Are Mormons Christians? A beliefnet.com debate
June 29th, 2007In light of the spirited discussion going on in the post about Mitt Romney, I thought this was something worth mentioning. Albert Mohler and Orson Scott Card have each written an article on beliefnet.com about whether Mormons are Christians.
If you’d like to continue the previous discussion along theological lines, please do so here.
Thanks, Tim. I guess the thing that most struck me about the first two entries is that, while Dr. Mohler mentions the Mormon belief in polytheism — “The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one.” — Mr. Card doesn’t address this at all.
He doesn’t emphatically deny the charge and affirm the monotheism that clearly defined our roots in a Judaism that was surrounded by polytheistic religions, and he doesn’t say whether or not monotheism is a key feature of Christianity.
He tries to move from a technical definition of Christian to the “ordinary” meaning of the word, but candidates for that ordinary meaning do not once acknowledge monotheism.
“The ordinary meaning of the word ‘Christians’ definitely includes Mormons; and when you say Mormons are not Christians, most would take that to mean that Mormons ‘do not believe in the divinity of Christ,’ which would be flat wrong.”
Mormons affirm Christ’s divinity, but to do so they deny monotheism. For that reason, I do not believe Mormonism is Christian. I can well imagine that most people wouldn’t explicitly include monotheism in their “ordinary” definition, but that’s because it’s so universally held among Jews and Christians throughout millennia. What was unique about Judaism at the beginning has now become very commonplace.
There’s a lot of illogic in Mr. Card’s first entry — again, the Constitution doesn’t prevent Mohler from advocating that other Christians not support Romney — but the one most germane to the question of Christianity is this:
“But when we are defining words as they are used in the English language, we all get a vote.”
This is a call to determine what is Christian by popular vote, not by examining the details of doctrine. This abandons the idea that the word Christianity refers to a definite idea whose meaning is permanent.
By this logic, if enough people believe Mormonism includes the belief that child abuse is morally permissible, well, that’s what Mormonism is, because that’s the “ordinary” meaning held by most people. Would Card stand for that? I can guess that he wouldn’t and would try to persuade people that their conception of Mormonism is wrong rather ththan defer to majority opinion.
“This is a call to determine what is Christian by popular vote, not by examining the details of doctrine. This abandons the idea that the word Christianity refers to a definite idea whose meaning is permanent.”
But that’s your faulty premise right there: Christianty is NOT an idea whose meaning has been permanent.
Furthermore, in many instances the dominating idea has often been forced, not by revelation/inspiration (the only way to know the truth of the matter), but by arms and bloodshed.
Lastly, many folks say it’s all very plainly explained in the Bible and any reasonable fellow can ferret it out.
Umm. Nope.
Otherwise, there would have ever only been one denomination. What’s clear to you is how you interpret the Bible via your particular creedal lens.
The only way to know if your interpretation is correct (or more accurate) is to get a revelation. Not by vote (as you suggest), nor by reason alone, since humans get so many things wrong.
For example, nowhere in the Bible does it state the trinity as found in the creeds. I’m talking about the specific language or even ideas used in the creeds.
Yes, there are texts where Christ says he and the father are one, but there are equally as many that suggest they aren’t. Furthermore, the intercessory prayer seems to suggest being “one” doesn’t mean what the creeds suggest.
Of course, you CAN read the trinity doctrine into them. But you can read it other ways and have it fit all nice and tidy as well. That’s the point.
Christianity has never been a permanent idea. History simply does not bear this out.
You skip a step when you get to trinitarianism. Let’s start with an even more basic fundamental to both Judaism and Christianity.
Monotheism.
Is there any doubt that the Bible teaches quite clearly the doctrine of monotheism? Is there any doubt that Christianity is a monotheistic religion? Or is monotheism a relatively insignificant matter of theology?
Personally, I would classify Mormonism as a aberrant Christian group like the Shakers or Branch Davidians. They cleary have some ties to orthadox Christianity but they are not an orthdox Christian group. As for whether Mormons are Christans, I would say no. I consider adherance to the doctrine of the Trinity to be of primary importance to one being called a Christian.
There’s been doubt about that since the inception. Arianism is the most pronounced, but not the only one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism. Furthermore, Arianism was “stamped out” only by political and military means.
But the text itself seems to support multiple divinities. Elohim (plural, yes I know the common acceptance of the usage, but you yourself said we don’t get to vote on such things), Genesis 3:5 (plural), Genesis 3:22 (as one of US), Psalms 82:6, Isaiah 41:23, Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Mark 1:11, John 10:34, Acts 7:56, 2 Peter 1:17. All these can be read to support separate beings that are being called “god” or “Lord.”
Many Protestants suggest the God of the Old Testament is not Christ, but instead say it’s the manifestation of the Father. But you could read it differently. As multiple beings.
The point is not to convince you of this position. There are other scriptures that suggest one Lord, although you could read that as the God you are to worship, not that there aren’t other gods. But I’m not going to debate it. The point is not to prove a Mormon doctrine.
The point is to provide evidence that (1) monotheism, along with so many other doctrines, has NOT been permanent, and (2) the Bible supports multiple readings.
The real question is how do you discover which is the most accurate reading. And it’s not by reason alone or “common sense.” Reason and common sense have given us 1,000’s of different readings with no end in sight. Some which end up denying the actuality of the Christ.
“Many Protestants suggest the God of the Old Testament is not Christ.” I know not one.
That the word “Trinity” isn’t found in the Bible doesn’t mean that it’s not clearly defined.
Matt. 28:19, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”
Thanks for the answer, John, but I find that the Bible is quite clear on the question of monotheism. That others disagree isn’t prima facie proof that the Bible is hard to understand: every see a kid try to worm his way out of doing what he knows his parents told him?
“Why did you eat some cookies this afternoon? I told you not to spoil your appetite for dinner.”
“You said not to eat a cookie because it would spoil my appetite. I didn’t eat a cookie; I ate five cookies.”
I imagine a lot of us have said similar things, not because we’re dumb or because our parents weren’t clear, but because we didn’t want to obey. No one is more blind than one who refuses to see.
The reality of sin renders unnecessary the idea that a clear teaching of Scripture would lead to unanimous agreement.
