Being critical of the teachings of other faiths

[_Hoops]

Many protestant denominations

Bull. How many in a many?

and people do not recognize Catholicism as Christian.

Some. But the number is very, very small in my experience. In fact, I don't know ANY.

I know James White doesn't,

Wrong.

and neither does Jack Chick.

correct. So what?

[_Hoops]

Sorry, MsJack once said that she preferred the term "creedal Christian" -- I assumed that was the accepted term. Traditional Christian, then?

I was unaware of her position on this. I find it is used as a criticism and I find it particularly non-descriptive. I don't know that I have the intellectual muscle nor theological education to disagree with Ms. Jack.

Traditional is fine. Orthodox is even fine with me.

[_Simon Belmont]

I was unaware of her position on this. I find it is used as a criticism and I find it particularly non-descriptive. I don't know that I have the intellectual muscle nor theological education to disagree with Ms. Jack.

Traditional is fine. Orthodox is even fine with me.

Okay then, back on point. We don't claim to be traditional or orthodox Christians. We do claim to be Christian, though, because we worship Jesus Christ and believe that He died four our sins.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hoops

I understand your position and that of historic and orthodox Christianity.

The interesting thing is the dogma of the trinity is anything but clear. You know as well as I do that the historical development of it is convoluted and full of debates and give and take. Historically there were many views and ways to understand the Biblical teachings of about the Godhead. Of course the winners of the debate branded the losers as heretics. Had Arius's more biblical correct view won out (and it was close) your current view would be the heretical one.

To claim one can arrive at the creedal pronouncements that result in the trinitarian dogma with the Bible only is nonsense and I would bet most theologians would agree with that. You just can't get there.

Of course I admit you certainly cannot get to the LDS view with the Bible alone either.

The Bible just is not that clear on it. In fact it adds confusion to the issue.

Further even today there is debate about the trinity along with varying views and flavors of it.

Personally I think it nonsense and hubris to define a sect out of the umbrella of Christianity because they understand the Bible and its teachings about the Godhead differently than even much of orthodox Christianity. But I understand why you and so many others do so.

But the LDS Church simply is a subset of Christianity. It is not historical, it is not orthodox and it certainly can be considered heretical by the rest. But it is Christian in its roots.

But really, I think when I run into hard nose dogmatic persons such as yourself that the LDS Church ought to just go back to the harder line stance it seemed to take in the past. Just stick to the claim the the LDS Church is THE CHRISTIAN Church. All the rest of you are all just apostate wannabees. Really that is the ultimate position of the Church. All this pandering about wanting to be accepted as part of what we know as historic Christianity really is not helping the LDS Church. Take a Bruce McConkie approach. Draw the line in the sand. Cast all the creedal trinitarian Christian sects on the junk heap of apostate, priesthood authority lacking sects.

Whatyathink?

And really I have no skin in this game anymore because game is what it is. Monotheism is a relatively new religion on the scene of human history. If there is ONE TRIUNE God where the hell was He for the thousand and thousand of years before the Hebrews (who were not initially monotheists) came on the scene? And how about those pesky Jews who think Christianity it a heretical bastardization of their monotheism?

Really Hoops nobody knows who and what the hell God is. If he is there he has really done a poor job in letting us know who and what he is. And if he is there I think it rather narrow for us to really think he is going to cast us to everlasting burnings because we don't get the intricacies of some theological nuances that took hundreds and hundreds of years to develop and is still in flux.

Course I could be wrong. I usually am.



As for Simon quit whining. Really! The LDS Church makes strong claims and its position really does compromise historic Christianity. Were I in their camp I would defend and point out what, based on my own view, was different and why I thought the LDS Church was wrong. We did this as missionaries. We told an investigator there was an apostasy, taught Joseph Smith restored the true Church, that the trinity doctrine was not the correct understanding of the Godhead, that LDS baptism was necessary even if the person had been baptized because that baptism was not valid due to no priesthood authority.

You really think the LDS Church's position is passive and sweet? Come on!

