Fox Advocacy Group Declares Romney Non-Christian

[_Jason Bourne]

Hoops I know you disagree. So what? I disagree with you.

So tell me what your top three reasons are for defining the LDS Church as not Christian.

Hoops

Could you answer this for me please? I was going to ask this again on the scripture literalism thread but decided to repeat this here.

[_moksha]

Here is a tie-in news article:

God Urges Rick Perry Not To Run For President
July 21, 2011 | ISSUE 47•29

AUSTIN, Texas— Describing Texas Gov. Rick Perry as grossly unqualified for the position, God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe, urged Perry not to run for president of the United States Wednesday. “I prayed last night and asked the Lord to support my candidacy, and He said no,” Perry told reporters outside the Texas Capitol, explaining that God had cited the governor’s rejection of federal stimulus funds to expand state jobless benefits, his irresponsible speculation about Texas seceding from the union, and his overall lack of concrete solutions to nation’s problems as reasons why He could not endorse a Perry presidential bid. “I believe God made some valid points about my lack of credentials, and He’s absolutely right. My extreme beliefs when it comes to social issues and states’ rights are not only disturbingly narrow-minded, but would also make me a horrible president.” When reached for comment, God said He would not be present at Perry’s much-talked-about Christian day of prayer on Aug. 6, calling the governor’s use of his public office to endorse a religion both “irresponsible” and a violation of the Constitution.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-urges-rick-perry-not-to-run-for-president,20981/

[_GR33N]

I think it's an issue because Romney will never be elected if he's perceived as a non-Christian.

I know, but we're going to have to face the decision to elect a non-Christian at some point. Who cares if people want to paint him as non-Christian? Someone's going to have to take up that mantle.

I submit we may already have done that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

A Christian is one whose sins are forgiven

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

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Mormonism is not Christian. There's no denying that

I deny that.

And I've done it at length, in detail, with abundant supporting evidence. It's been years now, and, thus far, I've seen no cogent counterargument.

[_MrStakhanovite]

What if people define the term "Christian" as one who adheres to the early Ecumenical councils and the creeds that came from them?

[_Daniel Peterson]

What if people define the term "Christian" as one who adheres to the early Ecumenical councils and the creeds that came from them?

If they're explicit about what they're doing, they have that right.

But they would also be subject to some obvious criticisms: What about the believers in Jesus who lived and died (sometimes as martyrs) prior to the creeds and councils? Were they not Christians? What about the bishops who were outvoted at Nicea, etc.? What about the non-Chalcedonian confessions? If they have ever been dismissed as non-Christians, whether by their contemporaries or by modern scholars, I've not seen it. What about St. Justin Martyr and Origen and Tertullian and other early pillars of the Christian movement, whose views on various issues (e.g., on the nature of the Holy Spirit for Justin, and on apokatastasis and antemortal existence for Origen, and on continuing revelation and divine corporeality for Tertullian) put them out of sync with later creeds and subsequent doctrinal developments? Does anybody seriously want to argue that they weren't Christians?

People are free to define terms any way they want. But they should be upfront about what they're doing, if they do so, and they should be prepared for criticism.

[_MrStakhanovite]

But they would also be subject to some obvious criticisms: What about the believers in Jesus who lived and died (sometimes as martyrs) prior to the creeds and councils?

Grandfathered in I imagine.

What about the bishops who were outvoted at Nicea, etc.?

Like Arius? Heretics. All of them.

What about the non-Chalcedonian confessions? If they have ever been dismissed as non-Christians, whether by their contemporaries or by modern scholars, I've not seen it.

I was under the impression that a confession lays out a denominational requirement for membership, but the seven ecumenical councils produce creeds, which determine the requirements for membership into the Christian faith.

But I’m familiar enough with the Monophysite /Miaphysite furor that I don’t think it is implausible to say churches like the Coptic Church isn’t “Christian”, given how their Christology has an impact salvation.

What about St. Justin Martyr and Origen and Tertullian and other early pillars of the Christian movement, whose views on various issues (e.g., on the nature of the Holy Spirit for Justin, and on apokatastasis and antemortal existence for Origen, and on continuing revelation and divine corporeality for Tertullian) put them out of sync with later creeds and subsequent doctrinal developments? Does anybody seriously want to argue that they weren't Christians?

I can’t answer these, I’m not familiar enough with the theology of any of those names, but I recognize that if they get labeled “Non-Christian”, it would be counter-intuitive.

for what it's worth, I don’t really support the position I brought up (I think Mormons are as Christian as The Pope or Martin Luther), but that seems to be how many seem to justify their labeling Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and other movements as “Non-Christian”.

[_RayAgostini]

What if people define the term "Christian" as one who adheres to the early Ecumenical councils and the creeds that came from them?

Maybe you'd like to consider the case of Joan of Arc, who was executed by burning at the stake because she claimed to have had visions "outside of Church authority". She claimed to speak for "the King of Heaven", when the pope was, supposedly, the only one with that "authority". She was burned as a heretic and a "witch".

Was she a Christian? Did she care about "Ecumenical councils"? The thought is almost laughable.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Not sure why Joan of Arc is brought up.

[_RayAgostini]

Not sure why Joan of Arc is brought up.

Was she a Christian? If so, why was she burned to death by the Catholic Church, who formed those very same "Ecumenical councils"? She was considered not to be a Christian, but a witch.