Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and the definition of "Christian"

  • Thread starter Thread starter followingtheway
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

followingtheway

Guest
As far as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are concerned, I’ve seen a lot people say that they’re not Christian. But what does someone believe that qualifies them as a “Christian”
 
Remember that it was in Antioch, years after Jesus’ ascension, that followers of “the way” were first called Christians. Christians are simply followers of Christ. Do Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons call themselves followers of Christ? Then they are Christians. If not, then they are not.

I feel like a lot of people feel like calling a certain faith non-Christian helps them to discredit it. Of course calling people home to the Catholic church is a great thing, but I don’t see giving stricter definitions of what is or isn’t Christian is helpful in that at all.
 
ThereWasADream said:
Remember that it was in Antioch, years after Jesus’ ascension, that followers of “the way” were first called Christians. Christians are simply followers of Christ. Do Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons call themselves followers of Christ? Then they are Christians. If not, then they are not.

I feel like a lot of people feel like calling a certain faith non-Christian helps them to discredit it. Of course calling people home to the Catholic church is a great thing, but I don’t see giving stricter definitions of what is or isn’t Christian is helpful in that at all.
Click to expand...
👍

If someone confesses Jesus is Lord, I count them my brother or sister in Christ.
 
Calling oneself a Christian doesn’t make one a Christian. Are all heretics from all times Christian? They all considered themselves Christians.

Tritheists/Polytheists (Mormons) and Arians (Jehovah’s Witnesses) can not be Christian, as Christianity is monotheistic and Trinitarian. As I said, “Christianity” has been defined as adherence to the Nicene Creed for over 1700 years - since before the Nicene Creed itself was finalized and promulgated. Even those churches that hold the latter great Christological heresies, such as Nestorianism and Monophysitism, are Nicene. Every single branch of Christianity - Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Catholic - is Nicene. When one departs from the faith of Nicaea, one departs from Christianity.

If a faith is Nicene, it is Christian; if a faith is Christian, it is Nicene.
 
I’ve heard variations of this a lot. I’ve heard that Mormons are not Christian, Catholics are not Christian, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christian. The people that I have asked within these and other groups call themselves Christian and some feel that the “other” Christians follow a less perfect understanding.

Seems that each group has their own criteria defined and different interpretations of different parts of the bible.
 
I believe a Christian is a person who tries to follow - knowingly or unknowingly - the teaching of Jesus. The problem of how far a person is a Christian arises when the teaching of Jesus is misinterpreted and leads to unChristian behaviour…
 
By that definition, Muslims are Christian, because they follow what they think Isa (the Muslim Jesus) preached, which they invented. The same is true for all other sects that are not Nicene: they follow what they have invented, and put the words in Jesus’ mouth. Many Hindus worship/venerate Jesus as another incarnation of one of their gods. It’s logical conclusion is strict latitudinarianism and relativism.

All Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox agree that Christian means Nicene. The Orthodox may have a problem with the filioque, and the Protestants may believe that Catholics add to the faith, because they believe in scripture alone, but all admit each other as Nicene, and acknowledge each other insofar as that.

The Fathers of the Church and early Christians fought and were killed for the definition and heritage of Nicaea. We can not give it up: it is the essence of Christianity.
 
Khalid said:
The Fathers of the Church and early Christians fought and were killed for the definition and heritage of Nicaea. We can not give it up: it is the essence of Christianity.
Click to expand...
If they fought and killed for the definition and heritage of Nicaea they were not Christian in at least one respect.
 
How is that? They were Nicene, before the word “Nicene” existed. Christianity wasn’t formulated at the council of Nicaea: a creed was formulated which gave expression to the orthodox belief of the Church since times Apostolic in response to the heresies of Arianism (one of the most redundant of all heresies, present today in Jehovah’s Witnessism) and Sabellianism/Monarchic Modalism (the second of the great redundant heresies, present today in Unitarianism).

You misquote my post: I said they fought and were killed, that is, they fought and were martyred, killed by the heretics. Arianism itself was the religion of the Goths for another five hundred years.
 
Khalid said:
How is that? They were Nicene, before the word “Nicene” existed. Christianity wasn’t formulated at the council of Nicaea: a creed was formulated which gave expression to the orthodox belief of the Church since times Apostolic in response to the heresies of Arianism (one of the most redundant of all heresies, present today in Jehovah’s Witnessism) and Sabellianism/Monarchic Modalism (the second of the great redundant heresies, present today in Unitarianism).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The Nicenes didn’t do the killing. The heretics did. Which still has no bearing on the untenable nature of your position, which, without putting it in syllogism form, has already been reduced to absurdity.
 
