Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[Guest]

Hi beastie--

Despite what some on this board would have us believe, non-trinitarians are viewed as under the umbrella of Christianity.

The next relevant question would be, By whom? It's unlikely that anonymous wiki editors would be deemed reliable adjudicators by any of the disputants.

The fact is that the doctrine of trinitarianism was hotly debated for CENTURIES by Christians before being adopted four hundred years after the death of Christ. It is hardly self-evident, and certainly not self-evident enough to be the lynchpin for claiming certain groups who accept Jesus as their Savior aren't really Christian at all.

Your summary (as I read your intent) certainly has its adherents. But it's a summary easily problematized for most involved.

(The doctrine of the Trinity is certainly not 'self-evident' in the philosophical sense, and I know of no one who has claimed that it is. I think you probably mean something more colloquial, e.g., "very obvious?")

I'm not as pessimistic as you regarding the (biblical) obviousness of trinitarianism. As a sola scriptura Protestant (I hesitate to call myself an Evangelical, since I'm way more fundamentalistic than those folks... ;) ), I can recite the historic creeds almost without hesitation. (I would have to pass over in silence §38 of the Athanasian Creed if I were ever in an assembly reciting it as an authoritative summary of doctrine.)

But, this raises a significant problem for Roman Catholics. Certain RC pop epologists like to argue that we need extra-biblical Roman Catholic tradition to get to the doctrine of the Trinity. We need Nicea.

In so doing, they appear to inherently reject belief in the perspicuity of Christian scripture. In other words, for some RC epologists, the doctrine of the Trinity is true, but, in its dogmatic form, just is extra-biblical, and dependent upon later RC tradition (i.e., Nicea). They also fail to acknowledge that the institutional Church utterly rejected trinitarianism in the decades after Athanasius.

So, the argument to the necessity of post-biblical tradition is suspect, unless one is taking a really long view. That is, the Roman Catholic Church can be on the wrong side of the Trinity debate for literally decades, but we still require the Roman Catholic Church to tell us that belief in the Trinity is dogma.

I would suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is inherently scriptural, and perspicuously so. The orthodox framers of Nicea were summarizing scriptural proofs, rather than cutting a new doctrine from whole cloth.

Hoops has agreed that Pentecostalism is Christian, and yet within the category of Pentecostal are groups that reject trinitarianism.

You'd need to distinguish between Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarian Pentecostals. They are not the same. And there are lots of both. Your linkage depends upon the fallacy of composition, beastie.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that Mormonism is supra-Christian, which, If I recall correctly, is the argument Ms. Jack makes, but that still recognizes its roots within Christianity. Simply insisting that Mormonism is not Christian ignores its obvious Christian roots.

Mormonism is certainly not 'supra-Christian,' even acceding Ms. Jack's supportive argument, which I tend to do. She doesn't mean what she wrote. She probably meant 'extra-.'

[_Hoops]

Where I am right now, I seem to be having trouble withe reply and quote function. I'll do my best from memory.

First, Beastie, if you bothered at all to read my position, you would know your comment to Milesius about what I think of him/her is ridiculous. But, it let's your atheist buddies keep cheering you on, so that's something I guess.

To describe Oneness Pents as nnormative of Pents in general is disengenuous at best. I suspect you know that.

To say that I used LDS works to support my position is a stretch, as you ably pointed out above. LDS works is certainly contrary to MOST of Christian thought, but not all.

Your comparison of LDSism and RCC is silly, which is why I wonder if you know anything about RCC at all. RCC believes that rites and rituals are required FOR CATHOLICS, not for salvation. And this, as well, has been pointed out to you at least twice. Now three times.

[_Milesius]

No, lol, I am an "Arian." I think Modalism passes the logic test but not the scripture test. (Trinitarianism passes neither.)

Ah. I knew you adhered to something other than Trinitarianism.

I suspect Hoops would not view you as a Christian. Apparently, if you're not a trinitarian, you're SOL.

LOL. That could be. I get a rude reception from some (but certainly not all) when I post to Christian Forums. Anyway, while I have few reservations about dismissing Mormonism as counterfeit Christianity, I am not so gung-ho when it comes to claiming individual Mormons are not Christian which is, of course, a reflection of my friendships with Mormons

[_Jason Bourne]

Are you a trinitarian? I seem to recall you identifying yourself as a modalistic.

He follows Arius subordinationist ideals. You know, the fellow whose ideas the Council of Nicea declared as heretical.

Beastie Hoops is always coy. On the Romney not a Christian thread I asked him what his top three reasons were for calling Mormonism not Christian. Think I could get a straight response? Hardly.

So I will ask again. Give me the three or four top things a sect or denomination must believe to be Christian. We can then compare LDS thought on these ideas and see what divergence causes many to want to give the LDS Faith the boot from even claiming non orthodox Christianity.

[_Hoops]

Correct: I did not explicitly emphasize works. NOr did I emphasize at all. I barely brushed by it, if touching it at all. So, yes, you are correct. You are wrong.

[_beastie]

The next relevant question would be, By whom? It's unlikely that anonymous wiki editors would be deemed reliable adjudicators by any of the disputants.

I think that people who regard the totality of Christian history would recognize that nontrinitarians can still be considered Christian. Otherwise, as you seem to consider below, one would have to question whether or not the followers of Jesus were really Christians for the first four hundred years. During that period, different ideas regarding the godhead and Jesus' nature were bandied about, and it took a great deal of dispute and time to settle on trinitarianism.

