Christianity Today, Mormons, and the Deity of Christ
In my previous post to this blog, I presented my review of Robert Millet and Gerald McDermott’s book Claiming Christ: A Mormon—Evangelical Debate. As I noted, this was a review originally written for Christianity Today, which rejected the review. The history behind this event is perhaps even more interesting—and troubling—than the book itself.
Christianity Today is supposedly the flagship periodical of American evangelicalism. Billy Graham founded the magazine in 1956. Among its contributors in years gone by were Walter Martin and John Warwick Montgomery. The magazine continues to publish informative and illuminating articles on a wide array of subjects of interest and concern to evangelicals. Its handling of these subjects has, however, become increasingly controversial among its American evangelical constituency. My purpose here is not to rehearse these other controversies or to attack the staff of Christianity Today. Rather, in good narrative-theological style, I simply wish to tell my story.
My story begins with an online article in Christianity Today entitled “Mitt’s Mormonism and the Evangelical Vote,†posted on May 31. In the article, Brigham Young University professor Robert Millet and Roanoke College professor Gerald McDermott argued that evangelicals ought to be able to vote for Mitt Romney (a Mormon) to be President of the United States despite the theological differences between evangelicals and Mormonism. Oddly, the article never states openly that Millet is a member of the LDS Church. (One might guess that he is from his position at BYU.)
Like many others, no doubt, I wrote to CT criticizing the article, though not for its suggestion that evangelicals may vote in good conscience for Romney. Instead, I took issue with the authors’ claim that “Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ.†On June 4, I received a reply from an associate editor at CT assuring me that they remained strongly committed to orthodoxy and that they planned to address the theological issues in future articles. (I see no particular value in divulging the names of the editors with whom I had contact unless the accuracy of what I say is impugned.) In response, I offered to submit an article to CT on the theological differences between evangelicalism and Mormonism. In that email (also June 4), I wrote in part:
“It would go a long way toward demonstrating your commitment to upholding orthodoxy if you would publish an article that adequately represents the concerns and observations of evangelicals (like myself) who have labored in the ministries of discernment and apologetics for years. There are several ways that you could do this and I do not presume to tell you how to go about actually doing it. However, I would like to offer to help you in any way I can. In fact, I would be happy to write an article on the subject for CT—free of charge. . . . I am known for taking a comparatively irenic approach while still representing the concerns of evangelicals involved in countercult and other ministries of discernment and apologetics.â€
It took just over a month for CT to decide against accepting such an article from me. My editor contact told me in an email on September 6 that their reason was that one of their editors planned to write an article on the theological differences between evangelicals and Mormons. The editor suggested that I might submit to their book review editor an article reviewing Millet and McDermott’s new book Claiming Christ. I obtained a copy of the book on September 27 and submitted my review article to CT on October 8. Although the book review editor stated that he expected to know by the end of October if they would use the article, I did not receive news of their decision until November 20. The decision, as I noted in my previous post, was negative. According to the book review editor, another editor on staff “familiar with the issue and with the book . . . decided that some of [my] opinions weren’t accurately based on what the book actually says.†He offered no specific examples or explanations. I do not know what opinions expressed in the article might have been based on an inaccurate understanding of the book, since I carefully documented the points I made in the review (far more so than is typical in a CT book review). Every other sentence in the review, after the introductory paragraph, gives one or more specific citations from the book.
I cannot judge the motives of those who decided not to run the review. I certainly don’t take it personally—publishers have the prerogative not to accept submissions, and that goes with the territory of being a writer. Nevertheless, it is clear that the review article was rejected because of the perspective it takes on Mormonism. Frankly, I’m not surprised. The review article would have contradicted the opinion piece by Millet and McDermott that CT had published earlier in the year. That opinion piece claimed that the theological divide between Mormons and evangelicals is not as wide as most evangelicals think because, supposedly, Mormons affirm the deity of Christ and salvation by grace. But McDermott himself admitted in Claiming Christ that “evangelicals and Mormons disagree on what these things mean†(60). As I point out in the review article, if we disagree on what these affirmations mean, then we don’t agree about them after all.
This incident is merely a minor skirmish in a larger ongoing struggle within evangelicalism to define its stance toward the Mormon religion. It is important that we speak clearly, accurately, and forthrightly on this issue. We ought to be able to do so without coming off as shrill or reactionary. McDermott’s contribution to Claiming Christ illustrates the fact that the struggle involves not only properly understanding and assessing Mormonism, but also properly defining and defending the historic doctrines of the evangelical Christian faith.
