Christians:LDS Members are Christian!

[nutshell]

Well, I think that makes you LDS or whatever you want to call yourself, but you aren't a Christian in the classical sense of the term. Fact of the matter is, we came first, there's more of us, and we had God defined long before Joseph Smith and his followers came along and fundamentally redefined Christ, God, baptism, and everything else.

Actually, Joseph Smith's definition came from God and Christ themselves...not from some council. And God's definition has been around since the beginning of time...but had been corrupted as prophesied in the scriptures.

 

[nutshell]

Hey, I'm not calling your stuff hogwash. I expect the same courtesy.

No, you're calling me un-Christian, which is perhaps more offensive.

 

[SoyLeche]

Do you understand what logic is? Did you even look up what the creeds are?

You won't be able to find Peter or Paul violating any of these creeds.

Yes, I understand logic, and by your logic - Peter and Paul were not Christians.

By my logic and definition, a Christian is one who confesses the Apostolic, Nichene, and Athanasian creed.

The earliest written version of the creed is perhaps the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 215).

The original Nicene Creed was first adopted in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea

The Athanasian Creed (Quicunque vult) is a statement of Christian doctrine traditionally ascribed to St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, who lived in the 4th century.

None of these were around when Peter and Paul lived. Therefore, it is an impossibility that they "confessed" any of them. Peter and Paul could not have been Christians.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, I understand logic, and by your logic - Peter and Paul were not Christians.


The earliest written version of the creed is perhaps the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 215).

The original Nicene Creed was first adopted in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea

The Athanasian Creed (Quicunque vult) is a statement of Christian doctrine traditionally ascribed to St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, who lived in the 4th century.

None of these were around when Peter and Paul lived. Therefore, it is an impossibility that they "confessed" any of them. Peter and Paul could not have been Christians.

And what about the Apostolic Creed?

You still have not met the challenge of producing Pauline or Petrine material that is contrary to any of the creeds that I have cited.

Paul and Peter were Christian because their writings support the Christian creeds and not LDS doctrine, unless of course we incorporate a definition of God not from the 4th century but from the 20th century, and impose this foreign doctrine onto a first-century text.

 

[No*s]

I was in a book store yesterday, in the religious section, and I saw a book titled, The Answer Book. So I picked it up and started flipping through the pages and came across the question, "Are Mormons Christians?". I thought that was kind of a dumb question because everyone knows we are. The book gave an astounding "no". I was so confused. Look at the name of our church, The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints. Isn't it kind of obvious? The definition of Christian is:
adj.

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n.

1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

I don't see where any of our beliefs are contrary to this definition. For the last time members of the LDS Church are very much Christian. Please tell me everyone agrees.

The term is rather slippery. In the definition quoted above, then yes, your group is. It does in its own mind follow the definitions Christ laid down. Its members are sincere, and often humble.

If we make the definition more strident, then no, it isn't. In its most strident definition, it would be classical Christianity and whatever group could actually call itself the Early Church. Only three groups can make that claim: the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, and the claim is an exclusionary one (we cannot all three be the Church).

This is the Christianity the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, Apostle's Creed, and Athanasian Creed AE referred to defend against, and only members of the above churches can honestly confess the clause "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic church." This view is firmly present in the year 107, and the earliest opinions on the matter were pretty clear ("The Holy Catholic Church does not accept..." from a council on baptism, and "Let nothing be done concerning the Catholic Church without the bishop...where the bishop is, there let the congregation be." from a disciple of the Apostle John).

Another, more murky definition is to say someone is Christian who accepts some of the historical Christian doctrines (never all, nor even the ones that the Early Church considered important). This can range from just God, the historical view being Trinitarian, to God, the Bible, and any number of things. It often even includes quite new things (as is the case of the Fundies, the most "conservative" liberals I've ever seen :biglaugh. AE is using the creeds to back up this view, which cannot be done for the ones with a Catholic Church clause: almost all Christian groups are excluded by that.

The definition, then, can be very fluid. In the strictest sense, then there is no way. LDS is not historical Christianity and cannot be supported as such. In the most fluid way, then yes, but so can Spong, Jehovah's Witnesses, and several other individuals/sects/groups. In the last way, a sort of middle way, it depends on what criteria we choose to say "yea" or "nay" with.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, you're calling me un-Christian, which is perhaps more offensive.

Then I will not continue this discussion with you.

 

[Aqualung]

Paul and Peter were christian because their writing supporst christian creeds (written after they died)? Shouldn't you believe that the creeds are christian becuase they are supported by Paul and Peter?

 

[SoyLeche]

And what about the Apostolic Creed?

