Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod

“The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church. That is because the official writings of Mormonism deny fundamental teachings of orthodox Christianity. For example, the Nicene Creed confesses the clear biblical truth that Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, is “of one substance with the Father.” This central article of the Christian faith is expressly rejected by Mormon teaching — thus undermining the very heart of the scriptural Gospel itself. In a chapter titled “Jesus Christ, the Son of God: Are Mormons Christian?” the president of Brigham Young University (Rex Lee, What Do Mormons Believe? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992] summarizes Mormon teaching by stating that the three persons of the Trinity are “not… one being” (21), but are “separate individuals.” In addition, the Father is regarded as having a body “of flesh and bone” (22). Such teaching is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, destructive to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and indicative of the fact that Mormon teaching is not Christian.”

Presbyterian (USA)

Presbyterians in many parts of the United States live in close proximity with Mormon neighbors. Historically, these contacts with one another have often involved mutual difficulties. Today Presbyterians are challenged to apply the learnings we are gaining about interfaith relations to our relationships with Latter-day Saints.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), declares allegiance to Jesus. Latter-day Saints and Presbyterians share use of the Bible as scripture, and members of both churches use common theological terms. Nevertheless, Mormonism is a new and emerging religious tradition distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of the Christian Church, of which Presbyterians are a part.

Latter-day Saints understand themselves to be separate from the continuous witness to Jesus Christ, from the apostles to the present, affirmed by churches of the “catholic” tradition.

Latter-day Saints and the historic churches view the canon of scriptures and interpret shared scriptures in radically different ways. They use the same words with dissimilar meanings. When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints speaks of the Trinity, Christ’s death and resurrection, and salvation, the theology and practices related to these set it apart from the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches.

It is the practice of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to receive on profession of faith those coming directly from a Mormon background and to administer baptism. Presbyterians do not invite officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to administer the Lord’s Supper. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Previous Post 

Anti-Trinitarians commonly cross-reference John 10:30 and John 17:20-23 to try to prove that Jesus and the Father are only "one in purpose", since, as they point out, we cannot be considered one divine being with each other, yet Jesus prayed that we would be one as they are one. This may be the most common objection to the Trinitarian understanding of John 10:30. Let’s look at it.

Jesus, before he became a human being, existed without beginning as God. This is what John 1:1-2 tells us, for example. When creation began, the Word (Jesus) already existed, and he was God. As God, the Word or Son was one with the Father in a way that no human being is or ever can be. Even some anti-Trinitarians acknowledge this point, at least to some extent. For example, Mormons agree that Jesus Christ is part of the one Godhead, with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and most Mormons agree that we will never be part of that Godhead. So, in this sense at least, the Son is one with the Father in a way that we are not and never will be. I will return to this point shortly.

This eternal Word, the Son, then became a human being, known as Jesus Christ. As a human being, Jesus is now one of us. As a human being, Jesus’ oneness with the Father is a unity that no other human beings naturally have, but that Jesus offers to share with us by grace. This is not the same "oneness" that Jesus had (and still has) as God with the Father, but it has its source in that oneness. In effect, Jesus has two kinds or modes of oneness with the Father: the divine oneness with the Father that he has always had by virtue of being God, and a derived oneness with the Father that he enjoys as a perfect human being. (He can have the derived oneness with the Father only because he already had the divine oneness.) Jesus cannot share his divine oneness with us, but he can share his derived oneness with us. As I will argue below, this derived oneness is in a sense part of the Son’s divine oneness with the Father. It is not an entirely new oneness, but it is possible because the Son, who was already one with the Father, came so that we might experience that aspect of their oneness that creatures can share.

We see these two kinds of oneness in John 10 and John 17. Let’s take each passage one at a time.

