“We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.
“Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself – that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.
“In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.
“Without doubt, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects that very tradition.
“Richard John Neuhaus, a leading Roman Catholic theologian, helpfully reminds us that ‘Christian’ is a word that ‘is not honorific but descriptive.’ Christians do respect the Mormon affirmation of the family and the zeal of Mormon youth in their own missionary work. Christians must affirm religious liberty and the right of Mormons to practice and share their faith.
“Nevertheless, Mormonism is not Christianity by definition or description.”
Albert Mohler, “Are Mormons Christians? — A Beliefnet.com Debate”; available from http://albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=969; Internet; accessed 29 June 2007.
Thinking to Believe 
June 30, 2007 at 8:47 am
I think we’ve passed the point where people can create new religions in the dark. There is so much clear evidence debunking Mormonism, and such a clear historical record.
The BOM has items existing in ancient America that hadn’t yet been invented, and animals that hadn’t been introduced to the New World. And a central teaching, that the American Indians are a lost tribe of Israel – an idea Smith stole from a contemporary work of fiction – has been disproven by DNA (they’re ancestors are Asian, not Jewish).
Smith did himself pretty well, though. Money, women and weapons, gotta love it.
LikeLike
July 4, 2007 at 6:24 am
I would note that Catholics and other traditional Christians would not consider Oneness Pentecostals to be Christians. They, too, reject historic Christianity in favor on new baptisms, new conceptions of the Godhead, etc., while claiming that they are restoring the Church to its original teachings.
LikeLike
July 5, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Anonymous,
Yes, there are some Christian groups that consider Oneness Pentecostalism to be a theological cult, but the primary basis for their analysis is our rejection of the Trinity (which some falsely assert is a rejection of the deity of Jesus), not our baptismal formula–which is undeniably rooted in Scripture.
I think making the Trinity a test for being a Christian is a mistake (for reasons I will go into only if asked to do so).
Jason
LikeLike
July 6, 2007 at 4:59 am
Please go into those reasons. When trying to explain Oneness theology to folks, I’ve always characterized the debate as a consideration of the merits of one theological construct weighed against the other. Maybe that isn’t the best practice but it seems to place both sides in a mode of objectivity. However, I’ve often found myself more in a state in indignancy over the issue the orthodoxy lording over all others. I would appreciate any help you can offer.
Dale
LikeLike
July 6, 2007 at 7:38 am
Wouldn’t Al Mohler agree that Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians for the same reasons applied to the Mormons? That is, they use Biblical personalities and themes, but they mean something totally different?
Put a Mormon, a Oneness and a Mormon together. They’ll agree they believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. But they each mean something different by that.
Oneness, unitarian, modalists, call them what you will, they have always been condemned as heretics by traditional Christians.
“Those persons who declare that the Son is the Father are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son.” — Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 160)
“The devil has rivaled and resisted the truth in various ways…. Praxes maintains that there is only one Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world. He says this in order that out of this unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, and indeed was Himself Jesus Christ… The devil is himself a liar from the beginning, and so is whomever he instigates in his own way, such as Praxes. For Praxes was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical depravity.” — Tertullian (c. A.D. 213)
“Because it is so very clear that Christ is declared in the Scriptures to be God, many heretics—moved by the magnitude and truth of this divinity –exaggerate His honors above measure. And they have dared to declare or to think that He is not the Son, but the God the Father Himself.” — Novatian (c. A.D. 235)
“Sabellius . . . blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father and vice versa.” — Dionysius of Rome (c. A.D. 265)
-At the second Council of Smyrna, Noetus was excommunicated as a heretic.
-Sabellius was excommunicated by Bishop Callistus and his teachings were condemned at a council at Rome under bishop Dionysius in . A.D. 262 (go here to read Dionysius’ letter Against the Sabellians)
-Bishop Damascus condemned Sabellius and his teachings in c. A.D. 380.
-The Council of Constantinople safeguarded the doctrine of the Trinity and condemned modalism sharply in A.D. 381.
LikeLike
July 16, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Sure. Here is what I wrote to Kevin Lewis (a specialist on Christian cults):
When it comes to an orthodox view of God, those in your camp often declare that belief in God’s tri-personal nature is the defining criterion. Those in my camp often declare a different number as the defining criterion. What is the criterion? What is the sine qua non of Christian orthodoxy when it comes to theology proper? Often, the criterion seems to be chosen somewhat arbitrarily by the majority so as to exclude the minority. Considering your extensive knowledge of cults, and examination of the definitions/tests of/for a cult/heresy, please consider my argument for a rethinking of the traditional definition/tests.
I am persuaded that Christian orthodoxy should not be based on one’s view of the number of persons in the Godhead, nor on one’s confession of terms not found in Scripture. I propose a more Biblically-based model. Orthodoxy should be based on one’s confession of the three strands of Biblical teaching concerning God:
1. God is one
2. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spoken of in distinct ways
3. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are referred to as fully God
Let me explain.
