Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian

[_Daniel Peterson]

There is no biblical definition to that effect, and it's certainly not standard English usage.

13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

That's not a definition of the word Christian.

When I get my kindle.

I can scarcely wait.

[_Hoops]

I can scarcely wait.

Well, it would be another $10 in the pocket of THE Mormon devil.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, it would be another $10 in the pocket of THE Mormon devil.

You underestimate. $20 of every $10 purchase of my work goes into my pocket. I get 200% royalties.

They're subsidized by widows, orphans, and the poor.

[_Hoops]

Well, it would be another $10 in the pocket of THE Mormon devil.

You underestimate. $20 of every $10 purchase of my work goes into my pocket. I get 200% royalties.

They're subsidized by widows, orphans, and the poor.

Lol. Very good!

[_MrStakhanovite]

But on what logically coherent basis?

If their theology was in-line with the ecumenical councils.

In fact, Arius is often regarded as the archheretic, par excellence.

However, heresy is one thing, and non-Christianity quite another. If it were not, the concept of "Christian heresy" would be unintelligible. But it's not.

Arius was never, to the best of my knowledge, held to be a "non-Christian" by his contemporaries, and he's certainly not regarded as a "non-Christian" by modern scholars:

I think we may have an equivocation of terms. It’s one thing to state that a heretic was a sociological or anthropological Christian, and quite another to say a heretic is a part of the body of Christ, which would fall under ecclesiology.

I’m focusing on the later term, because that is the kind of justification a orthodox Christian (small o) is going to give when they state with certainty that Mormons are not Christians.

Wow. I think it would be extraordinarily odd to declare the Copts of Egypt "non-Christian." Any definition of Christianity that did so would have to be regarded as eccentric, to say the least of it.

Why?

I this topic raises some fascinating questions to be honest.

What is it about Islam or Baha'i that makes them stand outside the Christian tradition? Like those traditions, Mormons have a continuing revelation past Christ, with a body of scripture that is in the very least on-par with the Bible (Tanakh and Greek testament) if not over and above. All three traditions have beliefs about the nature and mission of Christ that is foreign to the majority of Christian denominations today.

I usually call Mormons Christians because that is how they prefer to be called, or at least take offense if referred to as Non-Christian, but I’m not sure how I would react if my Muslim friends insisted to be called Christian, it would seem counter intuitive to me.

Anyways, looking forward to your thoughts


ETA: Here in Saint Cloud, there is a large body of refugees from Ethiopia and Somalia. Some of them are practicing Christians and I was under the impression that their church was Coptic, am I off base here? Your comment made me think that Copts might only be found in Egypt.

[_Daniel Peterson]

But on what logically coherent basis?

If their theology was in-line with the ecumenical councils.

But that was precisely my point. It wasn't. At least, very arguably not.

I think we may have an equivocation of terms. It’s one thing to state that a heretic was a sociological or anthropological Christian, and quite another to say a heretic is a part of the body of Christ, which would fall under ecclesiology.

I'm simply using the term in the ordinary way that historians and other scholars use it. They do not pretend to determine the place of this or that person in the eyes of God -- because they are not competent to do so.

Hoops might want to argue that Arius wasn't "saved," but that is, in my opinion, very much beyond the purview of any mortal to decide or even to know, and it certainly isn't ordinary English (or German, or Greek, or Arabic, or French) usage to restrict the adjective Christian only to those who are deemed to be in God's favor.

I’m focusing on the later term, because that is the kind of justification a orthodox Christian (small o) is going to give when they state with certainty that Mormons are not Christians.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not.

It's not standard English usage, in any event. So if certain ChristiansTM want to use it in that way, they need to be completely explicit and upfront about how they're using it.

Wow. I think it would be extraordinarily odd to declare the Copts of Egypt "non-Christian." Any definition of Christianity that did so would have to be regarded as eccentric, to say the least of it.

Why?

I this topic raises some fascinating questions to be honest.