When I was a bishop I was interviewed for a local newspaper's Sunday spot on local Church's. I was asked about why the Church was often targeted by other sects. We discussed it. I said I totally understood why, that what Joseph Smith claimed was pretty strong and were I in a say Protestant who was an avid believer I would want to defend against what I perceived as an attack on my faith.

Did it bother me some when I say anti LDS sites or persons at LDS pageants or temple open houses. Sure. But I understood it though I think there are better ways than passing out literature at pageants and temple open houses. But I understood it and if the people were respectful and peaceful what right did I have to have hissy fit about it.

So really Simon, get over it. If you want to be LDS and are passionate about it defend it the best you can, but be decent about it. And live it and preach it and move on man.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Only sometimes, Stak. Many protestant denominations and people do not recognize Catholicism as Christian. I know James White doesn't, and neither does Jack Chick.

Simon, you need to understand the difference of not recognizing an institution’s form of ecclesiology. Both Roman Catholics and Reformed Baptists affirm the Nicene Creed, and affirming and truly believing that is what unites both in a common understanding of Christendom.

You never hear Dr. White calling a Roman Catholic themselves “Non-Christian”, he may the Marian Dogmas Non-Christian, but he doesn’t think being a Roman Catholic damns you to hell.

Jack Chick is a KJV onlyist, Young Earth Creationist, and he thinks Roman Catholics are part of a conspiracy to help install the New World Order with Free Masons, the Illumnati, and the Anti-Christ. He isn’t a good representation of normative Christianity.

[_Jason Bourne]

This is a tough question, and I’m sympathetic to both sides on the issue.

On one side, where Hoops and MsJack are, is the body of Christ (the Church) which stretches across vast denominational bounds, from Anglican, to Lutheran, to Dutch Reform, to Methodists, and even Roman Catholicism.

Now all these groups have fierce debates over quite a few doctrines, but they are essentially united in a set of core beliefs that center around the Triune Godhead. Like Hoops pointed out, if you start departing from the Godhead, you start changing important things, like Christ’s atoning death (which the LDS Church departs from, since LDS affirm that Christ’s atoning work wasn’t done on the cross).

On the Mormon side is an understandable frustration, nobody owns the word “Christian”, and any devoted follower of Christ should be able to claim the title and use it.

When did the Catholics and all the Protestants start accepting each other? I thought for years and year both viewed each other as evil incarnate.

[_MrStakhanovite]

When did the Catholics and all the Protestants start accepting each other? I thought for years and year both viewed each other as evil incarnate.

Most of the hating is fueled by politics, both then and now. If you look at the disputations during the reformation, the big topic was Justification, not the Trinity. Anything that departed from the Trinity was condemned (poor Michael Servetus). Cromwell didn't hate the Catholic Church because it's theology was not in line with his Puritanism, but because he saw it as a political entity that threatened the sovergnity of the English crown.

ETA: Even the Left Behind Series had Roman Catholic Priests being raptured.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon, you need to understand the difference of not recognizing an institution’s form of ecclesiology. Both Roman Catholics and Reformed Baptists affirm the Nicene Creed, and affirming and truly believing that is what unites both in a common understanding of Christendom.

You never hear Dr. White calling a Roman Catholic themselves “Non-Christian”, he may the Marian Dogmas Non-Christian, but he doesn’t think being a Roman Catholic damns you to hell.

James White is pretty anti-Catholic, Stak. Take a look:

http://vintage.aomin.org/Roman.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/ ... -with.html

Jack Chick is a KJV onlyist, Young Earth Creationist, and he thinks Roman Catholics are part of a conspiracy to help install the New World Order with Free Masons, the Illumnati, and the Anti-Christ. He isn’t a good representation of normative Christianity.

I know, he's a loon. I just threw him in for good measure ;)

[_MrStakhanovite]

Simon,

In which of those articles do you have in mind? Just linking me doesn't help much.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

In which of those articles do you have in mind? Just linking me doesn't help much.

The first link is to White's anti-Catholic apologetic articles (which, I might add, are very similar to his anti-Mormon apologetic articles).

The second link is to a debate between James White and Catholic author Dave Armstrong entitled: Is Catholicism Christian?: My Debate With James White.