Our ministry is a partner based ministry. This means that the majority of our support comes from people like you. Please consider supporting Reclaiming the Mind Ministries as we make theology accessible. Donate today.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Christianity Today, Mormons, and the Deity of Christ
- Do Mormons believe “that Jesus was fully God”?
- Millet Lite: Mormon Scholar’s Christology Sounds Great, But It’s Less Filling
- Who’s Afraid of the King Follett Discourse?
- Straight Answers to Fox’s 21 Questions about the Mormon Church
Daniel Eaton on 27 Nov 2007 at 8:00 am #
Heaven forbid Christianity Today take a stand on whether Mormons are Christians!
eduardo on 27 Nov 2007 at 8:28 am #
I have been observing the quality of CT’s articles going down. I feel they aren’t taking a stand against unorthodoxy, but embracing it. You can see it on how they are managing the whole “emerging church” fad, etc. No wonder they are working with a political agenda. Minor differences between Mormons and Christians? If one doesn’t believe Christ is God, he has not the Father, and cannot be called a christian, and is as lost as an atheist. This is the urgency on taking the gospel to them.
irreverend fox on 27 Nov 2007 at 8:58 am #
Evangelicalism might be struggling with what to do with Mormonism…but Michael’s HISTORIC Evangelicalism does not! I’m one of the charter members in Patton’s new…errr old…movement!
I’m not calling myself “Evangelical” hence forth. I’ll go by “Southern Baptist” or “Calvinist”…but no more “Evangelical”…that word (to me) almost equates to “Liberal” anymore.
Sit and study with any Mormon elder and ask any probing questions and you will quickly understand they are a bizarre henotheistic cult.
JohnT3 on 27 Nov 2007 at 9:23 am #
CT has proven once again that there is serious problems with their capability to discern the truth.
To say that there are minor differences between Christianity and Morminism (A FALSE RELIGION) is blasphamous.
You are making the works of Satan equal to that of God.
CT is a good example of Christianity today. From sermons to worship services the message and the truth is watered down or softened up so it doesn’t offend anyone.
CT has to worry about their expense flow so they think in order to do that they have to cater to the whim of the people instead of relying on the very God. they claim to believe in, to supply their needs.
I am sorry if this is not Ireanic but the truth is important.
ChadS on 27 Nov 2007 at 10:53 am #
If some of your opinions didn’t accurately reflect what the authors of the book actually said why didn’t they simply ask you to revise and resubmit? Sounds like they may have had their mind made up already.
By the way … isn’t revise and resubmit the circle of hell reserved especially for scholars and academics?
ChadS
Nick N. on 27 Nov 2007 at 11:22 am #
I’m no defender of Mormonism but some of these comments seem a little over the top.
â— “If one doesn’t believe Christ is God, he has not the Father, and cannot be called a christian, and is as lost as an atheist.”
That’s kind of a revised version of something the Bible does say (see 1Jo. 2:23), but Mormons do believe that Christ is God… They just believe that he is a separate God from the Father and the Holy Spirit. So now what?
â— “Sit and study with any Mormon elder and ask any probing questions and you will quickly understand they are a bizarre henotheistic cult.”
Polytheistic actually — they worship the entire Godhead which consists of 3 gods — henotheists worship one god above all others (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses). But what good does it do to call them a ‘bizzare henotheistic cult’? And isn’t ‘bizarre’ a decidedly relative term? Christianity is quite ‘bizarre’ to non-Christians, but so what?
â— “To say that there are minor differences between Christianity and Morminism (A FALSE RELIGION) is blasphamous.”
Blasphemy is usually associated with a certain irreverent attitude toward God (although not necessarily his name like many have thought in the past), so why is it blasphemous to say that there are differences between Mormonism and Christianity? Even if Mormonism is a false religion? Is it blasphemous to say that there are differences between Islam and Atheism?
eduardo on 27 Nov 2007 at 11:56 am #
Nick says, “but Mormons do believe that Christ is God… They just believe that he is a separate God from the Father and the Holy Spirit. So now what?”
Mormons believe that Jesus was created and that the devil was born as a spirit after Jesus (Mormon Doctrine, page 192.). They also believe that Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 547). Now what?
