Who Is a Christian?
Previously I discussed What makes a Christian? in the context of the authentic Biblical testimony. Unsurprisingly, I got some pushback from some people who felt like I was excluding them and/or their religion from this definition. Well, they were right. Many other religions, and cult groups that are offshoots of Christianity, are not producing authentic Christians by their teachings and doctrines. These include: Hinduism, Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses (The Watchtower), Mormons (LDS), Buddhism, and a whole host of spiritual new age religions. The true Jesus said that no one comes to God except through him (John 14:6).
Just the fact of a person and/or a religion not being Christian, is not to label them as bad people. In fact, in many cases we may share a lot of ethical and moral values. Also it may be possible that a person can inadvertently discover the real Jesus and put their saving faith in him – but it won't be because of the non-Christian doctrines found in these religions. God really knows the heart, so we should primarily focus on what the religions teach and how that compares to historic Christianity.
In particular, I found a conversation with an LDS person to be very enlightening. In general we share a lot of cultural, moral, and political views, which is a good foundation. However, they immediately took offense when I made the claim that Mormonism is not a Christian denomination. We'll discuss some of these objections below, but first a little background on the conversation.
I made some attempts to explain the historic view as follows,
I have studied Christian apologetics for many years, and found that Mormonism is not Christian. They have many of the same words, but have different meanings for many. Fundamentally, they deny there is only One God, but rather a succession of gods 'with whom we have to do' -- and that you can become one. The Bible says otherwise. Walter Martin in The Kingdom of the Cults, and also J. Warner Wallace, do a fantastic job of explaining this. Jim Wallace is the author of Cold Case Christianity and came out of a Mormon family. These men are not ignorant, but thoughtful truth seekers, as am I.
We have a lot in common with the LDS both morally and politically. I have Mormon friends and co-workers who I have had extensive spiritual discussions with, but they don't believe that the Bible alone is sufficient for salvation, since they believe it [and the Gospel] has been corrupted. They have added other scriptures, and it is clear that they follow a false prophet. At best, this might make them a Christian cult, but a Christian denomination cannot faithfully reject core truths of the Bible.
To this person's credit, they did make an attempt at a private conversation. I offered:
Thanks for the private response and the offer. I hope you intended to consider my views too. My goal here is clarity, not confrontation.
I grew up in SE Idaho and lived and played with many LDS. Yes, I have a copy of the Book of Mormon, I did read it, and I found nothing compelling leading me to believe its veracity. See the attached picture from my bookshelf.
The real issue here is that historic Christianity views many claims of LDS doctrine to significantly differ from what the apostles and Jesus taught – in incompatible ways. Hence we cannot agree that these views (including those about the nature of God and Jesus) are within the pale of orthodoxy, and thus are not true Christian doctrines. That is not intended to be mean, but honest.
In view of our conversation, I thoughtfully and prayerfully wrote the following blog post, What is a Christian?, to help people to better understand the perspective we hold on this. You don't have to agree, but please tolerate our differences. You can start with the TLDR at the bottom of the post if you are short on time, but this came from my heart.
I hold to the classical view of tolerance and I would encourage you to do the same. I don't expect you to agree, but neither do I expect to be told that I can't share my thoughts because it offends you, any more than I should make the same demand of you. I presented objective arguments, not subjective feelings and opinions. They are not my truth, your truth, or man's truth. There is only objective Truth about the historical and accurate information found in the Gospels, and that is what we should seek to clarify. I laid out a concise and accurate view of historical Christianity, and how it differs from LDS doctrine in some cases. My hope is that you see that there is a difference, not that you must agree which is correct. [Mormon] Elders that I've had discussions with acknowledge that there are differences.
See Classic tolerance. The views of others should be permitted to be expressed, and thus we can allow for different beliefs without saying that the person is bad just because they hold them. On the other hand, it is expected that views and positions can be fairly challenged. Banning speech, shouting down college speakers, or canceling people over their beliefs is not tolerance, but is rather viewpoint discrimination.
At that point it seemed that, for clarity's sake, we needed to define terms. That prompted me to write the previously mentioned blog post about What makes a Christian?. Now to address some of the objections that were raised.
The Objections
The comment that Mormons are not Christians is PAINFULLY ignorant.
First, without providing anything to back up this assertion, this appears to just be an attempt to claim the high ground. Did they mean that they don't need to listen to my "ignorant" opinion? Now, people can actually be ignorant of various things, but it is helpful to point out why what they said is wrong. It really would be helpful to first define what a Christian is if the argument is that they are one.
The name of the church has "Jesus" in it, so that says it all (i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
It is an invalid assertion to say that using a word makes something so, but that is far from a valid argument. As an example, is the People's Republic of China actually a representative republic? Do Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) standards actually include all people and increase diversity by removing people from consideration based on skin color? Does women's sports mean that all participants are by definition women? This is a very poor argument.
This person then offered to "further clarify" this with "FACTS" to those who don't get it.
Ironically, in this whole discussion, the LDS person did not present any useful facts at all. Instead, they made assertions and claimed to know the truth by a subjective testimony that they personally received. However, this was not reciprocated, as my testimony, reasons, and beliefs were all dismissed as invalid.