It is incorrect to say, as John Brown has, that Arianism was “stamped out.” This is a revisionist claim. Arianism was rejected by the church from the onset because it was recognized as being a problematic interpretation. If anything, Arianism had an opportunity to become the “orthodox” position in the early days of the so-called Christianized empire, when Constantius took control of the east and western Roman world, and later when Constans, another sympathizer of Arianism, was in power. But Arianism was, in itself, weak, and relied on alliances with eastern theologians who were antagonistic to the western church. Since those alliances were not based on theological unity, they broke down; ultimately Arianism just couldn’t replace the catholic church’s apostolic teaching. Indeed, even when Arian barbarians later invaded and conquered the empire, their heretical theology ultimately succumbed to orthodoxy with respect to christology.
Arianism, like any heterodox form of “Christianity” today is never able to seriously challenge what the church has understood from its apostolic roots until now. The Mormons are not a Christian group, except in some quasi-cultural sense. They are as cultic and pseudo-Christian in relation to Christianity as the Nation of Islam is in relation to Sunni Islam. There is a great deal of effort these days to diminish and even deny the distinction of “cult” in favor of more inclusive notions that are essentially premised on sociological and subjective ideas. But theology, whether in an occidental or oriental sense, always forces us back to reality. Mormons can argue all they want; they are no more Christian than are Jehovah’s Witnesses. A cult is a cult is a cult.
Well, Bubba, it’s good to hear someone out there is perfect and free from sin and thus can interpret the scripture clearly. Kudos.
Lou DeCaro, what Arianism couldn’t win against is the political and military might of Rome. Constantine enforced the doctrines of the creed with the state. And even then found resistance. As you say, the theology, to which I do not ascribe, only fell back because it lacked the politcial machinery to outlaw the other beliefs. Not because it was necessarily the original doctrine.
Furthermore, it’s interesting that the creed was voted on and many Eastern Bishops prevented from voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea. But even if they had been able to attend, a majority of opinion doesn’t make something right, does it?
But that’s beside the point. What this says is not that Athanasius or Arius was right. Only that the doctrines of Christianity have NOT been permanent. A great many early Christians believed in Arianism. A VERY GREAT MANY for hundreds of years.
You can define Christian and non-Christian any way you like. What you, unfortunately. don’t get to do is change history and paint the doctrine as permanent.
“A cult is a cult is a cult.”
This might be like asking how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop but…
How long does it take for a cult to be considered a religion? Early Catholics were certainly viewed as members of a cult.
Did I imply that I could perfectly interpret all of Scripture, John? No, I did not, but not for the first time have you drawn seriously erroneous conclusions from what I’ve written.
You wrote in the other thread that I am “imagining only one possibility: Mormon = Devil led = awful consequences.” I hadn’t said one word about the Devil, and I was clear that it wasn’t the consequences of electing Romney that wasn’t the issue but rather my loyalty to Christian truth as I know it. While then granting the latter, you still haven’t backed off the former.
You wrote, “the true issue is that you find Mormon doctrine so repugnant that you can’t bear to see a virtuous and extremely competent man be president because of it.” You emphasized the word “repugnant” a good bit, and I made clear that Mormonism isn’t repugnant to me, just deceptive.
And you still insist that the “spirit” of Article VI of the Constitution is to dictate how people should vote rather than limit the legal qualifications for office, even though you admit that the analogy breaks down on the matter of free speech and newspaper editors.
I think you’re providing excellent illustrations of the fact that, no matter how perspicuous a written communication is, a man can misconstrue it if he does not approach it in good faith.
But to address your snarky little comment, it’s not that I think I’m morally perfect and can interpret all of Scripture, it’s that I believe monotheism is a clear enough teaching of Scripture that only the willfully obtuse could miss it.
And, by the way, if Arianism didn’t develop until roughly 250 years after the Resurrection, in what possible sense is it true that the existence of Arianism is ample proof that there has been significant doubt about Christian monotheism and trinitarianism “since the inception”?
It’s been about 230 years since the Revolution; I guess it’s fair to say that gay marriage has been an American controversy since our inception, too.
Bubba, what does this mean? “The reality of sin renders unnecessary the idea that a clear teaching of Scripture would lead to unanimous agreement.”
Does that not mean that I’m sinful because I just can’t get that clear doctrine when you teach it? And you DO get it because you’re not sinful? How else am I supposed to interpret that?
And then you say here: “it’s that I believe monotheism is a clear enough teaching of Scripture that only the willfully obtuse could miss it.”
So now people who don’t agree with your are either disingenuous or sinful? Well, that’s a helpful modification.
Couldn’t be that there’s a good argument supporting the other side? Couldn’t be that you have a lens your interpreting with?
Nope, I’m dumb, willfully obtuse, or sinful. Otherwise, I’d just accept it.
Not true about Arianism. Records of the beliefs existing started much earlier. But the point, which you keep side-stepping, is that many core Christian doctrines are NOT permanent. And they never have been.
Are you saved by sacraments? For more than a thousand years you were damned unless you had them, children as well, the poor blighters. I’d think that’s a big deal. I mean it’s just heaven or hell. And it didn’t matter if you accepted the creed or not. You had to have them. But then it changed, didn’t it?
Are you saved by faith or by predetermination? Well, it depends on which Christian you ask. Many of those early reformationists, including the Pilgrims, well, faith couldn’t save you. Again, nothing big–just heaven or hell. But it’s changed hasn’t it?
How many of these things should we examine?
The trinity, montheism, the requirements of salvation–they’ve all changed depending on where you are in the world and when you live. It’s a big deal. They are significant changes.
This doesn’t mean Christianity is a hoax or a human invention. It doesn’t mean the miracles were made up and that there was no atonment or resurrection.
It’s just that it’s incredibly difficult to reconcile the history of the Church with the idea that the doctrines have been permanent, unchanging, whole and complete from the minute Christ ascended until this very day. There just isn’t the evidence to support it. At least, I don’t see it.
So when you assert that your set of doctrines are THE set of doctrines because they’re the ones that have always been the valid doctrines, well, I can’t accept it. Because they haven’t been.
Finally, Mormonism isn’t deceptive. Deception means you try to hide the truth of things. So, what doctrines do Mormons only whisper when nobody is listening?
None.
There is no deception. Mormons proclaim loudly and clearly their differences. No Mormon goes around saying they’re Protestant or Catholic. The missionaries state that up front in their very first lesson. They state their view of God up front, their view of salvation, Christ, the trinity, prophets–the whole works. They talk about the creeds. Anyone listening will know quite quickly where Mormons stand.
Oh, wait, they say they’re Christian. Isn’t that a lie–they don’t believe in the Christ.
No.
