Fire My Words Myth #7: There is consensus on who is Christian and on who is not Christian. And as we press for exclusion, we create greater peace throughout the world.
Within a given denomination or wing of Christianity, there is usually a consensus about who is a Christian, and who is not. However, there is often little agreement among members of different faith groups on a common definition of "Christianity."
A Random group of adults can reach consensus on who is an evangelical Christian, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, historical Protestant, Pentecostal, LDS (Mormon), Jehovah’s Witness, and so on.
It is probably impossible to have any large group of adults reach a consensus on precisely who is a "Christian," and who is not.
There are 1,500 denominations, church affiliated groups just in the U.S. who consider themselves to be Christian. Then there are thousands semi-autonomous Christian congregations which are affiliated with a denomination. And there are thousands more who are not affiliated with any denomination. In assembling a random group of adults and asking each individual to sort the tens of thousands of groups into a pile of "true" Christians and another pile into those who are not “true” Christians, the result would produce groups nearly as random as the assembled adults. A given adult will select their own faith group as the only truly Christian denomination, and reject all others as unsatisfactory in comparison. Still others sorters might say that all are Christian. Thus, there is no possibility of reaching a common definition identifying the "truly" Christian.
The only reason we have agreement that approaches consensus on "Mormons are not Christian" in Thomisticguy’s anti-LDS Dummies blog is that they are not a random sample. The site is dominated by those who belong to his congregation and/or his personal bias.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints uses an inclusive definition of Christianity – A believer who sincerely, sympathetically, actively, and prayerfully considers themselves to be a Christian passes the test for us.
Some other Christians would scream “Foul! You claim to be the ‘ One True Church’; Mormons are Predators of other Christians.” Where one is in the possession of the truth does not make one predatory. Evidently, once people discover who we are they flock to us.
Thomisticguy practices religious exclusion . In particular, he defines the LDS as non-Christian and goes out of his way to be predatory, himself. His blog states his motives of attack. This approach has led to serious conflicts worldwide. Bosnia and Northern Ireland have experienced ongoing mass murder and genocide as they practice religious exclusion. Recent religiously based conflicts throughout the world have shown that some believers with a little Thomisticguy-like shoving find themselves moving from
"The LDS are different from us," to "the Mormons are not really Christian," to "the polygamist-polytheists are out to get us," to "Those Jesus-hating child rapers have no right to live."
Thom's blog is most certainly not anti-LDS and his stated purpose is clearly not what you sugest. Anyone can go and read it. You make it anti LDS because you constantly bring up LDS beliefs. When you were moving we had wonderful not LDS centered discusions.
In fact, I would say your blog is Anti-Christian in that you constantly attack Christian beliefs.
Further, if you are being honest, you will consider that I provided you with a couple of very good quotes from a very non-biased source that substantiates the claim that there are central Christian truths, and cults that do not hold to these truths are heretical, and therefor, not Christian. Just for the sake of argument, let me quote my self quoting these sources.
The following is an exact quote from a comment I made earlier. Please pay special attention to the next to the last paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I think it is wise to start by supporting my claims that the Nicene Creed is the foundation for Christian doctrine before I walk you through the doctrines supported and taught by the creed. Not only have I said this, Thom has said this. Still, you are less likely to accept our claims about our religion while insisting that we must accept your claims over the other research we have found. That is why I am giving you a few quotes from the Wikipedia article on the subject. All of the quotes may be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicean_creed#Controversy_of_Christian_definition
The Nicene Creed (Latin: Symbolum Nicenum), Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or Icon/Symbol of the Faith, is the most widespread Christian statement of faith.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the most widely accepted creed in Christianity. Since its original formulation it continues to be used in the Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite)Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant churches.
Here you will note the general use of this creed including in the Eastern Orthodox, which goes directly against a claim you made in a previous comment.
The purpose of the creed is to establish conformity of belief among Christians, and by public professions of the faith, to identify heretics or any disconformity to the Bible within each community. The Creed is an epitome, not a full definition, of what is required for personal orthodoxy. It was hoped that by memorizing this summary of the faith, lay people without extensive theological training would still be able to recognize deviations from orthodox doctrines based on the Bible.
The Nicene Creed, both in its original and revised formulas, is an implicit condemnation of specific errors. Thus, as different variations in Christian belief evolved in the 4th century and were perceived as threats, new phrases were seen to be needed, like amendments to a constitution. Just as one can perceive the historical developments of a constitutional society through amendments to its constitution, a careful and knowledgeable reader can identify the particular theological developments in a religious society that enforces a creed.
Of course, this paragraph explains how the creed speaks to doctrine, and why it was so important.
