Nicene Links

Are Mormons Christian? For a new take on that timeless question, go read The Nicene Creed and Christianity at Positive Liberty (the post includes several paragraphs from an LDS correspondent). It features a link to The Nicene Creed by Clayton Cramer, another libertarian blogger, again with several paragraphs on Mormonism's view of the Creed. Honestly, I didn't know anyone else really cared. I did think Mr. Cramer, having linked to two posts from the All About Mormons responses page, should have linked to its Are Mormons Christian? page, too. It posts a half-dozen LDS variations on the "of course we're Christian" response.

The Wikipedia entry is full of interesting information on the Nicene Creed, including a marked-up version showing both the 325 CE version and the 381 CE version.

Finally, here's an enlightening paragraph from Olson's The Story of Christian Theology:

Gradually the idea of writing a unifying and compulsory creed summarizing "the ancient faith of the church" in as few words as possible arose and gained popularity. ... The Arians and their sympathizers argued strongly for use only of biblical wording. Alexander and his aide Athanasius recognized this as a ploy. The Arians had become adept at "Scripture twisting" so that any biblical terminology could be interpreted in their favor. The only way to bring closure to the debate and make clear once and for all that Arian subordinationism was heretical was to use extrabiblical terminology that clearly spelled out the unity of the Father and the Son as equal within the Godhead.

Now am I the only one who finds the Evangelical reliance on the Nicene Creed -- which is built on extrabiblical language and concepts -- to exclude Mormons from their circle of Christian fellowship to be fundamentally inconsistent with the Evangelical view of the Bible as containing the complete Christian revelation? It seems like either the Bible is complete and the Nicene Creed an unauthorized or non-canonical addition, or else the Bible is incomplete and further revelation is needed, be it the Nicene Creed or something else.

Just my thought for the day. [And I'm trying to get back in line with my three-paragraph rule.]

Comments

[Brad Haas]

I wouldn't say further revelation is required, but further elucidation (dare I say "development?") of the original revelation. But that's just 'cause I'm Catholic.

Hey, were you around for my "Are Mormons Christian" post? It's still my most popular post ever.

[T F Stern]

I enjoyed your article, a little disturbing to read about the man made road blocks created in order to eliminate the LDS Church from being called Christians.

I would comment further except I prefer to think on how to properly respond without showing myself a fool.

[Note: TF posted a lengthy comment on this post at his own blog, titled Yes, I Claim To Be A Christian.]

[Kurt]

This whole "Who is and who is not a Christian?" debate based upon doctrine is just a tool of the devil.

There is a clear Scriptural definition of who is a Christian in the NT that is always overlooked (surprise!) because it is hard to hear. Disciples were first called Christians at Antioch. In other words, according to the NT, a "christian" is a "disciple of Christ", cf. Acts 11:26. And according to Christ, his definition of who is his disciple is always based upon literally following his example in keeping the commandments, laying down their life and having a godly walk.

Jesus' definition is not doctrine based, it is behavior based. This is why it is overlooked.

[Jared E.]

Tool of the devil? So Kurt, you are saying that the Evangelicals who say this are the workers of Satan? Don't you think such a view is a tad simplistic?

Dave: I don't see the Evangelical's view on the trinity to really be antithetical. If another church were to come out, and officially espouse a belief that Mormons already hold, it would not necessarily connect Mormons with that church. The question is whether or not the Bible supports the Evangelical view, not whether or not Catholics share that view.

[Steve EM]

We do have a sizeable portion of the church, well represented in the nacle, that is not Christian in that they have a notion of self salvation/exaltation by their works rather than through the grace of JC. But theirs is a folk theology, not taught by church current church authorities, and every denomination has their share of such theological morons. To pick on Mormons in this regard is plain old bigotry.

On the trinity, I'm not going to say the LDS doctrine is wrong, as I don't know one way or the other. It is hardly the essence of my faith and honestly doesn't concern me. I am troubled that we base so much on a literal interpretation of JS's vision. I’m glad Moses didn't teach that the Almighty is a burning bush.

Similarly, traditional Christianity putting so much stock in the Nicene creed is troubling. Constantine makes Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, collects some Christian leaders into a room and holds a gun to their heads into they come up with a rigid common belief system. And I'm supposed to accept that as gospel? Hooey.

[Kurt]

Jared E,

No, and no. What I am saying is divisions among people that are based upon doctrinal differences are a tool of the devil. It is an artificial, ultimately meaningless and largely substanceless means of categorizing people.

Jesus, in 3 Ne. 11, rejected doctrinal divisions as contentious and of the devil. What I am saying is "Are X Christians?" arguments based upon doctrinal differences fall under that "contention is of the devil" rejection. The only legitimate differentiation between who is and who isnt a Christian is based upon their walk.

[Keith]

Interesting that it isn't the 'essence of your faith.' I personally feel that without knowing who or what you worship, be it three beings or one being or a gaseous orb or a tree, how can you define your faith at all? Isn't it important to have a clear picture of what/who it is you revere? I find that many modern Christians from many denominations take for granted the old Nicean and trinity debate, believing that the issue was cleared up hundreds of years ago and does not concern me now. Could there be anything further from the truth? I am reminded of something that is attributed to Joseph Smith. In paraphrasing, 'Without knowing the character of God, we cannot know ourselves.'

[Mary Ellen]

Interesting site--I stumbled onto it and so far I'm enjoying your articles. I'm currently reading David L. Paulsen's article/essay/whatever titled "Are Christians Mormon?" in the 2006 BYU Studies guide. Interesting reading and another side to this controversy. What is written as a belief is not necessarily what is believed.

[Dave]

Yes, that is a real issue that few Christian apologists recognize or respond to -- if most Christians actually believe, for example, that those who do good in life will be judged more favorably by God than those who are selfish and mean, regardless of whether they've "accepted Jesus" or not, doesn't that provide a defensible answer to the question, "What do Christians believe about salvation and judgment?" Why do documents from the 4th or 5th century carry more normative weight than what people actually believe in defining "Christian beliefs"?

[Steve EM]

But if you're judged, you're a dead duck, no matter one's good out weighing one's sins. The objective to accept Jesus and his shield from the judgment. We want the judgment to pass over us.

#7, to clarify my position, Jesus saves, not doctrines or beliefs about him. Whether someone believes Jesus is the Almighty G-d or an individual member of the G-dhead , doesn’t diminish His saving grace one iota on that person who accepts Him as Lord and Savior. Likewise if they came to that knowledge and acceptance via a missionary, the Bible, BofM, Gospel of Judas, or other source or sources. If perfectly “correct” belief was a prerequisite, many of our greatest leaders are damned to hell. In the end, we’ll know a lot more than we do now, so why sweat inconsequential details?

[Todd Wood]

Interesting article, especially as I just started a study in the Gospel of John.

Come over and share your thoughts. The doctrine of the Trinity is the core heart issue. I have lots of questions.

www.heartissuesforlds.org