They may think that Jesus is ‘a’ god, but not the only true God of the Trinity. The Bible teaches us the true God, how He revealed Himself to us. How can a mormon (and as I compared him to an atheist) come to know the true God if he doesnt read the Bible? Can He be saved if he is not hearing the Gospel? They cannot believe in the true Jesus revealed in the Bible, only in a Jesus created by their own minds, which by the way is an idol.
Is Allah the same as Jehovah? Is the god of Mormonism the same as the Trinitarian God of the Bible? Absolutely not.
irreverend fox on 27 Nov 2007 at 12:01 pm #
Nick,
it is clear you are not familiar with Christianity or Mormonism. I will pray for you.
Nick N. on 27 Nov 2007 at 1:58 pm #
Eduardo,
Your original comment was not nearly as qualified. Now you are asserting that a mere belief in Jesus as God is not enough, now it has to be a belief in the Trinity. For the record, I agree that an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is an essential to Christianity and Mormons falter on that point (and many others) but your original comment did not reflect that. Secondly, people have been getting saved without reading the Bible since as long as there have been people. There was a time before there was a Bible and people were saved back then too.
Fox,
It is clear that you couldn’t think up an actual response. But I’m currently accepting all prayer so thank you!
Just for your edification, I’m very familiar with Christianity and adequately familiar with Mormonism (which is why I was able to correct your misidentification of Mormon polytheism as henotheism) — but what do you hope to gain by labeling Mormonism a bizarre cult? Time was when Jews called this new Jesus movement something quite similar. My only point is that comments like that don’t help anyone or anything — in fact they tend to push people away from listening to anything of substance that you may subsequently say.
Blessings to both of you…
Truth Unites... and Divides on 27 Nov 2007 at 2:23 pm #
I am a subscriber to Christianity Today. And I have to sadly agree with Robert Bowman that CT seems be on a downward trajectory in recent months.
A year or two ago I read somewhere that there are some pastors who jokingly refer to Christianity Today as “Christianity Astray”. I just laughed when I read that and I didn’t ascribe any intentions to the jokesters or to the quality of CT.
I figure CT is a good news outlet of what’s happening within Christendom and they have some wonderful articles from time to time.
But the recent CT article by Imstone-Brewer on divorce which CT published without any accompanying article in the same issue by which they could provide a balanced perspective really bothered me about the editorial direction of CT.
Further, I’m a warm and soft complementarian. Egalitarianism is an aberrant doctrine, but I don’t want to experience undue divisiveness over the issue. So I try to look past it. But I’m of a soft gut suspicion that CT is theologically egalitarian. And that’s a slippery slope to other doctrinal errors.
Sidebar: I also grew up thinking that Fuller Seminary was a pre-eminent theological institution. But now I think it’s been hollowed out by theological liberalism and has become aberrant which saddens me. (See the LA Times article on Fuller from a few years ago for a secular perspective.)
Perhaps what happened at Fuller is also what’s happening to CT. And that would be another shame.
Conclusion: I affirm Rob Bowman Jr. totally in his concern over the editorial direction of CT. I also fully applaud his maturity in not taking the rejection of his book review personally. Lastly, Rob Bowman is correct in articulating his respectful concerns about CT in the blogosphere.
Pax to all.
Mormon Polemics « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth on 27 Nov 2007 at 3:27 pm #
[...] Robert Bowman, Jr. is posting over at Parchment and Pen now (yippee!) and his first two posts were regarding a book review he [...]
eduardo on 27 Nov 2007 at 4:10 pm #
Nick, You say “Secondly, people have been getting saved without reading the Bible since as long as there have been people. There was a time before there was a Bible and people were saved back then too.”
You are right…There was no Bible then…but there was preaching of the gospel. Perhaps my mistake was that due to the fact of not wanting to write a long comment I wasnt as clear. But my point is that God saves through the preaching of the gospel…and that because Christ is glorified, and He through Christ. My point is that Mormons can never be saved if they dont read the Bible or hear the gospel.
I’ll try to make my comments clearer next time. Thanks for pointing it out.
Robert on 27 Nov 2007 at 6:17 pm #
Nick;
You said:
I’m no defender of Mormonism but some of these comments
seem a little over the top.
Certainly you are entitled to your opinion but as a former Mormon myself, I find that the language used here is quite tame for the subject matter.
You also had a problem with this quote:
◠“If one doesn’t believe Christ is God, he has not the Father, and cannot be called a christian, and is as lost as an atheist.â€
Mormons certainly do NOT believe Christ is God…they believe that he’s God the Father’s LITERAL son…just like Satan is also.