To the majority of modern Christians the Nicene Creed is regarded as the quintessential expression of Christian faith. In this traditional belief, all proper Christians affirm the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed is referred to by Roman Catholics and Orthodox as the "symbol of faith", and its recitation is often part of Christian worship services. In the Catholic Mass, it is also referred to as the "Profession of Faith".
However, some evangelical Christians who take an extreme view of sola scriptura reject the Creed (and especially its recitation), not necessarily for its content but simply because it is not found in the Bible.
This set of paragraphs makes the use in modern times very clear. Now I know you will want to focus on how certain Evangelical churches reject the creed. Of course, you need to pay close attention here. They do not reject the "content" of the creed, rather, they just do not use it in liturgy because it is not expressly found in scripture.
Some religious denominations such as Oneness Pentecostals, Arianism, churches of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to Christian scripture and identify themselves emphatically as Christians, but reject the Nicene Creed as an error or a misinterpretation and further reject the more recent Lausanne Covenant that affirms the Creed. As a result, many other Christians regard these denominations as not being Christian at all. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for persons in theologically adventurous "mainline denominations" to not speak the Nicene creed or to omit those portions with which they take issue. For example, a feminist theologian might simply be silent, rather than refer to God as "He" or "father."
I thought this would be a good place to end because this paragraph says exactly what I had said previously. Moreover, it specifically lists the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
(underlining added for emphasis)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My question is this: When you go out of your way to explain what you don't like about us Christians- Why do you want to be one? I means even Joseph Smith, your first prophet, said that we Christians were an abomination to God. So again I ask - why are you trying to be a one?
It sound like we Christian really upset you and you are always outlining our mistakes. Why don't you just called yourself an LDS/Mormon and we could all agree that is what you are. This way you could end your inter-conflict. As you have said before, you walked away from Christianity and choose Mormonism – be happy with what you have chosen and stop claiming to be what even your prophet wanted to change.
Thom's original profile indicated that he was anti-LDS. That was what the Blog was originally dedicated to accomplish. He has now diversified. He now speaks about many things. In particular to this topic, he is prone to hate speech toward Moslems and Hispanics in general. The record speaks for itself provided he didn't delete those posts as well.
I was relating to your post and being that it was on the myths of Christianity and who is an who isn't one - I asked why you wanted to be one in the first place. I consider that a legitimate question and would be interested in your reply. Anyone can call themselves a Christian but when you make up your own rules as to what a Christian is and it goes against what everyone else agrees with - why bother. If you don't quack like a duck - why try to be a duck? I believe that related to your posting quite well and I would appreciate an answer.
If you are going to post here demonstrate the discipline you show on your minister's (Thomisguy's) blog OR choose not to post.
Specific to the topic, Lucy.
First, Thom's blog has always been about theology made simple (aka theology for dummies), I've looked at his blog description on multiple occasions, and it has never been antiLDS. In fact, If you look back at the very first topics, Thom never mentioned LDS at all until you started turning all of his topics into LDS tirades.
Second, I mentioned the information that I had said previously because it directly relates to your claims here. I even underlined the segments that make my point clear.
You never answered that comment, and I assume that you still agree with everything I said since you did not answer it here. I don't know why you insist on saying things you know to be false, but I'm here to make sure others are not distracted by lies.
I can't make my question any clearer - it is obvious you don't want to answer my question. I feel I am well within your posting - it seems what we have here is a failure to communicate. I ask and you refuse to answer - so be it.
This blog is not a place where you can post whatever you want in order to wiggle around the topic and hijack the discussion.
By the way Lucy, this blog is not a democracy. If you do not respect my rules the door will be locked to you. You bring a darkness to the discussion with such undisciplined behavior.
If either of you disagree with my opinion bring something to the table that speaks to the topic directly. That is the way all topic discussions are supposed to begin.
Puri: The Nicene creed has already been talked to death in Myth 2 and 2a.
The discussion here, if you didn't get it, is the Protestant Christian philosophy of EXCLUSION. This is an extremely dangerous point of view. Play the game further and we will have a WWIII based upon Exclusion. Religion against Religion. Against Islam
Now regarding your outrageous statements: you wrote: “Thom's original profile indicated that he was anti-LDS. That was what the Blog was originally dedicated to accomplish. He has now diversified. He now speaks about many things. In particular to this topic, he is prone to hate speech toward Moslems and Hispanics in general. The record speaks for itself provided he didn't delete those posts as well.”
Response: until now I have maintained that you have been engaging in disingenuousness and also misrepresenting my theological positions. Here you are propagating clear falsehoods. Here is the truth:
● My profile has always remained the same since I first signed on at Blogstream approximately one year ago.