They clearly state they believe in a Christ that lived in Jerusalem, was born to Mary, is God, created the earth, made an atonment, was resurrected, called 12 apostles, is the only way to salvation. They’ve been saying that since their inception. They’ll freely admit they diverge on other points about Christ.
But does that matter?
Not to them. Not to many Protestants and Catholics either. In their minds they are believers in that Christ. So they’re not deceiving. They’re just presenting a set of doctrines about the Christ that mostly overlap those held by a lot of others who have ideas about Christ. And where they don’t overlap, well, I’d dare say the differences are less significant than the changes in Christian doctrine down the ages concerning the requirements of salvation.
But now we’re back to the permanent doctrine thing again, aren’t we?
John:
Bubba, what does this mean? “The reality of sin renders unnecessary the idea that a clear teaching of Scripture would lead to unanimous agreement.”
Does that not mean that I’m sinful because I just can’t get that clear doctrine when you teach it? And you DO get it because you’re not sinful? How else am I supposed to interpret that?
It means that, because we’re all sinful, our disagreements on interpretation might mean that the problem lies with our sinful natures rather than the clarity of the Bible.
All our reading glasses are smudged by sin: because we see different things is no proof that it’s the book that’s “fuzzy.”
The misunderstanding here is so profound that I can’t help but think it’s deliberate: you’re so very sure that I think I’m holier-than-thou that you’ll read that into whatever I write. If you’re not going to read my writing in good faith, there’s no point even trying to approach the meaning of Scripture with you.
Bubba, it’s not deliberate. I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
But when you say that our reading glasses are smudged, but then tell me I’m willfully misreading (what you said about monotheism), then I don’t know what else to conclude. You must be telling me that your glasses aren’t as smudged as mine.
If that’s not what you’re saying, then great! Because I agree with this glass analogy. I think it’s marvelous. Especially if we BOTH admit to that we might have errors in our reading.
The analogy also fits with my understanding of Chruch history. The facts about God, salvation, etc. surely can’t change. But we humans with our smudged glasses certainly might make a mess of it and change our readings from time to time, won’t we? In fact, whole groups of us might do that for generations? Isn’t that possible?
It might not be that my glasses are less smudged: it is simply that I believe Scripture is clear enough on such a basic issue as monotheism that, if a reasonably intelligent adult approaches Scripture and isn’t sure that it teaches monotheism, the cause isn’t that Scripture is unclear on the issue. I think I went too far in saying that the cause must be the smudge of sin — and for going too far I apologize — but I do believe that the cause is very often our own sinful hearts.
Perhaps the sin isn’t greater for the one who misreads. Perhaps it is precisely in that place that would mar one’s ability to see the plain meaning of a text. I think the Bible is also clear about salvation through grace alone, but I think some people’s pride forbids them from accepting that their complete moral bankruptcy, that they can offer truly nothing to God to merit His favor.
There are probably other causes, including the method with which one approaches the Bible. If you approach it as a merely human document, you’re going to draw different conclusions then if you approach it as God’s Word: “Such-and-such couldn’t have been a prophecy, so it must have been added after the fact.” If you also approach it as subordinated to the authority of a mere man or to some other text, you’ll also probably draw different conclusions. Nevertheless, I think the Bible is clear about its Author and its authority; generations missed sola fide not because it wasn’t clearly there, but because they subordinated its authority.
The Gospels clearly record that Jesus Christ affirmed the full authority of Scripture, to the smallest pen-stroke and until the end of history. When teaching, He didn’t point to some interpretation or tradition, but to the text itself: “It is written,” etc.
If Jesus affirmed Scripture’s unique authority, how could we do otherwise? And if God went so far to reveal Himself to man as to dwell among us as a man, to teach in parables so farmers could understand Him and even often to interpret those parables, is He really the sort of Being not to make His written revelation clear? To allow it to be so difficult to understand that one cannot even choose between monotheism and polytheism?
That is not the God I know and worship.
I agree with Joel that to be a true christian you must adhere to and believe in the trinity.
I also agree with Zoner stating that I do not know a protestant that does not consider the God of the old testiment as Christ. If they don’t (consider OT God as Christ) then I say that they are not christians at all.
Tim,
John Brown brings up a few questions that I would like to see debated some time. I won’t post them here but if you like I can E-Mail them to you (you will have to let me know how to do that.)
Duh? Never mind on telling me how to e-mail you Tim. I see the link at the top.
What this says to me is that if you don’t see it my way, because it’s so clear to me this is what it’s saying, then you must be a bit dim, sinful, proud, or approaching it incorrectly.
Of course, all of these things could be true. But it could also be true that others might approach the scriptures with intelligence, humility, and great faith in their authority and still come up with another reading. And it might be right.
Look, as far as monotheism goes, the Bible seems to easily support the idea that we are to pray to the Father in the name of Christ. We are to worship God the father. But it also seems to support the idea that we are to worship Christ. I don’t find much to support the idea that we are to worship the Holy Ghost. So there are two entities to worship.
Your belief in the creedal trinity reconciles this because they’re the same God. Others reconcile this in a different way. I truly do not want to debate the doctrine. But when read in this other way, it too seems so clear that it’s hard to see how reasonable adults could construe it any other way
Christ and the Apostles and Prophets did quote many scriptures–including a number we don’t have in the Bible itself. But I agree with you that scripture is given of God.
I agree with Peter’s description of scripture as eye-wittnesses, writing under the influence of the Holy Ghost their visions, sermons, stories, letters, etc. Or they’re written by holy men recording those eye-wittnesses as Luke probably did.
2 Peter 1:26 - 21
16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
So they’re not of private interpretation. You need the Holy Ghost, it seems, to be enlightened properly as Paul repeats here:
1 Corinthians 2:9 - 14
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
And I’m sure this natural man aspect is part of the smudginess you’re getting at. However, while it’s true that God may reveal his will, I don’t think it follows that the message will be preserved, even with the scriptures before us.
The Pharasees and Sadducees come to mind. And so it seems easy to misconstrue.
Furthermore, it’s true that Christ taught in parables, but it seems to me that his speaking in parables continually clouded the matter.
Were the apostles not always asking him later what he meant?
Then you have Matt 13:10-17. And again in Mark 4:9 - 12, when he says:
9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
These statements are odd and seem to jangle against the idea that Christ brought his teachings to the level of the common man for clarity’s sake. Here he’s saying, no, I do it this way so that only those that have ears will hear. The rest won’t. And even you, my 12 special disciples, don’t get it all the time either and have to ask.
