Mormonism is not "Christianity"

[_maklelan]

LOL. As if the Christians of the first few centuries were Mormons. The fact of the matter is that Holy Joe's final Christology bears no resemblance to the Christologies of the first few centuries, apart from subordinationism.

Completely irrelevant evasion of my concern. My comment was meant to point out that any definition of "Christian" that relies on the creeds as foundational criteria unilaterally excludes the earliest Christians. This is not an appropriate way to go about delineating the fundamental meaning of the word. The fact of the matter is, there is no definition of the word "Christian" that excludes Mormonism that does not also (1) exclude the earliest Christians, (2) beg the question, or (3) both.

[_maklelan]

Perhaps now after dinner I can make a more measured reply.

Excellent.

I and most anybody else recognizes some tension here.

I'm happy this is being acknowledged.

For me the tension pushes me to ask why would people be chosen.

A tricky question. I look forward to what you have to contribute.

I see no reason to believe it is dice rolling. I believe if one has any sort of belief in God it entails seeing God as acting with purpose. In a Calvinist view a person is not chosen because God is wowed by what a gift to God person A is. If one believes that they are the best of the best leading human parade it is natural to want God to recognize this an give appropriate awards. But if God sees instead problems and selfishness in all humans, if God sees people wanting to use the gifts they received from him to place themselves above others then God may not be interested giving rewards for superiority.

I think instead of rewarding or rolling dice God chooses in order to have people helping others. I think he chooses weak people and sinners in order that those weak sinners may move towards being saints ,to be a help to other, including the strong.

This raises a number of questions. Primary among them, doesn't God determine who will be weak and who will be strong? If not, and we make that determination, doesn't our decision to be weak or strong then become a work that effects our salvation one way or another?

I do not at all believe that God chooses people just to be winners and get all the candy. I believe God is intending a transformation of the human race and that transformation involves the creation of a leading family or city of God. because that city of chosen is made up of all sorts of strong weak, smart, ignorant, good bad some of the help they are to the human race is by needing help from others who may not be believers.

I believe the life and death of Jesus is an example of what life should be that is an invitation to all humanity. God calls specific people to cary the torch and to be a light to all ther rest of the world.(both by success and failure to be a reflection of Jesus life and truth. I believe that when Christian fail they can be a goad to others to do better.

See Romans 11 , a vantage point one might read the whole New Testament from.

This raises additional questions. If God chooses people to be a light to the rest of the world, do those who decide to follow that light later get chosen? If so, doesn't their decision effect their own salvation? If they are not chosen, what's the point of giving them a light?

I believe it all comes down to a simple dichotomy. If there are criteria that determine who is saved and who is not (whether or not we are aware of them) then our works and beliefs, etc., influence our salvation. If there are no criteria, then as far as we are concerned it is arbitrary. I've not seen anyone directly address this issue.

[_huckelberry]

Makelan notes
"This raises a number of questions. Primary among them, doesn't God determine who will be weak and who will be strong? If not, and we make that determination, doesn't our decision to be weak or strong then become a work that effects our salvation one way or another?"

weak or strong may both be, or not be. saved. They are just part of the variety of the human family . Of course they are that way because God created them that way. It might also be said that people are the way they are because of how we fit into the human family. We inherit characteristics from family.

I have zero interest in eliminating works.

[_Kishkumen]

Completely irrelevant evasion of my concern. My comment was meant to point out that any definition of "Christian" that relies on the creeds as foundational criteria unilaterally excludes the earliest Christians. This is not an appropriate way to go about delineating the fundamental meaning of the word. The fact of the matter is, there is no definition of the word "Christian" that excludes Mormonism that does not also (1) exclude the earliest Christians, (2) beg the question, or (3) both.

As an experiment in the practical viability of such an argument (maybe not precisely the same, but close enough), I will write myself a Marxist political platform, call myself and my platform Republican, and then when Republicans complain, I'll just point to the fact that Lincoln wouldn't qualify as a Republican by their definition either, so they have no right to exclude me based on our obvious philosophical differences. Sure, I suppose I could do this, but who in their right mind would buy into my argument?

[_maklelan]

As an experiment in the practical viability of such an argument (maybe not precisely the same, but close enough), I will write myself a Marxist political platform, call myself and my platform Republican, and then when Republicans complain, I'll just point to the fact that Lincoln wouldn't qualify as a Republican by their definition either, so they have no right to exclude me based on our obvious philosophical differences. Sure, I suppose I could do this, but who in their right mind would buy into my argument?