They also believe that God has a body of flesh and bones just like man has and that he’s NOT spirit. They believe that God is NOT the unique God but just one-of-many gods/exalted men.
That’s pretty way out there and NOT EVEN CLOSE TO any sort of accurate picture of God, Jesus, or the trinity.
You also had a problem with this statement:
◠“Sit and study with any Mormon elder and ask any probing questions and you will quickly understand they are a bizarre henotheistic cult.â€
You were right in saying they are polytheistic but again…the language used about their doctrine being bizarre? Aren’t we speaking from our vantage point? From where I stand it IS bizarre…
You also had a problem with the definition of blasphemous:
◠“To say that there are minor differences between Christianity and Morminism (A FALSE RELIGION) is blasphamous.â€
Here is what Harpers Bible dictionary says about it:
blasphemy, a term derived from a Greek word meaning to injure the reputation of another. In the Bible it means showing contempt or a lack of reverence for God (Lev. 24:16; Mark 2:7) or something sacred (Matt. 26:65), including claiming for oneself divine attributes by word or deed (Mark 14:64; John 10:33).
I’d say that comparing the true God of the universe with the exalted flesh man of Mormon is showing contempt for God; wouldn’t you?
I guess that my take on this would be that this is a lot more civil that these kinds of conversations go normally.
Mormonism is an idolatrous man made religion and those involved need to hear the real word of God.
this is my two cents anyway…
Mike Beidler on 27 Nov 2007 at 6:50 pm #
For the record, I agree that an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is an essential to Christianity …
Nick,
Although I agree with you that the Trinity is a biblical concept, I would not go so far as to say that it is an “essential to Christianity.” Surely, scholars throughout the ages have protested the standard definition of the Trinity to various degree, all without sacrificing the deity of Christ (e.g., Oneness Pentecostalism), which would be considered essential.
Heck, most Christians today couldn’t define the doctrine of the Trinity to save their souls. [rimshot, please] Granted, my criticism might ring hollow, seeing as most Christians couldn’t define most other biblical doctrines much less elaborate on their importance. This sad state of affairs is a completely different topic, of course. But then again, is it?
What of those who we would consider “saved” but lack any significant doctrinal foundation? What of my children, who love Jesus with their whole being, but have no theological understanding other than “Jesus is God, and He died for me”? It humbles me to think that, in the words of Jesus, I must become like a little child in order to attain the Kingdom of God (which does not come with observation; rather, it is within you). It makes me wonder how much doctrinal correction I will have to endure when I pass from this life to the next. I’m fairly sure I’ll be equally surprised to see who also gained (or did not gain) access to the heavenly presence of God.
Please, do not misunderstand me … a solid foundation in biblical doctrine is required in order to discern properly between two competing systems of belief. However, from a biblical viewpoint, where do you draw the line between “saved” and “unsaved”? At what point does theological ignorance lead to the “second death”?
Mormonism, McDermott and Millet « Countercult Apologetics on 27 Nov 2007 at 9:13 pm #
[...] You also want to check out Robert Bowman’s review of the McDermott and Millet here and a follow up post here. [...]
Marcia on 27 Nov 2007 at 9:42 pm #
Mike,
If affirming the Trinity is not an essential of the faith, then one cannot say that a belief in the true God is needed. The Trinity and the nature of God are one and the same. It is not a matter of understanding it but of belief based on scripture. The Mormons’ disbelief in the Trinity is not because they do not understand it but because they deny it. This is also true of the Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Would you say that believing that Jesus is also the Father is just a minor misunderstanding? I would say not. The Bible is pretty clear that when Jesus prays to the Father, he is not talking to Himself.
Just because we have trouble defining the Trinity and just because it may surpass our understanding, that does not mean it is not an essential. No one really understand the Incarnation of Jesus, either. Yet it is an esssential.
You seem to be making a false dichotomoy between doctrinal understanding and faith; they are not opposed to each other, but rather complementary. Doctrine is, after all, merely the teaching of the faith.
Nick N. on 27 Nov 2007 at 10:15 pm #
Robert,
Just a couple of brief comments.
1. Sure, the language might be tame compared to others but my objection isn’t to the language being used, but rather to the concepts that the language is expressing.
2. Joseph Smith said that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were three gods (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Deseret, 1976) Section Six 1843-44, p. 370.)
