somewhat on the reference point one uses. One thing I do know is that from the Jewish perspective, they are all thought of as Christian. With regard to Islam, which you mentioned, although the religion believes Jesus to be a prophet, they do NOT believe He is G-d, and that in itself would seem to rule out their being considered Christian. The same would apply to the Nazarene Jews, who believe Jesus is the Messiah but reject His divinity. In the latter case, there is some debate whether this group can rightly be called Jewish, let alone Christian.

 

[Horton]

Horton, do you have a scientifically proven and testable method to diagnose accurately who (by individual name) is going to Heaven?

I have my faith in God & in my salvation. I trust His mercy. Why in the world would you ask such a silly question.

 

[cjforJesus]

My understanding is that according to the Catholic Church, to be considered Christian, one would have to be baptized in terms of the traditional Trinitarian manner based on the Nicene creed. This definition probably also applies to certain Protestant denominations. (Perhaps a knowledgeable Catholic could tell me if a married couple who is Catholic do NOT baptize their child at all, does that mean the child is not Christian?) I believe only the Seventh-Day Adventists follow the traditional Trinitarian formula, while neither JW’s, Mormons, nor Christian Scientists do. Please correct me if I am wrong.

However, according to the religions THEMSELVES, they are Christian, and perhaps some of them believe it is they who are the ONLY true Christians. IOW, it depends somewhat on the reference point one uses. One thing I do know is that from the Jewish perspective, they are all thought of as Christian. With regard to Islam, which you mentioned, although the religion believes Jesus to be a prophet, they do NOT believe He is G-d, and that in itself would seem to rule out their being considered Christian. The same would apply to the Nazarene Jews, who believe Jesus is the Messiah but reject His divinity. In the latter case, there is some debate whether this group can rightly be called Jewish, let alone Christian.

According to Catholic teaching Baptism by the Trinitarian formula is necessary. That is why if one is not validly baptised and then converts to Catholicism they must be baptised again.

Baptism imparts an indelible mark or seal. I would imagine two Catholics marrying but not having their children baptised would be in violation of their sacramental marital promises.Perhaps the children would still be Christian in principle though.

I agree that Nazarene Jews would not be considered Jewish at all. They loosely would be considered Christian because they believe in Jesus Christ but have an incomplete understanding of His true nature.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

Doctrinally speaking, it is the same thing. Christianity has doctrinal definitions for what it means to be a Christian. Mormons have doctrinal definitions for who enters the CK. I could make up a new church with new doctrine regarding the CK, and call myself and my new church LDS, but it doesn’t make it so. Mormons changing Christian doctrines, and calling themselves Christians, is the same thing.

 

[Horton]

My understanding is that according to the Catholic Church, to be considered Christian, one would have to be baptized in terms of the traditional Trinitarian manner based on the Nicene creed. This definition probably also applies to certain Protestant denominations. (Perhaps a knowledgeable Catholic could tell me if a married couple who is Catholic do NOT baptize their child at all, does that mean the child is not Christian?) I believe only the Seventh-Day Adventists follow the traditional Trinitarian formula, while neither JW’s, Mormons, nor Christian Scientists do. Please correct me if I am wrong.

However, according to the religions THEMSELVES, they are Christian, and perhaps some of them believe it is they who are the ONLY true Christians. IOW, it depends somewhat on the reference point one uses. One thing I do know is that from the Jewish perspective, they are all thought of as Christian. With regard to Islam, which you mentioned, although the religion believes Jesus to be a prophet, they do NOT believe He is G-d, and that in itself would seem to rule out their being considered Christian. The same would apply to the Nazarene Jews, who believe Jesus is the Messiah but reject His divinity. In the latter case, there is some debate whether this group can rightly be called Jewish, let alone Christian.

*Bolding mine
This is exactly the point. What definition various religions and/or denominations use for God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. This is where the theory of Moral Relativism comes in. To say one is a Christian when they don’t believe in the trinity, or the dual nature of Jesus, or that God is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then their claim to Christianity is false. It doesn’t make them bad people, just not Christians.

meltzerboy is Jewish, not Christian. By not calling him a Christian I don’t feel I’m insulting him but just stating an absolute truth… He has a different belief system than I which is perfectly fine.