The fact of the matter is that the Bible does not present a systematic theology of God, explaining who God is, nor what Jesus’ relationship to God is. All we have are lots of little “puzzle pieces” (verses/passages) about God and Jesus from this book and that book, and we try to fit them together to make a cohesive picture. The problem is that we don’t have the puzzle box to see what the finished picture should look like. Without this box the picture we construct may be fairly accurate, but in all humility we recognize that it is not identical to the box-top. Trinitarian and Oneness theology are both human attempts to reconcile all the Biblical data concerning God in a coherent and systematic way, but clearly the Bible does not explicitly teach Trinitarianism or Oneness theology (even Trinitarian scholars admit as much).
The three strands of Biblical data noted above need serious reconciling if we are going to have a systematic theology of theology proper. The attempt to do so has resulted in two major views: Trinitarianism, Oneness. While I am persuaded that Oneness theology does a better job at the reconciliation process, the fact of the matter is that both positions affirm all three Biblical teachings. So long as one’s theology proper can affirm these basic, raw Biblical teachings (even if they can’t put the pieces together exactly right) I do not see how we can deny them the orthodox stamp of approval.
This is not to trivialize the differences between Trinitarian and Oneness theology, nor to relativize the issue. There are several key conceptual differences, and they need to be discussed and debated. Neither is this some attempt to get Trinitarians to be accepting of Oneness believers. Frankly, Oneness believers are not loosing any sleep because some Trinitarians have concluded that we are a cult. What this is an attempt to do is to be fair and Biblical, not falsely labeling people as heretics (as both sides do) and setting up unreasonable and unfair standards for Christian orthodoxy.
I think reasonable people such as yourself can agree that the criteria for orthodoxy, set by the majority, might have been set too high, informed more by theological tradition than by Biblical theology. Most tests for orthodoxy use non-Biblical terminology and concepts about God that developed over a few centuries as the litmus test. I am persuaded that the raw Biblical teaching, not any particular systematic theology of those teachings, ought to be the standard for orthodoxy. This would stop both our camps from damning to hell the other camp.
The label of “cult” and “heresy” should not be thrown around carelessly, as you well know. And most assuredly that label should not be attached to millions of believers who confess all three Biblical teachings concerning God, but tie them together in a manner that differs from your own. We need to resolve our differences and engage in dialogue for the sake of the truth, but we do not need to damn and condemn each other because our puzzles look a little different. The fact of the matter is that we’re both using all the puzzle pieces, and trying faithfully to piece them together in the correct manner. We just have differences of opinion on how the pieces fit, none of which causes us to reject any of the three strands of Biblical teaching.
LikeLike
July 16, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Yes, I think Mohler would say we are not Christians.
LikeLike
July 16, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Jason,
I really appreciate your response. I’ve noticed on occasions when speaking to rank and file trinitarians on a given subject, that I’ve found myself articulating for them the orthodox view and why their particular postulation fails to align with the orthodoxy of their own construct. And all this while they condemn me as heretical. I often suppose that one merely needs to invoke the word “trinity” and all is well – like an incantation.
BTW, do statements like “…I do not see how we can deny them the orthodox stamp of approval.” cause you grief with rank and file Oneness adherents?
Dale
LikeLike
July 17, 2007 at 5:31 am
Jason,
I meant to ask, was there a response from Kevin Lewis?
Dale
LikeLike
July 17, 2007 at 10:40 am
I agree. I often have to point out to Trinitarians how their own view of God is not in accord with the orthodox theology.
Good question, for in saying so I would not only disavow Oneness believers of the word “cult” or “heresy,” but Trinitarian believers as well. No, I haven’t gotten any guff (yet) because I have never published my opinion until now. Maybe the guff will start flowing in now! But I stand behind what I said. The fact of the matter is that Oneness and Trinitarianism are models developed as a result of our attempt to systematize those three biblical teachings into one unified, cohesive whole. I believe the Oneness model does a better job at it, but the fact remains that even Oneness is a model nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture. It is a model we build from Scripture, to try to explain Scripture. What I think is most important is whether one believes the three strands of Biblical teaching, not necessarily how they put them together. If one has to put them together perfectly to be saved, then woe is us, for scarcely do I meet a Oneness Pentecostal who has an “orthodox” Oneness view. Instead, I see a bunch of related, but diverse views, mixed with a bunch of Christological errors. Indeed, if a perfect understanding of how those biblical teachings mix together is a prerequisite for salvation, I will be lost myself.
Jason
LikeLike
July 17, 2007 at 10:45 am
No, he never responded.
BTW, you should register for a screen name. Just go to http://www.blogger.com and create a blog account. You’ll need a google/yahoo email address, so if you don’t have one, just create one. You’ll actually create a blog. You don’t have to use it, just create it. It’s easy, and it will help to identify you (because there can be several anonymouses, and I may mistakenly think another anonymous is you).
Jason
LikeLike