Posted on 10/10/2011 7:50:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The news is abuzz with the question of Mormonism, cults, and Christianity.
A cult is often understood as a religious group with strange beliefs out of the cultural mainstream (which many today increasingly consider biblical Christianity). Since "cult" is difficult to define, scholars tend not to use it.
However, the question of what beliefs characterize Christianity is not a new debate, and is one we should not shy away from if words and definitions matter.
Many people are shocked at the idea that some pastors believe Mormons are not Christians-- "judgementalism" is decried and "intolerance" proclaimed. Yet, as that may be new news to some, the view that Mormons are not Christians is historic and very widely held view.
In 2007, LDS spokesman Michael Otterson provided a forthright article in the On Faith section of the Washington Post / Newsweek. He explains,
The question, "Are Mormons Christian?" is a good starting point for this discussion. When some conservative Protestants say Mormons aren't Christian, it is deeply offensive to Latter-day Saints. Yet when Latter-day Saints assert their Christianity, some of those same Christians bitterly resent it. Why? Because both sides are using the same terms to describe different things...
When someone says Mormons aren't Christian... he or she usually means that Mormons don't embrace the traditional interpretation of the Bible that includes the Trinity. "Our Jesus" is somehow different from "their Jesus." Further, they mean that some Mormon teachings are so far outside Christian orthodoxy of past centuries that they constitute almost a new religion.
Otterson is correct here. For evangelicals and others, "Christian" is more than a self-identified label. It is hard for people in tolerant America to hear, "I know you SAY you are a Christian, but you are not." Yet, basic to evangelicalism (and historic Protestantism) is that some people are Christians, some people are not, and not all people who think that they are Christians actually are.
"Christianity" is not based on what you say about yourself or your beliefs. "Christianity" must be connected to how your beliefs agree with the beliefs of biblical Christianity.
With Mormonism becoming a major topic of discussion, about a year ago LifeWay Research decided to ask Protestant pastors their view. According to our random sample, most pastors feel strongly Mormons are not Christians. After several reporters asked if we had some data, I decided to release it. You can download the full report here: Protestant Pastor Views of Mormonism.
The survey polled 1,000 American Protestant pastors asking them to respond to the statement, "I personally consider Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) to be Christians." It's a forthright question some will find offensive, but it will be an increasingly important question.
Three-quarters of Protestant pastors (75%) disagree with the statement, "I personally consider Mormons... to be Christians," including 60 percent who strongly disagree and 15 percent who somewhat disagree. Just 11 percent somewhat agree, 6 percent strongly agree and 9 percent do not know.
In other words, the view that "Mormons are not Christians" is the widely and strongly held view among Protestant pastors. That does not meant they do not respect Mormons as persons, share their values on family, and have much in common. Yet, they simply view Mormonism as a distinct religion outside of basic teachings of Christianity. Many of these pastors may know Mormons consider themselves Christians, but Protestant pastors overwhelmingly do not consider them such.
I know this is an unpleasant question to many, and one that some will use as a hammer on evangelicals, but let me encourage a different view.
The fundamental issue is: how divergent can your views be and still be a part of a faith group (in contrast to forming a new one). Can you believe, for instance, that Muhammad is not the prophet and still call yourself a Muslim? The vast majority of Muslims would say you cannot. For Christians, calling yourself a Christian while not believing that God has always existed as the triune Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is as inconceivable.
This is not simply a conservative evangelical Christian view. Methodists have said "the LDS Church is not a part of the historic, apostolic tradition of the Christian faith." Even Roman Catholics (hardly conservative Protestants) don't recognize LDS baptism.
As I said before, a cult is difficult to define. But Christianity has been defined a certain way for centuries. There is no reason to be shocked that devout Christians consider those with a different view of Christ as non-Christians. In the current cultural climate it may be uncomfortable, but it is anything but shocking.
John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commands; 16 and I will ask the Father, and he will give you another comforting Counselor like me, the Spirit of Truth, to be with you forever.
21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me, and the one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.”
24 Someone who doesn't love me doesn't keep my words — and the word you are hearing is not my own but that of the Father who sent me. [CJB]
John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—
21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”
24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me. [NKJV]
The will of the Father is as plain as the nose on my face. Yah’shua’s words were not his but that of the Father who sent him.
“Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Matthew 27:45-46 "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Whom was he addressing earlier when he asked: Mathew 26:
39And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
42He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
John 14:6 Yeshua said, "I AM the Way -- and the Truth and the Life" [CJB]
But what the hay, every pagan religion has a christos so why not just take name YHVH & that of His Son & make them as common as all the other pagan gods & their christos. Isn't that what caused the death of the 3000 at Mt Sinai? They took the name & YHVH & made it common by worshiping a golden calf in His name. Have you never wondered why exactly 3000 were saved on Shavuot/Pentecost?
It is plainly obvious why the RC who controlled the translations chose to mistranslate by using a common title rather than setting themselves apart as the followers of "The Way".
"Do not take YHVH's name in vain" has nothing to do with swearing per say, it has everything to do with taking His name and making it common, thus making His Divinity as the "ONE" Almighty "Elohim" of the universe void, to mean nothing.
Jesus is God and referred to the Father, the second person in the Trinity, in the verses you quoted. Jesus also claimed to be one with the Father and claimed the title “I AM”, which references God’s title in Exodus.
Yah'shua was only quoting His Father:
[CJB]Deuteronomy 6: 1 “Now this is the mitzvah, the laws and rulings which ADONAI your God ordered me to teach you ...4 “Sh’ma, Yisra’el! ADONAI Eloheinu, ADONAI echad [Hear, Isra’el! ADONAI our God, ADONAI is one]; 5 and you are to love ADONAI your God with all your heart, all your being and all your resources...25 It will be righteousness for us if we are careful to obey all these mitzvot before ADONAI our God, just as he ordered us to do.'"
[NKJV]Deuteronomy 6
The Greatest Commandment
1: “Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the YHVH(LORD) your God has commanded to teach you...4 “Hear, O Israel: YHVH our God, the YHVH is one! 5 You shall love YHVH your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength...25 Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before YHVH our God, as He has commanded us.’
Again, yah'shua quoting the Word of the only Scripture that existed at that time. He was quoting absolutely nothing new because there was absolutely nothing new under the sun was created while He walked the Earth.
This does not necessarily mean it is false. Doctrines achieved by means of a consensus are often true at least in part. The better the quality of the people who make up the consensus, the greater the probability of it achieving the truth.
Thus, you have the great men who brought forth the U.S. Constitution and, while certainly not perfect, it has largely proved to be right.
OTOH, you have the global warming consensus which is mostly made of political hacks and evil men and it has largely proved to be wrong.
The jury is still out on the Nicene Creed. I think it is wrong to criticize the people who drew it up because they were doing the best they could and the price to bring Christianity into the open where it could be practiced freely in the Roman Empire was to accede to the wishes of the Head of State.
Jan Hus, by refusing to do so, became the first anabaptist martyr as a result. This is why the original anabaptists are very strong on using individual conscience and the power of the Holy Spirit as a guide and vehemently opposed to the establishment of a state church.
Some take it a step further and oppose organized religion altogether. They cannot even see the irony in organizing a religion to oppose organized religion. So, while I am sympathetic to the anabaptist movement, I don't take it this far.
There are a number of great biographies available on Jan Hus which cover this in depth. I read one back in the 1970's. If you are genuinely interested, I could try to find the title and the author. Long story short is that Jan Hus and most of the people executed in the 2-4 centuries following were not executed over some doctrinal difference, they were executed for challenging the established orthodoxy of the time with, sometimes, the doctrinal differences being used as an excuse.
RE: The Nicene Creed is very much connected to the state church thing and is a natural outgrowth of the establishment of such an entity from the time of Emperor Constantine.
Yes because you must remember, it was part of the ROMAN EMPIRE. They did not have the separation of church and state like we have today.
However, when it came to THEOLOGICAL ISSUES, Emperor Constantine held a HANDS-OFF approach. The Bishops deliberated among themselves, came up with what they believe and understand and in fact KNOW (because there has been a strong tradition of such belief ) was the SCRIPTURAL and APOSTOLIC understanding of the nature of Christ.
Of course, one can always COMPARE the Nicene Creed with what scripture teaches and one will see CONSISTENCY in what was taught.
So, to day that it came as a result of Constantine’s personal influence does not conform to history.
