L
Lemuel
Guest
My point, exactly.
- Status
A
Augustinian
Guest
Depends on what you mean by “Christian”. If you mean are there beliefs Christian? A. some of their beliefs are. Is there baptism valid? No, but many members of both these communions are converts so they individually might be validly baptized.
A lot of evangelical /fundamentalist folks say that Catholics aren’t Christian. They are entitled to their opinion on this, but I don’t see why they think its a good idea to broadcast it on a megaphone.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
The Mormons on Amazon referred to the Holy “Ghost” as “She” and “the Mother.” They denied the Holy “Ghost” was male.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Mormons are polytheist and worship Elohim, Jehovah (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost as three gods. They are in no way shape or form Christian, nor do Mormons and Mormonism have anything to do with Christianity.
As for Unitarians, you have to define:
If you mean Unitarian Universalist, most of them wouldn’t even claim to be Christians; they hold to a variety of beliefs ranging from atheism to theism including multiple belief systems such as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. They don’t have a specific set of beliefs.
If you mean Unitarians in the sense of “Christians” who reject the Trinity favoring only the Father as God with Jesus and the Holy Spirit being somehow less than God and subordinate, then it might actually depend. It is my understanding that if a group at least recognizes the personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even if denying they be united in a Trinity, and they’re not too far out there like Mormon polytheism, then their baptisms would be consider valid provided they baptized in the name of the Trinity; thus they’d be considered as Christians. This is why Arian baptisms were accepted in the early Church, but why baptisms from groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses are not accepted because they deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit (and they also don’t baptize with any form, but even if they did baptize in the proper form their nonrecognition of the Holy Spirit as a person would still make their baptism invalid and thus they still wouldn’t be considered Christians).
As for Unitarians, you have to define:
If you mean Unitarian Universalist, most of them wouldn’t even claim to be Christians; they hold to a variety of beliefs ranging from atheism to theism including multiple belief systems such as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. They don’t have a specific set of beliefs.
If you mean Unitarians in the sense of “Christians” who reject the Trinity favoring only the Father as God with Jesus and the Holy Spirit being somehow less than God and subordinate, then it might actually depend. It is my understanding that if a group at least recognizes the personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even if denying they be united in a Trinity, and they’re not too far out there like Mormon polytheism, then their baptisms would be consider valid provided they baptized in the name of the Trinity; thus they’d be considered as Christians. This is why Arian baptisms were accepted in the early Church, but why baptisms from groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses are not accepted because they deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit (and they also don’t baptize with any form, but even if they did baptize in the proper form their nonrecognition of the Holy Spirit as a person would still make their baptism invalid and thus they still wouldn’t be considered Christians).
Last edited:
L
Lemuel
Guest
There are many LDS references to a male Holy Ghost including their scriptures.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
As mentioned above, no, Jehovah Witnesses cannot be considered Christians due to their denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit with the added that they don’t baptize with any form.
For the most part, yes. Seventh Day Adventist are generally considered Christians by the Church since they affirm the Trinity (though some are Arians despite this being against the official doctrine of the Seventh Day Adventist church). Their baptisms are generally done correctly, though some have been know to introduce other forms and so each case must be investigated in regards to Seventh Day Adventist.
Ironically, despite the title, “Christian” Scientist are not Christians. They reject the Trinity and, similar to Jehovah Witnesses, deny personhood to the Holy Spirit. They also generally do not preform any baptism at all, and even whey they do, it’s very erroneous.
Oneness Pentecostals are Modalist, due to their Modalism they cannot be considered Christians. They also baptize in the name of “Jesus only.” The Church only accepts baptism done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. There is some debate over whether or not “Jesus only” baptism may be valid; though even if it is, we cannot know that and only baptisms in the name of the Trinity are recognized. Regardless if the form is valid or not, Modalism denies the personhood of Jesus and the Holy Spirit and, in a sense, even the personhood of the Father, and so cannot be considered Christian.
Last edited:
L
LoyalViews
Guest
With the Salvation Army, you have a weird mix of people. Good, charitable, wonderful people, but adherents to the Army are allowed to receive baptism in other churches and events like river baptisms that happen in the Jordan.