Bruce McConkie said: “Though each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘one God’…” (see Mormon Doctrine, (Deseret Book, 1979), p. 319).
So according to Mormonism’s own prophets and apostles, Jesus is a God (one of three in the Godhead). Your own comment even intimates this when you said: “They believe that God is NOT the unique God but just one-of-many gods/exalted men.” Jesus, like the Father, is one of these many gods.
3. My point regarding calling Mormonism a ‘bizarre henotheistic cult’ is that (1) ‘bizarre’ is a completely relative term and (2) such a statement serves no purpose. It doesn’t teach us anything about Mormonism and it doesn’t help a Mormon to see what is wrong with their beliefs.
4. The definition of blasphemy you listed seems to comport with what I said, but I’d point you to the original remark that I was commenting on. Christianity Today or the author of the article (I’m not sure which) was accused of ‘blasphemy’ for noting that there are differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Well, isn’t that what everyone is opining about here? The differences?
5. Idolatrous and man-made as Mormonism might be, you won’t win any Mormons to Christ by calling them cultists and mocking their beliefs. And ‘conversation’ generally requires two parties speaking — I don’t see that in these comments.
Be well..
Nick N. on 27 Nov 2007 at 10:21 pm #
Mike,
Real quickly… It is not my position that one must affirm Trinitarianism in order to be born again. But a denial of the Trinity is a completely different matter. As far as the Trinity being an essential of Christianity I have to stand by that belief. This is one of the central (if not the) central tenet of the faith. This is the lone doctrine that marks orthodox Christianity in distinction from all other religious systems.
So again, doctrinal ignorance doesn’t revoke one’s salvation — but an informed denial certainly would indicate that one has become an apostate (that is assuming that they were saved in the first place — obviously a false conversion never counted).
Alright folks, it’s been fun. I don’t want to hi-jack Rob’s post and turn it into a debate on how you’ll catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar. But again, I’m not defending Mormonism — I’m only criticizing what I feel to be useless arguments/objections against it.
God bless all…
Perry Robinson on 27 Nov 2007 at 10:45 pm #
Robert,
It seems to equivocate to say that the LDS believe that Christ is “God.†Well doesn’t that depend on the usage of the terms? It would be more correct to say that the LDS think that Christ is one of a plurality of gods composed of material bodies. Christians think that Christ qua nature is the only member of the set “deity†and is qua deity not corporeal but immaterial.
Robert on 28 Nov 2007 at 5:36 am #
Nick,
I got your points, you’re right.
For me it’s the limitation of typing…I speak in shorthand a lot and things don’t come thru…sorry.
One thing that I’d like to comment on from your post…you say we won’t “win” a lot of Mormons by calling them cultist and mocking them…you’re correct again BUT….we won’t win them…we’ll share the true gospel…God will save them if/as He chooses….
Nick N. on 28 Nov 2007 at 10:20 am #
Robert,
“God will save them if/as He chooses…”
Point taken… Amen
Parchment and Pen » Do Mormons believe “that Jesus was fully God”? on 28 Nov 2007 at 11:58 am #
[...] Read part two: “Christianity Today, Mormonds, and the Deity of Christ.“ [...]
Kaffinator on 28 Nov 2007 at 1:51 pm #
Mike, as a former LDS member myself: allow me to:
A) agree with you that “Jesus is God, and He died for me” is to my mind a short but sufficient confession of faith
B) inform you that Mormon teachings will never lead you to any such confession. At best, Jesus is “a” God, which is quite a different thing.
Saying “Jesus is God” affirms the Trinity. Praising and worshiping Jesus as God affirms the Trinity. Reckoning Jesus as a God is blasphemous.
Mike Beidler on 28 Nov 2007 at 9:50 pm #
Marcia,
If affirming the Trinity is not an essential of the faith, then one cannot say that a belief in the true God is needed. The Trinity and the nature of God are one and the same. It is not a matter of understanding it but of belief based on scripture. The Mormons’ disbelief in the Trinity is not because they do not understand it but because they deny it. This is also true of the Oneness Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
We both agree that God’s nature is triune. However, from my interaction with Mormons and JWs over the decades, their denial of the Trinity is based on a misunderstanding of the doctrine. (This is, of course, a generalization based on my own experiential knowledge.) They have not been taught systematically the passages which would prove this particular aspect of God’s nature.
