T
Thom18
Guest
Not only that, but professing His divinity and being baptized in the form He prescribed (and actually practicing your faith).
- Status
D
drac16
Guest
A resounding 
I would contend that the mormons don’t actually believe the OT prophets, because they all were monotheists (and mormons are not monotheists, no matter how much they wish to be seen as such).
I would contend that the mormons don’t actually believe the OT prophets, because they all were monotheists (and mormons are not monotheists, no matter how much they wish to be seen as such).
D
drac16
Guest
He’s right. :yup:
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Yes, Mormonism depends entirely on the reported visions of Joseph Smith. That is why it is so difficult to argue theology with Mormons. One either believes in those singular visions or does not.
D
Duane1966
Guest
I am interested in who says that is the minimum requirement?
M
Marie5890
Guest
Mormons certainly have a relationship with Christ, and He is central to their belief system, whether or not they fit the traditional definition of Christian.
They certainly believe He is the Son of God, the Messiah. They believe in His atonement. That He is the Paschal Sacrifice (though they don’t usually use that term). They believe in His life, death, and resurrection, that He will come again.
If one was to go down the Creed, they do believe in a great deal of it, though don’t believe in other, just was important, parts.
They certainly believe He is the Son of God, the Messiah. They believe in His atonement. That He is the Paschal Sacrifice (though they don’t usually use that term). They believe in His life, death, and resurrection, that He will come again.
If one was to go down the Creed, they do believe in a great deal of it, though don’t believe in other, just was important, parts.
D
Duane1966
Guest
So in other words, it is a minimum requirement that you established, not Jesus. Jesus also said he who rejects the Apostles, rejects Him. That seems to also be a requirement established by Jesus, to accept what the Apostles taught. So, if one were to reject the Apostles, would they be Christian?
T
Thom18
Guest
They weren’t really written by Thomas or Judas, so, no.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Those are spurious works, their authorship as being of the Apostles rejected.
If you were living while the Apostles were still living, yet rejected their teachings, would you be Christian? Christ seems to say no.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas were written by Gnostics, not the actual apostles.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Even if they weren’t written by the traditional authors, It’s still clear that the gospels come from apostolic tradition, and clearly not that of Gnostic tradition. The Gospels were written by orthodox Christians for orthodox Christians.
We have the Church fathers for that.
T
Thom18
Guest
The Early Church claimed that all four gospels that made it into the Bible are legitimate. They also determined that the gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary and others were illegitimate.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Most of them were not Christian as many of them held heresies too extreme to be considered Christian. So they were Gnostics, not Christians.
T
Thom18
Guest
No, they weren’t. They believed that the “God of the Old Testament” was an evil deity, and Jesus wasn’t God. They rejected the Trinity. They believed that matter was evil, so they also denied Jesus’ humanity. This means they also deny that Jesus died on the cross.
This is pretty far from Christian.
D
Duane1966
Guest
I’m not asking you to go back in time. I’m just asking, if a person back then openly rejected the teaching of the Apostles, would you consider that person to be a Christian?
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Apostolic means, 1) what is taught is what the Apostles taught. 2) what they taught was and is universally believed . 3) what they taught was handed on.
Mormons, gnostics, and many others, follow “stuff” that is outside of what the Apostles taught, is universally believed, and has been handed on.
As for St. Thomas, what he taught and believed can be found in the church he established in India. Which does not teach gnostic beliefs.
Gnosticism is easily refuted, as their writings and teachings arose separately from the Apostolic, Catholic, Church. As is the case with Mormonism.
Mormons, gnostics, and many others, follow “stuff” that is outside of what the Apostles taught, is universally believed, and has been handed on.
As for St. Thomas, what he taught and believed can be found in the church he established in India. Which does not teach gnostic beliefs.
Gnosticism is easily refuted, as their writings and teachings arose separately from the Apostolic, Catholic, Church. As is the case with Mormonism.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
There is no fallacy here, you’re heretical, and all Gnostics are heretical blasphemers. Gnosticism certainly did exist as various religious movements, many of which had similar beliefs. Should we include the later Gnostics, like the Manicheans, as Christians? They believed in Jesus, sure, but they deviated heavily from Christianity. Yet, since they were Gnostics, according to your silly heretical logic, they must have been Christians.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Excellent. But that begs the question, why must they believe that Jesus is the Messiah to be a Christian? I see you have set that minimal standard, but since i do not see where Christ gave you divine authority, someone else’s differing minimal standard, has to be just as valid as yours. You, yourself, have granted yourself that divine authority for establishing the criteria for who is and is not a Christian. It does not matter to you that a community, which believes that Christ established them with that divine authority to make such a judgment, has set up different criteria. You don’t recognize that authority. But, since this quite evidently is the case for how you judge who’s claim to be something is valid, then truly your denying the validity of someone’s claim to be from Scotland, even though they have never set foot in the place that most people recognize as being Scotland, and have no Scottish heritage, is hypocritical. The fact that they believe they are, should be enough for you. After all, their criteria is truly the same as yours. They recognize themselves as having the authority to make such a judgment, just as you recognize yourself.
T
truthseeker32
Guest
I think that the best argument against Mormons being Christians is much simpler.
Terms and their definitions arise in specific contexts. The term “Christian” was created to refer to a specific group of faith practitioners who had particular beliefs and practices. Thus we should honor the original definition and application of the term “Christian” by using it only to refer to those groups that practice and believe as did the first people who were called Christian.
The key reason it is important to maintain original definitions is that the less defined a term becomes, the less useful it becomes as a descriptor. For example, if the term “Christian” encompasses everyone ranging from Catholics to Jehova’s Witnesses, then the proclamation “I am a Christian” doesn’t reveal much. Alternatively, the proclamation “I am Mormon” or “I am Baptist” is much more helpful.
Terms and their definitions arise in specific contexts. The term “Christian” was created to refer to a specific group of faith practitioners who had particular beliefs and practices. Thus we should honor the original definition and application of the term “Christian” by using it only to refer to those groups that practice and believe as did the first people who were called Christian.
The key reason it is important to maintain original definitions is that the less defined a term becomes, the less useful it becomes as a descriptor. For example, if the term “Christian” encompasses everyone ranging from Catholics to Jehova’s Witnesses, then the proclamation “I am a Christian” doesn’t reveal much. Alternatively, the proclamation “I am Mormon” or “I am Baptist” is much more helpful.
R
reggieM
Guest
I like what you’re saying here.
This would eliminate a number of denominations, but it certainly raises a good point.
- Status