Are Mormons Christians?

[NiceCupOfTea]

i suppose the bottom line is

there are many different types of Christians and essentially any one who identifies as a Christian is a Christian although those that proclaim an exclusive type of Christianity tend to disagree.

but essentially any one can call themselves a Christian like Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses and Self Realization Fellowship etc and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

 

[radarmark]

BINGO! One may not agree, but one who does not agree must prove her case. Usually that means she is usually (1) really anally scientific (like me) or (2) the member of some other group within Christianity.

 

[Ben Hur]

i suppose the bottom line is

there are many different types of Christians and essentially any one who identifies as a Christian is a Christian although those that proclaim an exclusive type of Christianity tend to disagree.

but essentially any one can call themselves a Christian like Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses and Self Realization Fellowship etc and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

Indeed, I do not understand sometimes why some Christians deny that others who do believe that Jesus was Christ, are not Christians. Some have told me that even Catholics are not Christians, when Catholics were the first Christians to rise; or... weren't they?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Indeed, I do not understand sometimes why some Christians deny that others who do believe that Jesus was Christ, are not Christians. Some have told me that even Catholics are not Christians, when Catholics were the first Christians to rise; or... weren't they?

Since everyone uses different definitions of what a Christian is, if a group thinks that Catholics teach a different message then Christ it is understandable that they reject Catholics as Christians. I think it is narrow-minded but it's how people work a lot of the time.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

Indeed, I do not understand sometimes why some Christians deny that others who do believe that Jesus was Christ, are not Christians. Some have told me that even Catholics are not Christians, when Catholics were the first Christians to rise; or... weren't they?

i think its because the delusion that everyone is wrong and and is going to hell apart from your clique is quite attractive to some as it gives a false sense of importance and purpose, the purpose to convert others. Personally its just delusions of grandeur IMO.

 

[Falcon60]

Indeed, I do not understand sometimes why some Christians deny that others who do believe that Jesus was Christ, are not Christians. Some have told me that even Catholics are not Christians, when Catholics were the first Christians to rise; or... weren't they?

Catholics were NOT the first christians. The 1st century Christians taught nothing even remotely resembling Catholicism. Where do we see the apostles worshiping Mary?

 

[Thomas]

The 1st century Christians taught nothing even remotely resembling Catholicism.

Really? Actually contemporary Catholicism resembles 1st century Christianity more than any of the western denominations ... and many of the post-Reformation denominations, especially the American ones, are a long, long way off.

I would ay we share that honour with the Orthodox patriachies.

There is nothing in contemporary Catholic doctrine that contradicts Scripture, although there is much 'unpacking' of the meaning which is open to question.

Where do we see the apostles worshiping Mary?

Oh good grief ... Catholics do not worship Mary.

We certainly ask her intercession, as we do with the saints, and there are those who have shown a particular devotion towards the Theotokos, but worship? No.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Falcon60]

Really? Actually contemporary Catholicism resembles 1st century Christianity more than any of the western denominations ... and many of the post-Reformation denominations, especially the American ones, are a long, long way off.

I would ay we share that honour with the Orthodox patriachies.

There is nothing in contemporary Catholic doctrine that contradicts Scripture, although there is much 'unpacking' of the meaning which is open to question.


Oh good grief ... Catholics do not worship Mary.

We certainly ask her intercession, as we do with the saints, and there are those who have shown a particular devotion towards the Theotokos, but worship? No.

God bless,

Thomas

The RCC wasn't formed and organized until after 300 AD. We did not see this elaborate hierarchy in the 1st century. Sorry, but I used to be catholic and we all prayed to Mary. That's akin to worship. She was made co-redeemer and co-mediator. The apostles taught that Jesus Christ alone is the Mediator.

 

[Thomas]

Some have told me that even Catholics are not Christians, when Catholics were the first Christians to rise; or... weren't they?

Well I'd love to say 'yes they were', but that would be rather inaccurate.

The term 'Christian' came into use very early, it's mentioned in Acts. The earliest use of the term 'catholic', with regard to the Church and its administration, goes back to Ignatius, writing in the early 2nd century. But then he wasn't talking about the Roman catholic Church, but the whole church, gathered under the bishops, gathered together in communion.