Would you say that believing that Jesus is also the Father is just a minor misunderstanding? I would say not. The Bible is pretty clear that when Jesus prays to the Father, he is not talking to Himself.
The Father is God. Jesus is God. In one sense, Jesus is talking to Himself. The triune nature of God is not easily grasped, eh? I like to think that God has a multi-personality order (lining out the “dis”).
But I digress …
I understand perfectly what you are saying. But people like you and I are few and far between. The vast majority of Christians do not think on our level and likely have not encountered such questions before; if they have, it is just as likely that they chose to ignore such controversy for fear of challenging their faith.
Just because we have trouble defining the Trinity and just because it may surpass our understanding, that does not mean it is not an essential. No one really understand the Incarnation of Jesus, either. Yet it is an esssential.
I am curious as to why you think the triune nature of God is an “essential.” How warped does our theology get if we go down the road the Oneness Pentecostals have? Is Jesus’ deity lessened any? How about our atonement? Does it suddenly vanish? Take away Christ’s deity and, yes, you have a problem: Jesus’ unique ability to atone for the sins of the world disappears. Christ’s deity is essential to the faith, not affirming the exact nature of his place within the Godhead (insofar as it relates to his triunity or lack thereof).
Mike Beidler on 28 Nov 2007 at 10:14 pm #
Marcia (pt 2),
You seem to be making a false dichotomy between doctrinal understanding and faith; they are not opposed to each other, but rather complementary. Doctrine is, after all, merely the teaching of the faith.
A false dichotomy? Not at all. Doctrinal understanding does not saving faith make. Faith is what it is. As you said, doctrine is “merely the teaching of the faith.” But not everyone has the same capacity to understand doctrine. Would you say that my 7-year-old daughter lacks faith because she does not possess doctrinal understanding? Of course not. On the flip side, I have a fairly good working knowledge of Catholic, Mormon, and JW doctrine, but that doesn’t require me to assent to their respective faiths. In my undergraduate days at the University of Michigan, my religion professor could argue correct Christian doctrine better than most apologists; too bad he was an athiest. Doctrinal understanding and faith are indeed complimentary, but one should not confuse the two. If I had to choose between the two … well, you know where I’m going with that.
Mike Beidler on 28 Nov 2007 at 10:46 pm #
Nick,
… the Trinity being an essential of Christianity I have to stand by that belief. This is one of the central (if not the) central tenet of the faith. This is the lone doctrine that marks orthodox Christianity in distinction from all other religious systems.
The triune nature of God is THE central tenet of the faith? Not the atoning sacrifice of a resurrected deity? Even Paul said that his faith was in vain if Christ was not resurrected. THAT should be the central tenet of the Christian faith.
… an informed denial certainly would indicate that one has become an apostate …
Apostate? Not so much. Heretic? Most certainly. There is a significant difference. Apostasy is a complete abandonment of one’s faith. Heresy is merely a view that directly contradicts an authority’s standard of orthodoxy.
And who sets the standard for orthodoxy is a whole ‘nother can of worms …
Best,
Mike
Marcia on 29 Nov 2007 at 12:36 am #
Mike,
You said:
==We both agree that God’s nature is triune. However, from my interaction with Mormons and JWs over the decades, their denial of the Trinity is based on a misunderstanding of the doctrine. (This is, of course, a generalization based on my own experiential knowledge.) They have not been taught systematically the passages which would prove this particular aspect of God’s nature.===
Whatever their denial of the Trinity is based on, it is just a fact that the LDS Church teaches that the Trinity is erroneous. I’ve also talked with a lot of Mormons (and JWs); they lack of understanding is because they are in a false church. What is at issue here is what the Mormon Church teaches (as well as the Watchtower Society and the Oneness Pentecostal churches — these all deny the Trinity and attack it).
You said:
===The Father is God. Jesus is God. In one sense, Jesus is talking to Himself. The triune nature of God is not easily grasped, eh? ===
What??? Of course, Jesus is *not* talking to Himself. Just because the Trinity is not easily grasped, it is clear that Jesus is not God the Father. There are 3 Persons of the same substance in the Trinitarian Godhead. They refer to each other; they are clearly not each other.
You siaid:
==I am curious as to why you think the triune nature of God is an “essential.†How warped does our theology get if we go down the road the Oneness Pentecostals have? ==
The nature of God is an essential; therefore, the Trinitarian nature of God is essential. The Trinity has been an essential of the faith in historic Christiantiy and is taught in Scripture.
