Are Mormons and JWs Christians?

ChetSinger said:

I'm content to take the admin's explanation for this move: they were being questioned why such teachings were allowed in a Christian-identified area when they aren't accepted as Christian by any major denomination. .

Click to expand...

Didn't they recently join the National Council of Churches? Or was that just in Samoa?

TheBarrd said:

Not really. To a Messianic Jew, Jesus is the promised Messiah that the rest of Judaism is still waiting for.
Jesus Himself was born of a Jewish mother, making Him a Jew, and His original disciples were mostly Jewish.
The first Christians were Jewish...you might say that they were Messianic Jews

Click to expand...

I am well aware that Jesus was a Jew. Baha'u'llah was a Muslim. But Baha'is are not Muslims.

Or are you denying that these Messianic Jews are Christians?

Give to Cesar what is Cesars. Give to God what is Gods.

Follow your light, God will take care of the rest

It gets complicated really fast. CF can rule as they so wish. But I think the reality is simply much more complex.

Having frequently participated in theological discussions for years I have seen lots of theological propositions put forward in regard to, say, the Trinity, or various Christological positions; theological propositions which are, fundamentally, in disagreement with the historic Christian faith.

A large problem is that many churches simply fail to properly catechize. It's not enough to simply brush the surface on matters of important theology, these are rich, complex theological concepts that are going to need delving into.

Not infrequently someone will refer to the Virgin Mary as the mother of God or Theotokos, and almost inevitably at least someone will voice their opposition to calling Mary the mother of God. Why do they reject calling Mary the mother of God? Because they don't understand what it means, instead they have been improperly taught that it elevates Mary to divinity, rather than affirm the union of the Divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. Namely, she is called mother of God because God condescended and became flesh in her womb.

But that's not a particularly significant case. More troubling, I've found, are deeply mistaken and confused conceptions of the Trinity. I have regularly seen some Christians describe the Trinity in explicitly non-Trinitarian language, where they are not teaching Trinitarianism but a form of Modalism.

I have seen many use Apollonarian descriptions of the Incarnation--that Jesus was a man effectively inhabited by the Divine Logos and the Logos took the place of the human soul in Jesus.

There are often frequently Audianists who insist that God, in His Essence, has a physical body somewhere in a physical, literal place called "Heaven".

There are Julianists who claim that Jesus in His humanity could not suffer but was immortal and impassable from the moment of conception and only by the intervening act of God could Jesus die.

There are those who say that Jesus gave up His humanity in His ascension, and is therefore no longer human.

All of these represent explicitly heterodox ideas that are no less heterodox than that of certain verbotten groups.

From an historically orthodox perspective it is no less heretical to deny the essential humanity of Jesus than it is to deny His essential divinity. These are equally heretical positions in orthodox Christianity. Modalism is no less heretical than Unitarianism, both are an explicit rejection of the Trinity.

Instead it often seems to me that certain heresies are more acceptable largely because there is a weak voice of catechesis in many churches, instead of properly teaching on the importance of the Hypostatic Union and what it means, or explaining the importance and meaning of Trinitarianism it becomes seen as sufficient to simply say: "One must believe Jesus is God" and leave it at that. The problem is that "Jesus is God" as a statement can be heterodox or orthodox depending entirely on what is meant by "Jesus is God", as for just one example, the ancient Arians never had a problem confessing that Jesus was God, they regularly called Jesus God--but a separate and secondary God to the Father, Arians believed in two Gods, the uncreated Father and the created Son or Logos.

-CryptoLutheran

I can not really say if they are Christian or not
I can say that the Mormons and JW are heterodox in many serious ways

Some Mormons and JWs are Christians just as some Catholics, Protestants etc. are.

Yes. We are Christians for the following reasons:

• We try to follow closely the teachings and behavior of Jesus Christ.—1 Peter 2:21.
  
  
• We believe that Jesus is the key to salvation, that “there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.”—Acts 4:12.
  
  
• When people become Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are baptized in the name of Jesus.—Matthew 28:18, 19.
  
  
• We offer our prayers in Jesus’ name.—John 15:16.
  
  
• We believe that Jesus is the Head, or the one appointed to have authority, over every man.—1 Corinthians 11:3.
  

However, in a number of ways, we are different from other religious groups that are called Christian. For example, we believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, not part of a Trinity. (Mark 12:29) We do not believe that the soul is immortal, that there is any basis in Scripture for saying that God tortures people in an everlasting hell, or that those who take the lead in religious activities should have titles that elevate them above others.—Ecclesiastes 9:5; Ezekiel 18:4; Matthew 23:8-10.

kiwimac said:

Some Mormons and JWs are Christians just as some Catholics, Protestants etc. are.

Click to expand...

Please explain how this works. Thank you.

Persecute much? Ironic. what makes CF think they have any authority to make a ruling like this anyway? Mormons couldn't be anything but Christians. It's in the name for Christ's sake. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The only major difference between them and any other Christian church is the book of Mormon, and Jesus was in that book too. Appeared to the nephites after he was resurrected.

As far as i can tell, it's a violation of your own rules to make such a ruling. Hardly a Christian thing to do if you ask me.

Always good to have these sort of questions if you ask me. An opportunity to set the record straight.

1 Peter 3:15: “Always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you

Clearly both Mormons and JWs are based not on the teachings of Scripture but men who decided that Scripture was not enough or needed to be interpreted in a contrived manner to fit their views. To accept either you have to deny the clear revelation of the Word and accept a Christ that the Bible doesn't present to us. How can you conclude as long as they believe in Christ when the Christ they believe in is either an archangel (JWs) or a god (Mormons)? It's not the Jesus of the New Testament thus they are cults built around men (Smith and Rutherford).