I think the site Religious Tolerance has a good, workable definition of "Christian":

To avoid confusion, we repeat here our site's simple definition of "Christian:"

"We accept as Christian any individual or group who devoutly, thoughtfully, seriously, and prayerfully regards themselves to be Christian. That is, they honestly believe that they follow Yeshua of Nazareth's (a.k.a. Jesus Christ's) teachings as they understand them to be. "

Other individuals and groups have much narrower definitions of the term. They often believe that their faith group is the "true" Christian religion, and that others are in error. That is certainly their right, but it does cause a great deal of confusion, frustration, anger, and conflict.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm

Hoops, for example, if I can sort through the coy ambiguity, seems to offer the following definition of Christian: one whose sins are forgiven. I assume this forgiveness comes through acceptance of the atonement of Christ. (I'm sure Hoops will say I have this all wrong, and am lying to boot.)

It seems to me that if a religion teaches that Jesus Christ's atonement is the only way to reunite human beings to God, and teaches utilizing the power of the atonement to engage in personal repentance, then that is a Christian religion, even by Hoops' definition. Mormonism certainly does that. And yet it isn't enough.

Your summary (as I read your intent) certainly has its adherents. But it's a summary easily problematized for most involved.

(The doctrine of the Trinity is certainly not 'self-evident' in the philosophical sense, and I know of no one who has claimed that it is. I think you probably mean something more colloquial, e.g., "very obvious?")

I'm not as pessimistic as you regarding the (biblical) obviousness of trinitarianism. As a sola scriptura Protestant (I hesitate to call myself an Evangelical, since I'm way more fundamentalistic than those folks... ;) ), I can recite the historic creeds almost without hesitation. (I would have to pass over in silence §38 of the Athanasian Creed if I were ever in an assembly reciting it as an authoritative summary of doctrine.)

But, this raises a significant problem for Roman Catholics. Certain RC pop epologists like to argue that we need extra-biblical Roman Catholic tradition to get to the doctrine of the Trinity. We need Nicea.

In so doing, they appear to inherently reject belief in the perspicuity of Christian scripture. In other words, for some RC epologists, the doctrine of the Trinity is true, but, in its dogmatic form, just is extra-biblical, and dependent upon later RC tradition (i.e., Nicea). They also fail to acknowledge that the institutional Church utterly rejected trinitarianism in the decades after Athanasius.

So, the argument to the necessity of post-biblical tradition is suspect, unless one is taking a really long view. That is, the Roman Catholic Church can be on the wrong side of the Trinity debate for literally decades, but we still require the Roman Catholic Church to tell us that belief in the Trinity is dogma.

I would suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity is inherently scriptural, and perspicuously so. The orthodox framers of Nicea were summarizing scriptural proofs, rather than cutting a new doctrine from whole cloth.

Does this negate my summary, which is that there was intense arguments and controversy surrounding this?

You'd need to distinguish between Oneness Pentecostals and Trinitarian Pentecostals. They are not the same. And there are lots of both. Your linkage depends upon the fallacy of composition, beastie.

From what I've read, Oneness is a subset of Pentecostalism.

Mormonism is certainly not 'supra-Christian,' even acceding Ms. Jack's supportive argument, which I tend to do. She doesn't mean what she wrote. She probably meant 'extra-.'

Ok.

[_beastie]

He follows Arius subordinationist ideals. You know, the fellow whose ideas the Council of Nicea declared as heretical.

Beastie Hoops is always coy. On the Romney not a Christian thread I asked him what his top three reasons were for calling Mormonism not Christian. Think I could get a straight response? Hardly.

So I will ask again. Give me the three or four top things a sect or denomination must believe to be Christian. We can then compare LDS thought on these ideas and see what divergence causes many to want to give the LDS Faith the boot from even claiming non orthodox Christianity.

This is my first real Hoops experience, so I'm learning. It's been, well, "interesting". Scare quotes intended.

Good luck on getting an answer.

[_beastie]

Correct: I did not explicitly emphasize works. NOr did I emphasize at all. I barely brushed by it, if touching it at all. So, yes, you are correct. You are wrong.

And this is what you base your "lying" charge? Pathetic.

If you can bear to answer a question directly, please clarify your following response:

I said

Because we all accepted Jesus Christ as our Savior and believed that, without his atonement, nothing we could do would unite us with God again. Isn’t that the essence of Christianity?

You said

It is indeed. Wouldn't it be nice if LDS left it at that?

Just what does it mean, that LDS don't just "leave it at that"?

[_beastie]

First, Beastie, if you bothered at all to read my position, you would know your comment to Milesius about what I think of him/her is ridiculous. But, it let's your atheist buddies keep cheering you on, so that's something I guess.

Milesius rejects trinitarianism. Does or does that not eliminate him as qualifying as a Christian?

To describe Oneness Pents as nnormative of Pents in general is disengenuous at best. I suspect you know that.

It is a subset of Pentecostalism.

To say that I used LDS works to support my position is a stretch, as you ably pointed out above. LDS works is certainly contrary to MOST of Christian thought, but not all.

I have no idea what this statement even means. Where did I say you use LDS works to support your position? If I were you, I'd now accuse you of lying. But since I'm not you, I understand that you apparently misunderstood something I said. What, I have no idea.

Your comparison of LDSism and RCC is silly, which is why I wonder if you know anything about RCC at all. RCC believes that rites and rituals are required FOR CATHOLICS, not for salvation. And this, as well, has been pointed out to you at least twice. Now three times.

And I wonder how much you understand Mormonism. The rites are only required for the HIGHEST degree of glory. Resurrection into the lower degrees of heaven do not require any rites performed. Those would roughly correspond to the Christian idea of "heaven."

Moreover, for most of its history, the Catholic church taught that those who did not have these rites performed could not be saved. I understand it has softened those teachings. But prior to Vatican II, the doctrine of the Catholic church was expressed thusly:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

[_beastie]

by the way, does anyone dispute that Christianity was also influenced by paganism?