Are Mormons and Unitarians Christians?

[Theo520]

Yes, I was hoping for some answers but you were deflecting.

I’m trying to stay with the subject of the thread.

Stop posting if you can’t respond to our questions back and forth. You respond to mine (which I asked first) then I will look up what Rebecca said and give you my opinion. So far, you are the one deflecting,

FYI, I never even hinted that Christians only believe what is in the New Testament, that is your projection. It’s also quite a silly question to me since it doesn’t reflect the reality that everyone here accepts - some Christians are Sola Scripture while the Catholic church also believes in the teachings of the Magisterium. We’ve already agreed here that both groups can be called Christian.

 

[SnowRose]

yes, the 4th century is when the traditional canon of the New Testament was established. But it was the Council of Trent that clarified it for the Catholic Church.

Just to chime in, the majority of Protestants are quietly Trinitarian without having taken part of the Council of Trent.

 

[Theo520]

Need to step away, so I’ll lay out some basic logic for others to refute.

Yes, Christians all hold the New Testament in common as the fundamental teachings of Christ,
They also believe the bible books were divinely inspired by God.

Given that they were divinely inspired, I believe they included what God felt was essential to salvation and to our faith. To claim essential parts were missed is to assume God wasn’t doing his divine inspiration very well,

That the Magisterium adds additional interpretation and clarity doesn’t change the central role of the New Testament in instructing our faith. The Magisterium complements the New Testament rather than contradicts it.

If we look at the Trinity, I fully support the teaching of the Magisterium, as would every Catholic.

Where I differ with some posters here is in placing this teaching as of paramount importance in fully understanding before you can be a disciple of Christ. I believe a divinely inspired bible would have given it greater clarity if it was essential to salvation.

Net, I don’t think God is very concerned whether we accurately grasp his true nature before he is willing to embrace us. He is willing to accept this imperfection of understanding if we are following the essential teachings as clearly laid out in his divinely inspired New Testament.

Thus,
I don’t think Mormons are right in their interpretation of the Trinity,
but I also don’t think God will exclude them from his redemption for their error.
God cares more about how we love our neighbor than how we imagine the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are constituted.

You’d have a much stronger argument saying some Mormon’s are not Christian by pointing out how many seem to only express their love for ‘Ward neighbors’ rather than all their neighbors.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes, all Christians are Trinitarians.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Stephen168:

You suggest you are going to lay some logic out here.

You seem to be saying that all Christians hold the New Testament in common but not the Trinity because it wasn’t clarified until the 3rd century.

So I would assume that the New Testament was clarified before the Trinity. Therefore Christians only believe what is clearly contained in the New Testament.

So I asked:

Stephen168:

When was the New Testament clarified?

You are projecting things I did not say - where did I promise you anything?

It would really help if you responded to what I explicitly said, not just what you infer.
Answer these three straight forward questions please.

1. Do you agree that Christians hold the New Testament in common as the teachings of Christ?
2. Do you agree that the bible was divinely inspired by God?
3. Do you agree that the Church delineated the Trinity in the 3rd century of the toon Church?

In regards to #3…yes and no. The Councils addressed questions. Prior to Arianism other Christological errors were addressed. Apostolic Church, means we believe what the Apostles taught. Overwhelming the Council of Nicaea concluded Arianism was a Christological error. The philisophical discussions provided the clearest definition of what the Church handed on from the Apostles. It did not formulate new doctrines or teachings.

 

[Theo520]

The Council clarified doctrine (delineated it). It made clear what was in dispute among a number of Christians. Since the clarity did not exist before, created is not a completely inappropriate term to use.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t see the relevance of your timeline. Do you imagine the books included in the New Testament were being tweaked up through the 4th Century to reflect current thinking of the Magisterium?

He got the answer right which you got wrong. And it was you that suggested there was some relevance to the timeline.

 

[Stephen168]

In my World Religions class, we learned the thing that defined a religion was its theology; their deity or in one case, a lack of one.

The Christian deity is a Trinity. Along with a belief in the Trinity, Christians believe that a Christian baptism is required.(Genesis 1:1-3)(Deuteronomy 6:4)(John 1:1-14)(John 10:30) (Matthew 28:16-20)

Joseph Smith once believed in the Christian deity and then rejected it for his own invention. His deity was three Gods (beings) who were created. The father and the son were once human beings and are beings of flesh and bone.

The Mormon baptism also predates Christ’s earthly ministry, so it was not commissioned by Christ, and it is not trinitarian; therefore, not a Christian baptism.

These are the reasons a Catholic would say a Mormon is not Christian. They worship a different deity and their baptism is not a Christian baptism.

Being ’nice’ doesn’t make a person Christian, any more than being ‘bad’ makes them not a Christian. There are good and bad people in all religions.

The Trinity was defined by the Church before the New Testament was defined by the Church. Therefore, it would not include writings which contradict its beliefs. Reason would tell us that when a Mormon claims their deity is more biblical than the Christian deity we could reject that claim without even opening the Bible.

 

[Theo520]

He got the answer right which you got wrong. And it was you that suggested there was some relevance to the timeline.

explain yourself, your assertions are not supported.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Council clarified doctrine (delineated it). It made clear what was in dispute among a number of Christians. Since the clarity did not exist before, created is not a completely inappropriate term to use.

