Category Archives: Theology

Mouw, Mohler, and Mormonism (or is the gospel polytheistic)

Posted on by
Reply

It all started at the Value Voter Summit when Rev. Robert Jeffress, a senior pastor at First Baptist Church in Dallas, called Mormonism a cult.

Since then two seminary presidents have weighed in on this. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary and Dr. Al Mohler Jr, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  In reading through these responses and engaging in discussion over at the Jesus Creed blog here and here I see that three distinct questions that have been raised. The first is are Mormons Christians, the second is are there individuals who profess to be Mormons who are Christians, and lastly should evangelicals support a Mormon candidate for President.

While this issue has been raised primarily in the context of the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary, I don’t want to focus on that particular aspect. I will simply say that I agree with both Mouw and Mohler that each voter must evaluate the candidates and take responsibility for their own vote.

Mitt Romney deserves what every politician running for office deserves: a careful examination of his views on policy and his philosophy of government. – Mouw

The stewardship of our vote demands that we support those candidates who most clearly and consistently share our worldview and combine these commitments with the competence to serve both faithfully and well.  – Mohler

Enough said there.

Here is Richard Mouw’s answer to the question: Are Mormons Christians?

So are Mormons Christians? For me, that’s a complicated question.

My Mormon friends and I disagree on enough subjects that I am not prepared to say that their theology falls within the scope of historic Christian teaching. But the important thing is that we continue to talk about these things, and with increasing candor and mutual openness to correction.

And here is Dr. Mohler’s answer to the same question:

Is Mormonism just a distinctive denomination of Christianity? The answer to that question is definitive. Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. … It is neither slander nor condescension to state clearly that Mormonism is not Christianity. Taking Mormonism on its own terms, one finds a comprehensive set of teachings and doctrines that are self-consciously set against historic Christianity.

Is this an issue of generous orthodoxy vs. stingy orthodoxy? Is this issue so complex that a seminary president can’t determine whether Mormon teaching falls within the scope of historic Christian teaching?

I admit I don’t know all that the Mormon/LDS church claims to believe or reject. However, I do know that Mormon teaching is unequivocally polytheistic. Don’t take my word for it, let’s see what Joseph Smith had to say on this issue. In a sermon entitled “Plurality of Gods”:

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!

…  Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization.

and in the King Follet Sermon found in two parts here and here:

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship.

and that God was not always god but a man who was exalted and became so:

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

If Mormonism teaches polytheism and that God was not always God, then the question becomes – has Christianity ever taught these things?

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. (Exodus 20:2-3)

Hear, O Israel:The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deut 6:4)

Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me. (Isaiah 43:10 b)

Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel andhis Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (Isaiah 44:6)

I am the LORD, and there is no other,  besides me there is no God; (Isaiah 45:5 a)

And this is eternal life,that they know youthe onlytrue God, andJesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:3)

I can applaud Mouw for dialoging with individuals and for separating Romney the Mormon from Romney the candidate. But he has failed in his role as a leader of an evangelical seminary to not make it clear that the tenets of Mormonism are well beyond the boundaries of historic Christian teaching (orthodoxy). No matter how “generous” one wants to be there is nothing that would support the claim that polytheism was ever considered orthodox. I applaud Mohler for coming out and explaining that there is a difference.

The last question raised is can an individual claiming to be Mormon and worshiping in the Mormon church be a genuine follower of Jesus? The heart of that question goes beyond Mormonism.

Is the gospel polytheistic?

This is a different question then is Mormonism within the scope of historic Christian teaching. This question touches on what does it mean to have saving faith? What must we actually be placing our trust in?

Some in the Jesus Creed discussion were uncomfortable with monotheism being  a key doctrine or “requirement” to saving faith. Interestingly some attenders in a Sunday school class I taught recently were as well. In that class we were reviewing ideas on orthodoxy and discussing what the basics of the gospel entailed.

One objection to monotheism being part of the gospel is that God is too hard too understand and He wouldn’t make it that difficult for people to be saved. There is much truth in part of this statement. Finite and fallen beings cannot fully grasp God, for we still see as in a mirror and dimly. However, that does not mean that nothing about God can be comprehended. One God, eternal and without cause who created all things is something we can understand. This is a major theme of the Bible and all other truths flow from this one truth – there is only one God. Consider what God told Moses when He gave the Law:

12 Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst. 13You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim 14(for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), 15 lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they whore after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice, 16and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods. (Exodus 34:12-16 ESV)

The problem the inhabitants of the land had was that they were without God in the world. They had gods but they did not have the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The only true God. The command – “you shall worship no other god” is just as true now as it was then (Eph 2:11-16).