So you have some Salvationists that are Christians, and you have some who aren’t technically Christians but believe in Christian core teachings. I think the latter outweighs the former, in most cases.
Mormons, JW’s, Oneness Pentecostals and other “Oneness-flavoured groups” believe that the entirety of God is Jesus, and that Jesus is God’s true name. So they baptise people “in Jesus name, Amen.” The LDS Church has a particular view of the Godhead, in that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate and particularly united in a relationship but still three separate divine beings. They also believe in other gods on other planets, and that we can each become gods at certain levels.
Unitarians, of the modern strand, also deny the Trinity. In fact, the Unitarian Universalist Association outright denies the Trinity, saying that “classically, Unitarian Universalist Christians have understood Jesus as a saviour because he was a God-filled human being, not a supernatural being. He was, and still is for many UUs, an exemplar, one who has shown the way of redemptive love, in whose spirit anyone may live generously and abundantly. Among us, Jesus’ very human life and teaching have been understood as products of, and in line with, the great Jewish tradition of prophets and teachers. He neither broke with that tradition nor superseded it.”
One can also find a special breed of Unitarian who is strictly a Unitarian, someone who believes in the “Socinian” form of Unitarianism. Distinct to this form is that they believe Jesus began His life as a human, and that His form did not exist before He was born. There are other Unitarians that deny the meritorious reward of prayer, the atonement, the necessity of the crucifixion, eternal damnation, the need to repent, the need of sacraments other than baptism and (sometimes) communion. Some believe that God and Jesus are the same thing, much like Oneness Pentecostals and so on.
Therefore, their baptisms are invalid due to their tradition of either denying Christ’s divinity; believing His divinity was God’s reward; so on.
If one has ever encountered “Church of Christ, Scientist,” then it is interesting to note that their baptisms are invalid as they do not practise it with water.
Some SDA churches do not baptise Trinitarian. Often, some congregations might baptise only in Jesus’s name.
Refer to this list if you’re ever curious. I found it intriguing.
So you have some Salvationists that are Christians, and you have some who aren’t technically Christians but believe in Christian core teachings. I think the latter outweighs the former, in most cases.
Mormons, JW’s, Oneness Pentecostals and other “Oneness-flavoured groups” believe that the entirety of God is Jesus, and that Jesus is God’s true name. So they baptise people “in Jesus name, Amen.” The LDS Church has a particular view of the Godhead, in that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate and particularly united in a relationship but still three separate divine beings. They also believe in other gods on other planets, and that we can each become gods at certain levels.
Unitarians, of the modern strand, also deny the Trinity. In fact, the Unitarian Universalist Association outright denies the Trinity, saying that “classically, Unitarian Universalist Christians have understood Jesus as a saviour because he was a God-filled human being, not a supernatural being. He was, and still is for many UUs, an exemplar, one who has shown the way of redemptive love, in whose spirit anyone may live generously and abundantly. Among us, Jesus’ very human life and teaching have been understood as products of, and in line with, the great Jewish tradition of prophets and teachers. He neither broke with that tradition nor superseded it.”
One can also find a special breed of Unitarian who is strictly a Unitarian, someone who believes in the “Socinian” form of Unitarianism. Distinct to this form is that they believe Jesus began His life as a human, and that His form did not exist before He was born. There are other Unitarians that deny the meritorious reward of prayer, the atonement, the necessity of the crucifixion, eternal damnation, the need to repent, the need of sacraments other than baptism and (sometimes) communion. Some believe that God and Jesus are the same thing, much like Oneness Pentecostals and so on.
Therefore, their baptisms are invalid due to their tradition of either denying Christ’s divinity; believing His divinity was God’s reward; so on.
If one has ever encountered “Church of Christ, Scientist,” then it is interesting to note that their baptisms are invalid as they do not practise it with water.
Some SDA churches do not baptise Trinitarian. Often, some congregations might baptise only in Jesus’s name.
Refer to this list if you’re ever curious. I found it intriguing.
T
thistle
Guest
There is no such thing. Non-Trinitarian means you are NOT Christian.
C
curious_cath
Guest
The Unitarians are Christians and the Unitarian Church is a Christian denomination.
At least in Europe they call themselves Christians.