● I have never engaged in anti-LDS blogging. As my profile clearly states, my interest is medieval theology. The only time I ever reflect on LDS beliefs is when you come on my blog and espouse such beliefs. Even then I try to maintain a certain decorum and do not engage in disingenuous misrepresentation. I usually only reflect on what you present and don’t drag in a lot of other apologetic material. The reason I do this is because I believe that LDS theology can be effectively countered in a straight-forward manner. However, unless you bring up LDS beliefs, I have little interest in reflecting on them other than if a specific point can be used to illustrate Christian doctrine.
● Even though you constantly write posts specifically naming me and arguing against my theological positions (which you generally misrepresent); I have never written an article about you or used you for a foil.
● I am not “prone to hate speech.” This is an outrageous lie. I have written a few posts on Islamic extremism but never said anything personally derogatory about any Muslim or sect of Muslims. I have, likewise, written a couple of posts about the threat of illegal immigration in which I have not specifically identified Hispanics. Both of these topics (and they are topics) are legitimate topics of inquiry from a political perspective; however, I have reflected on them from a Biblical/moral perspective. Additionally, nothing I have ever written on my blog even comes close to the vitriolic and very personal attacks that you have consistently launched against me and other Christians. I know that attempting to get you to apologize for propagating such outrageous lies is a waste of time, so I would simply ask the reader to take note of your behavior when evaluating your religion.
● I have never deleted any of my posts (nor have I ever even deleted any of your comments no matter how outrageous) and I invite the reader to examine what Stealth is saying about me by going to my blog and reading them. Please reader, I ask you to do so and then compare what you read with what Stealth is claiming here.
Finally, again, your disingenuousness, fabrications, and vitriol speak volumes about your religion. Is your local bishop aware of what you write?
"Those movements and so-called churches that call themselves Christian but deny the basic tenets included in the Nicene Creed are not Christian."
There isn't a question of denying the little bit that is there. There isn't enough there for any church to be satisfied with them as core, excepting of course the Eastern Orthodox Church who has always rejected it. They remain Christian, regardless of your assertion. The Nicene Creed completely avoids even a mention of Christ's mortal ministry. It is preposterous to suppose it is sufficient on defining what it means to be Christian, let alone for most Christians to believe it has the qualities you claim for them. Most of them have creeds that attest to the insufficiency of the Nicene.
You have not demonstrate your claims with hard EVIDENCE.
-------------------------------------------------------
There is some consensus by most conservative and some mainstream denominations for the following list of core beliefs : (but not complete consensus)
The Trinity,
The deity of Jesus,
Jesus' bodily resurrection,
Jesus' atonement,
Personal salvation by grace,
The inerrancy of the Bible
God's inspiration of the Bible's authors,
The virgin birth, and
The anticipated second coming of Jesus in the 21st century.
But as we begin to look into these subjects we leave the Nicene creed way behind. And on the surface, one has to be really picky to use these to define the LDS as nonChristian where those who you say are Christian depart from them also. We believe all except Trinity. Yet, the Nicene Creed as it identifies the Godhead, we are in agreement with it. You have seen our articles of faith
________________________________________________
Thom: I certainly apologize for anything that I may have said that you find misrepresents you. At the same time, I read what you write and I have an opinion. I state my opinion from the truth that I know and from the danger of your words. I have not willfully misrepresented you, nor have been willfully dishonest. I have much to lose in doing that, and Thom, I don't do that
You preach incessant exclusionism. You are strongly critical of the American with Mexican ancestry living in this country without regard to differentiating between those legally here or not. Likewise, you are strongly critical of the Islam/Moslem religions in total and that they are generally very dangerous as a whole and a real and present threat to all things Christian.
My blog is an open forum where you have always had the privilege to remark on the content of my material. But you have mostly chosen not to comment. That seems to have been unwise. Now you have issue with so much of what I say. In the future if you want to resolve these issues put some light on the specifics of my offense. I would be glad to quote the source words from comments you have written specific to my remarks.
Do you need me to better quote you? I thought I was doing quite well. If you would like to see the inflammatory language you deny having written, I will reprint it here and source it to the particular topic in question. Just give the word. To a lesser degree, If you would like me to quote additionally the insulting comments written by others on your blog that you let stand, I can do that as well. Just give the word.
The subject of the declared purpose of your blog has come up before by BethAnne and I together... your purpose was straight forward and had been stated as such in your profile. It made negative reference to our church, now it no longer exists and you deny it ever was there. BethAnne can verify should anyone else give two cents for my supposed offense on this matter. But not all of us watching have been here for the year to have that context.
You ask, "Is your local bishop aware of what you write?"
Unless he blogs here, I would say not. I am identified. All my writings are available. My profile clearly identifies who I am. Do you suppose I need to tell him there is a Baptist minister in California that is offended by my characterization of his theological and ethical positions? Why don't you pull together the specifics. I will alert him. Perhaps he can call you.