Mormons are free to tell the others ( the so called “club” ) that they are wrong. But please do not expect the rest of the “club” ( your words not mine ) to accept them into the fold.
Mormons can define their own understanding of Christianity anytime they like, it’s a free country.
I do not express an opinion on whether or not it is correct. I just point out the historical relationship and the fact that it is probably not a proper litmus test to use for whether any given sect is or is not Christian.
Yes, Emperor Constantine stated that he would hold a HANDS-OFF approach when it came to THEOLOGICAL ISSUES. And, yes, we have no way of knowing what, if any, influence might have been imposed by the government on the wording of the creed.
To take a modern example, the gay mafia, for the most part, all claims that they will honor the concept of freedom of religion and that their agenda will not threaten what we believe on THEOLOGICAL ISSUES. But let any church preach against their lifestyle and suddenly it becomes a HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE. The pink mafia will be there to demand the church loses its tax exempt status or, even worse, is punished for hate speech. It is already happening in Europe.
It would be naive to think that the state controlled church of Constantine's Day would draw such a clear line between THEOLOGICAL ISSUES and POLITICAL ISSUES then just as it would be now.
That is why anyone, such as myself, who has anabaptist leanings in the mold of Jan Hus or Roger Williams instinctively reacts with repulsion when anyone tries to set themselves up as the ultimate authority on who does or who does not belong to the Christian club.
Jesus Christ alone will make that determination when he comes to earth again.
God, the Father. John chapter 17 also relates the unique relationship the Son has with the Father.
Isaiah makes it very clear: there is only one God. ("Before was no God (singular) formed; neither shalt there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and besides me there is no Saviour." Isaiah 43:10b,11) The Godhead consists of three persons -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. These three are one God, not three Gods.
IF Jesus is God then whom was he addressing in the following: (verses Matthew 27:45-46, Matthew 26:39, 42”)
Clearly, it was a plea to Adonai, the one true God of the Jews. Jews did not believe that God would come to Earth as a man and Jesus, as a Jew, would have considered such a belief as blasphemy. He also understood that Jewish Messianiac prophecy could not be fulfilled without, at a minimum, “Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel” (Isaiah 43:5-6), among other things, and the realization that he had failed must have been overwhelming. It’s pretty easy to understand giving the context of the times.
you don’t know what you are talking about. the council of nicea was held in 325 and Christianity became the state religion in 380.
this post is utter nonsense. there was no state controlled Church in 325. anyone who has read history knows the pagans, arians and Catholics all practiced their faiths openly and without control from the “state”
all the bishops of the Church risked death being a Christian prior to Constantine’s change of mind, you think they were going to betray the Lord to curry favor with Constantine??
learn your history before opining on things you know nothing about. dan brown doesn’t count.
RE: all the bishops of the Church risked death being a Christian prior to Constantine’s change of mind, you think they were going to betray the Lord to curry favor with Constantine??
Hey, I happen to agree with you. Don’t shoot me :)
not shooting, i congratulate you for the yeomen work you have done on this thread. every time i was going to post a reponse to someone, you beat me to the punch!!
this nicea crap history bothers me though.
He did not convert to Christianity until shortly before his death in 337 a.d. Christianity did not become the state religion until more than 40 years after that.
However, it was quite clear to Christians in the Roman Empire at the time that the open season on them had ended. Constantine's Edict of Milan legalized Christian worship in 313 a.d.
There is no evidence that Constantine ever actively persecuted Christians. In fact, there is evidence to suggest he was taught the faith by his mother. There is nothing to suggest he had either a "Paul on the road to Damascus" style conversion or a change in mind. It either took place over time or, being the smart ruler that he was, he gradually led his subjects from persecution to tolerance to eventual embrace.
Whether he pressured the Council of Nicaea to come up with the specifics of the Nicene Creed is not the issue. FWIW, I personally do not think he did.
However, the culture at the time is that state and church were to be unified. If the Christian church was to eventually become the state religion, a common statement of faith was a necessary step in that direction. If Constantine did not help formulate said statement, he certainly encouraged said formulation by calling the Council.
While I'm unable to argue if the creed was true, false, or (most likely) generally correct, the point is that it was put together by most (but not all) Christian religious leaders at the time with the strong encouragement of the ruling political entity to come up with a unified statement in a limited amount of time.