I have commented on John 10:30 in context in depth, so I can be brief here. Recall that in John 10, Jesus lays claim to divine titles and functions that are unique to God. He is "the good shepherd" (vv. 11, 14), like "the LORD is my shepherd" in Psalm 23:1. The people of God in Israel, Jesus says, are his sheep, even though the Old Testament says they are God’s sheep (Ps. 100:3). Jesus says that he gives his sheep, his people, eternal life (v. 28); again, this is a prerogative of deity, not something you or I can ever claim to do. Jesus says that no one will be able to snatch his people out of his hand (v. 28 again). This claim by Jesus to give life to whomever he chooses, and that no one can snatch them out of his hand, echoes what the LORD God said in the Old Testament: "See now that I, even I, am he; there is no god besides me. I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and no one can deliver from my hand" (Deut. 32:39 NRSV; see also Is. 43:13). I think Mormons would have to agree with this, because they agree that Jesus was Jehovah, the LORD God of the Old Testament. Other anti-Trinitarians will balk at this point, but they can hardly deny that what Jesus is saying here about himself is not something that could be said about any of us. We do not have this sort of power over life and death.

Jesus then says that no one can snatch the sheep out of his Father’s hand, either (v. 29). This statement makes it clear that the imagery of sheep that no one can snatch from his hand is a way of speaking of Christ’s divine power in salvation. It is in this context that Jesus says, “I and the Father are one (John 10:30). Clearly, in this context, Jesus is talking about the unity that he has with the Father in their exercise of divine power in salvation of the sheep. This is not merely being fully in agreement with the Father (one in purpose ). It is a oneness that Jesus has with the Father because he is the LORD Jehovah, truly God, and therefore this is a oneness that Jesus cannot share with us.

Now let’s look at John 17:

"I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me" (John 17:20-23 NRSV).

The first thing to notice here is that Jesus prays that his disciples will be one “so that the world may know†that the Father sent Jesus and that he loves them just as he loved Jesus (v. 23). That means that Jesus is praying for a unity that is at least possible to realize here in our mortality. It obviously won’t do the world any good, as far as showing them that the Father sent Jesus, if we can’t be one in this sense until after we rise from the dead and become exalted in heaven. Jesus must, therefore, be talking about a way that human beings can be united now, while still mortal beings.

The second thing to notice is that the way this unity is expressed is in love (see also vv. 24-26). It is the love of Christians one for another that will convince the world that the Father sent Jesus (see also John 13:34-35). Jesus is obviously not talking about us becoming one with God in the sense of gaining divine powers; he is talking about us loving each other the way the Father and Jesus love each other. That is a "oneness" that Jesus can share with us. Obviously, Jesus and the Father were one in this sense long before Jesus became a human being; it is therefore, in a sense, part of the oneness that Jesus and the Father have always had as God. It is the aspect of the divine oneness that can be shared with those who are not divine.

In conclusion, John 17 does not prove that the Father and Jesus are one only in purpose. John 17 is not even talking about being one in purpose. It is talking about being one in the love that the Father and Jesus have for each other. That love is part of the divine oneness that the Father and Jesus have shared for eternity as God. Insofar as that divine unity is also a unity of divine power and prerogatives, it is a divine oneness that we will never have.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

        

Re-posted for Rob Bowman by admin.

One of the many, many New Testament texts that orthodox Christians historically have regarded as testifying to the deity of Jesus Christ is John 10:30, in which Jesus famously says, I and the Father are one (Greek, ego kai ho pater hen esmen). But in what sense does Jesus mean that he and the Father are one? We may identify at least three main views:

One in person: Jesus is the very same person as the Father. This is the view held by Oneness Pentecostals. This view agrees that John 10:30 identifies Jesus as God, and concludes that it also identifies Jesus as the Father.
One in power: Jesus is one in divine nature, essence, or power with the Father yet personally distinct from him. This is the view usually favored by Trinitarians (orthodox Christians).
One in purpose: Jesus is united with the Father in purpose; that is, he is in full agreement with the Father, always acting in line with what the Father wants. This is the explanation typically given by those who deny the deity of Christ, including Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is also the answer that Mormons typically give, although they also usually claim to affirm that Jesus is God.