Again, if I have offended you I cannot know that it has been for anything other than the truth. As stated I can accumulate written evidences for my opinions. I think it may be interesting reading for those who just haven't been watching as closely as I.
Don't you think that would settle any misconceptions? Please specifically quote statements you take offense to. I will do the work of justifying.
Now, I am not trying to set myself up as any kind of glorious example of Christ. I certainly am not. But I certainly also know the value of a personal error in myself when others reveal it to me. I am sure He sees me slow and witless. But as slow and witless as I am, I can make midcourse corrections.
There is a world of people who support the LDS as Christian.
Most liberal and some mainline Christian denominations, secularists, public opinion pollsters consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be Christian, in spite of our many unique beliefs. They define "Christian" very broadly as any person or group who sincerely believes themselves to be Christian. Son of a gun is we don't believe in Christ as God.
Further, there is no consensus on the definition of the term "Christian," and so there can never be agreement on whether the LDS and the other Restorationist denominations are Christian when picking it apart.
This is why we are Christian....just not like the Baptists....and the Baptists are not Christians like everyone else either.
Well, of course you knew this. And you have already disagreed, probably wanting to write that again. And all of it happens in your avoidance of a defense against my assertions in this topic.
my comment regarding the Nicean creed is specific to the topic. You claim there is no concensus as to what it means to be a Christian. I say that there is. MY previous quotes prove that. I underlined the points that were directly relative to this topic. I assume that you agree since you have never countered these points.
Further, you seem to be contending that limiting Christianity is the cause for the current world problems. This is just so far off base that I don't even know where to start.
Christianity is limiting. It is not universal regardless of a persons beliefs. I know you agree. If you truely thought that everyone is basically right, then you wouldn't be bothering with these myths. You are being dishonest and trying to make an argument that is appealing to certain people but when they get sucked into your lies, they will find that LDS beliefs are even more limiting than Christian beliefs.
The NT is full of quotes from Jesus and others which prove that Christianity is available to all, but not inclusive of all. I think the one I'll go with today, is the very last command Christ gave before acending into heaven.
Matthew 28
17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (KJV)
This passage clearly indicates two truths that do not mesh with what you seem to be trying to say. First, it indicates the entire world needs to hear the gospel, be baptized, and taught the commands of Christ. This means that they are not currently following Christ on the way to heaven (aka Christian). Second, it is an absolute command to witness, which involves telling people that they need Christ, not whatever they want.
It is not only possible to be a witness without being a hate monger (liek you seem to indicate), but being a Christian witness should be done out of love and concern for peoples eternal soul. Refusal to witness, considering what we believe, is actually hate mongering.
Refusing to witness is saying "I hate you and want you to go to hell." Is that what you are saying Stealth?
I forgot to mention, while my original comment made this very clear, I thought I would point it out since you seem to be ignoring this comment no matter how often I quote it.
The Eastern Orthodox church does not reject the Nicene Creed. You clearly said that they never accepted it, but they not only accept it, but they use it. They just do not accept ammendments made by the Catholic church after the last joint council.
Further, you claim there is no consensus. I underlined a portion of my quote that specifically uses the term "majority" in reference to the Christian community not accepting groups that reject the Nicene Creed. Now, admitedly, one portion of the definition of "consensus" indicates that if a single person in the community objects, the motion does not carry, but quite frankly, one would have to limit the community before a vote by consensus could be taken to limit the community. Otherwise, everyone who claims to be Christian could object to being excluded ... Ergo, I would go with the "general consensus" definition, which indicates that the community in question generally agree on a point. Since the majority of Christian agree that LDS (among other groups) are not Christian because their theology directly violated portions of the Nicene Creed, then there is an understood consensus.
I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but that is just the way things are. I am bringing you facts, not oppinions, and my quotes are in context, with the refference easily linked. I am using a very unbiased source to prove this also.
This is the way I look at things, Stealth. Jesus said, "wide is the path that leads to destruction, and many walk upon it, but narrow is the way that leads to righteousness, and few shall find it." I live my life, and witness like the path is much narrower than I ever thought possible, but I hope and pray that it is wider than I could ever dream.
In other words. I cannot accept beliefs that I view as not accepting basic Christian tenents, and witness to demonstrate that, but I hope and pray that all the people who accept these beliefs are still on the narrow path. For example, I oppose you and work hard at gettign you to see the light, or at least prevent you from convincing others to believe what you do, but I hope and pray that, even if you don't come over to my PoV, you will still be in heaven in the end.
"Since the majority of Christian agree that LDS (among other groups) are not Christian because their theology directly violated portions of the Nicene Creed, then there is an understood consensus."
For one, you do not understand the requirements of consensus. One very important one is ACTION.
For example, by your definition, there is consensus that war should be eliminated from the earth, yet through the action of governments and people, consensus has been denied (???). I think not. War is still waged and freely chosen. The true consensus is what people and governments do, not what they say.
Another example: By your definition, Consensus has been reached that "Christians worship a false God." The Earth's majority says that Christianity is not a religion based on a true concept of God because it is a fact that most of the people on this planet are not Christian. And they thus agree (supposedly) that Christianity does not conform to their collective opinion. Perhaps they also agree that all false believers are an inconvenience and there should no longer be false believers on the planet. And they take ACTION killing all Christians. Does that make them right? I think not.
The Nicean Creed if it represents a consensus (as you propose and I scoff at) then it should be assumed that Christians do not regard the coming of Christ to Earth and what He did here at all! Where it is entirely missing from the creed, consensus on his visit has not been reached.
Consensus requires much more than has been accomplished in what you propose. Unless to begin with, there has been a meeting by the majority of Christians where such a statement has been made rejecting the LDS as Christians. After such a meeting (presumably after we became a church), consensus would be made but only in part - as I described above.
Lets see what you have said here.
In particular, he defines the LDS as non-Christian and goes out of his way to be predatory, himself. His blog states his motives of attack. This approach has led to serious conflicts worldwide. Bosnia and Northern Ireland have experienced ongoing mass murder and genocide as they practice religious exclusion. Recent religiously based conflicts throughout the world have shown that some believers with a little Thomisticguy-like shoving find themselves moving from "The LDS are different from us," to "the Mormons are not really Christian," to "the polygamist-polytheists are out to get us," to "Those Jesus-hating child rapers have no right to live."
This is an extremely dangerous point of view. Play the game further and we will have a WWIII based upon Exclusion. Religion against Religion. Against Islam
Can you see that exclusionism being opposite to religious tolerance is directly opposed to the peace and brotherhood seen as Christian?
Here is a selection of quotes in which you setup religious tolerance as being paramount to truth, and Christian intolerance leading to WWIII.
Sure sounds to me like you are saying that we should be tolerant of all religious beliefs, and not strive towards truth. I'm sorry if this is not what you mean, but it is exactly what you have said, and I didn't even have to take things out of context to prove it.
As to consensus. Quite frankly, it is not realistic to get every single Christian together for a vote, and moreover, the vote would be skewed unless there was some kind of predetermined decision on what it is to be a Christian. You claim Thom did nto bring hard fact, but I have. You have not presented a single fact, nor source for your oppinions. I have.
Please identify where I said we should not strive toward truth?
No, I am saying Thom and his disciples have no business being exclusionary toward the LDS in their speech and their actions when the diversity in their own ranks denies consensus in what it means to be Christian.
I suggest you stop trying to generalize away from the myth, as you did above. The talk at Dummies pretends at a consensus that does not exist. So what follows is, How can Dummies "Christians" make any kind of exclusionary statements!?
Apart from that There is growing religious diversity in this country. There is also growing ethnic diversity in this country. As long as you guys feel threatened by it you will persecute those who are different in ways sociopolitically speaking than those acceptable and fundamentally different in your own ranks. It is religious bigotry to do this.
I for one have never done this, but you are making it abundantly clear you favor religious tolerance over truth.
As for your claims that there is no consensus, you cannot just ignore my first comment and hope it goes away. There is your consensus.
Think about it. Are Budhist Christian? What about Pagans? Maybe Muslims? No, none of them are. How can this be true if your claim that there is no consensus of what it means to be Christian is also true?
Stealth, I ask you, where are your facts? You have not brought a single fact, and especially have not countered the facts that I have brought.
Tell me though, is the 1500 year old Nicene creed gonna be your answer to all the myths? It's not even at the level of scripture.
I have facts, you don't ... good enough for me.
PuriCristos "the Nicene Creed is the foundation for Christian doctrine"
No Jesus Christ who made his atonement in the garden of Gethsemene, was tortured and died only to take up his body in three days is the foundation of Christian Doctrine.
If you disagree then please quote the New Testament and show me and Stealth where the Nicene Creed is and how Christ embraced it or for that matter any of the Apostles Christ left in his stead show me with Scripture from the New Testament where they accepted the Nicene Creed.
There is a great exclusionary of who is Christian and who is not. In our Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons (Non Pologimists)(Non Reformists), we don't worry about what your beliefs are we only ask for the right to believe as we desire.
Apparently 12 million+ world wide agree with Stealt and myself. Considering that the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons (Non Pologimists)(Non Reformists), is younger that our Country and many of your religions go back to the days of the Puritians who broke off from them, I would say that the conversion ratio from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons (Non Pologimists)(Non Reformists), has a higer conversion rate than other churches that consider themselves Christian and exclude other religions from that group.