In fact, the modalism espoused by Oneness Pentecostals (and some other groups) is the heresy of Sabellianism from around the 3rd century. This modalism was condemned then and it is not accepted now as a Christian belief. It is a heresy.
You said:
===Doctrinal understanding does not saving faith make. Faith is what it is. ==
I was not saying that knowing doctrine is the same as having faith. My point was that one should be growing in doctrine as one grows in the faith. Many NT passages, especially in 1 and 2 Timothy, admonish us to hold to sound doctrine. It is part of our growth in Christ to have understanding of what we believe. God communicated to us in words that are understood with the mind. The mind and faith are used together; it is is not one or the other.
Mike Beidler on 29 Nov 2007 at 1:11 am #
Marcia,
Whatever their denial of the Trinity is based on, it is just a fact that the LDS Church teaches that the Trinity is erroneous.
This is true. However, your average LDS layperson merely believes so because the church teaches that the Trinity is erroneous. Most do not understand Trinitarianism and cannot argue the point from our perspective.
Jesus is *not* talking to Himself. … There are 3 Persons of the same substance in the Trinitarian Godhead. They refer to each other; they are clearly not each other.
I know that and you know that. We are in agreement. But notice I said that Jesus is talking to Himself “in a sense.” I’m curious … Do you ever refer to God as “they”? Or just “He”?
The Trinity has been an essential of the faith in historic Christiantiy and is taught in Scripture.
Taught explicitly or implicitly?
… the modalism espoused by Oneness Pentecostals … is the heresy of Sabellianism
You didn’t answer my question. Let me rephrase: How does modalism affect one’s faith, especially if it does not deny the deity of Christ? In other words, What difference does it really make? Also, who decided that modalism was a heresy? Inspired apostles? The Roman Catholic Magisterium? A universal, infallible, ecumenical council?
Here’s another good question: Are the creeds infallible?
Truth Unites... and Divides on 29 Nov 2007 at 4:06 pm #
Is the following a “settled” question or not: Is Mormonism a Christian religion or is it a Christian cult?
My understanding is that there was a great deal of hullabaloo over terming Mormonism a “cult”. Consequently, many Christians have backed off terming Mormonism as a “cult”.
I understand that there’s some connotative baggage with the word “cult”, but technically speaking, is it correct to diagnose Mormonism as a “cult”?
Sidebar: This may be a secondary reason why Christianity Today rejected Rob Bowman’s review. Perhaps the editor felt that Rob was steering readers of his book review into thinking that Mormonism is a cult, and CT does not want its readers to think that CT is saying that Mormonism is a cult.
Todd Wood on 29 Nov 2007 at 4:53 pm #
Just read both posts.
Thanks for the info, Rob.
from a spud out in here in Southeastern Idaho.
et
Marcia on 29 Nov 2007 at 5:43 pm #
Hello, Mike,
You said:
===However, your average LDS layperson merely believes so because the church teaches that the Trinity is erroneous. Most do not understand Trinitarianism and cannot argue the point from our perspective==
I don’t think it’s necessarily because they are accepting what the LDS church tells them; some of them reject the Trinity. Same with Oneness followers. I have discussed the Trinity with Mormons and Oneness followers before; they argue against it. But the issue isn’t whether they understand it or not – why is it that Christians through the centuries have affirmed the Trinity as an essential of the faith? Somehow, all these Christians believe it even if they don’t completely understand it. Of course, we don’t completely understand the nature of God – we are not God. However, we are given enough information in Scripture for evidence of the Trinity and believers accept it as the nature of God.
You said:
===But notice I said that Jesus is talking to Himself “in a sense.†I’m curious … Do you ever refer to God as “they� Or just “He�==
I do not refer to God as “they,†yet I am aware the 3 Persons of the Trinitarian Godhead are distinct from each other. I do not think that goes against the point that although God is one, there are 3 distinct Persons in the Godhead, and Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not the HS, and the HS is not Jesus, etc. Modalists deny this, saying that Jesus and the Father are one and the same – i.e., there is no actual distinction at all. Notice I say distinction and not separation.
Modalism asserts that the Trinity is a pagan concept similar to the 3 gods of other religions (like Shiva, Vishnu, and Kali), or similar to 3-headed pagan gods. Modalists actively attack the Trinity and say that when Jesus was baptized, for example, the HS descending on Him and God the Father saying “This is my beloved Son†from heaven were all just manifestations of one Person. They reject the Trinitarian nature of God by saying that God is manifesting Himself in 3 roles, like someone being a husband, father, and son at the same time. For them, Jesus and God the Father are one and the same. This is not what the Bible teaches.