Later schism means there are now separate denominations where there should only be one.

There are a number of denominations who refer to themselves as 'catholic', the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox patriarchies, even one of the Anglican communions.

What I would support is a continuous lineage of transmission from Apostolic times, and certainly the doctrine is founded entirely on Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. There is nothing taught by the Roman Catholic Church that is not endorsed by Scripture, the same being said by the Greek, Russian and Oriental Orthodox, for example, even though we might differ in how we express those ideas ...

The idea that someone comes along, like the Mormons, of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and declares 'everyone else went wrong, but we've got it right' is, well, I don't need to say.

Indeed, all I have to do is wait five minutes, and repeat the message "You're all wrong!" ... with the sure knowledge that someone will come along and do it five minutes after me ...

So in short, in the West, the RCC is closest to the original teaching, even though as an institution it dates somewhat later.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Falcon60]

So in short, in the West, the RCC is closest to the original teaching, even though as an institution it dates somewhat later.

God bless

Thomas

The RCC may have some true doctrines such as the Trinity, but the apostles never established an institution with all this hierarchy. Instead they taught that all born again believers in Jesus Christ are "ministers." All are part of the "royal priesthood."

 

[radarmark]

Well, the RCC, Greek, Oriental, Armenian and Ethiopian churches have 2,000 years of proven history and were, most likely founded by the Apostles themselves. Most Christian sects started in the USA have neither Apostolic bases or a history of much over 200 years. Which is most likely true? Why?

 

[Falcon60]

Well, the RCC, Greek, Oriental, Armenian and Ethiopian churches have 2,000 years of proven history and were, most likely founded by the Apostles themselves. Most Christian sects started in the USA have neither Apostolic bases or a history of much over 200 years. Which is most likely true? Why?

Show the documentation that the RCC was in existence 2,000 years ago.

 

[Dream]

Show the documentation that the RCC was in existence 2,000 years ago.

I think you could attribute it to Jesus prayer in chapter 17 of the gospel, John. He prays for unity for his followers, even as he and his Father are one. So he prayed for a unity of different people (many different people), universally. He and his father are different but same, and so are his disciples. Therefore he prayed for a Catholic church, the word 'Catholic' being Latin for 'Union of All'.

The falling away from the apostles teachings was predicted and fulfilled, the documentation of which is plentiful. The next phase is for Jesus prayer to be answered. Will it be answered? I don't know, but that is the hinge upon which the legitimacy of Jesus ministry swings. If Jesus followers become united (love on another), then that is the sign named by Jesus that they are his true disciples. (John 13:35). Everything depends upon a Catholic church (also a Holy church). Both Catholic and Holy: two very difficult things to have at the same time in the same place.

The name RCC recognizes that the Church is not fully Catholic at the moment. If it called itself 'The Catholic Church' that would be divisive, so RCC is more appropriate. I would guess it seeks to be part of a Catholic church, or considers itself a fragment of that church.

 

[Falcon60]

Shortly after the deaths of the apostles, Christianity became illegal and forced underground. It wasn't until after 300 AD that Constantine made Christianity the religion of the state. Only then do we see the formation and organization of the RCC.

 

[Dream]

Shortly after the deaths of the apostles, Christianity became illegal and forced underground. It wasn't until after 300 AD that Constantine made Christianity the religion of the state. Only then do we see the formation and organization of the RCC.

The falling away, however, happened long before Constantine. Recall that the apostle Paul warned that shortly the disciples would fall away and be divided, and John said the antichrists had already appeared during his lifetime. It did not take 100 years, much less 400!

If Christianity could have been destroyed by laws or by emperors than it would have been many times over. The emperors couldn't get rid of it. Since they couldn't kill it they manipulated it using the divisions which existed within it, and they worked to exacerbate those divisions. It was wise and clever for Constantine to have his council 'Decide' on the doctrine of the Trinity. He shrewdly reasoned that this would weaken the Church's unity, making his own throne stronger.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

If Christianity could have been destroyed by laws or by emperors than it would have been many times over.