An astonishingly specious analogy. Political parties are hardly analogous to Christianity in terms of self-definition and history. The former constitute responses to contemporary social, political, and economic issues, as well to the opposing parties. There is simply no reason to expect to find a fundamental common denominator that holds universally and throughout the history of a party; nor do assertions of participation in the Republican party include, explicitly or implicitly, claims of ideological continuity with the historical roots of the party. With Christianity there is, by very definition, an explicit claim to a common denominator as well as ideological continuity with the historical roots of the movement. Attempts to exclude Mormonism are also almost exclusively interested in that continuity, and almost exclusively appeal to ideologies ostensibly established at the roots of the movement.

[_maklelan]

Yes, the Christians of the first 300 years were Christians because they were Catholic. To assert otherwise is ridiculous.

It is like saying the Mormons of the first 100 years were not Mormons.

The facts are very clearly against you here. The word "catholic" first appears in the second century CE and at first was used to refer to the universality of the communion. It wasn't until centuries later that it actually began to be used in reference to an actual ecclesiastical entity. Until then you didn't call a person "Catholic," you just called a practice or principle "catholic" if you considered it universal. Additionally, every indication is that the Christians of the first century, as pluriform as they were, didn't hold at all to the doctrines that would ultimately come to define the Catholic Church.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, the Christians of the first 300 years were Christians because they were Catholic. To assert otherwise is ridiculous.

It is like saying the Mormons of the first 100 years were not Mormons.

Oh hardly. To say as such is to be woefully misinformed about early Christian history. Early Christianity were a hodge podge group of competing sects, many with views even more varying than you think Mormonism is as compared to Orthodoxy.

What became Orthodox was one of many competing sects and it was the winner. You need to get your early Church history from someone other than just Eusebius.

[Guest]

An astonishingly specious analogy. Political parties are hardly analogous to Christianity in terms of self-definition and history. The former constitute responses to contemporary social, political, and economic issues, as well to the opposing parties. There is simply no reason to expect to find a fundamental common denominator that holds universally and throughout the history of a party; nor do assertions of participation in the Republican party include, explicitly or implicitly, claims of ideological continuity with the historical roots of the party. With Christianity there is, by very definition, an explicit claim to a common denominator as well as ideological continuity with the historical roots of the movement. Attempts to exclude Mormonism are also almost exclusively interested in that continuity, and almost exclusively appeal to ideologies ostensibly established at the roots of the movement.

Mak, I sincerely hope you don't believe your own BS. The funny thing is, I knew you would go with this diversionary quibble over the differences between political parties and religions. I don't see how, absent your theological beliefs, we should expect the kind of continuity you seem to contend exists in religious identity. Since I don't accept your theological beliefs as real historical data (nor do I see why anyone other than your fellow believers should), I am afraid we are at an impasse. Thanks again, however, for illustrating what a complete waste of time it is to engage an apologist on practically anything. It is truly an exercise in futility.

[_madeleine]

Yes, the Christians of the first 300 years were Christians because they were Catholic. To assert otherwise is ridiculous.

It is like saying the Mormons of the first 100 years were not Mormons.

The facts are very clearly against you here. The word "catholic" first appears in the second century CE and at first was used to refer to the universality of the communion. It wasn't until centuries later that it actually began to be used in reference to an actual ecclesiastical entity. Until then you didn't call a person "Catholic," you just called a practice or principle "catholic" if you considered it universal. Additionally, every indication is that the Christians of the first century, as pluriform as they were, didn't hold at all to the doctrines that would ultimately come to define the Catholic Church.

...and...Mormons are the only ones I know stuck on naming a church. Catholic means universal, which is the unity of faith. One faith, one baptism. The Eucharist is found since the beginning. The description of our liturgy, is found since the beginning. Baptism, holy orders, Jesus Christ being defended as both human and divine.

Mormonism is not of this faith, so it is not possible to speak of Christian unity with Mormonism.

Doctrines did not develop, practices have and still do.

[Guest]

Yes, the Christians of the first 300 years were Christians because they were Catholic. To assert otherwise is ridiculous.

It is like saying the Mormons of the first 100 years were not Mormons.

Oh hardly. To say as such is to be woefully misinformed about early Christian history. Early Christianity were a hodge podge group of competing sects, many with views even more varying than you think Mormonism is as compared to Orthodoxy.

What became Orthodox was one of many competing sects and it was the winner. You need to get your early Church history from someone other than just Eusebius.

I'm sorry, it is you who is misinformed. There were, and still are, multiple Christian communities, who were and are all of one faith. Heresies arose, and still do, and always will. Orthodox are not heretical, they are in schism.

The Orthodox are catholic, and are of the same, one faith, one baptism. As are all Christians who worship Jesus Christ, as Lord and GOD. (Not the Mormon equivocation of "a" god.)

Mormons seek to impose an idea of "church" that has never existed.