Another objection is that we are adding something to the gospel. Isn’t the gospel only about trusting in Jesus – His death, burial, and resurrection? The gospel message is that spiritually lost people are being reconciled to God and provided an entrance into the kingdom of God.  The Gentiles and the Jews are both reconciled to God through the cross of Jesus (Rom 5:10-11; Eph 2:11-16). But if reconciliation with God and becoming part of His kingdom is the good news – then should we also know what God we are being reconciled too – not just how or through Whom?

Didn’t Jesus say:

Truly, truly, I say to you,whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. (John 5:24 ESV) emphasis added

Doesn’t Paul teach that those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of Jesus are those that will face eternal destruction (2 Thes 1:5-12)? Can you have faith in Jesus and believe what ever you want about the one who sent Him? Can one really say they know God and are trusting the promises of God when they reject such clear testimony that He is One and there is no other?

Does a proper response to the gospel (saving faith) require monotheism? What do you think?

Lessons from the Warrior Dash

Posted on by
Reply

This past weekend I ran in a race called the Warrior Dash. This crazy race – billed as a “mud-crawling, fire leaping, extreme run” is a challenging 3.5 mile course filled with obstacles. Obstacles which include barricades to be leaped over and crawled under, tires and trashed cars to be traversed, and “swimming” through water while “leaping” over logs. And mud did I mention mud. That is part of the deal but the rain that morning made sure that there was plenty of it as the entire course was muddy and slippery.

My family and I got to the site early and met up with my brother in law, his family, and one of his coworkers. As it got closer to our start time and we got in line the nervous energy and anticipation was growing. After some good old fashion Brave Heart screams and chants of “bring it on” instigated by the DJ the big flames finally shot out of the top of the starting gate and we are off.

The first mile or so was obstacle free – except for the muddy course so we were able to settle into a runner’s rhythm. We were also excited about getting to the first obstacle. That excitement quickly waned after managing to gut it through that obstacle – which was a series of several alternating items to be traversed – first over a waist-high barrier then crawling under a knee-high cross beam.   I was totally winded. And we had barely started. Then doubt started to creep in and all I could hear was – “Mike, there is no way are you going to make it”. Starved of O2 I quickly caught my breath and started to press on. I had to go catch up with my brother in law. Once we changed our pace a bit we were able to settle in and tackle the next series of obstacles.

One of the later obstacles is a tall wooden barricade that must be climbed. It is probably 10-12 feet tall. And while it has a rope and some wooden studs to help the runner along the way to the top, it is also wet and muddy and therefore slippery. It doesn’t take to long to learn that this obstacle – like most in this event – is best tackled by hitting it hard and not slowing down or stopping once you get started. Even if your muscles are aching and you just want to catch your breath. Because slowing down and stopping reduces momentum and then fatigue and gravity start to really take over. And once that happens it takes a lot more work to get to the top.

Reflecting on the fun (does that make me crazy) of the event later, it became clear why running as an athlete is such a good illustration of living out the Christian life used in Scripture (particularly by Paul).

image from Warrior Dash Facebook page

Life is dirty and full of obstacles…

To live out a life that would imitate Jesus the following principles are mentioned when an illustration based on running a race is used (1 Cor 9:24-26; 2 Tim 2:1-7, 4:7-8; Heb 12:1-3):

  • train with goals in mind
  • learn to control the body
  • compete according to the rules
  • fight the good fight
  • run with endurance
  • remove entanglements so you are not slowed down

The Christian life lived well takes work just like running well in an event like the Warrior Dash.

When I decided to run this event with my brother in law I knew I had to start training and build into my weekly routine time to run, lift weights, and go to kickboxing class. However training is not easy. It involves hard work, sweat, and aching muscles so after the initial excitement passes the excuses follow (there is plenty of time before the race) as does loss of motivation (I don’t feel like working out tonight) that leads to skipped workouts.  And then there are the other demands (good and bad) on our time. However when one stops training – even for a short amount of time – it is amazing how quick we lose all that hard earned endurance and strength. All readers over 40 know that seems to be at ratio of losing 1 week of gained strength/endurance for each day we take off.  And skipping training makes the goal of surviving the Warrior Dash and getting one of those cool medals that says “I survived” that much harder. So we can pay now or pay more later.