Under such conditions, it would hardly be surprising that minority opinion would have to be set aside without regard to whether or not it was actually true.
Imagine, if you will, the government calling all Christian sects together today to discuss the propriety of gay clergy and gay marriage and come up with a unified statement in a finite amount of time. Some sects (mostly conservative) would refuse to attend such a gathering, knowing the deck was stacked against them. Those remaining would be dominated by liberal mainline sects such as the ELCA who would eventually sell the others on their view. They could then declare any who did not accept this consensus view as heretics or cults.
In a few years, you won't even need to imagine this scenario, because many of us can see that is exactly the direction many of the liberal sects are hell-bent on taking.
What makes you so confident that the same type of thing could not have happened in Nicaea some 17 centuries ago? This is exactly why the early Anabaptist movement, while not expressly rejecting the Nicene Creed, also refused to accept it as a litmus test for Christianity.
Many offshoots of the movement did, of course, eventually embrace the creed, some through actual belief, but some simply as a price to pay to end persecution and gain acceptance to the bigger club.
• Here are the characteristics of a cult:
• Small? The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) has 14 million members in 132 countries. In America, there are more Mormons than there are Presbyterians or Jews.
• Excessive devotion? Mormons are devoted to the Savior, but in appropriate measure He would approve of.
• Unethical techniques? Ask the pie-throwers to name one.
• Control by isolation? Even if Mormons wanted to, this would be impossible with 14 million members in 28,000 congregations throughout the world.
• Control by threats? Again, evidence? Mormon missionaries may be exuberant, but do not threaten.
• Dependency on the group? The Mormon Church is just the opposite. Mormons want members to be self-reliant and independent so they in turn can help others.
• Powerful group pressure? Only if that’s the way the critics prefer to define love.
• Strange? Guilty as charged. Mormons plead guilty to all the strange things that were done by Christians in New Testament times that were lost during the great falling away in the aptly named Dark Ages, among them temple worship, vicarious baptism for the dead, definition of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as separate but united in purpose, salvation requiring both grace and obedience to commandments, prophets and apostles, unpaid clergy, and continual revelation to guide His Church.
The Trinity: Jesus Christ’s church must teach that God and Jesus are separate and distinct individuals (John 17:11; 20:17), and that they have bodies of flesh and bone (Luke 23:36-39; Acts 1:9-11; Heb 1:1-3)
A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration? The Nicene Creed’s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: “There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one.” Scribes later added “the Father, the Word and the Spirit,” and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. . Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. For example, it was an emperor (Constantine) . who introduced a term, homousious, which defined the Son as “consubstantial” (one being) with the Father. Neither term or anything like it is in the New Testament. Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.” Furthermore, 11 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were non-Trinitarian Christians http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/richard_price.php Thomas Jefferson rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, calling it “mere Abracadabra” and “hocus-pocus phantasm.” The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts and the Founders.
Theosis Jesus Christ’s church must represent man’s potential correctly 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, Psalm 82, John 10:34 “If we are children (of God),” wrote the apostle Paul to the Romans (8:17, New International Version), “then we are heirs — heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ.” “To him that overcometh,” says the Savior to John the Revelator (3:21, KJV), “will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear.”
Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Eastern Orthodox) wrote, regarding theosis, “The Son of God became man, that we might become God.” Irenaeus wrote in the late 2nd Century: “we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods” Justin Martyr in mid 2nd Century said: “all men are deemed worthy of becoming ‘gods,’ and of having power to become sons of the Highest”
St. Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible, (d. A.D. 419), wrote that “God made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice, and are become perfect, are gods and sons of the Most Hig” Clement of Alexandria said worthy men “are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior.” Origen in reference to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 said “Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God . . As, then there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.” The Gospel of Thomas (which pre-dates the 4 Gospels, but was considered non-canonical by the Nicene Council) quotes the Savior: “He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him,” (Gospel of Thomas 50, 28-30, Nag Hammadi Library in English, J.M.Robinson, 1st ed 1977; 3rd ed. 1988) For further information on this subject, refer to http://NewTestamentTempleRitual.blogspot.com The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) agrees with Early Christian church leaders regarding theosis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.