T
Thom18
Guest
That works.
- Status
That works.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
There is no ad hominem or strawman, it is the truth. Clearly, you can’t refute.
T
Thom18
Guest
You mean “follower of Christ”? Well, I think being a follower of Christ means you have to accept his teachings.
It’s great if someone acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah, but what did the Messiah have to say about himself? He said that the Father and he were one. He said to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. He warned against following false prophets. His apostles warned their students against following any other gospel but the one they gave them. I could go on.
It’s also important to take note of what he didn’t say about himself. He never said that there was more than one God. He never said or implied that He was an angel (as JWs claim). Again, I could go on.
It’s not enough to simply “believe” in Jesus. You also have to accept what he taught.
R
reggieM
Guest
Many Catholics had (and still have) to face the accusation from Protestants: “Catholics are not Christians”.
I think, as a result of this, we put a lot of focus and effort on defining a “generic Christian” - or something like Lewis’ Mere Christianity.
But there is no authoritative source that defines what the term Christian means. The Holy See is the only infallible source of definitions on the teachings of Christ, and the Church has never defined the term.
As an ecumenical gesture, we call all manner of denominations “Christian” and we accept the validity of some sacramental rites of other denominations.
But since there is no agreed upon way for a person to become a Christian (among the denominations), there is also no way for person to no longer be a Christian.
I think, as a result of this, we put a lot of focus and effort on defining a “generic Christian” - or something like Lewis’ Mere Christianity.
But there is no authoritative source that defines what the term Christian means. The Holy See is the only infallible source of definitions on the teachings of Christ, and the Church has never defined the term.
As an ecumenical gesture, we call all manner of denominations “Christian” and we accept the validity of some sacramental rites of other denominations.
But since there is no agreed upon way for a person to become a Christian (among the denominations), there is also no way for person to no longer be a Christian.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
A Christian is someone who has been baptized with water in the name of the Holy Trinity and with proper intent.
Mormons, on the other hand, though they baptize with water, do not baptize in the name of the Trinity but rather they baptize in the name of the Polytheistic Godhead and they lack proper intent.
Because of this, Mormons are not Christians. That is the simplest explanation.
Mormons, on the other hand, though they baptize with water, do not baptize in the name of the Trinity but rather they baptize in the name of the Polytheistic Godhead and they lack proper intent.
Because of this, Mormons are not Christians. That is the simplest explanation.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Another literal definition of the term would actually be a follower of Christ’s teachings, without having to claim He was the Messiah. And it is quite obviously, just your definition of the term. Interestingly enough, for about 1800 years, your definition was never heard of by the majority of Christendom, and is still rejected by a majority today.
But you yourself base it on authority. Yours. You have stated what your minimum requirements are. Interestingly enough, Christ seemingly gives different criteria than you. And if you are going to say this: “You’re not what you identify as because I say so.” criticism, than you must affirm someone who identifies as Scottish and from Scotland, even though they have never been there and they have no Scottish ancestry, that they are indeed Scottish. Otherwise you are doing the same thing that you criticize. See the slippery slope you have went down?
What if someone believes Jesus is the Messiah, but also believes in many gods? According to you, they are a Christian, as long as they identify themselves as Christian.
R
reggieM
Guest
Again, I agree in principle, keeping in mind that there are a lot of people who call themselves Christian who believe all you have to do is “accept Jesus as your personal savior” and/or pray a prayer like that. If you google “how to become a Christian” it seems the majority of answers are something like that.
The same is true of “how to be saved”. Most seem to say that you say a prayer and accept Jesus. Some say baptism is required.
I tend to agree with the OP, but then again I have mixed-views also.
I guess my best answer would be that Mormonism is a heretical Christian sect.
I think Joseph Smith really started from a Christian foundation and built up all sorts of things around that.
But it’s the same as some would say that Islam is a heretical Christian group also.
The comparison between Islam and Mormonism is very interesting to look at.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
You mean like the Gospels?
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
The majority of Protestants would happily consider us Christians. It’s mainly only the Fundamentalist Evangelicals that do not.
M
MaryT777
Guest
However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a section called The Church and non Christians CCC 839 ff to 845. There is then some thought by the Church on what constitutes a Christian.
I also found this answer on a Q and A board about the issue at hand regarding Mormons:
Why doesn’t the Catholic Church consider Mormons as Christians?
Gabriel J. Ferrer, Catholic Christian; lay catechist
Answered Feb 4 · Upvoted by Claire-Edith de la Croix, Ph.D Philosophy of Religion and Theology & Catholicism, Claremont Graduate University (1983)
Catholics consider anyone who is validly baptized to be a Christian. A valid baptism requires following the formula and intention of Matthew 28:19:
Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit
The LDS Church does not define the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the same way that the Catholic Church does. **Because of this divergence of definition, the Catholic Church does not recognize their baptisms as valid, and consequently does not view LDS members as Christians.
For more details on this issue, read the official Vatican statement on the matter.
**
*Vatican Statement: (Welll worth the time to read)
**
THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html
K
kimg901
Guest
Do you mean did He actually write them with his hand? Uh no. Did He send His spirit to guide the Apostles to write down His Word? Yup.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
If you believe that they are a historical document, then what we have is a record of some of the things Jesus has said. He may not have written anything down literally, but we have records of his speeches and actions.
J
jas84173
Guest
It all comes down to if you believe Christianity is only for those who accepts the Council of Nicea and the Creed with the trinitarian formula. In that case, no Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are definitely not Christian.