Whether it is slowing down in training or slowing down on that large wall obstacle the result is the same. When we stop we start losing ground – on getting up the wall or getting stronger and fitter. And in life this principle applies with similar results. When we stop moving forward in the Christian life we tend to fall into our natural tendencies. We start loving others less and giving less and then we really start to slip into selfish desires and worldliness starts to take over. There is no effort involved here and we don’t have to think about falling back into them. It just happens because we stopped moving forward.

The idea of continual training, learning, and growing is a repeated theme. The Thessalonian church was noted amongst the churches for their love to others and yet they were told to keep growing in love (1 Thes 4:10). The apostle Peter urged people to increase in qualities such as faith, self-control, endurance, and love so that they would be effective and fruitful Christians (2 Pet 1:8).  And the apostle Paul, echoing themes of running and training, urged all Christians to imitate him. They are to strain forward and press on to the goal of winning the prize just as he does  (Phil 3:12-16). These themes all contain the idea that moving forward is necessary, and it takes work. It also implies that when we stop growing we tend to fall back not remain where we are. Even Paul was worried about being disqualified from earning the prize if he did not train (1 Cor 9:27).

That is why Paul reminds his readers that they are are to “put off the old man” and to “put on the new man” (Col 3:9-10). This was similar to the guidance given to the church in Ephesus (Eph 4:22-24). The verbs used for laying aside and putting on in these passages are in the middle voice. This indicates that we must be an active part of the exchange between the old and the new man. It also indicates that this was not a completed action when we trusted in Christ (Eph 1:13). It requires hard work and dedication.

What are the old man and the new man that Paul refers to?

These men (old and new) that Paul describes are of course not actual people but rather metaphors for our attitudes and practices. The old man is described by Paul as one whose mind is set on the earth and whose attitudes and actions are defined as evil and deserving of God’s wrath (Col 3:2,5-9). The old man is deceived by futile thinking, ignorance, and a hard heart that results in sin and a life apart from God (Eph 4:17-19, 22). The new man is contrasted with the old man and is therefore its opposite.

When we slow down and stop pursuing growth in Christian qualities it is really easy to let ourselves go and find that the “old man clothes” are fit well and are really comfortable.

What practical actions can we do to put on the new man?

First, we must realize that the clothes of the new man are not something that we can create or buy. These clothes are created by God and given to us (Col 3:10; Eph 4:24) when we are in Christ. The old man can only be called a former way of life and be put aside after we have learned the truth in Christ and have received Him (Col 3:7-8, Eph 4:20-22) because it requires a total transformation of who we are from the inside out.

Second, we must establish the right goals to pursue. As this is already long post, I’ll keep this simple – Love God and Love Others.

Third, we must understand that it is a choice that we must make. To take off the old and put on the new. Just like it is a choice to train and prepare for a race and to run with endurance. It is a choice to fight against the sinful desires that will tempt us and hinder us from our goals. Even when don’t want to push on or we lose motivation or we don’t want to get dirty. We must press on. When we don’t want to fight the temptation and just give in. We must fight the good fight. The “putting on” is is not drumming up false feelings and the “taking off” is not getting rid of feelings that exist in us and we wished did not. It is willing to push past them, fight on, and do the right thing.

I do not mean that anyone can decide this moment that he will never feel it anymore. That is not how things happen. I mean that every time it bobs its head up, day after day, year after year, all our lives long, we must hit it on the head. It is hard work, but the attempt is not impossible. – C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)

Life is dirty and full of obstacles…

So establish the right goals, stay focused on these goals, don’t quit, and hit each obstacle as it comes.

Oh, and don’t forget to have fun along the way!

Where’s the Beef?

Posted on by
Reply

Back in 1984, Wendy’s challenged their competitors with the famous question – “where’s the beef?”. It featured a little old woman examining her burger and asking the question to her two friends.

The question became a cultural catchphrase used to challenge the substance and validity of the claims others make.

Too bad that feisty woman was not one of the Hebrews encamped around Mt. Sinai after they had been delivered from Egypt. In this post we will look at a moment in the history of Israel where they failed to ask that question.