There seems to be a lot of confusion on what Christianity is exactly. A Christian understands what it means to "believe in Jesus". That belief is based on various foundations.

First, there are the teachings, from witnesses or their witnesses, in the New Testament. It's important to understand, from a proper education, that these teachings are both explicit (directly stated) and implicit (implied by statements of the witnesses). Furthermore, no single belief exists in a vacuum or stands by itself, but must be understood in context of all teachings.

Second, there are beliefs stated in ancient texts, accepted as orthodox by early Christians, which were not included in the New Testament. These beliefs cannot contradict what's understood in the New Testament, obviously.

Third, there are teachings, and practices (rituals, customs, etc.), which were formalized slightly later, but widely accepted by early Christians with probable origins with the Apostles and Paul as well as the early bishops and presbyters. An example of this is the explicit doctrine of the Trinity, which also happens to be implicit in the New Testament.

A Christian must believe in, and LIVE, these teachings and practices. To deny the New Testament, including its obviously implicit teachings as accepted and spread by the Apostles, Paul and their early successors, means one is not a Christian. The individual cannot pick and choose then claim to be a Christian. So, no, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians in any meaning.

The differences among Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians and the many, many different Protestant groups are another matter entirely.... At the very least they are all in agreement on the core beliefs as stated above.

jesse100 said:

Clearly both Mormons and JWs are based not on the teachings of Scripture but men who decided that Scripture was not enough or needed to be interpreted in a contrived manner to fit their views. To accept either you have to deny the clear revelation of the Word and accept a Christ that the Bible doesn't present to us. How can you conclude as long as they believe in Christ when the Christ they believe in is either an archangel (JWs) or a god (Mormons)? It's not the Jesus of the New Testament thus they are cults built around men (Smith and Rutherford).

Click to expand...

The nicene creed and the Trinity itself claims that Jesus is God Almighty does it not? We believe that Jesus is the son of God which is clearly what the Bible teaches.

jathtech said:

The only major difference between them and any other Christian church is the book of Mormon,

Click to expand...

Well that's not true. Book of Mormon or no Book of Mormon the LDS teaches a great many things that are quite different than what orthodox Christian churches teach.

Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants all accept the Nicene Creed as the definitive standard of Christian orthodoxy; further there are various matters of Christology and Theology proper that makes things quite distinct. In orthodox Christianity Jesus is the the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, the only-begotten Son of the Father, who being Son of the Father is uncreated and eternal--homoousios, of one substance with the Father. Jesus is Theanthropos, the God-Man, being both fully God on account that He is uncreated, eternal God begotten of the Father without beginning and fully human on account of His Incarnation, conception, and birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary. There was never a time when the Son began, the Son has always been, uncreated, having His origin in the eternal nature of the Father, and is therefore true God of true God.

For orthodox Christians that is an absolutely essential part of our religion.

-CryptoLutheran

Whoa, We are putting the cart before the horse here.

What is the definition of Christian? Where in Scripture can I find this definition?

smaneck said:

Didn't they recently join the National Council of Churches? Or was that just in Samoa?

Click to expand...

Not in the US, afaik.

Are they Christians, yes. They certainly follow Jesus (at least the JW's).

Are they members of a religion called Christianity, no. they do not adhere to the historic creeds of the Church.


Steve

cyberlizard said:

Are they Christians, yes. They certainly follow Jesus (at least the JW's).

Click to expand...

Well, they follow someone they think to be Jesus but who is not the being that virtually all Christians believe to be Jesus. Should that count?

IOW, it's like saying that you believe in Satan--the Martian who brings candy to children on Christmas Eve. Is that Satan...or is it something/someone else to whom certain people have given Satan's name?

RDKatz said:

Whoa, We are putting the cart before the horse here.

What is the definition of Christian? Where in Scripture can I find this definition?

Click to expand...

The Nicene Creed is the accepted, historic, authoritative, Bible-based statement on that. You can find it in the rules section of Christian Forums.

Albion said:

The Nicene Creed is the accepted, historic, authoritative, Bible-based statement on that. You can find it in the rules section of Christian Forums.

Click to expand...

Oh that is how truth is verified? Tell me that if the Creed is inspired and sacred and considered truth, why was it not placed in the bible as canonical scripture?

TheBarrd said:

There has been a lot of confusion since CF made it's ruling that Mormons and JWs are not valid Christian faiths.
There has been anger and hurt feelings...and accusations flung back and forth.
Many of us feel that this decision was right and proper. There are basic tenets of Christianity that simply may not be compromised.
Many others feel that the decision was unfair. They feel that, as long as someone believes in Jesus he or she is a Christian, regardless what other strange doctrines he/she might hold.
Wdo you think?

Click to expand...

If one can acknowledge how all the denominations of Christianity manufacture their own interpretations of scripture to define their own understandings and how all of these interpretations are manufactured by men, they are all fallible to begin with. Even the Nicene Creed which was developed by man 300 years after Jesus died, has been changed and adapted by man.

Bottom line, if a person believe in Jesus as God and they are seeking outside acceptance of them being a true Christian, there will always be certain groups, telling them they are not, because they don't follow the same exact creeds as they do.

Beliefs are personal phenomenon and those who seek approval of theirs from others, likely are insecure in their beliefs. The same would also apply to those groups telling those who disagree, they don't belong.