Although:
"Francis David was found guilty of innovation and condemned to prison for the remainder of his life. He died in the royal dungeon in the castle at Deva on November 15, 1579. "
https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/adults/harvest/workshop8/142232.shtml
At least in Europe they call themselves Christians.
Although:
"Francis David was found guilty of innovation and condemned to prison for the remainder of his life. He died in the royal dungeon in the castle at Deva on November 15, 1579. "
https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/adults/harvest/workshop8/142232.shtml
Last edited:
G
gazelam
Guest
I most respectfully disagree. It is well known by scholars that the doctrine of the Trinity was not taught in the early Christian Church for the first 300 years. Are those who belonged to the Church during that time not really Christians? Is it fair to have one criterion for who is a Christian before the Council of Nicaea and another criterion after Nicaea? Is it fair to have as a criterion a doctrine not found in the New Testament and the earliest Christian writings?
“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” (R. P. C. Hansen)
The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. (William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)
There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44
There is in them [the Apostolic Fathers], of course, no trinitarian doctrine and no awareness of a trinitarian problem. (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition, (New York: Harper, 1978), 95.)
Last edited:
J
joeybaggz
Guest
It is a favorite tactic of non RCC members, to argue a point by “freezing” scripture at a certain point. AS gazelam and many non Catholic posters do. Gazelam is correct that it was not a developed doctrine in 300. So were many other teachings of the Church at that time. That does not make today’s understanding invalid. That is exactly why Jesus instituted His Church with Peter as its head on earth; to develop understanding over time as reason and discovery demand. The favorite tactic of those outside the Church who criticize the Church, is to freeze Scripture to the times it was written to prove their point. Unfortunately, as the RCC understands, Scripture is a living “document” to be seen in light of Christ’s word in the world as the world “evolves.”
Jesus refers to “The Father” many, many times. IN John he promised to send “The Advocate” to guide the Church. To oversimplify, in His words we find the doctrine of the Trinity as we have come to understand it over the centuries.
Jesus refers to “The Father” many, many times. IN John he promised to send “The Advocate” to guide the Church. To oversimplify, in His words we find the doctrine of the Trinity as we have come to understand it over the centuries.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
From the perspective of the Catholic Church, probably they are not Christian. From the perspective of some Protestant denominations, perhaps they are regarded as Christian. From their own perspective, they are Christian, maybe even the only true Christians. From the Jewish perspective, they are definitely Christian so long as they are followers of Christ, regardless of baptism. On CAF, in conformity to the Church, the consensus is they are not Christian. So it depends on whom you ask.
G
GKMotley
Guest
Many things do.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I agree. Life is not simple, particularly categorization.
T
thistle
Guest
It does not matter what they call themselves. They are NOT Christians.
C
curious_cath
Guest
Jesus has never declared in the Scripture that He was God. St. Paul seems not to know it. He calls Jesus Son on God, and a “form” of God, but not God per se.
Hebrews call Jesus a high priest. A high priest of which God? Of Himself?
Last edited:
C
curious_cath
Guest
According to you. But who are you and who am I to judge them?
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Several times Jesus refers to himself as “I AM”. That is certainly a reference to calling himself God. He also states, “I and My Father are one and the same.” Again, a divine reference. And where the church derived the concept of adding the word “consubstantial” to the creed.joeybaggz:
Jesus has never declared in the Scripture that He was God. St. Paul seems not to know it. He calls Jesus Son on God, and a “form” of God, but not God per se.
Hebrews call Jesus a high priest. A high priest of which God? Of Himself?
C
curious_cath
Guest
Out of the three:
– Jehova’s Witnesses;
– Mormons;
– Unitarians
the first two is clearly separate from the third one. So we should talk about them separately. Unitarianism is still very strong in Transylvania and is absolutely different from American Universalists.
On the one hand, Transylvanian Unitarianism is a strict, traditional Christian denomination. The American Universalism, on the other hand, has strangely fluid teachings adjusted to current sociological phenomena. The latter only use the Unitarian name as a cover for penetrating Christianity with extreme liberal doctrines.
Last edited:
C
curious_cath
Guest
I agree with you and don’t question our Catholic understanding. However, because the Bible omits direct declaration about the divine status of Jesus, I can imagine a reasonable standpoint where He is addressed as Son of God and not God per se.
- Status