Setting the context a bit the Hebrews had been enslaved in Egypt for some 400 years. However, after these long bitter years their God has just rescued them in dramatic fashion. The people sitting in the camp were all witnesses to the 10 plagues that fell on the nation of Egypt before the Pharaoh let them finally leave the country. And they all stood at the banks of the Red Sea and trembled in fear as the Egyptian army, sent to chase them down, had them boxed in and was ready to destroy them. And they all rejoiced as they saw God (in the form of a pillar of cloud) stand between them and the army protecting them from certain slaughter and then deliver them through the parting of the Red Sea.

These Hebrews who now sit in the wilderness at the foot of Mt. Sinai are traveling to the land promised to Abraham (the father of their nation). In the last few days they have been offered a set of laws (Exodus 20-23). These laws are offered to them by God in the form of a covenant where He would be their protector and bless them if they obeyed the laws, but punish and remove His protection if they disobeyed. The people readily accepted these conditions and entered into the covenant confirming it with a blood oath (Exodus 24).

It is at this point that they find themselves at the bottom of Mt. Sinai waiting for their leader Moses who has gone back up the mountain. While he is receiving instructions on how to build the ark and tabernacle they are growing tired of waiting.

1When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 2So Aaron said to them, “Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” 5When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.” 6And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. (Exodus 32:1-6 ESV)

Why did the Hebrews choose to invent a new god (which they had just agreed not to do)? Why did they accept and worship a statue of gold over the God that actually delivered them?  Especially a god that they watched be fashioned from gold. Gold that moments ago was being worn as jewelry that they had owned and donated for the cause. And how could they actually think that this god delivered them from bondage and brought them out of Egypt when it did not even exist until after they were enjoying their freedom?

Where’s the Beef?

There was less beef in this god then the hamburger in the Wendy’s commercial so why were the Hebrews so quick to accept and worship the golden calf? There are many reasons why the Hebrews may have chosen to define their own god that day that could be explored. After all these were a tired and scared group of people. They had no home land as of yet. They are in the wilderness and currently without their leader Moses. And as for idols – well all the other nations are doing it. But, I think that at the core the main reason was this golden calf god was a lot less demanding than the real thing. This chunk of gold was not going to be making any rules on how to live that would have to be obeyed. Instead the Hebrews could go eat and drink and play. Why ask questions when you can “have it your way”.

Today we would laugh at such a scene. Yet people do the same thing when they form their religious or spiritual views based on accepting things based on personal preference and subjectivity – a topic explored in a prior post Burger King theology. Can one really mix and match various spiritual ideas blending them together based on preference and actually believe that it is true? We may not worship a golden calf, but people aren’t any different when they think of Jesus as only a good teacher or a spiritual adviser who will guide us to enlightenment. The idea that Jesus was a good teacher is based  on such teachings as “don’t judge, lest ye be judged”, “treat others the way you want to be treated”, and the call to “love others” and care for the poor. But where do we find these teachings? While there are some extant references to Jesus’ teaching outside the Bible, most of Jesus’ teachings are contained in the New Testament. And most who would claim that Jesus is a good teacher would readily admit that they rely on the New Testament to know what he taught.

But here are some of the other claims that Jesus makes:

  • son your sins are forgiven (Mk 2:5)
  • Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God … whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (John 3:3, 36)
  • it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me … (John 8:16)
  • I and the Father are one … I am the Son of God (John 10:30, 36)

What is interesting about these claims is that the Pharisees and people at that time challenged Jesus:

  • no one can forgive sins except God (Mk 2:7)
  • how can these things be? (John 3:9)
  • who is your father, who are you? (John 8:19, 25)
  • you, being a man, make yourself God (John 10:33)

Wonder where those same people willing to ask “where’s the beef” types of questions were when the golden calf was being offered as god?

Questions are not bad. We need to be able to examine our beliefs. But how can we accept teachings from the Sermon on the Mount and reject Jesus’ other teachings or His death and resurrection when they are in the same book? On what basis should we take one teaching of say the Gospel of Mark or John as authentic and reject another teaching as “inaccurate” ? What confidence can anyone have that they picked the right sections as accurate?

The real question is when one approaches spiritual truth or the identify of Jesus this way how is this any different than the Hebrews who sought a golden calf?

Sounds a lot more like Burger King Theology than the Wendy’s version and where’s the beef, in that?