"Yep, I had the right idea with exterminatin' them, didn't I? Just ol' 'Burn, bein' ahead of the curve once again..."
Posted on 07/05/2007 3:00:33 AM PDT by Gamecock
The defining aspects of a true Christian would need to include the following, as a minimum: (although this is not a comprehensive list)
1. Must be called by God and believe in one holy sovereign God, comprised of three persons: Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spririt.
2. Must be re-born through God’s Spirit - transformed into a new creation in Christ Jesus and given a new nature from the one true living God.
3. Must confess they were born in sin, totally depraved and that their sin can be satisfied only by the blood of Jesus Christ alone who is wholly man yet wholly God.
4. Must repent of their sins and bear fruit which God has called all His disciples to exhibit.
5. Must look to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and through the guidance of God’s Holy Spririt, the sole source for all teaching and discernment of the will of God.
I could probably go on, but these are certainly foundational. It should be noted that there are some religions that may adhere to these but often add to the gospel beyond what is prescribed in the Bible - this violation can be just as bad (or worse) than missing some of the primary tenets of faith.
Mormons who achieve the highest level of salvation will get their wives and the ability to make spirit babies as they act in a god form populating other planets. You may not like how I say it but thats the truth. If you wish to deny that there are two possibilities one you are lying, two you are not a very good Mormon.
You cannot reasonably call something a heresy unless you have some definition of orthodoxy.
But you don not need a *complete* definition. The minute you say God is alone as the God of the Entire Universe, he is as a tri-person God head eternal going forward and backwards in time you exclude mormons because they *dont* believe that. No matter how much they might agree with other points of the definition they are heretics.
How do you define Christian?
Start with the nature of God, eternal existing before time as the Father Son and Holy Ghost, perfect in nature and power and there will never be any God anywhere else. Already Mormons fail.
Yep, garbage master noted.
I am going to take a guess based on the anti-Catholicism expressed there that you belong to a denomination that is either Evangelical or at the very least, clearly low church.
If you knew anything about the Catholic Church, you would know that we don’t deify Mary.
With this in mind, please comment on the practice of mormons of baptizing the dead. The claim is that the dead may then "accept or reject" the baptism and related ordinances performed in LDS temples.
Perhaps this is the mormon version of the unified Christian church? I don't remember it being described that way, but I left the church many years ago before they decided that instead of being a "peculiar people" not like other churches, they now want to be known as Christian.
How about AFTER they are dead?
What is a "low church?" I was raised Baptist...
"... know that we don’t deify Mary."
... and I know you don't.
High Church applies to denominations such as Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Lutheranism, the Orthodox church, etc.
Low Church denominations would include most Baptist incarnations, Pentecostalism, the snake handlers, etc. By the definition of what an evangelical church truly is, and how evangelicals worship, as opposed to how say, the Catholic worships, is what marks the Evangelical as belonging to a low church religion and the Episcopalian as belonging to a high church religion.
It’s more of a word used in the South, because in general, there is a correlation between religious preference and social status. Outside of actual preachers, in general, members of low church denominations tend to be lower on the social heirarchy than members of high church denominations. Of the two major Protestant faiths in the South, numerically speaking, the Baptists have the numbers, but, in general, Methodists tend to have more money and more affluence, and, it is also true that Baptists who are in the Southern upper class tend to often reject certain elements of Baptist social teaching (such as those regarding alcohol)
It also has a meaning theologically speaking, but I’m not a theologian so I can’t go into that.
..but often add to the gospel beyond what is prescribed in the Bible - this violation can be just as bad (or worse) than missing some of the primary tenets of faith.
Have you ever searched the "text" of the Bible for some of the words you have used. If the Bible is going to be the "standard" then 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.
"Yep, I had the right idea with exterminatin' them, didn't I? Just ol' 'Burn, bein' ahead of the curve once again..."
I see.
"Low Church," okay.
That's begging the question.
Which version of each creed is definitive?
With the exception of the Filioque, I'm not aware of any significant differences in versions or translations.
The Nicene Creed dates from the fourth century; the Athanasian Creed is even later. What about those who lived before these creeds were formulated? Would they be considered Christians in your view?
Interesting question, but a red herring in the present discussion.
I am told that the Eastern Orthodox do not formally recognize either the Apostles' Creed or the Athanasian Creed. (Someone please correct me if I am wrong.) Are they Christians?
Related to the issue of the Filioque, IMO. The Nicene Creed is the official creed of the EO, but I’m not aware that the EO would deny anything in either of those other creeds (with the exception of the Filioque).
“Mormonism is:
A re-wrap of Hinduism and is a presursor to Scientology and Raelianism. “
Wow, I forgot all about Raelianism, they are also “sorta” polygamous.
“About one half of all LDS members become inactive or leave the Church entirely. All those people who leave, left for a reason....they aren’t all liars.”
It’s the Jack Mormons who go atheist that I worry about, like my boss.
“Low Church” is a neutral term that describes a type of worship that does not follow a prescribed order of service, that does not follow certain liturgical patterns, and does not make use of developed ritual or ceremony. On the other hand, you have the term, “High Church”, which describes a type of worship emphasizing the liturgical, ceremonial, and traditional elements in worship. The two terms are descriptions of differing attitudes towards worship.
The terms actually came about in the Anglican church in the 16th & 17th centuries, but have come to refer, in a more general way, to how any church worships.
By the way, I’m always amused when I see “snake handlers” lumped in with Baptists and other Protestants, when there might at the very most be about 2000 people who indulge in this practice. It’s hardly a significant or accepted movement.
Now, I’m reading this post, and wondering how on earth we got to a discussion about high church/low church on a thread about Mormonism? You never know where these threads will wander!
And you presume that you know the stories of all of those who have left the Church, and that you speak for them?!
Most of the people that I know who have gone inactive or left the Church don't go around spreading lies like you do. Most have the good sense to leave the Church alone after they've left the Church. Either the Church just wasn't for them, or they just weren't cut out for the Church. No harm. No foul.
I’m accustomed to defending the Catholic Church against attacks from my fellow Protestants, but it’s rare when I have to reverse the situation.
See #16.
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.