Christianity is very adaptable which is why its so prolific and diverse.

 

[Falcon60]

The falling away, however, happened long before Constantine. Recall that the apostle Paul warned that shortly the disciples would fall away and be divided, and John said the antichrists had already appeared during his lifetime. It did not take 100 years, much less 400!

If Christianity could have been destroyed by laws or by emperors than it would have been many times over. The emperors couldn't get rid of it. Since they couldn't kill it they manipulated it using the divisions which existed within it, and they worked to exacerbate those divisions. It was wise and clever for Constantine to have his council 'Decide' on the doctrine of the Trinity. He shrewdly reasoned that this would weaken the Church's unity, making his own throne stronger.

There has never been a complete apostasy. It is impossible because Christ said he would be with the church until the end of the world. Yes, many have fallen away, but God has always had His faithful remnant. There have always been bands of Christians everywhere who faithfully taught the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

There have always been bands of Christians everywhere who faithfully taught the gospel of Jesus Christ.

which Gospel there were two I think ?

 

[Thomas]

The RCC wasn't formed and organized until after 300 AD.

Well that's somewhat misleading. I would say the RCC as an institution came into being a lot later than that.

We did not see this elaborate hierarchy in the 1st century.

The hierarchy of laity, presbyter, bishop was in place by then. Same fundamental structure applies. The admin has grown, but then the world's a different place today.

Sorry, but I used to be catholic and we all prayed to Mary.

Then show me where in the catechism we are told to worship Mary?

You can't. It's your error, don't load it onto us.

That's akin to worship.

No it's not.

She was made co-redeemer and co-mediator.

Well for a start she hasn't — that title has been proposed, discussed at length for the very reasons you raise, but as yet is not formally ratified.

The big problem is that the RCC works out its theological statements from a very strongly metaphysical background — and most people make assumptions based on ignorance.

It is absolutely insisted that the Theotokos is human, no more, no less. (Theosophy, for example, would make her a demigod.) A favourite question is: Who baptised Mary, and when? It's not in Scripture, and if she ain't baptised, she ain't gettin' in!

The Catholic faith, unlike the post-Reformation denominations, insist that man takes a part in his own salvation, it's not something that either does or does not happen, and about which he can do nothing.

Jesus saves, as the saying goes, but He doesn't coerce ... and in our eyes at least, he affords man the noble dignity of being able to say "I played my part".

In short, if Mary had said 'no' to the angel at the annunciation, then where would we be?

So we see Mary as being the first to accept Christ, to open her heart to Him, and to do as He wills — and this has profound metaphysical implications for man, for what she can do, we can do, because she is not different from us. I don't know any doctrine in the West that comes anywhere near it for its depth and precision.

Each and every Catholic is comediatrix and coredemptrix, but in saying that we understand that it is in and through Christ alone that we are saved.

+++

The apostles taught that Jesus Christ alone is the Mediator.

So do we, and so does she, in all the Marian visions recorded.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Dream]

There has never been a complete apostasy. It is impossible because Christ said he would be with the church until the end of the world. Yes, many have fallen away, but God has always had His faithful remnant. There have always been bands of Christians everywhere who faithfully taught the gospel of Jesus Christ.

At the same time nobody is perfect except Jesus, and he got discouraged during his first ministry. He told a parable about what would happen after he left, that some servants would beat their fellow servants but he would find out about it and punish them. He also said many would claim to be him, and that is true. I have personally encountered 10 or more groups that claim to be the 'Remnant'. The actual remnant, however, are not so easily identified. John wrote in Revelation that the saints have a name that no other person will know (Rev 2:17). Believers apparently are very similar to unbelievers, as Jesus compared them to wheat and tares.(Mat 13) You cannot tell them apart. That is what the kingdom of God is like.

Bottom line: you cannot tell who is remnant and who isn't. Therefore the only approach to church is a universal one. The divisive attitude that tries to tell everyone who has correct doctrine, that is like trying to pull up the tares while is it still tangled up with the roots of the wheat. It hurts everyone, and that is what is wrong with claiming a particular group is the remnant or that there is some 'Pure' version of the church off by itself somewhere.