And so while I think the Lord is indeed often plain, he is sometimes intentionally obscure. Pharaoh’s dream of the seven cows is quite obscure and would not have been clarified if Joseph had not asked for the interpretation of it.
What we see with this is that Joseph needed a revelation to understand the revelation. This pattern is repeated quite often through the Bible.
So what if there is no revelation any more?
There are yet visions in the Bible which resist detailed explanations. I think about John’s Revelation. About Ezekiel’s wheels in the air. These are not clear. Oh, the general outlines of events etc. Many people have theories using Biblical symbology. But we have no idea what the mark of the beast will be, whether the horsemen are figurative or literal, what’s the sting in the tail, etc.
Someone will have to get a revelation to understand them.
So while it’s possible to affirm the Scripture’s unique authority, it’s also possible to affirm that they themselves testify that they are not always clear, that some things are made intentionally obscure, that some authoritative texts can be lost, and that it’s possible for well-intentioned people to misconstrue them.
In all of this, I think the best approach is humility, trusting that if mistakes are made, the Lord will cover us with his grace until we see in full and know in full.
John Brown,
To say that Christ clouds the matter by teaching in parables is a pretty bold statement. It is true that the apostles asked what He meant by them. I think this was part of Gods plan to have them thinking and ask Jesus for explaination furthering their respect and trust in Him.
I agree with your closing remarks we all need humility and I am thankfull that the Lords grace does cover us.
Verne, I know, it runs counter to what we’re always told about the parables. But then how do you explain what he says in Matthew and Mark?
As you note with the disciples, His method of giving a bit and then waiting for a request for explanation, giving a bit, waiting for a request, etc. is interesting. That pattern is repeated all over in the Bible.
As for those of you saying that you’ve never heard a Protestant saying the God of the Old Testament is God the Father, can I ask you to explain a bit more on how you interpret these names/titles in the OT:
Jehovah (Lord)
Jehovah Elohim (Lord God)
Elohim (God)
What Mormon Theology Is Really All About Cartoon
I’d like to ask any Mormons present if this is a piece of propaganda or if this is an accurate representation of Mormon belief.
John you mention a pattern of needing a revelation to understand a revelation. I think the idea of progressive revelation and the idea that Scripture interprets Scripture supports that idea to an extent; thus I think the idea is reasonable to an extent.
Who is Isaiah 53 describing? Acts 8 tells us. Why was Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac in Genesis 22? He had faith that God could raise him from the dead, as we are told in Hebrews 11.
But notice I say that the idea is reasonable to an extent.
At some point, a revelation must be perspicuous on its own, as can be easily seen if you argue from contradiction.
Suppose every revelation requires a subsequent revelation to be understood: Revelation 1 needs to be explained by Revelation 2, but no one can understand R-2 without R-3, and R-3 can’t be understood without R-4, etc. The chain would never end, which begs the question of why it was even started: why would God communicate to us if the communication isn’t ultimately comprehensible because we’re waiting for the final revelation in an infinite chain?
No, at some point, a revelation (or chain of related revelations) must be perspicuous.
Can the Bible be perspicuous? There are some who would argue that language is incapable of expressing theologicial truth, but of course they argue this theological assertion using language. And any argument that language prevents the Bible from being perspicuous would undercut any other book that supposedly explains the Bible and any written or spoken sermon from any so-called prophet or apostle.
Can the Bible be perspicuous? I believe the answer is an obvious yes.
So is the Bible perspicuous on every matter? Let me admit right now that it’s not, but Protestants don’t argue that. Instead we believe that the central and essential doctrines are clear; there is room for disagreement, for instance, over the interpretation of much of John’s Revelation.
Others can disagree and you do, but it strains belief in a loving God that He would reveal so much through His chosen writers from Moses to John and yet we still need another text, a human preacher, or the Holy Spirit to know whether this document teaches a doctrine as basic as monotheism.
There’s something like 700,000 words in the Bible: if God wanted to send something so vague that the reader needed more than the Bible to find an answer to the question of monotheism, what was the point of such a long document? God might as well have sent Rorshach tests.
But let me go from the abstract to the concrete.
In your last post, you write about how Peter and Paul agree that you need the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture, and you cite II Peter 1 and I Corinthians 2. I can quibble with your interpretations, but let’s look at how you presented it.
You didn’t act as if anyone reading those passages needed the Holy Spirit to understand them.
You wrote, “You need the Holy Ghost, it seems, to be enlightened properly as Paul repeats here,” and then you cite I Corinthians.
If you thought the reader needed the Holy Spirit this passage, wouldn’t you have said something like, “Paul repeats this assertion here, but that’s only clear to those who are guided by the Spirit”? You don’t do that; you act as if the Bible is clear on at least this point.
And yet you would have us believe that it’s not clear on the simpler and more fundamental question of monotheism?
Moving back to the debate at Beliefnet, and while we wait for Dr. Mohler’s first rebuttal, I mentioned that there were other criticisms about Mr. Card’s argument.
I think they’re worth discussing.
First, he attempts to discredit even the question of what Christianity is by associating the important question with past bloodshed, but even though he does this to discredit Mohler, he admits that he rejects non-Mormons as quote-unquote “Christians,” as not being true Christians.
Then, he says that Mohler begs the question when he invoked traditional orthodoxy as the standard for determining what’s Christian, but when Card instead chooses to emphasize the “ordinary” definition, he himself begs the question, why is that definition superior. Physicists don’t appeal to “ordinary” definitions for weight or work and instead are careful in their technical definitions so that their work can be easily understood: are they wrong to do so, or is theology less important than physics, or does it require less precision in its language than does physics? He doesn’t say.
He doesn’t even stick to the “ordinary” definition of Christian because today that defintion surely includes Baptists and Catholcis, but Card admits that he sees those groups as conterfeit Christians, mere quote-unquote “Christians.”
And he asks, “what if we don’t let Dr. Mohler define the question in such a way as to specifically exclude Mormons before the debate begins?”
But I think it’s very reasonable to conclude that Card ignores a central tenet of the “ordinary” definition of Christianity — that little thing called monotheism — to specifically include Mormons. So it’s not as if Card’s not gaming the system, he is: he appeals to a supposed “ordinary” definition — never explaining why his appeal should be persuasive — only to introduce a fraudulent definition that excludes monotheism in order to include Mormonism.
