Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Mormons Christian?
Stand Up for the Truth.com ^ | April 17, 2012 | Faith

Posted on 04/17/2012 9:55:18 AM PDT by Colofornian

NO.

I’d end this article here, because that is your answer, should anyone ever ask you. And with the presidential election on the horizon, it is more than likely that Mormonism and Christianity might come up in conversation.

Already the high-profile Christian leaders are being asked about it. Saddleback Church’s Rick Warren sort of answered it by saying that Mormons don’t believe in a trinity as we do, calling it a “sticking point.” And Christian apologist Ed Stetzer completely muffed it recently by asking the question and then dancing completely around it without giving the answer we all so desperately need to hear.

The Truth.

The Truth has become increasingly muddy for Christendom because many evangelicals and almost ALL Mormons believe that Mormons must be Christian, because they say they believe in and love Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

But the real truth is that Mormonism preaches a different “jesus;” a different “gospel” and a different “truth.” So the answer we need to hear is that Mormonism and biblical Christianity cannot be squared; they are completely different faiths.

If that sounds mean-spirited, it is not. It is a neutral, biblically-based, factual statement. But mean-spirited is most assuredly how this Truth will be portrayed in the months ahead in the national conversation.

This Truth will divide. and if you believe it, then you will be accused of judging other people’s hearts. You will be in excellent company. Look at the approach the Apostle Paul took when he wrote to the early Church in Galations 1:6-9

Only One Gospel

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

When you put a face on Mormonism or any other faith, whether it’s a presidential candidate, a news talk show pundit or that nice, intelligent, funny, lovely person you work with or live near, it is hard to think of these people as accursed. Yet isn’t that what we all are, young and old, apart from the genuine, biblical Jesus?


TOPICS: Apologetics; Other non-Christian; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS: christian; lds; mittromney; mormon; mormonbashing; wehatemormons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 last
To: crosshairs
"We have no further mention of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles."

I think you ought to review that statement. Peter is mentioned 60 times in Acts of the Apostles : Acts 1:13, Acts 1:15, Acts 2:37, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:1, Acts 3:3, Acts 3:4, Acts 3:6, Acts 3:11, Acts 3:12, Acts 4:1, Acts 4:8, Acts 4:13, Acts 4:19, Acts 5:3, Acts 5:8, Acts 5:9, Acts 5:15, Acts 5:29, Acts 8:14, Acts 8:20, Acts 9:32, Acts 9:34, Acts 9:38, Acts 9:39, Acts 9:40, Acts 9:43, Acts 10:5, Acts 10:9, Acts 10:13, Acts 10:14, Acts 10:17, Acts 10:18, Acts 10:19, Acts 10:21, Acts 10:23, Acts 10:25, Acts 10:26, Acts 10:32, Acts 10:43, Acts 10:44, Acts 10:45, Acts 10:46, Acts 11:1, Acts 11:2, Acts 11:4, Acts 11:7, Acts 11:7, Acts 11:13, Acts 12:1, Acts 12:3, Acts 12:5, Acts 12:6, Acts 12:7, Acts 12:11, Acts 12:14, Acts 12:16, Acts 12:18, and Acts 15:7.

You are equally wrong on your assessment of the exclusivity of the ministries of the Apostles and St. Paul and to the historicity of Peter and the Catholic Church.

61 posted on 04/18/2012 8:42:39 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Campion, I’m no longer responding to this topic of Catholicism. It’s a “Mormonism” thread after all :)

Plus I believe in Sola Scriptura so we’ll likely never agree.


62 posted on 04/18/2012 9:52:53 AM PDT by libdestroyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Campion

You believe the divinely-inspired Word of God to be unBiblical eh?

Yep. We definitely have nothing further to discuss.


63 posted on 04/18/2012 9:55:10 AM PDT by libdestroyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Ask a Catholic if they are going to heaven and they’ll say...”hopefully”. They have no assurance of their own salvation.

If you admit salvation is a free gift from God then you must believe that God does not change his mind. Salvation is never taken away right?

Salvation is a one-time deal. Christ’s blood covers us from now to eternity. Catholics teach that you can lose your salvation.

To address your other posts, you believe that the Catholic catechism provides the “exegy” needed to fully understand the intents and purposes of scripture. In a way you are correct that historical and cultural perspective is vital to interpretation. However, Catholic tradition should NEVER trump the Bible. The Bible is God’s authority.

Maybe you can explain to me why the early Catholic church teaches that Mary was without sin? It’s nowhere in the Bible but HEY, the Catholic church says so! What else can they get away with telling you? Who holds these men accountable?


64 posted on 04/18/2012 10:06:01 AM PDT by libdestroyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Campion

From the Catholic Catechism:

“1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation”

works works works


65 posted on 04/18/2012 10:14:10 AM PDT by libdestroyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: libdestroyer
"Ok, the Catholic Church is confused here."

I don't think so and permit me to explain why.

Because He is the Word (Logos) made flesh every word of Scripture is as important and precious as every crumb of the Eucharist. We therefore can't ignore context and details that we assume to be irrelevant. Jesus took Peter and along with the other Apostles and Disciples up to Caesarea Philippi to reveal his papacy to him. The selection of the location is far from a coincidence. Caesarea Philippi is a 25 mile, two day hike from Capernaum thorough some pretty rough country.

At the site of the revelation was a massive exposed rock cliff. Atop the rock stood the city of Caesarea Philippi. It was a very important location militarily, and had been a place of temples and worship dating back millenia. At the base of the cliff was a massive grotto that at the time was a natural cistern that the Greeks and their predecessors believed was an a gate to the underworld. Physically, that rock stood between an city and the gates of hell.

Jesus then told Peter that he was a smaller rock, and that upon it, like the larger rock upon which was built the city before them, He would build His Church and that it would stand for ever against the gates of hell. A side note is that all of this arguing about the relevance of Petros versus Petra is foolish in the context of that location. Jesus often used wordplay and humor to convey His message.

66 posted on 04/18/2012 10:25:34 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson