The problem with your argument is that you simply assume the very thing you're trying to prove.
You define "Christian" as "someone who accepts the Nicene Creed, post-apostolic tradition, and your particular understanding of the Trinity." Then you point out that Latter-day Saints don't accept those things and conclude they aren't Christian.
That's not an argument. That's circular reasoning.
The apostles never recited the Nicene Creed. Peter never taught *homoousios*. Paul never told converts they had to affirm fourth-century metaphysical definitions before they could be called Christians.
What did they preach? Faith in Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God, His atoning death, His resurrection, repentance, baptism, and discipleship.
Latter-day Saints affirm every one of those things.
You say Christianity is the faith of the "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Fine. Now demonstrate from Scripture that this institution could never fall into apostasy, corruption, doctrinal confusion, or loss of authority. Because the New Testament repeatedly warns about exactly those dangers.
You appeal to tradition. Latter-day Saints appeal to prophets and revelation. The real question is whether God still speaks. If He does, your argument collapses.
You say LDS theology teaches a "different God." Yet the New Testament consistently depicts the Father and Son as distinct persons. Jesus prays to the Father. The Father speaks to the Son. Stephen sees Jesus standing at the right hand of God. The text says what it says.
What's actually happening here is that you've elevated later creedal interpretations above the plain biblical text and then declared anyone who disagrees "not Christian."
And let's be honest: if acceptance of fourth-century councils is what makes someone Christian, then Christianity isn't being defined by Christ and His apostles. It's being defined by bishops centuries later.
Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We pray in His name. We trust in His atonement. We follow His teachings. We covenant to take His name upon us.
You are free to argue that our theology is wrong.
What you are not free to do is redefine Christianity so narrowly that devotion to Jesus Christ suddenly becomes irrelevant while allegiance to post-biblical creeds becomes the determining factor.
Sorry not sorry, but Mormons (LDS) are not Christians.
I know that stings some folks, but truth matters more than feelings.
Christianity is the faith of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ and His Apostles preserved through Holy Tradition, the Nicene Creed, the real presence in the Eucharist, and the Trinity as understood from the beginning.
LDS theology teaches a different God (a progression of gods, not the eternal Trinity), adds new scriptures that contradict the Bible and early Church, and follows a whole different path of salvation. That’s not a “restoration” or another denomination. It’s another religion with Christian-sounding language.
The Church isn’t a buffet. It’s the Hospital for our souls, and it has clear boundaries set by the Apostles and the Saints.
Let’s love people enough to tell them the truth instead of playing nice with confusion. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, not one option among many.
Orthodox Christianity stands on 2,000+ years of unbroken, verified history.
From the Apostles in the Upper Room, through the early Church Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, the blood of martyrs, the golden domes of Byzantium, right down to the incense-filled Divine Liturgy we attend today, it’s all real, documented, and alive. You can walk the same paths the saints walked, read the same Scriptures they preserved, and touch the same holy Tradition handed down generation after generation. No gaps. No reinventions. Just the Church Christ founded. 
Now look at Joseph Smith.
This 19th-century con man claimed an angel handed him “ancient golden tablets” written in “reformed Egyptian” that conveniently disappeared the moment he was done “translating” them. No archaeological evidence. No historical records. No witnesses who could back it up under real scrutiny. Just a tall tale from a treasure-digging occultist who made it all up to fit his new religion. You can verify with your own eyes, it’s fiction dressed up as revelation. 
I’ll stand with the saints, the martyrs, and the Holy Orthodox Church any day.
The gates of Hades have not prevailed against Her… and they never will.
Now look at Joseph Smith.
This 19th-century con man claimed an angel handed him “ancient golden tablets” written in “reformed Egyptian” that conveniently disappeared the moment he was done “translating” them. No archaeological evidence. No historical records. No witnesses who could back it up under real scrutiny. Just a tall tale from a treasure-digging occultist who made it all up to fit his new religion. You can verify with your own eyes, it’s fiction dressed up as revelation.
I’ll stand with the saints, the martyrs, and the Holy Orthodox Church any day.
The gates of Hades have not prevailed against Her… and they never will.
When you say I have to accept “the Nicene Creed” to be Christian, could you be more specific?
Do you mean the creed produced in A.D. 325 at a council convened by the Roman emperor Constantine, who was trying to settle the Arian controversy and preserve unity in his empire?
Or do you mean the version most Christians actually recite today, which comes from A.D. 381, when another Roman emperor, Theodosius I, convened the First Council of Constantinople to settle further disputes and more fully define the doctrine of the Holy Spirit?
Because that seems like a pretty important distinction.
One was created under Constantine, a Roman emperor with no priesthood authority, whose interest in Christianity was inseparable from his interest in imperial stability.
The other was expanded under Theodosius, another Roman emperor who used state power to enforce religious uniformity.
And somehow I’m supposed to believe that my faith in Jesus Christ is invalid unless I accept the theological conclusions of emperor-sponsored councils held centuries after Christ and His apostles?
You are free to trust those councils, led by rulers of the same empire that crucified Christ.
But please stop pretending that your post-biblical, politically entangled, imperial committee language is simply “biblical truth.”
And stop acting like you have the authority to decide who is and is not Christian based on a person’s willingness to pledge allegiance to Rome’s preferred definition of the Divine.
The “Nicene Creed” is what the “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed” is commonly called (not in attempt to obfuscate, as you seem to be implying, but for the obvious reason that it’s much shorter). And yes, this is the creed of orthodox Christianity and (with one disagreement) of the Orthodox Churches. You may not like that it is the measure of what is Christian and what is not, but it is and has been for almost 1700 years. And while LDS teachings are like Arianism in some ways, I’m sure you agree the LDS Church is not at all the same as Arianism. So what is it that you would like to claim?
The Nicene conclusions about Christ being "very God of very God" and "of one substance with the Father" are not found in Jesus' words. His teachings instead stress:
"this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)
"my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)
"I can of mine own self do nothing... I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." (John 5:30)
These show distinction and the Father's greater authority, creating direct tension with the Creed's co-equal essence claim developed centuries later.
No comments:
Post a Comment