 

[Horton]

Doctrinally speaking, it is the same thing. Christianity has doctrinal definitions for what it means to be a Christian. Mormons have doctrinal definitions for who enters the CK. I could make up a new church with new doctrine regarding the CK, and call myself a Mormon, but it doesn’t make it so. Mormons changing Christian doctrines, and calling themselves Christians, is the same thing.

Very well said

 

[ComplineSanFran]

My understanding is that according to the Catholic Church, to be considered Christian, one would have to be baptized in terms of the traditional Trinitarian manner based on the Nicene creed. This definition probably also applies to certain Protestant denominations. (Perhaps a knowledgeable Catholic could tell me if a married couple who is Catholic do NOT baptize their child at all, does that mean the child is not Christian?) I believe only the Seventh-Day Adventists follow the traditional Trinitarian formula, while neither JW’s, Mormons, nor Christian Scientists do. Please correct me if I am wrong.

However, according to the religions THEMSELVES, they are Christian, and perhaps some of them believe it is they who are the ONLY true Christians. IOW, it depends somewhat on the reference point one uses. One thing I do know is that from the Jewish perspective, they are all thought of as Christian. With regard to Islam, which you mentioned, although the religion believes Jesus to be a prophet, they do NOT believe He is G-d, and that in itself would seem to rule out their being considered Christian. The same would apply to the Nazarene Jews, who believe Jesus is the Messiah but reject His divinity. In the latter case, there is some debate whether this group can rightly be called Jewish, let alone Christian.

Wonderfully said. I hope people understand the different points you made. It appears we all keep talking in circles here.

Oh, and about the child not being baptized? On a guess, he/she would be considered Christian up until the age of reason because of the parents, and from then on, perhaps not. Anyone have another suggestion? This would be for liturgical churches; others, such as Baptists, I have no clue.

 

[steido01]

Wonderfully said. I hope people understand the different points you made. It appears we all keep talking in circles here.

Oh, and about the child not being baptized? On a guess, he/she would be considered Christian up until the age of reason because of the parents, and from then on, perhaps not. Anyone have another suggestion? This would be for liturgical churches; others, such as Baptists, I have no clue.

Meltzerboy is spot on. If only we Christians could listen as well as some of our Jewish friends.

Regarding an unbaptized infant born to Christian parents… the Western churches have understood rightly that only God can judge the soul, and have more or less generally entrusted those little ones to His Mercy. We know there is great hope for those from Scripture. One common source of comfort is 2 Samuel 2:15-25. In the passage, David’s son is born very ill; David weeps and prays for his recovery, but his child passes away on the seventh day (before the child would have been circumcised, which we understand today to have been superseded by baptism (1 Peter 3:21)).

Yet when the child passes away, David immediately stopped grieving, got "up from the floor, washed himself, put lotions on, and changed his clothes. Then he went into the Lord’s house to worship. After that, he went home and asked for something to eat. His servants gave him some food, and he ate.

David’s servants said to him, “Why are you doing this? When the baby was still alive, you fasted and you cried. Now that the baby is dead, you get up and eat food.”

David said, “While the baby was still alive, I fasted, and I cried. I thought, ‘Who knows? Maybe the Lord will feel sorry for me and let the baby live.’ But now that the baby is dead, why should I fast? I can’t bring him back to life. Someday I will go to him, but he cannot come back to me.”

David knew his uncircumcised (unbaptized) son was saved.

 

[jas84173]

When you say “fourth” I suppose you are including Muslims as the third. But I think that is a mistaken use of the word. Historically, the Christian Church came into being as a splinter group within Judaism. That is why the term “Abrahamic” can meaningfully cover both Judaism and Christianity. But the origin of Islam, historically, is totally independent. It is not “Abrahamic” in any meaningful sense of the term. As applied to Islam, it’s really no more than a courtesy title.

