The things you say off the top of your beanie
Posted on 07/05/2007 3:00:33 AM PDT by Gamecock
Before you say another word you really need to talk to the LDS Missionairy!
I have. They both went away newborn Catholics.
Here, have a towel.
(/Tiber Towel Boy)
Rameumptom:”many of the words you are using (that were added later by Greek Philosophers) should be disqualified.
totally depraved
wholly man yet wholly God.
inerrant
Jesus never used these words. The Apostles never did.”
Of course Jesus never used the word “God” either since he didn’t speak english, but of course we can interpret his actual words to our own language.
Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-
Eph 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
(i.e. totally depraved)
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
(i.e. wholly man yet wholly God)
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God
(i.e. inerrant)
Hardly to be found anywhere in the Holy Bible. It is in fact blasphemy.
Actually, we don’t worship Mary. The fact that Mary remained forever Virgin, and without sin, is based on the fact that she was born without original sin. Our capacity to sin is based in the fact that we are all born with original sin. If Mary had been born with original sin, she would have been unpure, therefore, unfit to carry Jesus. So, she was sinless when she concieved and bore Christ. Now, it is just illogical to believe that, as reward for doing his will, that God would have cursed Mary with original sin once she had given birth to Jesus. Therefore, the only safe thing to assume is that she never did get original sin, and therefore, was incapable of sinning.
So if the Mormons believe God was like a man before he was God and that we will evolve into Gods then they are not Christians.
That sounds like a creed to me.
Everyone is creedal whether they admit it or not. The only difference appears to be the source of your creed.
..friends, neighbors, countrymen, yes--but otherwise no...
Where I’m from, it is. If the census bureau actually counted religion, you would be able to see this pattern play out.
And as I laid out what I had originally put up here (and decided to make a private one instead), Catholics did have an influence in the antebellum South, far out of proportion with their numbers. The region was not a incubator of anti-Catholicism the way the North was, and many of our generals in the war were of Catholic extraction. Beauregard, Semmes, Cleburne, Bragg, etc. The Deep South was populated primarily by people from the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland, and by in large, the people who came from Maryland were merchants who came to the cities to make a buck as cotton factors. So, by default, they brought their Maryland Catholicism, which was essentially an establishment religion, with them.
But you have just illustrated the difference between high and low church religions. High Church denominations tend to have more formalized ritual, more heirarchy, etc. And they tend to call their clergy priests. Low Church religions draw more from Puritanism and Calivinism, and they tend to call their leaders pastor, and there is not as much of an emphasis on theologically training among many Low Church believers as their is among high church believers.
It’s actually a good generic term to describe differences in Christian practices, but, in the South, religion has always had a component of class mixed in.
That is your limited understanding and it is not acurate LDS doctrine!
Jesus was always part of the Godhead aka Jehovah in the OT before he was born on earth!
1 Tim. 3
16 And without controversy
great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.
No one is excluding anyone. The question is a red herring because it makes no sense. The creeds as we have them today did not exist at that time. It is like the old Saturday Night Live sketch, "What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?"
However, since the creeds are built on the testimony of the apostles (the Bible) and the early church we have confidence that they are correct in all they teach.
What about those Protestants who claim to be "non-creedal"? Are they Christians according to your definition?
Any "protestant" who could not affirm the statements in the ancient creeds cited should have their Christianity questioned. There is much bad teaching among the "no creed but Christ" crowd, including poor constructs on the Trinity that lead to a form of modalism. The very purpose of the creeds is to sort out the bad theology among the faithful. And to help keep cults and heresies (wolves) away from the flock.
Why didn’t I get that version you are talking about?
It might also interest the Christian world, that our Jewish friend have thought in their literature that Christian are gentiles or goyim.
So what is your point?
Saying something is "built on" the testimony of the Apostles is not the same as saying that it is what the Apostles themselves taught. It seems to me that the creeds add extra-Biblical concepts to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
But I do not want to argue the point with you. I asked for the definition of Christian. Clearly, you think that the ecumenical creeds are important in part of any such definition.
Any "protestant" who could not affirm the statements in the ancient creeds cited should have their Christianity questioned. There is much bad teaching among the "no creed but Christ" crowd, including poor constructs on the Trinity that lead to a form of modalism. The very purpose of the creeds is to sort out the bad theology among the faithful. And to help keep cults and heresies (wolves) away from the flock.
I gather that you do not approve of the "non-creedal" churches. But are they Christians? If not, what would you call them?
Phrased in this way, I believe the question is unanswerable, although several posters have made the attempt. I do not presume to know whether any specific individual, or set of individuals, is saved.
A more tractable, and important, question (which other posters have tried to answer), is this: Is Mormanism a Christian denomination, or is it a separate religion?
And there's another fib from Enosh.
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.