As I have said before of course you, Thomisticguy, LookinforLucy all believe your church is the true one, if you didn't it would be stupid to continue attending, except Thomisticguy it is his lively hood and so it is for you PuriCristos.
However to attend a church you don't believe is true is just plain stupid. So in this vein of theology for dummies, you try to convince people that being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons (Non Pologimists)(Non Reformists), is wrong because you don't agree with us is very ironic because in this country we are free to worship however we please. I have met many disaffected people from Baptist and AofG that left because many times a month they are preached at that the Catholics, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons (Non Pologimists)(Non Reformists), the Seventh Day Adventist, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Methodist, Espicilialns (? sp) and other more reserved and quiter ways of reverence in worship are wrong when these people know members of these churches and believe the members to be upstanding members of Christianity and don't understand why a church must tear down other churches for proof that they are right.
This disaffection leads to many good people attending no church, because their traditions have started them on the path 24/7 without a day of rest and relaxation and a day to give back to the Lord the other six he gave us.
So go ahead. I have already had two people write PM to me regarding their conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints aka the LDS Church aka the Mormons (Non Pologimists)(Non Reformists), due to the Thelogy for Dummies and the websites provided by Stealth and myself. So Thomisticguy keep on doing what you are. It is working great for me.
Stealth my brother in the gospel take care and have a great week. Beth.
I am not a professional minister. I am working towards that end, but I am a profesional carpenter at the moment. Maybe I'll start my fulltime ministry when I am @30. Sounds like a pretty good path to follow, though the end is not so appealing.
Regarding what I said about the Nicene Creed being the foundation ... You are right in saying it is not in the Bible, but it summarizes what is in the Bible. If you read everything I wrote, you would understand the basis for what I have said. All other Christian doctrinal statements accept the doctrinal statements epitomized in the Nicene Creed. Just in case you need a refresher in what it says.
Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heaven and became incarnate
by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, becoming man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
suffered and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures ||
he ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
And his kingdom will have no end
This is the most concise restatement of the message in the Gospels ever writen. It boils down to the very essense of what is going on. In fact, this single statement from the Creed by itself is something even you and Stealth would accept I'd wager. That is how foundational this is. Talk about milk.
Finally, I also encourage Thom to keep it up. Stealth may not know it, but I know of a great number of Christians afraid to comment here because of how coarse Stealth can be, and they have PMed me on a regular basis encouraging me in my strugle to keep the truth on this blog.
Stealth, I don't really want to make a second comment so ... I'm sorry you dont' understand what I said. I tried to keep it simple, but ... well. I'll let you think about it for a while longer, and if you still can't rebut my first statements, then I guess you are letting them stand by no contest.
● You may not know this but “bearing false witness” is one of great “thou shalt not’s” of the Ten Commandments. Bearing false witness (Ex. 20:16) is when one or two people bring a false accusation against someone. I do not see how you and Beth Anne can either live with yourselves or claim to be moral people. Again, this says volumes about your religion. Here is my profile which has remained unchanged since the very first day I opened my blog on Blogstream it has never contained a “negative reference” to the LDS—your claim this utterly and completely false:
I'm a Baptist pastor that has a "strange" interest in medieval theology and music…This blog is dedicated to exploring Christianity and religion in a reasonable and courteous way. I like to exchange ideas and insights while avoiding the name-calling. I hope to set an atmosphere of gentleness and respect.
●Obviously, your claim about my profile and the actual text of my profile are 180 degrees apart from one another. Additionally, I adamantly state that my profile has never changed. If you and Beth Anne continue to maintain this falsehood it proves to me and others who are aware of the consistency of my profile and purpose on Blogstream of your violation of God’s commandments, your lack of godly conscience and your deception.
You wrote: “As stated I can accumulate written evidences for my opinions.”
● Please allow me to do some for you. You have claimed that I have used “hate speech” toward Hispanics. If you will go to my blog and find the post I wrote on the immigration issue (specifically illegal immigration) you will find that it is a reflection on the Biblical issues from the book of Philemon. It was titled “Immigration: What Would Jesus Do?” and I posted it on March 31, 2006 and it has 67 comments. If you will do a word search you will see I did not use the word “Hispanic” in the post and only once in the comments. The comment with the word Hispanic is below and it was a response to a question from Beth Anne. Here it is:
“On the other hand, I have also been involved in helping people from the Philippines attempt to get legal status. One individual was not legal and we had to help him return to the Philippians until he could go through the proper procedures. I’ve also worked with churches that have numbers of illegal Hispanics. We have worked out a policy and procedure to assist the pastor in these situations. It takes a mix of compassion, prayer and obedience to God’s word to help “real” people.
● This, of course, is not “hate speech” but a recounting of how pastors in my denomination have worked to help Hispanics in the United States move from the status of illegal to legal residents. Question, how many illegal immigrants have you helped get legal status?