You still have not met the challenge of producing Pauline or Petrine material that is contrary to any of the creeds that I have cited.

Paul and Peter were Christian because their writings support the Christian creeds and not LDS doctrine, unless of course we incorporate a definition of God not from the 4th century but from the 20th century, and impose this foreign doctrine onto a first-century text.

You didn't say that a Christian is someone who doesn't say anything against the creeds. You said that a Christian is someone who "confesses" the creeds. I think the burden of proof falls on you to show where they "confessed" the creeds.

The first refference was to the apostolic creed.

 

[No*s]

It might be noted that neither Eastern Orthodox nor Oriental Orthodox Christians are able to confess the "Athanasian" Creed, and that a substantial number of Protestants are only able to confess the Nicene creed by giving a nonsensical interpretation to the clause about baptism.

Actually, we can. You will find no portion of them we cannot. We are the Early Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our historical continuity is solid, with the only dispute being over the schisms.

 

[nutshell]

You didn't say that a Christian is someone who doesn't say anything against the creeds. You said that a Christian is someone who "confesses" the creeds. I think the burden of proof falls on you to show where they "confessed" the creeds.

The first refference was to the apostolic creed.

That's right. They didn't confess the creeds, they taught the gospel of Jesus Christ, held his authority, and so on. I guess by AE's definitions and logic they should be labeled LDS or Mormon.

I also like how AE picks and chooses from the creeds. He/She never answered my questions about whether or not he/she was Catholic (something which must be confessed according to the creeds).

How can Evangelicals support creeds that require you to confess you are Catholic???

 

[No*s]

Yes, I understand logic, and by your logic - Peter and Paul were not Christians.


The earliest written version of the creed is perhaps the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 215).

The original Nicene Creed was first adopted in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea

The Athanasian Creed (Quicunque vult) is a statement of Christian doctrine traditionally ascribed to St. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, who lived in the 4th century.

None of these were around when Peter and Paul lived. Therefore, it is an impossibility that they "confessed" any of them. Peter and Paul could not have been Christians.

Do you accept the New Testament? If you do, can you give me a date for a complete and finalized NT that predates those councils, and even more so, whose authority is not dependant on them? The first definition of the NT in its modern form was in St. Athanasius' Festal Letters in the year 367. The first group statement on the matter was ~396, and even then there is disagreement still. The Copts, which schismed away in the fifth century maintain a different NT.

So, if these councils are unauthoritative on account of date, then so is the NT canon.

 

[nutshell]

Then I will not continue this discussion with you.

You're choice. Not mine.

 

[nutshell]

Paul and Peter were Christian because their writings support the Christian creeds and not LDS doctrine, unless of course we incorporate a definition of God not from the 4th century but from the 20th century, and impose this foreign doctrine onto a first-century text.

Actually, Paul and Peter's writings do support LDS doctrine. Please give evidence to the contrary (if you decide you can talk to me after all, that is).

 

[No*s]

Actually, Joseph Smith's definition came from God and Christ themselves...not from some council. And God's definition has been around since the beginning of time...but had been corrupted as prophesied in the scriptures.

So does the councils' authority. The archetypal council is the Council of Jerusalem, as found in the book of Acts. The Apostles gathered together and stated "It seems good to us and the Holy Spirit..." and proceeded to make binding statements to deal with a new problem based on Christ's teachings. It was binding on the Christians, including Peter and Paul.

Later, when new disputes arose, local councils dealt with them and protect the faith, and were just as binding for their believers. Finally, when world-wide disruptions arose, ecumenical councils were called to deal with it. All of this praxy is based on the praxy of Peter and Paul for clarifying and preserving doctrine. The system behind the Creeds and councils is, then, very firmly entrenched in what Peter and Paul did.

They even had Creeds in the New Testament. The earliest we find is "Jesus is Lord." We have things quoted which could be either Creeds or hymns. Creeds are simply formulations that disallow certain beliefs. All councils, in nature, are creeds, and the creeds summaries of the larger creeds. The Jerusalem council would be a creed in that sense. So would "Jesus is Lord" and any call for "No creed but the Bible" today.

What they never did is have a new prophet come about to restore what had been lost. That approach is simply unfounded. God never sent a prophet to Israel to say "My people are all false, go found a new one." Never did Peter or Paul use that approach. There was always a historical continuity moving forward.

 

[nutshell]

I'll debate this further, but first I need to go have dinner.

Before I eat, I'm going to pray to God through the name of Jesus Christ and give thanks for the food and ask for a blessing upon it.

I wonder what this makes me???