The Bible is not rejected AT ALL, since we study both the Bible as well as the book of Mormon and they go "hand in hand".
This is an example of not stating the whole truth and appears to be a deliberate misdirection. The LDS also have other "authoritative sources" such as Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price, and continuing revelations by their living prophets which are prioritized over the Bible. Actually, they only claim to follow the Bible "in so far as it is correctly translated". This is a dodge, since whenever a contrary doctrine is found in the biblical scriptures, they just claim that it is a corruption or misinterpretation. The reality is that we have a plethora of manuscript evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt what Jesus and the disciples actually taught and believed.
To claim that I am not a Christian is "very offensive and hurtful". Are you saying that ____ is also not a Christian, because that would be "a lie"?
I suppose I could say that I find proponents of CRT to be offensive when they claim that I am a racist because I have white skin. Or that I found the trans-Olympics opening ceremony to be offensive too. But what is the point? Do we shut them down and claim that they have no freedom to say or believe offensive or even false things? Am I not allowed to say that men are not women if someone is offended? Wouldn't a much better approach be to get clarity on what they believe, and then have a competition of ideas to see whose holds up to reality the best? Why should I compromise my beliefs that Christians are true disciples of the real Jesus Christ, as revealed in the New Testament, and be silent just because someone else disagrees or is offended.
I have had my own personal relation about my faith, about Jesus and about my conversion.
If you do not believe in the real Jesus, then how can one be saved? I have a very interesting personal example. I have a doppelganger that shares my exact full name. We were both born in the same rural area of Amish-Mennonite country in Michigan. So you can imagine my surprise at receiving a wedding announcement of "my marriage" one day. Is that my new wife (my current one might have something to say about that)? By the logic of saying that the name matters, it sure seems like a reasonable conclusion, right?! However, we all know that identity matters! Just sharing a name is not enough. It is clear from the characteristics of the Mormon Jesus, that he cannot be the same one witnessed by the early church. Paul actually warned of the danger of following a different Jesus or another gospel. (2 Cor. 11:4)
Just a quick thought about feelings over facts. Many Christians really do claim that they believe in Jesus and/or God because of some conversion experiences that they had or intense feelings. While personal experiences are valid to the person, it really should not be used as the sole foundation for your beliefs. Christian apologetics is the study of the facts and reasons why one should trust that Christianity is true, and that there is enough solid evidence to wager your eternal soul. If multiple people have different experiences, how can you rightly determine the truth based on that alone?
What you posted is just propaganda.
Propaganda does exist, but like we've seen, terms should be defined first. One definition is: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view." Of course, just making a claim of propaganda does not make it incorrect or invalid. Liking or disliking the content is not the determining factor either. In fact it is better to ask, "But, is it True?" Calling it propaganda just to dismiss the other point of view is really not being intellectually honest. If you don't want to engage in discussing the merits, then say so.
You must not have read the Book of Mormon, which is a history of the activity in the Americas in ancient days. Jesus had other lands and peoples to visit after His resurrection. It so states that in the Bible.
First, there is nowhere in the inspired scriptures of the OT/NT that indicate that Jesus went anywhere else on earth after his resurrection except for the recorded appearances to his followers. Claiming that the "other sheep" were the people he visited post resurrection, is at best a stretch, since the context is clearly about Jews vs. Gentiles. In addition, contrary to Mormon assertions, there is little definitive evidence of any visitation of jewish-related cultures in the Americas around the time of the resurrection.
I can give you a Book of Mormon for you to read, ponder, and pray about to "receive your own answers (from God)" instead of studying the opinions of men.
The suggestion is that I must just be misinformed (or ignorant), and that I needed a Book of Mormon to receive my own answers from God, instead of listening to the opinions of mere men. The claim is that if you read the Book of Mormon, then you will receive a confirmation from God as to its truth. But what if you did, and found the opposite, as I actually did? Is it my fault that God didn't give me another revelation when asked?
You are entitled to your opinion, but I expect that you respect mine by not making statements you claim to be true that are just man's opinion.
That is a very interesting "ask", since it is very one-sided. Why can't I ask the same of them? I agree that we should be allowed to have our own opinions, but should that be extended to banning the honest expression of beliefs in public?
We can only know "absolute truth" when we arrive in the "heavens". I have a 100% testimony of the truth that "your Jesus" and "my Jesus" are one and the same
Objective truth is a much better word, since it makes a contrast with subjective truths. Subjective truths are really no more than personal opinions, testimony, experiences, or feelings. Objective truths are true no matter whether someone believes them or not. Much more can be said about this topic. Bottomline, though, is that subjective truth cannot, and should not, be used to base our eternal salvation on.
TLDR
A Christian is a disciple of the true Jesus as described in the Bible.
Merely claiming to be a Christian does not make it so, even if your religion uses his name.
Following a Jesus who is not actually the Biblical Jesus cannot save you, but non-Christians can still have good morals.
You are allowed to be offended by hearing the truth about Jesus. The choice is your.
Resources (aka Christian propaganda)
What is Tolerance?
Cold-Case Christianity on Mormonism
Objective vs. Subjective Truth
No comments:
Post a Comment