And even on the claim that Mohler’s question-begging, it’s simply not true that Mohler’s definition is “everybody but the Mormons,” as it would clearly exclude Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islam, Bahai, Universal Unitarianism and other groups that claim either the name of Jesus or of Christianity. Does Card honestly think Mormons are “singled out”? That Mohler welcomes JW’s to the table? Probably not, so it’s probably a cheap piece of rhetoric.
He then writes this bit of posturing:
While we have no patience with creeds that owe more to Plato and other Greek philosophers than to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, we do recognize and respect as fellow Christians anyone who confesses that Christ is the Savior of the world.
He goes on about Mormon understanding being imperfect and incomplete, that we should embrace each other as worshipping the same deity, but it’s obvious he doesn’t really mean all this, because in the paragraph immediately prior to this inclusiveness, he writes this:
And just as you would put any reference to Mormons as “Christians” in quotation marks, we Mormons refer to those who believe as you do as “Christians” in exactly the same way.
Mohler certainly confesses that Christ is the Savior of the world, but does Card “recognize and respect” him as a fellow Christian? No he does not: he dismisses him as a false Christian, a quote-unquote “Christian.” He wants to stand by the Mormon doctrine of a universal apostasy while posture as being more inclusive than those of us who reject Mormonism as heretical, and that’s not only impossible to do, it’s transparently stupid to try.
But the incoherence doesn’t end there. He goes back to admitting the significant differences between our religions and writes this:
In other words, at the level of religious practice we believe that we are the only Christians who act and speak with the authority of Christ today. So we can hardly take offense when Dr. Mohler and many other ministers and priests of other Christian churches return the favor and refuse to recognize us as Christians of their communities.
So even though Card thinks Mohler would “single out” Mormons — and apparently has no problem with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baha, or anyone else, which is what the phrase means — Card has taken no offense at Mohler’s statements at all. Riiiight.
What substance is here is inconsistent with itself: paragraphs can be read by themselves but cannot be taken seriously alongside other paragraphs, as if different Mormons wrote different sections. Worse, there’s a lot that is not at all relevant to the discussion: not only the fact of past interfaith bloodshed, but his anecdote about the Templeton Foundation and the lengthy discussion about voting for Mitt Romney. None of this addresses the question of whether Mormonism is Christian.
But beyond all this, there are statements that are made that are troubling for other reasons.
It’s fine to assert that Mormonism has legitimacy in this country and to argue numbers, though attendence rolls are not evidence that a belief system is true or can be rightly called Christian, but he goes on to describe the millions who are Mormons:
[Mormons are] not the dumbest American citizens, either. We’re above average in our education. We’re also above average in our religious activity, our charitable donations, our marital fidelity, and the time we spend with our families. We try to be good neighbors and good friends.
This literally is a proclamation of being “holier than thou.” Holier, smarter, more active, more giving, more faithful, and better at parenting.
I know there are huge gaps between Christianity and Mormonism, but isn’t humility still a virtue with you guys?
And, finally, there’s this, said to dismiss the notion that Mormons try to “fool” people into thinking they think just like Mohler:
If that was our message, who would join us? They could join the Baptist Church and accomplish as much (and it would be cheaper and easier, given the way we Mormons tithe and abstain from alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco).
I think there’s some truth to the idea that — PR-wise — Mormons are trying to position themselves as just another group of Protestants. Regardless, a person who boasts about the difficulty of his religion misses the gospel of grace entirely.
Faith isn’t a contest to see whose ethical systems are more difficult. It’s not about what we can do to please God, but what God has already done to save us.
Sure, some religions have more difficult commands than others, and some are older than others, but it’s not what is difficult or easy, and it is not what is old or new, but what is true.
And what is true is this, that by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
If I were rooted for Card’s side in this debate, I wouldn’t have applauded his first effort. I would embarassed by it.
Rather, if I were rooting for Card’s side, I would be embarassed by it. Can’t catch every mistake.
Bubba,
I think you read something into my statement. I agree with you wholeheartedly: “No, at some point, a revelation (or chain of related revelations) must be perspicuous.” Clearly the Joseph example I used demonstrates I agree with you as does Christ explaining his parables.
My point wasn’t to say that scriptures aren’t or cannot be clear. My point was to say that sometimes, for various reasons, they are not. And that they can lend themselves to different, “clear” interpretations.
When they do, how do you know which interpretation is correct?
I’m going to offer my answer and issues to this. When I’m done, I’d like, in the spirit of finding out, not debate, to hear how you answer it.
My answer is this: You cannot rely on voting or majority rules. You cannot rely on human reasoning alone because human reason is what got you the differing interpretations in the first place. You cannot rely on ad hominem attacks because they’re beside the point–a “heretic” still might have the right interpretation on one point even though he’s a rascal on some other.
You have to go back to the source for clarity. You have to get God to settle the issue. That is the only way.
So how do you do that?
You said something interesting:
“Others can disagree and you do, but it strains belief in a loving God that He would reveal so much through His chosen writers from Moses to John and yet we still need another text, a human preacher, or the Holy Spirit to know whether this document teaches a doctrine as basic as monotheism.
There’s something like 700,000 words in the Bible: if God wanted to send something so vague that the reader needed more than the Bible to find an answer to the question of monotheism, what was the point of such a long document? God might as well have sent Rorshach tests.”
The Pharisees could well have put a similar question to Christ. After all, their scrolls and scrolls of scriptures seemed perfectly clear to them. Why did they need him to explain anything?
Here’s why–they were human and the history of the Bible demonstrates quite clearly, time and time again, that when people don’t have Prophets/Apostles (men who are eye-wittnesses and get the revelations directly), they quickly fall into error. Even when they do have propehts they have issues. For all of the reasons you and I have mentioned.
Your assumption, and where you and I differ, is that humans after Christ are somehow different than the ones before.
But I cannot see how history bears that out. The Church immediately fell into errors in various places despite having the many books of the prophets before them. They changed doctrines.
Paul himself laments in Galatains 1:6 “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel…” And this despite the fact that they had scriptures and Apostles to guide them.
Of course, Paul was there to set them aright. But, good grief, did the removing to another gospel in large or small ways end when the Apostles died?
Did people suddenly change their nature and maintain pure doctrine automatically on their own as never had been done before in the history of mankind?
My answer is no. Your assumption seems to be, yes.
The ancients before Christ had scrolls, tablets, libraries and still went astray. Why would scrolls, tablets, and libraries have any more sway after John died than they did before? They certainly didn’t in John’s time.