●Again, I don’t expect you to truly apologize for intentionally misrepresenting my ideas, fabricating untruths and attempting to blacken my good name. The reason for this is that I understand the source of your vice to be your religion.
This is totally nonsense. These are the facts.
For the Eastern Orthodox the Nicene Creed justifies profound differences in their principles and dogmas that governed their worship as compared to other Christians.
The one baptism in the Nicene Creed is in fact many different baptisms totally disregarding the Nicene Creed.
Further:
Even today the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity is not understood in exactly the same way by all orthodox Christians. Beginning in the eighth century and officially since the eleventh century, Roman Catholics and Protestants have added the Latin phrase filioque (and from the Son) to the original text of the "Nicene" Creed at the point in which that document says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Thus, in the Western churches the orthodox doctrine says that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and from the Son (filioque), like a torch being lit simultaneously by two other torches. But in the Eastern churches it is maintained that the Holy Spirit, like the Son, proceeds from the Father alone, as when one torch lights first a second and then a third.
The Eastern churches hotly reject the addition of the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed as an unauthorized distortion of the doctrine of the Trinity. Frank Gavin observes, "No single difference between East and West has aroused so much bitterness on the part of Orthodox writers as has the matter of the Filioque." Theologians of the Eastern churches insist that the filioque introduces a false concept of the nature of God-even a false god-into Christianity: "By the dogma of the Filioque [the Western Trinity] the God of the philosophers and savants is introduced into the place of the Living God By the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone [the Eastern Trinity], the God of the philosophers is forever banished from the Holy of Holies. "
Because of this issue of the filioque, then, Eastern Christians and Western Christians have different concepts of the nature of the Trinity. This may seem like a small detail to nontheologians, but it is a dispute over the very nature of God, and it is serious enough to have separated the theologies of the East and West for nine hundred years.
-------------------------------------------
Latter-day Saints believe in the biblical Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but we are accused of being non-Christians because our concept of their nature differs from that of other Christians. The filioque dispute is also a dispute over God's nature. If the argument used to exclude Latter-day Saints holds, and all true Christians must share the same concept of the Trinity, then either the Eastern or the Western church, and more likely the latter, 26is not truly Christian. On the other hand, if dissimilar conceptions of the Trinity are allowed to Christians on both sides of the filioque dispute, then the original argument is discredited -differing conceptions of the nature of the Trinity do not necessarily render individuals non-Christian.
Ultimately, being Christian is less a matter of perceiving God in the same Nicene or Chalcedonian terms as other Christians do, and more a matter of perceiving God in the same biblical terms as the first Christians did. Did the atonement of Christ save first-century Corinthians and Galatians, even though they did not conceive of God in Nicene terms? Of course it did. And if that is true, then the atonement of Christ can and will save faithful Latter-day Saints who accept the New Testament witness yet do not conceive of God in Nicene terms.
● Okay, let’s first get some perspective and see who is doing what. Your blog is called “An LDS Genuine Article” and you write posts on the veracity and truth of LDS beliefs. Additionally, you specifically quote positions that I have taken on theological issues and attempt to show how mistaken I am. Meanwhile, my blog is called “Theology for Dummies” and is dedicated to being an open forum on a wide array of religious ideas. What I do is post a meditation or reflection on a specific topic and then encourage people to respond to it from whatever position they so choose. I have never specifically quoted you as a subject for a post or used your writing as a series of “Myths” to be disputed. Just off the top, I wonder who is being exclusionist…Hmmm….???
● Your definition of exclusionist makes you the worst offender. What is “An LDS Genuine Article” other than exclusionist. What, then, is the non-genuine LDS article then? Claiming you are the “genuine article” immediately implies that—for instance—the FLDS is not the genuine article. Isn’t that being intolerant? Why would you exclude Warren Jeffs from your “genuine” beliefs?
● What you are actually saying is that if I take a position on a religious or moral issue (i.e. murder is wrong) I am being exclusionist and causing racial and religious hatred. Nothing could be more inane than such a position.
● According to your logic, if I take the moral position that racial and religious hatred is wrong (which I do) than I am actually causing racial and religious hatred. Again, this is completely inane.
●Tolerance is different than acceptance. The word tolerance has included within it the connotation that people do not agree with each other. For instance, you adamantly disagree with me on practically everything I write (you take strong moral and religious positions against me) and yet I have never deleted even one of your comments on my blog despite your discourteous and often disingenuous statements. This is called tolerance. What you want is for me to accept everything you say and for you do disagree with anything I say. If I don’t agree with everything you say, you classify me as “intolerant” but you feel completely free to disagree with everything I write without ever seeing yourself as intolerant. Strange, huh?