I don’t disagree, other than I’d say the most appropriate is that the Council was inspired. In a similar discussion with a Deacon once, he described it as a nut was cracked.

Christians have always believed in One God, in Three Persons. Justin Martyr used metaphor in the second century, to describe this belief. We continue to use metaphors when we teach children and non Christians. At Nicaea a less metaphorical, rational, expression of Apostolic teachings, was provided to the Church.

 

[TOmNossor]

Theo520:

The Council clarified doctrine (delineated it). It made clear what was in dispute among a number of Christians. Since the clarity did not exist before, created is not a completely inappropriate term to use.

I don’t disagree, other than I’d say the most appropriate is that the Council was inspired. In a similar discussion with a Deacon once, he described it as a nut was cracked.

Christians have always believed in One God, in Three Persons. Justin Martyr used metaphor in the second century, to describe this belief. We continue to use metaphors when we teach children and non Christians. At Nicaea a less metaphorical, rational, expression of Apostolic teachings, was provided to the Church.

St. Justin Martyr did not believe in the Augustinian Trinity. He called Christ “ANOTHER GOD” “A GOD IN THE SECOND PLACE.” He like Augustine and Athanasius and LDS didn’t believe that Christ was created ex nihilo, but he evidences that he did not believe in the Trinity as modern Catholics do AND his writings concerning the Trinity do align with LDS thought. And he is also closer to the Apostles than Athanasius and Augustine so one might place more weight upon his understanding.
Charity, TOm

P.S. BTW, I think Catholics profoundly misunderstand the Trinity, but I consider them Christians and believe that God does not have a theology test for admittance to heaven.

 

[gazelam]

Theo520:

The Council clarified doctrine (delineated it). It made clear what was in dispute among a number of Christians. Since the clarity did not exist before, created is not a completely inappropriate term to use.

I don’t disagree, other than I’d say the most appropriate is that the Council was inspired. In a similar discussion with a Deacon once, he described it as a nut was cracked.

Christians have always believed in One God, in Three Persons. Justin Martyr used metaphor in the second century, to describe this belief.

Justin is in no way a Trinitarian as evidenced by this quote:

[T]here is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is called an Angel…. I shall endeavor to persuade you, that He is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things – numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 56)

Catholic Scholar Edmund J. Fortman says the following regarding Justin Martyr’s theology:

On several occasions Justin coordinates the three persons, sometimes citing formulas derived from baptism and the eucharist, sometimes echoing official catechetical teaching. He worshipped the Father as Supreme in the universe; he worshipped the Logos or Son as divine but in the second place; he worshipped the Holy Spirit in the third place. But he has no real doctrine of the Trinity, for he says nothing of the relations of the three to one another and to the Godhead. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 47

I hope this helps…

 

[RebeccaJ]

“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,[who was] a certain rational power[proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word[which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The Son is distinct from the Father.

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit

I think you would be hard pressed to convince that Justin Martyr was trying to convince Trypho there is a plurality of Gods, as Mormonism teaches. He is teaching that the Son is God, proceeds from the Father and is present through Hebrew scripture (OT).

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps you should take the time to read the entire Dialogue. Doing so will make it self evident that the man you’re quoting, is just plain wrong.

 

[Horton]

Perhaps you should take the time to read the entire Dialogue. Doing so will make it self evident that the man you’re quoting, is just plain wrong.

But if he had read the whole thing, he wouldn’t have the chance to bring it up here to try to prove our ECFs supported the LDS thought.

 

[Stephen168]

(Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972),

After a quick peek at Catholic Scholar Edmund J. Fortman’s book, he said the Gospel of John has the Father and Son as one being and he calls the Holy Ghost, divine. There was no mention of the Father being made of flesh and bone, or God having been a human being, or a plurality of gods.

 

[gazelam]

“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,[who was] a certain rational power[proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word[which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

Not sure how this statement is Trinitarian. Several Trinitarian components are lacking. (And big words like “abscission” make this quote harder to understand!)

1. Nowhere does this say that The Father is not the Son.
2. Nowhere does this say that The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
3. Nowhere does this say that The Son is not the Holy Spirit

And the phrase “who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son” could be construed to say either that the begotten entity is called the Holy Spirit sometimes and the Son sometimes. Or it could be construed to say that the Holy Spirit sometimes calls the begotten entity the Son. If you can enlighten me I’d appreciated it.)

Also in the Trinity the three persons are co-eternal. The statement that God begot an entity that can called by different names or titles shows that the begotten entity is NOT co-eternal.

Really all I see is a statement (lacking several Trinitarian elements) saying that God begot the Son and God is not diminished by doing so.

 

[Stephen168]

Really all I see is a statement (lacking several Trinitarian elements) saying that God begot the Son and God is not diminished by doing so.

What does beget and abscission mean to you? What are the “elements of the Trinity” that you think are required?

 

[Theo520]

God does not have a theology test for admittance to heaven.

This is the point I was trying to make. If a Trinitarian understanding of how the three are constituted is essential to being a Christian, it would have been self evident in the God inspired New Testament.