Khalid said:
The Nicenes didn’t do the killing. The heretics did. Which still has no bearing on the untenable nature of your position, which, without putting it in syllogism form, has already been reduced to absurdity.
Click to expand...
Please express it as a syllogism because it’s not clear what you mean.
 
“Each group has their own definition of “Christian” that agrees with their own beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, church tradition, written text, evolved theology, the cultures in which they are implanted, etc. There appears to be no way to compromise on a single definition that is acceptable to all.”

religioustolerance.org/chr_defn3.htm

This sums up the situation and is a sound basis for tolerance.
 
Khalid said:
By that definition, Muslims are Christian, because they follow what they think Isa (the Muslim Jesus) preached, which they invented.

The Fathers of the Church and early Christians fought and were killed for the definition and heritage of Nicaea. We can not give it up: it is the essence of Christianity.
Click to expand...
I agree. You’re right that many other people of all faiths and even some of no faith live “Christian” lives if we only look at whether they’re ‘good’ people feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, following the Golden Rule, etc…I think we all know people who aren’t Christian who are decent people, which is why we’re reluctant to call them non-Christian if they want to be called Christian. But, as I’ve told the various door-to-door missionaries who come to my home, if I were a joining a fraternity or social club, you’ve got a lot going for you, but you’re not; you’re teaching a religion. And it DOES matter who God is! Reading about the early church is pretty fascinating. There were a lot of ideas of who God is, who Jesus is, His nature, and these were worked out by our church, guided by the Holy Spirit, and so the Nicene creed DOES matter.
 
The reductio ad absurdum expressed as a syllogism:
  1. People who claim to follow Christ are Christians.
  2. Muslims claim to follow Christ.
  3. Therefore, Muslims are Christians.
Or,
  1. People who believe they follow Christ are Christians.
  2. Muslims believe they follow Christ.
  3. Therefore, Muslims are Christians.
Either phrasing is equivalent.

Or,
  1. People who claim to follow Christ are Christians.
  2. Mormons claim to follow Christ.
  3. Therefore, Mormons are Christian.
  4. Christianity is monotheistic.
  5. Mormons believe in multiple gods.
  6. Therefore, Mormons are not Christian.
So on and so forth. I believe the nature of the argument has been sufficiently elucidated. I have been careful to avoid begging the question in any sense, which, on a purely logical level, I would have done if I applied the exact same argument to Jehovah’s Witnesses: I would have had to assume “Christians believe Jesus is God”, which is back to arguing from the authority and universal consensus of Nicaea, not valid Aristotelian dialectic.

A reductio ad absurdum, if you are unaware, requires you to either reject the premises (that is, “People who claim to…”) or to accept the consequent (that is, “Muslims are Christian”), or expose a flaw in the logic of my argumentation. I admit that a reduction to absurdity is less certain than it used to be, especially in university departments, as many are willing to accept the absurd conclusion than to reject their pet premises.
 
Ugh. I am definitely NOT a relativist. My point was to explain that whether or not a certain faith is “Christian” has little relevance to the truth of said faith. Whether or not Muslims can be called Christians has little bearing on the fact that Islam is wrong and the Roman Catholic Church is right.

Why waste time arguing about it and offending people, and focus on discovering the truth and leading people to the Church?
 
Without logical argumentation - that is, philosophy and natural theology - we have no rational reason to believe that Islam or Hinduism is wrong and Catholicism is right, except for various “religious experiences” which are experienced by members of all religions, appeal to emotion, and appeal to authority, which will never convince anyone who doesn’t already believe, as they are invalid forms of argumentation. Evidence sways opinion: proof shatters or establishes it, depending on which side of the truth you’re on.

The problem being, if even Catholics begin to believe that Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian, this will in the end lend itself to a non-missionary attitude (as is already somewhat common in certain sectors of the Church: “don’t convert, it’s not ecumenical”).

This is along with a disregard rigorous argumentation, which leads to a loss of love of truth, and eventually to absolute latitudinarianism, as it is the logical conclusion of the line of thought, “people who live like Christians, call themselves Christians or claim to follow Christ are Christians”. That is, in itself, nearly a perfect encapsulation of latitudinarianism, and contains the seed of relativism. If such was true, heresy would be impossible a priori: the concept of “heresy” would be incoherent. I have already demonstrated that line of thought to be ultimately incoherent and self-contradictory.

The modern world is all about tolerance and inclusivism. When it comes to God and salvation, the world is exclusive, whether us mere mortals like it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top