If you view it in the scope that both groups deny the creed, which is a bit hypocritical saying the Church lost authority after the Apostles died, seeing as they use the same New Testament which wasn’t settled until the mid fourth century; but it depends really on what being a Christian means. In a scholarly sense they are in the scope of Christianity. I personally view it more as a Christian heresy much like the early heresies. Ironically their views on non Trinitarian and different views on the nature of Christ were around long before their founding. I always viewed Mormonism somewhat with Marcionism. And Jehovah’s Witnesses with Docetism. It’s an argument we could have for years. In the end does it really matter?
If you view it in the scope that both groups deny the creed, which is a bit hypocritical saying the Church lost authority after the Apostles died, seeing as they use the same New Testament which wasn’t settled until the mid fourth century; but it depends really on what being a Christian means. In a scholarly sense they are in the scope of Christianity. I personally view it more as a Christian heresy much like the early heresies. Ironically their views on non Trinitarian and different views on the nature of Christ were around long before their founding. I always viewed Mormonism somewhat with Marcionism. And Jehovah’s Witnesses with Docetism. It’s an argument we could have for years. In the end does it really matter?
R
reggieM
Guest
That is helpful thanks.
There are a lot of Evangelicals who do not require baptism to be “saved” and as I mentioned, the formula for “being a Christian” among a lot of denominations does not include baptism, and there are Protestants who use baptism in Jesus’ name only following Acts 2:38.
I think a good question would be how anyone could sort all of that out - are all those Evangelicals “non-Christian” in the eyes of the Church?
I am not sure why the Catholic Church wants to distinguish between Christian and non-Christian. The Church, I would think, only has authority to define what is a Catholic.
But I think we have to look at what you said:
This may be true but it offers very little by way of understanding. We know lots of people who are validly baptized (including some who converted to Mormonism). But these people believe an enormous variety of things. They’re all “Christian” because they were baptized but Mormons are not?
I don’t know how this helps us very much.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
I know of two reasons. The first being the question of a valid baptism determines how a person is received into the Church. Adult non-Christians, including Mormons and those from non-baptized Protestant derivatives, participate in the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults, which has the purpose of teaching Christian doctrine, i.e., Christianizing the individual. A non-Christian is received into the Church via the Sacraments of initiation. Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist.
A person who has already received a Christian baptism is received into the Church with a confession of faith, their first confession, Confirmation and Eucharist. It is Catholic doctrine that baptism is received once. The Church is very careful not to re-baptize.
The question of, is a Mormon baptism valid, with an answer of no, requires that the individual be taught the Christian faith. Those who are already baptized Christians, receive instruction regarding Catholic doctrines that are different to the Christian faith from which they come, but they already know and believe, core Christian doctrines such as the Holy Trinity and associated Christological doctrines, which Mormonism whole heartedly rejects.
Second, the Church takes different approaches to its relationship with non-Catholic religions. It seeks ecumenism with Christian sects, but not with non-Christian sects. Mormonism is a non-Christian religion, and the Church seeks a relationship with Mormonism as it does with other non-Christian religions.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Gnostic was applied to a variety of groups and beliefs. Various groups who viewed knowledge (gnosis) as the thing required for Salvation. Beliefs and practices varied from there among numerous different groups, but the basis was, and is, a Christological error, as almost all heresies are.
The Church recognized error and taught against it. There is error and there is truth, This is very basic teaching, from Jesus to St. Paul. If it helps your wallowing in error to view truth as a straw man, so be it.
R
reggieM
Guest
Yes, that was very good and I think that, above is the key (perhaps only) real reason to speak about who is a Christian and who not. But actually, since the term “Christian” is equivalent to “baptized”, it causes more confusion. It would be better and clearer to say that there are “the baptized” and the “non-baptized”. The term “Christian” in those cases would be irrelevant, and if we used it, we would have ecumenical problems (non-baptized Evangelicals would not be considered Christian).
That’s an interesting view but I’m not sure it really holds up since anyone who comes to the Catholic Faith should go through all of the teachings and doctrines. It’s good if a person already knows or believes some (as Mormons do also) but I don’t think we distinguish between a Christian or not. Additionally, in many Christian churches, baptism does not come along with any additional teaching. It could, over time, from sermons and bible studies, but there are many people baptized who really gained little or no knowledge, and some reject almost all Catholic teaching.
That is true also. Ecumenism, in this light, means the hope of a particular denomination returning to the Catholic Faith (as some Anglicans did).
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Baptism is our entry into the life of Christ. Our initiation into the Body of Christ, is baptism. Christian and baptism are synonymous, from the view of the Church.
A good RCIA program will work with each individual where they are at. There are Christians whose knowledge of scripture and doctrine is better than many life long Catholics. To put them in an RCIA program with a group who knows next to nothing, is pointless. Unless of course that is what the individual wants. Addressing what they don’t know and then receiving them into the church is a good approach.
A non baptized Evangelical should go through the RCIA as a non Christian. To take the view that baptism is not necessary indicates serious errors in doctrine.
I’ve seen non Christians who have zero understanding of scripture, and need basic instruction starting with what are chapter and verse designations. And I’ve seen Christians whose understanding of the Bible is on a level of a good theologian.
The Church separates RCIA into groups of Christians and non Christians, for a reason. Here in Utah, Christian doctrines are filtered by Mormons through their unique scripture. What they’ve been taught has to be unraveled. It takes a good RCIA program to help that process along. Someone from a mainstream Protestant background does not have that going on. Practicing mainstream Protestants have a firm grasp of Christian doctrines and scripture and need to come to understand and accept Catholic interpretations in relative few areas. Works and faith, the Sacraments, the Communion of Saints are the major areas.
- Status