Differences of opinion are clear in the writings of the Early Christian Fathers on all manner of subjects.
And who was there to get the final word?
Who settled the dispute with Arianism? Not God. They voted on it, man. Voted! Who settled the dispute with the Reformation and Catholocism? Infant baptims? Pre-destination? Etc.
Who went back to God to get the final word?
Nobody.
Nobody in the Protestant or Catholic world claims to have gotten that. They all rely on human reasoning and the “guidance of the Spirit” as the ancients did.
But the Bible itself shows that’s never been enough.
I am NOT saying you cannot read scripture and find plain, clear truth. Don’t misconstrue my words. What I AM saying is that questions will arise. Differences of opinion will be formed, by well-meaning individuals. And in those instances you cannot appeal to human reason or majority votes to settle the issue. You have to get a revelation from God.
At least that’s my premise.
It seems clear to me this is the pattern that repeats itself over and over again in the Bible.
John says at the very end of the book of Revelation: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book [he’s referring to his letter to the 7 churches, not the whole Bible because the Bible did not even exist as the time], If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the abook of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
Moses said the same thing in Deuteronomy 4:2: “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
They said this because they knew how important it was to keep the word clear. They knew the POWER of scripture. But neither of them said it would be sufficient. Moses added more revelations. John’s Revelation, by some accounts, was not the last thing written that’s included in the Bible. The Bible itself shows that the word of God is not sufficient to keep the doctrines clear. Nor does it show that God won’t tell later generations things specific to them.
God did not tell Noah the instructions he gave Moses, although Noah’s experience was instructive. He didn’t tell Abraham what Peter needed to know about the Gentiles, although Abraham’s story was useful to Peter. And even though Isaiah prophesied many things about Christ’s day, he still gave the people in Christ’s day, and after, further light.
So you and I differ in our assumptions about humans before and after John the Revelator. We differ in what we think is sufficient for instruction.
But we shouldn’t differ on the facts of history and that Christianity has had many significant changes to its doctrines depending on the time and place you live. Because it has.
Now, that was a long post. I don’t want to win you to my point of view. I don’t expect to.
However, I am curious to know your answer to the very first question I posed above–how do you settle difference of opinion on matters large and small when reason got you the differences in the first place?
That’s not a rhetorical or trap question. I truly want to know how you go about it. You’ve heard enough about how I go about it. I will not try to attack your answer in any way. Any questions I will ask will only be for clarification.
And what is true is this, that by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
Every Mormon believes this. It’s just that they believe this also:
James 2:17 - 24: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for brighteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
And this
Matthew 7:20 - 24
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock…
So if faith is dead without works, but you’re saved by grace, not by works, then what’s the relationship between the two?
Here’s how Mormons answer that: it’s like a set a keys and a car.
You need to exercise faith unto repentance. When you exercise faith to call upon God for mercy and repent as best you can (works) you are putting the keys into the car. They activate it. But the car (God’s grace) takes them where they need to go. Keys have no power to get you anywhere. All they do is activate the power of God in your life. And it’s the power of God that carries you to your destination. Not your works.
That is the Mormon doctrine since its inception in 1830.
John, I have an answer for your chief question and will very much try to provide that answer tomorrow: if you can’t already tell, I can write a lot, and I know for a fact that the answer I would give would require more time than I have tonight.
Let me instead address two other things.
1) You don’t have to James’ letter or Matthew’s gospel to see that works are important. Let me quote Paul in context.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained F5 that we should walk in them. — Ephesians 2:8-10, KJV, emphasis mine.
We are saved to good works, not by them: good works is a purpose for our being saved, not a cause. With James, works are the consequence of faith. In Matthew “good fruit” is the evidence that the tree is good, it doesn’t cause the tree to be good; and Christ’s teaching that a man who obeys Him is wise doesn’t imply that works of obedience are what save him.
Perhaps I misunderstand the car/keys analogy, or perhaps you misstated it, but if I didn’t and it’s an accurate explanation, I don’t think you affirm Paul’s statement at all.
If I understand you, you say that though works have no power on their own, works activate the power of God in your life. More to the point, you say that doing works is activating the car that is God’s grace.
But, John, grace by its very definition is unmerited and undeserved and therefore cannot be dependent on our works. If you have to do works to activate God’s grace, it isn’t grace.
2) On the question of how to ascertain truth, part of your answer was this, “You cannot rely on voting or majority rules.”
Personally I agree: the voting results of a council of mature and respected Christians doesn’t determine what’s true. But if a Christian doctrine is true, a consensus among such Christians wouldn’t be surprising. But I digress.
You echo what Card wrote in his opening salvo in this debate.
When [Mohler] defines “traditional Christian orthodoxy” as “the orthodox consensus of the Christian church [as] defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations” he is ignoring the fact that these creeds were the result, not of revelation, but of debate and political maneuvering.
I’ll remind you that you praised Card’s essay, writing that it “said what I wanted to so much better than I did.”
Okay, then, do you agree with Card that, when it comes to the definition of Christianity, “we all get a vote”?
I’m not interested in playing numbers games myself, but it seems those games are fine with Card only when the numbers are in his favor.
There certainly wasn’t unanimity in the early church, but Card dismisses instances of consensus as the result of “debate and political maneuvering.”
But when it comes to the definition of Christianity, every vote counts, and we must look to the “ordinary” meaning of the word for most people: early Christian councils can’t be trusted, but modern opinion polls can.
One of the reasons Card insists that Mormonism has legitimacy is numbers: “Millions of American citizens already believe in it.”
Okay, but according to Table 68 of this PDF document of a US Census report, while Mormons account for 5.5 million Americans, together Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists alone account for over 82 million Americans, but that doesn’t stop Card from referring to these and millions more as quote-unquote “Christians.”
There seems to be only one criterion for whether Orson Scott Card will use a particular argument: it advances Mormonism. He doesn’t seem to care whether it coheres with his previous arguments or logically prevents him from making certain future arguments. He’s behaving like a partisan in the very worst sense of that word.
Am I wrong here, John? If I’m not, does anything Card wrote bother you?
If you have to do works to activate God’s grace, it isn’t grace.
No?
Tell that to Naaman who had to wash himself in the river BEFORE he could be cleansed. And if he hadn’t done that work, there would have been no miracle.
Tell that to Joshua and his troops who had to circle Jerico 7 times BEFORE the walls would fall down.
