The Question: Are Mormons Christian? A Biblical Approach

[_Albion]

It does seem to me that in such discussions it is important to understand ways Mormons and orthodox Christians understand terms. Frequently I see terms and statements of Mormon belief that appear, from my perspective, quite innocuous at first glance but which cover some of the largest differences between the two camps. In the opening post to this thread a statement is attributed to Millet as follows:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS has always accepted Jesus of Nazareth as testified of in the Bible: (I think this debate is partially based on differences of opinion on that statement) the divine Redeemer and Son of God who atoned for sins of all mankind and ensured our universal resurrection. The church has never ceased to affirm that there is no other name given whereby man can be saved (see Acts 4:12).

The statement that stands out to me is: "...the divine Redeemer who atoned for sins all all mankind and AND ENSURED OUR UNIVERSAL RESURRECTION." As I understand this statement and as I understand Mormon teaching this is essentially the extent of the Mormon "salvation" that Jesus offered through his death and resurrection...and that all people, whether or not they have faith in Christ, receive it. What then are we to make of the many references in scripture that say in various ways "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved"? Traditional Christianity, that which has been taught and believed for more than a thousand years, does teach that resurrection is provided for all through Christ's atonement and resurrection...forgiveness of sins has been accomplished in Christ BUT it is the expression of repentance and faith in Christ that enables the forgiveness of that sin to be applied to the sinner making him/her fully righteousness in the sight of God. We are not in receipt of that forgiveness just because Christ did it which does appear to be the case in Mormon teachings. To the repentant, forgiven Christian the salvation that Christ offers through his death and resurrection is to be covered by Christ's righteousness and made just as if we never sinned to inherit full and eternal life with God in heaven as heirs of all his has, joint heirs with Christ Jesus. Mormon theology appears to me to teach that all are automatically forgiven their sins, are resurrected but then have to work out their own salvation, fulfilling a series of requirements in order to fully enjoy all that the Father has for them. Salvation...a word used by both Mormons and orthodox Christians with different essential meanings or results.

[_Albion]

Madeleine, thank you once again for demonstrating in your post that though I am not a RC, I do have a communion with RC believers in commonly held beliefs essential to salvation. If the church I attend were to close down, I could select numerous other churches to attend where I would find spiritual communion with other believers. If my church were to close down and the only other church in town was the Mormon ward house, I could have no communion there.,

[_Tobin]

- I gave scriptural reference for every doctrine of belief in the Nicene creed. Your response re: of fourth or fifth century seems to me something learned, and repeated. Not addressing the very thing you request.

LOL

If she gave references to a Superman comic instead for the Nicene creed, would that prove that Superman is the Christian God? The Nicene creed is a construct of the 4th and 5th century AD. It is not mentioned in the Bible at all. madeleine's failure to grasp that makes me wonder why Megacles is trying to discuss this topic with her at all? These references are a meaningless joke and a pure imposition of smoke and mirrors on the Bible.

[_sr1030]

- I gave scriptural reference for every doctrine of belief in the Nicene creed. Your response re: of fourth or fifth century seems to me something learned, and repeated. Not addressing the very thing you request.

LOL

If she gave references to a Superman comic instead for the Nicene creed, would that prove that Superman is the Christian God? The Nicene creed is a construct of the 4th and 5th century AD. It is not mentioned in the Bible at all. madeleine's failure to grasp that makes me wonder why Megacles is trying to discuss this topic with her at all? These references are a meaningless joke and a pure imposition of smoke and mirrors on the Bible.

Are you saying that the words "Nicene Creed" are not mentioned in the Bible? If so, why would you do that? Did someone say those words were in the Bible?

sr

[_Tobin]

Are you saying that the words "Nicene Creed" are not mentioned in the Bible?

No, I'm saying the Nicene Creed itself is NOT mentioned in the Bible, nor is it ever discussed in the Bible. If this were paramount to Christians, don't you think God would have mentioned it?