●The reality is that I often find things to affirm about your positions and statements. Meanwhile you seem to disagree with virtually everything I write. This is clearly demonstrated right here with your “Myth” series. In reality, by your definition, you are perhaps the most intolerant person on Blogstream.
●I personally don’t have any problem with you disagreeing with me nor do I have a problem with you taking your strong positions on moral and religious issues. I enjoy a free-market of ideas. What I dislike is your false accusations and your claim that because I hold to certain Christian moral beliefs that I am intolerant. Who is actually being intolerant…hmmm…?
Some Christian groups assert the one baptism is a requirement for salvation and sacrament for Christians, calling this "baptismal regeneration". This is the general view shared by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, by churches formed early during the Protestant Reformation such as Lutheran, Anglican and Methodist, and Restorationist churches such as the churches of Christ.
But wait a minute, - no
Baptist groups espouse the one baptism as a worthy practice, but deny that baptism has any sacramental power, but rather only testifies outwardly to the operation of God's power, which is invisible, internal, and completely 'separate' from the rite itself. Other Baptist groups teach and preach that the baptism 'ceremony' is 'meaningful and necessary'.
I think you can now flush the consensus of the one baptism in the Nicene creed and flush the creed with it as a tool of consensus - no, they all believe in WATER!!. Do you want to go to other points?
A moment ago you thanked me for Including you. Now you seem conflicted.
Are you thinking that my doctrinal positions are fluid and when you take a position, I will take a position opposite your own? That seems a bit paranoid to me. The positions taken by you are nearly always the party line. You are articulate, You are esteemed, You have a blog that is very popular, it is always focused on doctrine, this seems like a perfect party for me to visit in order to make the best use of my instructional time.
Besides, perhaps most of the time I choose to comment is when I have something to say against the grain. (not against you, mind you) After all with so many of your own people and colleagues surrounding you, why should I simply always (as they) join in the symphony of adulation? I deliver a certain tension that keeps things from getting really boring or really etheral. You should be thanking me for being so dedicated.
"What I dislike is your false accusations and your claim that because I hold to certain Christian moral beliefs that I am intolerant. Who is actually being intolerant…hmmm…?"
The "...hmmm...." is a Lucyism. Did you get permission to do that?
It has been my astonishment that people can hold to certain moral beliefs defining themselves as exclusionist are at the same time self-professing, vocational ambassadors for Christ.
You are now splitting hairs and missing the point. At first you claim the Eastern church completey rejected the Nicene Creed from the begining, now you recognize that it is based on an amendment added by the RCC. Of course, you miss the point that they split away because there was no world council that they were invited to to discuss the ammendment, and so they hold that the addition is not representative of all Christians, and should not be in the Creed. In other words, the Creed prior to the amendment is representative of universal Christian beliefs.
You complain about multiple approaches to one baptism. What is baptism? It is a sign of acceptance into a given belief system. Already there were different approaches to baptism based on locations and availability of baptismal supplies. The one baptism is intended to indicate that just because a church might have to sprinkle instead of immerse, that baptism is still baptism. Now granted, the regional baptisms based on requirement evolved into religious symbolism.
Finally, you claim that you beliefs are based on what the early church believed, but the Nicene Creed represents one of the earliest statements of what every Christian church should believe. All previous statements were directed towards individuals and regions. The statement was created because of heresy that was growing in the church. The very first Creed was formed in 325 AD. We are talking about roughly the same time that past between the early church and the formation of the Creed, and between us and our American revolution. Tell me Stealth, do you think you could be counted to accurately recount the beliefs and reasons for the Boston Tea party better than people another 1500 years in the future?
You wrote in part. "All previous statements were directed towards individuals and regions. The statement was created because of heresy that was growing in the church. The very first Creed was formed in 325 AD."
Are you not aware of the Apostles Creed. It came from the Apostles for the church at large. It was not regional. Further Paul warned about corrupting views entering the Church while he was alive in the Bible. If you think the church was on the straight and narrow for 200 years after the death of the Apostles, you need to look at subsequent personal histories during that time period.
Read your Bible. Study the early Christians. Read about the martyrs. Do you imagine since they were destroyed by the corrupt ones who killed Christ earlier.....do you think there might have been other creeds more extensive than the Apostles.? Just put down the hammer and do a little reading.
Let me let you in a secret. I intentionally capitalized "Creed" in that statement because it was refering to a specific creed (notice the lower case there). Now, would you like to guess which specific creed the word "Creed" is refering to? If you follow the conversation you will note that I am most deffinitely refering to the Nicene Creed, which has been altered, and so contextually it is clear that I am saying the first form of the Nicene Creed arose in 325.
Then again, I guess I shouldn't expect you to pay attention to what I am saying considering how you handle things much more sacred than my writing.