Tell that to Moses who had to actually respond to the call to get up into the mount BEFORE he got his burning bush revelation.
Tell that to the man who had to wash in the pool of siloam BEFORE he could obtain healing.
Gods grace in all these, and dozens of other incidents related in the Bible, was dependent on their works, small as they were.
Would any of these people boast that they performed the miracle? No way! But their works were required nevertheless.
Your definition seems to be saying that you can’t call a gift of a million dollars in the bank a gift if the donor says you have to go to the bank to pick it up. Because getting the gift is predicated on you going to the bank.
Huh!?
God commands. And when people do not trust him enough to DO what he asks, they don’t receive the promised grace.
Ask and you shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened. No asking, no receiving. No knocking, no open doors.
The doing IS the exercising of faith.
Come unto me, he says. Follow me. Take my yoke upon you. Act.
Notice Christ himself said that none of those who said “Lord, Lord” were admitted into heaven. It was only those whose faith lead them to actually do. It was the DOING that allowed them to receive God’s grace.
You can’t have faith sufficient for salvation without it producing some fruit. James is saying that faith that doesn’t produce fruit is dead–there is no grace, the key is not turned.
So I don’t think it’s possible to separate faith and works. I think if we were to change the semantics, we’d find we’re quibbling about chickens and eggs.
I liked many things about Card’s essay. It doesn’t mean I’m married to it.
In one sense, I would say the answer is no, nobody gets a vote. God decides.
But then, how are we going to know God’s opinion of the matter? And we’re back to the first issue I raised.
In another sense, a word means what people use it to mean. You cannot insist people must use a word a certain way. Usage is determined by, well, usage. And that is a community thing.
So you and your community use Christian one way. Muslims use it another. Mormons another.
Card can’t make you use it the way he wants you to. But you’re going to be hard pressed to make others use it the way you want them to as well.
Out of respect to each other, I think we should work it out.
I know, I know–you’re trying to define your community with the word: who’s in, who’s out. But Mormons are trying to define theirs as well.
For Mormons, taking Christ out of the religion takes the heart out of it.
The Protestant definition of Christ and the Mormon definition do overlap in many, many ways, but they also contain significant differences.
So it would be probably agreeable to everyone if we could just find a way to define the differences with some term that both find accurate.
Heretic Christian vs Creedal Christian. The wrong Christians vs the Right Christians
I don’t know what the term is, but I think that truly is the resolution.
I don’t want to get into a semantics debate. You folks want to make it clear Mormons are NOT part of your community. Mormons want to make it clear that our community is defined by a belief in Christ, even thought they’d never want to define it as a creedal belief.
And I think both communities have a right to label themselves.
Besides, while somebody said Mormons are more like pagans than Christians, I think if we were to list out all the beliefs (without rancor and axe grinding), it would be clear that we have more in common with Protestants and Catholics than we do with Wiccans and Voudouns.
We just need to right term.
J Razz,
But you really are not accurate about the LDS Chruch and their view of Apostles.
I AM a Mormon. I hope that’s been clear from all of my posts. I’ve been a member 40+ years. I’ve taught and studied the Church, it’s doctrine and history, and all the charges against it more thoroughly than I think you’ll ever care to.
I know what I’m talking about when I say infallibility is NOT part of the doctrine.
You must read more than one text to understand it just as a Protestant would say you can’t just read the bit about Jesus eating a honeycomb and say that God has a body.
I read the whole paper you linked to. It’s unfortunate, but the premise upon which his whole argument rests is wrong. Although he does raise an important issue–how can you trust “prophets” who err?
Here’s what the doctrine is. And I offer this not as something to justify the position or convince you of it. Only as an explanation. I hope you treat it the same way.
1) The apostles are believed to be prophets, seers, and revelators, i.e. they can and do receive revelation from the Lord as the ancients did via the Holy Ghost, the ministering of Angels, and the voice of God.
2) They can and will make mistakes. They ARE human, after all.
3) To minimize the risk of error, the Lord provides a number safeguards.
a) One who speaks for the Lord must be called to do so as stipulated in Hebrews. He must be called of God to that position.
b) Statements become scripture ONLY WHEN spoken under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. So if they preach a sermon as an Apostle but say something from their heart or opinion, not the Lord’s, it’s NOT scripture.
c) The law of wittnesses. God will send two or more wittnesses. Two or more saying the same thing. This requires each Apostle to get a confirmation that the matter at hand is right. It’s like peer review and independent verification. The more peer review the better. One apostle saying it is not like the whole quorum making a statement as a unified body. They are not voting, btw. They are getting independent verification from the Lord. It’s a check and balance. And until each has it, they do not issue the statement.
d) Unless it’s a clarification or correction of scriptural text, it must conform to the revelations given.
e) Each person is to get a confirmation for themselves from the Lord. More independent verification.
f) If they are actually going to pose a huge danger to the flock, God will remove them by exposing the truth or by eliminating them from the position by excommunication or some other way as he did with Eli’s two sons.
Changes and seeming contradictions may occur because:
1) Policies change over time, e.g. the law of Moses is done away and we get a new law. God gives the ten commandments and then tells Isreal to kill men women and children. Moses learns from Jethro the meaning of delegation.
2) People have read and understood only a portion of the texts on a doctrine and so the “error” really is their misunderstanding.
3) Prophets may say something that’s true, but a later revelation expands on it and reveals that things assumed were incomplete or required more info. Example: when the Apostles in the NT were told they should go out and cast out devils and heal. They went out and failed. When they returned the Lord said, these cometh not out but by fasting and prayer. Aha! They had an imperfect understanding. We do not assume the process is any different for modern day Apostles.
4) Prophets were flat out wrong. You remember in Galatians 2:14 when Paul went up and corrected Peter. Both men were Apostles. But Peter was wrong. And his err had persisted for some time.
Our belief in prophets, seers, and revelators does not require that these men be perfect and never err in declaring doctrine.
What we trust is that God will use them as tools, imperfect as they may be, and when they err, the Lord will make it known, sooner or later. Until then, He asks us to sustain and support them.
Again, some people wonder: well, if they can err, how can you trust anything they say at all?
It’s a good question.
The answer is you do it the same way you trust a Peter who denied the Christ three times or was wrong on the law of Moses. The same way you trust Abraham who lied to Abimelech about Sarah. The same way you trust anybody who is trying their dangest to do the will of the Lord but makes mistakes. We trust that they’ve gotten the core right. They’re on the right side, moving in the right direction. Most importantly, we trust that the Lord is in control.