[_maklelan]

Are you saying that the words "Nicene Creed" are not mentioned in the Bible? If so, why would you do that? Did someone say those words were in the Bible?

sr

I cannot speak for Tobin, but I can offer two observations. First, it is not a construct of the 4th and 5th centuries, but of the late-third and early-fourth centuries. Second, the linchpin of the Nicene Creed is the word homoousios, which is not only a word that nowhere appears in the Bible, but is a concept that did not exist anywhere in Christianity until the second century CE at the very earliest, and even then it was a heretical concept, which was a reason the ECFs were reluctant to use it when Constantine suggested it. To rephrase Tobin's claim--and to invite any and all challenges--the notion of consubstantiality is absolutely nowhere to be found in the Bible.

[_sr1030]

Are you saying that the words "Nicene Creed" are not mentioned in the Bible?

No, I'm saying the Nicene Creed itself is NOT mentioned in the Bible, nor is it ever discussed in the Bible. If this were paramount to Christians, don't you think God would have mentioned it?

You mean like he mentions Mormon teachings and interpretations in the Bible? This is not logical reasoning. The Nicene Creed is an interpretation of biblical teachings. Why should it be mentioned in the Bible? That is like saying the word "Trinity" should be mentioned in the Bible.

sr

[_Tobin]

Are you saying that the words "Nicene Creed" are not mentioned in the Bible? If so, why would you do that? Did someone say those words were in the Bible?

sr

I cannot speak for Tobin, but I can offer two observations. First, it is not a construct of the 4th and 5th centuries, but of the late-third and early-fourth centuries. Second, the linchpin of the Nicene Creed is the word homoousios, which is not only a word that nowhere appears in the Bible, but is a concept that did not exist anywhere in Christianity until the second century CE at the very earliest, and even then it was a heretical concept, which was a reason the ECFs were reluctant to use it when Constantine suggested it. To rephrase Tobin's claim--and to invite any and all challenges--the notion of consubstantiality is absolutely nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Thanks maklelan for clarifying. I didn't check the round dates for the Nicene Creed and was just basing my response off of Megacles reply.

[_sr1030]

Are you saying that the words "Nicene Creed" are not mentioned in the Bible? If so, why would you do that? Did someone say those words were in the Bible?

sr

I cannot speak for Tobin, but I can offer two observations. First, it is not a construct of the 4th and 5th centuries, but of the late-third and early-fourth centuries. Second, the linchpin of the Nicene Creed is the word homoousios, which is not only a word that nowhere appears in the Bible, but is a concept that did not exist anywhere in Christianity until the second century CE at the very earliest, and even then it was a heretical concept, which was a reason the ECFs were reluctant to use it when Constantine suggested it. To rephrase Tobin's claim--and to invite any and all challenges--the notion of consubstantiality is absolutely nowhere to be found in the Bible.

From Wikipedia: The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νίκαιας, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is the profession of faith or creed that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians.[1]

It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day Iznik in Turkey) by the first ecumenical council, which met there in the year 325.[2]

The Nicene Creed has been normative for the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and the great majority of Protestant denominations. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity itself in Nicene Christianity.[3]


Now that we have that out of the way, why do you think certain words should be in the Bible such as "homoousios"? And haven't you moved away from discussing your "one God" comment?

sr

[_maklelan]

From Wikipedia: The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νίκαιας, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is the profession of faith or creed that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians.[1]

It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day Iznik in Turkey) by the first ecumenical council, which met there in the year 325.[2]

The Nicene Creed has been normative for the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and the great majority of Protestant denominations. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity itself in Nicene Christianity.[3]

Now that we have that out of the way,

Have what out of the way? That's Nicene Christians--a subset of the broader Christian community, according to the authors of this particular Wikipedia article--use the Nicene Creed to define Christian? I've stated that myself a number of times. Did you have some other point here?

why do you think certain words should be in the Bible such as "homoousios"?

I didn't say words, I said concept. The concept is not in the Bible, and if you believe that the Nicene Creed expresses a biblical concept, then, yes, you absolutely need to find the concept of homoousios in it.

And haven't you moved away from discussing your "one God" comment?

No, I'm still very much available to discuss it. Do you have something to contribute?