I find the suggestion that Copts might not be Christians perfectly stunning. Quite seriously. To the best of my knowledge, I've never encountered a scholar or serious observer of world Christianity or Christian history who would expel the ancient Coptic Orthodox Church from Christendom, nor so much as heard of a book or article that attempts to make the case for doing so.

Candidly, at a time when the Christianity minority community in Egypt is beleaguered by aggressive fundamentalist Islam, I find it unutterably depressing for anyone in the West to casually suggest that Egyptian Christians may not really be Christians anyway.

What is it about Islam or Baha'i that makes them stand outside the Christian tradition?

Neither Islam nor Baha’ism sees Jesus as uniquely normative.

Like those traditions, Mormons have a continuing revelation past Christ, with a body of scripture that is in the very least on-par with the Bible (Tanakh and Greek testament) if not over and above.

Mormonism, like the rest of Christendom, sees Jesus as uniquely normative.

All three traditions have beliefs about the nature and mission of Christ that is foreign to the majority of Christian denominations today.

True. As do Calvinists. As do Southern Baptists.

I usually call Mormons Christians because that is how they prefer to be called, or at least take offense if referred to as Non-Christian, but I’m not sure how I would react if my Muslim friends insisted to be called Christian, it would seem counter intuitive to me.

It would be absurd, and no sane and sentient Muslim would ever claim to be a "Christian."

ETA: Here in Saint Cloud, there is a large body of refugees from Ethiopia and Somalia. Some of them are practicing Christians and I was under the impression that their church was Coptic, am I off base here? Your comment made me think that Copts might only be found in Egypt.

The homeland of the Copts is Egypt, where the patriarch of Alexandria (the Coptic pope) has lived since almost the founding of Christianity. However, there are significant populations of Copts in Ethiopia and Somalia and, nowadays, in any country where expatriated Egyptians (and Ethiopians and Somalis) live.

[_thews]

Ok so what? I don;t have an issue with that.

You Christians who hate to call LDS Christians do so primarily because they think Mormons have a different Jesus.

Are you claiming the multiple Gods who reside on planet Kolob and require polygamy to enter this glory is a Christian theology?

But the Jesus they worship is no more or less biblical than they think the LDS Jesus is.

If one accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the changes Joseph Smith made to the Bible would be of God? This includes Joseph Smith writing himself into the Bible... do Christians accept the revisions Joseph Smith made to the Bible and the doctrine of Joseph Smith? Note - Don't attempt to sell the KJV as the primary Bible the LDS use, unless you wish to claim Joseph Smith didn't make changes to the Bible. Just because he was killed before the changes were published doesn't negate the fact that he made them.

Both rely on extra biblical creeds or revelations or whatever. THe Bible is really not clear on the nature of the God head the results from three persons on the New Testament all that can be referred to as God.

This is interpretation and an attempted parallel logic argument aimed at defining why the differences are supposedly moot. Christians, by using the label "Christian" reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as false. Why not focus on what's different doctrine rather than what you claim is supposedly undefined? To claim the LDS are "Christian" implies "Christians" accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith. This argument would also include Christians being labeled Jews, because Christians accept both the new and old testament. Jews reject the new testament, so they fall under a different umbrella based on the doctrine they accept and the doctrine they reject... they are not the same.

Mormons are not historical or orthodox Christians. But they are part of the Christian umbrella.

I totally disagree. When you look at the body of doctrine the LDS accept and reject vs. the doctrine Christians accept and reject, they are vastly different. When the entire concept of God in Mormonism includes men becoming Gods, defining Jesus as the son of God vs. Jesus being God in man etc., to share in the "Christian umbrella" requires a common doctrine. My argument is the doctrine is so vastly different the differences far outweigh the supposed similarities, as Christians reject all of Joseph Smith's doctrine. Again, if Joseph Smith revised the Bible, there isn't any common doctrine between a Christian and a Mormon.

