Are Mormons and JWs Christians?

[Tess]

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Matthew 7:21-23

Oh I'm not saying they'll go to heaven; I wouldn't presume to make judgements like that.
I'm just saying that if they want to identify as Christian then I'll respect it

 

[Ubuntu]

I believe that a “true Christian” is any person that is a part of the church invisible. This obviously includes people from non-orthodox denominations. God is the only one who knows which individuals that are saved, he knows all the branches of the living vine. I'm sure that God has children among the JW as well as the Mormons, even if I disagree with many of their doctrines.

However, when speaking broadly of denominations I believe that we have to use a sociological definition. A “Christian” is a member of a religious body that that has a historical connection to the Christian tradition. Both JW and the Mormons fit this definition. In a sociological sense it doesn't matter whether or not we're talking about an orthodox or an unorthodox form of Christianity, they are all “Christians”.

In other words, a “Christian” isn't the same thing as a “Christian”! Clear as mud?

 

[Hammster]

You lost me.

I was discussing motivation. What if my motivation is akin to one beggar showing another beggar where to find food?

 

[Hammster]

Oh I'm not saying they'll go to heaven; I wouldn't presume to make judgements like that.
I'm just saying that if they want to identify as Christian then I'll respect it

That's not what you said.

 

[bhsmte]

I was discussing motivation. What if my motivation is akin to one beggar showing another beggar where to find food?

Sure. That would mean one beggar is psychology motivated to do so. Where another beggar, may be motivated to not show them, so they can keep more food for themselves and that behavior would also originate in their personal psyche.

 

[Tess]

That's not what you said.

Yes it is.

If they want to be called a Christian, then they can be! It's no issue or harm to me.

 

[Hammster]

Yes it is.

If they want to be called a Christian, then they can be! It's no issue or harm to me.

First you said they can be. Then you changed to your respect them. Now you are back to they can be.

 

[Hammster]

No problem with it being your interpretation with what Jesus said.

To get nit picky about the whole thing though, a whole lot of highly educated NT historians, will tell you the portions of the gospels they will claim has historical reliability, is quite small. Which is why, faith is required to accept it as accurate.

And this is the lie from the beginning. "Did God really say...?"

 

[Tess]

First you said they can be. Then you changed to your respect them. Now you are back to they can be.

No....
I'm saying they can be Christians if they want. In my mind, 'Christian' is a label, and doesn't necessarily equal heaven.

 

[Hammster]

No....
I'm saying they can be Christians if they want. In my mind, 'Christian' is a label, and doesn't necessarily equal heaven.

So truth isn't relevant?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And this is the lie from the beginning. "Did God really say...?"

Given all the people who claim to speak for God, that's a reasonable question.

 

[bhsmte]

And this is the lie from the beginning. "Did God really say...?"

Lie based on what support?

Historical writings are examined by those trained to do the same. They have a method (the historical method) which was derived to make the process as objective as possible and take away assumptions without any corroborating basis. Historians who use the historical method critically, go down a list of methods utilized to determine whether an ancient writing has historical credibility or not. You will get various opinions, depending on how each historian utilizes the method, but it is very interesting to see how it works.

I spent quite a long time studying the work of well credentialed NT historians and scholars and it was an eye opening experience, because I was a Christian when I started the process.

 

[Hammster]

Given all the people who claim to speak for God, that's a reasonable question.

Questioning what was meant is different than questioning what was said.

 

[Tess]

So truth isn't relevant?

Not really. At least, I'm not a Mormon or JW so it's not relevant to me, and if they want to call themselves Christian it doesn't bother me, so in that sense, no.

I can see why you might disagree, but that's how I see it anyway.

 

[bhsmte]

So truth isn't relevant?

Who's truth are you referring to and how was it arrived at?

 

[Hammster]

Lie based on what support?

Historical writings are examined by those trained to do the same. They have a method (the historical method) which was derived to make the process as objective as possible and take away assumptions without any corroborating basis. Historians who use the historical method critically, go down a list of methods utilized to determine whether an ancient writing has historical credibility or not. You will get various opinions, depending on how each historian utilizes the method, but it is very interesting to see how it works.

I spent quite a long time studying the work of well credentialed NT historians and scholars and it was an eye opening experience, because I was a Christian when I started the process.

Then you believed the lie. Hopefully God will grant you repentance.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Questioning what was meant is different than questioning what was said.

You mean what was said about what was said.

 

[bhsmte]

Questioning what was meant is different than questioning what was said.

The scholars typically focus on the meaning and the historians focus on whether the writing has historical reliability. In the end, just because something was written down, does not mean it actually happened.

 

[bhsmte]

Then you believed the lie. Hopefully God will grant you repentance.

I understand you need to say that. I also understand, you likely can not demonstrate in any objective or reliable way, that I believed any lie. I have no problem with those that say they believe the writings on faith, but to say the writings are historically reliable, would not be accurate in my view.

The NT is a fabulous work of theology, not so much a work of reliable history, in my view from examining the work of people who forget more about this stuff, than anyone on this board will ever know.

 

[Hammster]

You mean what was said about what was said.

No, that's not what I meant.