Mormonism is not a part of Christianity

It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense -- C. S. Lewis Scripture First and foremost, it is widely disputed whether or not the Bible actually supports trinitarianism: - If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I (John 14:28) - No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Mark 13:32) - I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:56). I could give more examples, but the point here is this: Pro's statement that "Christ is clearly seen as coeternal and coequal in the Scriptures" is simply not true. There are various Christian groups that don't believe God and Jesus are one in the same, including but not limited to Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphians, Christian Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, United Church of God, etc. The New Catholic Encyclopedia says, "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the Old Testament" [1] and likewise Encyclopedia Encarta states, "The doctrine is not taught explicitly in the New Testament, where the word God almost invariably refers to the Father [2]. Encylopedia Britannica notes, "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament. .. The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies" [3]. Additionally, the Anchor Bible Series - which is a biblical scholar project with over 1,000 theologian contributors writes, "One does not find in the NT the trinitarian paradox of the coexistence of the Father, Son, and Spirit within a divine unity" [4]. Further, throughout the Bible Jesus talks about his faith in God (Hebrews 2:17-18), worships God (John 4:22), says he is a servant of God (Acts 3:13), has reverant submission or fear of God (Hebrews 5:7), etc. Philippians 2:6 even points out Jesus did not think being "equal with God" was graspable. So once again, there is a major debate among scholars and Christians alike regarding the exact context of scripture. It would be irresponsible to accept Pro's opinion as the be-all and end-all of the discussion. Tradition Pro brings up the Ecumenical Councils of the Church and mentions that they are nearly universally held as uniquely authoritative by all major branches of the Christian Church. First, not all branches of Christianity accept these councils irrefutably. For example, the Nestorian Church accepts as ecumenical only the first two, while the Oriental Orthodoxy Church the first three. The Assyrian Church of the East only accepts the First Council of Nicaea. Some fundamental Protestants reject ALL councils [5]. As such, supporting all of these councils is not a necessary condition to being a "Christian. " Moreover, Pro's interpretation of tradition in Wesley's Quadrilateral is flawed. "When Wesley speaks of tradition, he does not merely refer to ancient Church Tradition and the writings of the great theologians and Church Fathers of days past, but also of the immediate and present theological influences which contribute to a person's understanding of God and of Christian theology. Tradition may include such influences as the beliefs, values, and instruction of one's family and upbringing. It may also include the various beliefs and values which one encounters and which have an effect on one's understanding of Scripture. .. Tradition forms a lens through which we view and interpret the Bible" [6]. In other words, tradition has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with automatically revering the councils as Pro has falsely alluded to. Instead, the Wesleyan concept refers to using your own reasoning and experiences to form your own meaningful understanding of religious text. CON's Arguments and Conclusion The terms Christian or Christians occur only three times in the New Testament in Acts and Peter. In each of these cases, the term simply refers to those who follow Christ - which fully applies to Mormons. Obviously there are doctrinal differences between Mormons and other Christians, however definitions and assumptions about Christianity as a whole based on the specific beliefs of one denomination or group of denominations are not very helpful. Since the Bible provides minimal standards for "Christian," we look to the dictionary which defines Christian as one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ, or follows religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus [7]. Not only are Mormons followers of Christ, but they believe that complete salvation is possible only through the life, death, resurrection, doctrines, and ordinances of Jesus Christ and in no other way. They believe Jesus is the divine Redeemer and Son of God who atoned for the sins of all mankind and ensured our universal resurrection [8]. Pro cannot say that only trinitarians are Christian. The bishops who voted against that creed at the Council of Nicea were still Christian. The people who followed Christ and lived before Nicea were still Christian. Furthermore, the Ecumenical councils weren't even held until centuries after Christ lived and died! That means the New Testament Saints themselves could not have passed this test considering they lived centuries prior to the council's existence. I think it's pretty obvious therefore that the highly disputed canon and philosophy interpreted at those meetings certainly cannot be sole distinguishing factors of the blanket term "Christian. " Going back to Wesleyan standards, there is plenty of scripture in the Bible supporting Mormon beliefs. Ironically, Mormons use the Bible specifically and not the council's interpretations of scripture as the basis of their dogma. The idea that Mormons aren't Christian because they don't accept what was said at the councils is flawed. Not only did Pro use defying tradition out of context regarding Wesleyan use, but the rationale is specifically selective against Mormons. The fact is that Christendom has never been unanimous on the issues of canon and the Bible. Pro concludes, "Christians believe in the Coeternalaity and Coequality of Christ to the Father. Mormons do not believe this, and therefore cannot be Christians. " This is fallacious rasoning. There are innumerable differences between denominations, and just because they all don't fundamentally agree on everything 100% does not mean you can exclude one group in particular from being "Christian. " Pro's analogy is flawed. A better example is noting that one can be a football player without being a Minnesota Viking. They can play for the Jets and still hold the title of football player. In conclusion, the contentions for Mormons not being Christian have been illogical or downright unreasonable. They are only based on conflicting denominational views which are trivial. References [1] New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Volume XIV p.299 [2] Macquarrie, John. "Trinity," Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. [3] "Trinity" on Encyclopedia Britannica 2004 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD [4] Bassler, Jouette. "God in the NT", The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday: New York ,1992. 2:1055. [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [8] . http://www.lightplanet.com...