What I don't get is this new push to re-package Mormonism as something it's not. When I was growing up, Mormons were called "Mormons". If Mormons are Christians, then Christians are Mormons. If Joseph Smith's doctrine is Christian, then Christians accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith. Christians don't accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith, so to imply they fall under the same umbrella masks those differences and requires parallel arguments based on what does constitute a "Christian" faith (Catholics vs. Protestants). The answer is rooted in the shared doctrine.

I think you're using your bias to make this argument Jason. The Mormon God is based on Joseph Smith's doctrine (truth claims) that only Mormons accept. To imply some "Christian" sects accept Joseph Smith's doctrine, implies the umbrella of RLDS and FLDS falls under the same common "Christian" doctrine, when the umbrella of "LDS" includes RLDS, FLDS and LDS... they are not the same.

[_Runtu]

yes it is. You don't decide. your church does not decide. If you say it is not orthodox, or in synch with historical Christianity or even heritical Christianity fine. But it is Christian. The basis of the LDS Church is based in faith in Jesus as the Son of God and all that the New Testament said he did for mankind and salvation.

Your only premise for saying the LDS Church is not Christian is that it has a different Jesus. But orthodox Christianities Jesus cannot be found in the New Testament alone either.

And no amount of bluster you can muster will change it.

I've always figured that people who say they believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as their Savior are Christians, end of story. I think the issue for a lot of people like Hoops is that saying that Mormons are even nominally Christians lends a legitimacy to Mormonism that they don't think it deserves. On top of that, to them, the only real Christians are the "saved," which obviously does not include Mormons.

I think that's why they're so adamant about this.

[_Hoops]

I've always figured that people who say they believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as their Savior are Christians, end of story.

That certainly is an easy way to look at it. Nonetheless, when people claim that Jesus is something He is not, that becomes problematic. There is a reason Jesus is the only acceptable sacrifice for our sins. There is a reason "the blood of bulls and goats" could never take away the sins of man.

I think the issue for a lot of people like Hoops is that saying that Mormons are even nominally Christians lends a legitimacy to Mormonism that they don't think it deserves.

While not exactly my position, I think I know what you mean. And you are correct. I would change "Mormons" to "Mormonism". LDS doctrine does not advance Christian theology/doctrine.

On top of that, to them, the only real Christians are the "saved," which obviously does not include Mormons.

Of course. That is a perfectly reasonable, Biblical position to have. I mentioned before, the definition of a Christian is one whose sins are forgiven. I have no idea if Arius, DCP, or you are Christians and I'm not sure how I could know that. Given that, it has not been my habit to say anyone is or is not Christian. I simply have no idea.

[_Jason Bourne]

Mormons are not historical or orthodox Christians. But they are part of the Christian umbrella.

I totally disagree.

I know you do. I don't care. I have been round and round with you on this.

I understand the theological issues and differences. But I still believe that because LDS hold Jesus as God, or one of three Gods that make up a godhead that LDS believe are somehow one, just not one in substance, and the fact that LDS do accept Jesus as savior and redeemer still is makes them Christian. No LDS worship and other possible god that their doctrine allows may be out there working on some other universe in some other dimension.

What I don't get is this new push to re-package Mormonism as something it's not.

Mormonism has always claimed to be Christian. They just viewed themselves as THE Christian Church and the others wanne be apostate Churches. I think what you see now is the down play of the rhetoric as well as an attempt to toss off or minimize some of the more unique, and odd ( at least to Christianity which in and of itself has plenty of weird stuff).

When I was growing up, Mormons were called "Mormons". If Mormons are Christians, then Christians are Mormons. If Joseph Smith's doctrine is Christian, then Christians accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith. Christians don't accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith, so to imply they fall under the same umbrella masks those differences and requires parallel arguments based on what does constitute a "Christian" faith (Catholics vs. Protestants). The answer is rooted in the shared doctrine.

Mormons were and still are called Mormon just like my Catholic friends refer to themselves as catholic or my baptist friends refer to themselves as baptist. Baptists don't accept all the doctrines of Catholics and visa verse.

I think you're using your bias to make this argument Jason.

Sure. And you aren't?