 

[Smoke]

Could you provide evidence for your claims here?

For Protestants: The Nicene Creed includes the statement, "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins." While many Protestants can agree with that, it's directly contrary to the teachings of many others.

For Orthodox: See below.

Actually, we can. You will find no portion of them we cannot.

The statement, "The Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son," is clearly contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

We are the Early Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our historical continuity is solid, with the only dispute being over the schisms.

It's not my intention to disparage the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the Church does not use the Athanasian Creed (which was not written by Athanasius), unless it's in some kind of bastardized Western Rite I'm not aware of. In fact, it's rarely if ever used in the Western Churches, and it might be better for all concerned if it were not used at all.

 

[No*s]

For Orthodox: See below.

The statement, "The Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son," is clearly contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox Church.

Touche. I had forgotten about that clause when I ran it over in my memory and found nada. The phraseology has become verboten after Rome changed the N-C Creed. I concede the argument on the Athanasian Creed. Fortunately, the Athanasian Creed, unlike the N-C Creed, has always been local.

It's not my intention to disparage the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the Church does not use the Athanasian Creed (which was not written by Athanasius), unless it's in some kind of bastardized Western Rite I'm not aware of. In fact, it's rarely if ever used in the Western Churches, and it might be better for all concerned if it were not used at all.

I don't take your statements as disparaging. This is a debate, and in a debate, to defend our repsective ecclessiologies, it requires saying things that may be taken wrong. You got me on that one. I got overzealous in defending the Creed (and whatever is connected with it) and misremembered the AthC.

That said, some things are unused in Orthodoxy which we consider valid. The lives of the saints being a chief example. Western saints are often not recognized, but they do exist. Likewise, the writings of the Western Fathers do bear weight with us, but that is getting OT. Good counter.

 

[Squirt]

If we make the definition more strident, then no, it isn't. In its most strident definition, it would be classical Christianity and whatever group could actually call itself the Early Church. Only three groups can make that claim: the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, and the claim is an exclusionary one (we cannot all three be the Church).

So now Protestants are not Christians either? Or are you saying they're Christians, just "not quite as Christian" as the three groups you name? This is getting more confusing all the time!

The definition, then, can be very fluid. In the strictest sense, then there is no way. LDS is not historical Christianity and cannot be supported as such.

Maybe they don't even want to be tied to "historical" Christianity. If, as the Mormons believe, there was an apostasy in ancient times, I would think they would be happier being distanced from "historical" Christianity and just be satisfied to be known as "followers of Jesus Christ."

What would you say to that, Nutshell and SoyLeche?

 

[No*s]

So now Protestants are not Christians either? Or are you saying they're Christians, just "not quite as Christian" as the three groups you name? This is getting more confusing all the time!

I specified three different ways of looking at it in my first post on this thread: post #45. In the strictly historical perspective, then no, Protestants are not. The historical view is that God bequeaths a sacramental grace through His Church, and that the Church, being the Body of Christ, is the sole medium for this. The Protestants, having broken away like other groups before them, have divorced themsevles from the sacraments. This is the view I have been defending.

In the looser definitions, this is not necessarily so. These are valid definitions; society has determined it thus. If the masses use a word in a certain sense, then when it becomes popular, it is valid.

Maybe they don't even want to be tied to "historical" Christianity. If, as the Mormons believe, there was an apostasy in ancient times, I would think they would be happier being distanced from "historical" Christianity and just be satisfied to be known as "followers of Jesus Christ."

What would you say to that, Nutshell and SoyLeche?

One of yall should start a thread on the supposed "apostasy." It's a doctrine intrinsic to both Protestantism and Mormonism. I would posit there was no such apostasy and that it is indefensible. I'd be happy to debate that. To debate it, one needs and apostate Bible, and it must be apostate, because the books were determined by apostates. The Bible, then, loses its authority, and it comes down to some assertion completely outside any sources or ancient traditions we have.

That said, if someone doesn't want historical Christianity, then there is no need to concern oneself over apostasy anyway. Just define it how you want it. If, however, the initial form and what connects to it matters, then caring for and adhering to historical Christainity is very important.

 

[dan]

Actually, we can. You will find no portion of them we cannot. We are the Early Church, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Our historical continuity is solid, with the only dispute being over the schisms.

Well, I consider the murdering, raping, stealing and overall oppression (all by the LEADERS of the Church) to be a pretty non-solid foundation for the Early, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The link between Peter and Constantine (and all the rest) is traditional at best. There's no real link, and if there was no Apostasy, then John the Revelator would have been "Pope" while you had three or four guys allegedly leading God's Church.