I think the Trinity is taught implicitly, but that makes it no less true or significant as part of the faith. No, I do no think the Creeds are infallible, but they are the expression of the historic faith and based on scripture. The creeds came
Marcia on 29 Nov 2007 at 6:05 pm #
Part 2: Sorry, didn’t get my last sentence from the previous post in there. Here it is: The creeds came about when the Church was being attacked by false teachings, such as Sabellianism, Docetism, and others. So the Creeds were mainly a response to the attacks, formulating what Christians already were believing. Monarchianism, another early heresy, is similar to Sabellianism. These are heresies because they reject what the Bible teaches about the nature of God.
This is part of the Athanasian Creed from the early 400’s affirming the Trinity: http://www.forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0008__3._Athanasian_Creed.html
==Now the catholic faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords. ===end excerpt
The above creed is based on scripture – it if weren’t, then Christians would have rejected it and would not have been saying it all these centuries.
Although exposed to Sunday School when growing up in various parts of the world (with an agnostic father and nominal Christian mother), I did not become a believer until rather late in life (December, 1990) after being an astrologer, New Ager, and follower of Eastern religions for many years. Yet I had no problem grasping that the nature of God is Trinitarian. The HS teaches one through God’s word. Believe
Mary on 30 Nov 2007 at 8:20 am #
This has been an intersting discussion and when we discuss as believers there’s always something new to learn..going back though to whether or not Mormons can be called Christians has to do with what they do with Jesus. In
Dr. Joseph Stowell’s book, The Trouble With Jesus…he states …All our “gods” are to be equal. And when that is the agenda, the authenic Jesus is trouble. It’s difficult to include One who has claimed to be the only way to God when a diversity of paths to God is being celebrated.” page 14 Doctrinal issues aside isn’t this the real question? Thanks for letting me hop in
Joel Griffith on 03 Dec 2007 at 12:19 pm #
Jesus said . . . “This is eternal life, to know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
If you don’t know the only true God as He has revealed Himself, then you don’t have eternal life either. Denial of the Trinity is that serious.
Morgan Farmer on 03 Dec 2007 at 2:47 pm #
“…..another editor on staff “familiar with the issue and with the book . . . decided that some of [my] opinions weren’t accurately based on what the book actually says.†He offered no specific examples or explanations.”
I find that this tactic of stating that there are problems without identifying the problems has become the norm these days when parties disagree. Troubling to say the least.
Rob Bowman on 03 Dec 2007 at 10:10 pm #
Morgan,
Thanks for your comment, with which I agree. I should let you (and everyone else here) know that, after I had posted this piece, and in response to an email from me, my editor contact at Christianity Today did email me with a brief explanation of what they found objectionable in my article. (I do not know if the editors at CT are yet aware of these posts.) I may at some point submit another post here addressing the main criticism they posed. It did not amount to a serious objection to the article as a whole; removing four words, I think, would have completely overcome the objection, even if it had been valid.
Cdowis on 06 Dec 2007 at 2:50 pm #
Nick,
Your understanding of Mormonism is flawed, but thank you for telling me what I believe. It is those who “know better than the Mormons” what we actually believe, who are especially offensive.
The understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son can be understood as Christ Himself explained it, in John 17:19-23 and Hebrews 1:2.
Rather than “polytheism”, which invokes images of Greek mythology, of gods on Mt Olympus, or Hindu gods, we should look at a more accurate model.
Two concepts come to mind:
“power of attorney” and “patrimony”. Both concepts imply a oneness as defined in the scriptures, but a physical separateness.
Please be respectful of my religion and stop using clever, highly charged words to describe my beliefs. I really do appreciate it.
Rob Bowman on 07 Dec 2007 at 11:08 pm #
Charles,
With respect to your complaint about the unsavory associations of the word “polytheism,” I have long suggested two ways of handling this problem while still accurately describing the LDS belief in many Gods.
First, we might refer to the LDS position as “ethical polytheism” (in contrast to the unethical gods of Mt. Olympus, and in parallel to the common term “ethical monotheism” as used for the Judeo-Christian conception).
Second, we might refer to the LDS position as “multitheism,” a term which is linguistically analogous to “polytheism” yet without the mythological associations.