Yah but Islam is an Abrahamic religion, as it shares the common founder of Abraham, and shares with us the same prophets. Like in Islam the five biggest prophets are Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. However Islam denies the notion that Jesus was God or part of a trinity, but just a prophet, and claims without any evidence that the Torah and Gospel were corrupted by man. But in reality, they do worship the same God. In fact in the Quran, sunnah 5:72 says Jesus was the messiah, but was not crucified but made it appear as if he was but was lifted into heaven ( kind of like Elijah)

 

[gazelam]

Doctrinally speaking, it is the same thing. Christianity has doctrinal definitions for what it means to be a Christian. Mormons have doctrinal definitions for who enters the CK. I could make up a new church with new doctrine regarding the CK, and call myself and my new church LDS, but it doesn’t make it so. Mormons changing Christian doctrines, and calling themselves Christians, is the same thing.

If it’s not OK of Mormons to “change” Christian doctrines and still call themselves Christians, is it proper when Catholics change Christian doctrines and still call themselves Christians?

Infant Baptism:
Christian Scholar Kurt Aland wrote:

“It can be no accident… that all out information about the existence if infant baptism comes from the period of AD 200-250… For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant before AD 200.” (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants, 101-2)

Baptism by pouring/sprinkling:
Renowned World Historian Will Durant wrote:

“By the ninth century the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by aspersion - sprinkling - as less dangerous to health in northern climes”. (Durant, Age of Faith, 738)

Transubstantiation:
“it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

Apostolic Succession
Francis A. Sullivan (a long time professor at the Gregorian University in Rome) wrote:

“One conclusion seems obvious: Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today’.” (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 15-16)

I say give the self-identified Christian the benefit of the doubt!

 

[Horton]

I say give the self-identified Christian the benefit of the doubt!

So do you self identify as a Mormon or as a Christian?

 

[gazelam]

So do you self identify as a Mormon or as a Christian?

Both.

 

[Horton]

Both.

As the LDS are not a Christian denomination you can’t be both unless you are one in name only. I’m not saying you are incapable of Christian like behavior.

The LDS hold beliefs that are contrary to Christian beliefs such as the nature of God and the nature of Christ. The belief that man can become a god. The idea of spirit children waiting to be born. The belief that Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God and the Blessed Mother.

Catholics are not the only ones who have problems with these concepts. I’m sure most, if not all, Protestants do too. As a young woman that pastor of the Protestant Church I attended warned my parents about letting us seriously date an LDS young man as they would lead us away from our Christian faith.

That was more than 30 years ago and nothing I’ve learned since has changed that idea for me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If it’s not OK of Mormons to “change” Christian doctrines and still call themselves Christians, is it proper when Catholics change Christian doctrines and still call themselves Christians?

Infant Baptism:
Christian Scholar Kurt Aland wrote:

“It can be no accident… that all out information about the existence if infant baptism comes from the period of AD 200-250… For the time before this we do not possess a single piece of information that gives concrete testimony to the existence of infant baptism… To this day [1963] nobody can prove an actual case of the baptism of an infant before AD 200.” (Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants, 101-2)

catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

Baptism by pouring/sprinkling:
Renowned World Historian Will Durant wrote:

“By the ninth century the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been gradually replaced by aspersion - sprinkling - as less dangerous to health in northern climes”. (Durant, Age of Faith, 738)

catholic.com/tracts/baptism-immersion-only

Transubstantiation:
“it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ.” Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon the Christian Church, p. 308.

catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

Apostolic Succession
Francis A. Sullivan (a long time professor at the Gregorian University in Rome) wrote:

“One conclusion seems obvious: Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today’.” (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, 15-16)

catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession

I say give the self-identified Christian the benefit of the doubt!

It comes down to, LDS want to hold their beliefs, but expect everyone else to forego their own. There is too much innovation in Mormonism. Mormonism does not want to be considered Christian, other than, itself only as Christian. Everyone else is following “abominable” creeds So, let it go. Mormonism is not a Christian religion, but if you want to walk around like the emperor with no clothes, go for it.

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

I think that about covers it for all innovative new religions, particularly those that arose in the 19th century as “restorations”.