As you can see, orthodox Christians think the two anti-Trinitarian interpretations both get something right and both miss something. Oneness Pentecostals rightly see John 10:30 as attesting to Christ’s deity, but miss the distinction between Christ and the Father. Other anti-Trinitarians see this distinction between Christ and the Father but not the divine unity of nature, essence, or power that they share.

So, who’s right? I propose to make a case for concluding that the Trinitarian interpretation does justice to the text in context better than the other two interpretations. In this post, I will discuss the Oneness Pentecostal interpretation.

Not One in Person

The least plausible way to understand John 10:30 is that it means that Jesus is the Father. Such an interpretation is clearly wrong, for several reasons.

First, Jesus here differentiates himself from the Father by speaking additively of himself and the Father in the plural (I and the Father, not I am the Father ; we are, esmen, first person plural). This wording is most naturally understood as denoting two persons. If I said, Father and I are named Robert, you would of course understand that even though we both have the same name, we are two different persons. The very semantic structure of saying Father and I denotes two persons. Interpreting it as a circumlocution for I am the Father is highly implausible and exegetically unjustifiable. Likewise, if I were to say, My wife and I are one, you would know that I was not saying that I am my wife, simply because one’s wife is never oneself! You would therefore know that the oneness that characterizes my wife and me whatever it might be is something other than oneness of person.

Second, neither here nor anywhere else in the New Testament does anyone ever actually refer to Jesus as the Father. Had Jesus wanted to say that he was the Father, he certainly could have; but in fact he never said this. The lack of any such statement, taken by itself, is not decisive, but this lack considered in conjunction with the many statements differentiating the two personally is quite decisive.

Third, we have such statements in the immediate context. Jesus refers several times in this passage to the Father in the third person, as someone distinct from himself (in my Father’s name, v. 25; my Father, has given to me, v. 29; the works of my Father, v. 37). In this context, I and the Father is obviously a reference to two distinct persons, the speaker (I ) and someone else (called the Father ).

Fourth, had Jesus wished to affirm that he was the one person of the Father, the appropriate way for John, in reporting this statement, to express this in Greek would have been to use the masculine form of the Greek word for one, heis, rather than the neuter form, hen. We must be careful not to overstate or misstate the point here. It is not true that the masculine heis in any and every context means one person. It is not true that the masculine gender somehow in and of itself conveys singularity of personhood. Typically, the masculine form is used because the noun that the word one modifies happens to be masculine. For example, earlier in the passage Jesus refers to himself as one shepherd (10:16); the Greek text uses the masculine form heis because it modifies the masculine noun poimen (shepherd ).

In verse 30, the word one modifies, or is a further description of, the compound subject I and the Father. The pronoun I (ego) has no gender, but the Father (ho pater) does it is, of course, masculine. The neuter hen in this grammatical context treats these two referents, ego and ho pater, as referring to two distinct persons who share some sort of unity (however profound). The type of unity intended must always be inferred from the context, not from the gender of the word for œone treated independently of the context.

The use of heis, in this context, would have been at least more consistent with an affirmation of identity of person than the neuter hen. Had John written ego kai ho pater heis esmen, such a statement would simply have been confusing, or ambiguous, since I and the Father is still most naturally understood as referring to two persons. But the use of the neuter hen in the same sentence as I and the Father are really shuts the door on the one in person interpretation. It is the way these verbal elements combine their synergy in the formation of the whole statement that precludes such an interpretation, not the use of the neuter hen in isolation or in the abstract.

Thus, a consideration of these four factors combined the wording I and the Father together with the plural verb we are, the utter lack of precedent for identifying Jesus as the Father, the distinction made repeatedly in the immediate context between Jesus and the Father, and the use of the neuter one (hen) lead to the conclusion that Jesus is not here claiming to be the Father.

Send post as PDF to

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!