When the Apostles got the revelation that Blacks should have the priesthood, do you know what they said?–we were wrong. It’s interesting to note, however, that they were ALL in unison on the prohibition against Blacks. But they received an incredibly strong revelation in the temple together and that error was corrected.
Does that mean to me that I shouldn’t sustain them? No. If I believe that God called them, then I believe that he will still work through them and I see it as a sign that God will correct their errors.
Mormons are okay with the Lord using fallible men because they trust the Lord is in control of the process. This requires a great deal of faith. And because of that faith you resist trying to steady the ark. But if you’ve satisfied yourself by independent confirmation that they are indeed God’s servants, then it’s not that hard. You just have to trust that God can get the work done despite our foibles and those of his prophets.
This line should read It’s interesting to note, however, that they were not ALL in unison on the prohibition against Blacks
I know what I’m talking about when I say infallibility is NOT part of the doctrine.
How are you defining infallibility? When the acting President speaks to his people of the church, his words are seen
as authoritative and directly from God because of the fact that he is seen as a prophet, a
seer, and a revelator to the people. What is a prophet other than one who tells forth the words of God? A seer? A revelator? All of these prophesy, see, and reveal the message of God to the people entrusted to them. For you to say that infallibility is not a part of your doctrine would seem to fly in the face of a sovereign God- the God of the Bible. If God is sovereign, which the Bible holds He is, then He is in control of all things. He would not and indeed cannot give false testimony concerning Himself or about the things which brings Him glory. If your President/Apostles are given to sin while decreeing messages from God, then how do you ever trust them? Really, I mean no sarcasm there; I cannot fathom how one would trust in someone to relay a message from God who is not inspired by the Holy Spirit who is sovereign and in control of all things. To say that your President or Apostles are wrong is to say that God is wrong. I don’t see a way around this in your doctrine.
2) They can and will make mistakes. They ARE human, after all.
I agree. All have made mistakes just like you cited for your examples. The difference is key though. Christendom holds to the belief that the writers of the Bible were inspired by a Holy God who is sovereign and unable to err. With this inspiration of God came the penned scripture that we hold today as a collection of writings that make up the Bible. There is no error in scripture in how it relates to man the exact message God chose for it to relate. This does not mean that they zapped and became zombies while writing. No, God used their personality and situations to write what He wanted them to write (afterall, He did fashion them from the clay Himself and make for Himself a people- God was/is sovereign even over our personalities).
3) To minimize the risk of error, the Lord provides a number safeguards.
I would say that He only needs one safeguard: His sovereignty. If God wills it, it happens. If it didn’t, He would cease to be God as He failed in something and failure is not a character quality of God.
b) Statements become scripture ONLY WHEN spoken under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. So if they preach a sermon as an Apostle but say something from their heart or opinion, not the Lord’s, it’s NOT scripture.
How does one discern if the golden tablets’ translation were riddled with Joseph Smith’s opinions? How does one know if Orson Pratt spoke the truth from God or a message from his heart? Brigham Young many contradictions of Joseph Smith’s teachings? Joseph Fielding Smith’s statement on blacks? Any of the prophets? There is no hope in that mode of thinking. It appears more of a scapegoat than an actual doctrine (I do not mean that in any form of sarcasm).
d) Unless it’s a clarification or correction of scriptural text, it must conform to the revelations given.
We would hold as Protestants that scripture never needs correction as God is sovereign and infallible. (A major difference between Christianity and Mormonism) But that is not your point, but it does feed into the point of this thread.
f) If they are actually going to pose a huge danger to the flock, God will remove them by exposing the truth or by eliminating them from the position by excommunication or some other way as he did with Eli’s two sons. and What we trust is that God will use them as tools, imperfect as they may be, and when they err, the Lord will make it known, sooner or later. Those two things are at odds with one another and note that Eli’s two sons were not Apostles leading a charge to teach and instruct people as to the truth about Christ. Never in scripture has prophet proclaimed a revelation from God and at some point in the future another prophet had to correct it. You are comparing apples to oranges.
As for the example you cite concerning the Jesus sending out the disciples to cast out demons; I do not hold to your premise that the information was incomplete. I hold that they did cast out demons, but there was some that took more to cast out and they encountered them in addition to the others they did cast out. I am at a loss on how one of the LDS Apostles could hold that there are more than one god and the Book of Mormon holds there is only one God. The Book of Mormon also holds that God is spirit (Alma 18.26-28 and Alma 22.8-11) which is denied by by other doctrinal teachings of LDS (History of the Church Vol. 6- Joseph Smith Jr.). Which is right? It is not a matter of progressive revelation here. These things (and countless others) do not build off of eachother and there are too many things to fall back on the idea that it came from his heart or it was his opinion. If God truly ordained the Apostles of the LDS church, then why does He not equip them to teach in truth and inspire them via the Holy Spirit as to not lead others astray in the doctrines and teachings they pass down recorded as scripture? That would be my main question to you. I understand if you do not have an answer to that as you do not know the mind of God (and neither do I), but I think this would further strengthen the argument that Mormonism is not Christianity.
Just to address the rest of your post, Christians are okay with God using fallible men that sin (a similarity with Mormonism) but what God is not okay with is His revelation being adulterated; that is why He gave the Holy Spirit to inspire and direct and ensure that God’s sovereignty stands (not that it ever has a chance of failing). There is no need for anyone to come along and correct scripture as scripture does not need correction, on the contrary it is there for our correction and conformity to Christ. When sinful man goes and starts making “corrections” to scripture that is when the red flags need to start coming up. Show me something in scripture that needed correction that affects my (and the world’s chance at) salvation and I will show you the lie of Satan in work.
John thanks again for the discussion. I do believe you are correct in your statement that you have studied more on your church, doctrines, history and charges against it than I will ever care to. I would include in your correct statement, that unless I am convinced by scripture that scripture is wrong, I will never again need to study Mormonism and its doctrines, leaders, or history. See, I believe that God will never speak contrary to what He has already spoken, so if what I “hear” from “God” does not match up with what I read from God, the red flag goes up and I know it is not of God. I know that LDS holds that personal revelation is the ultimate source of understanding scripture while Christians hold that Scripture is the ultimate source of understanding Scripture (Sola Scriptura) and of course, Christians have the Holy Spirit to guide them in that. I would hate to hang my belief on something that I have concluded with faulty reason and sinful, corrupt desires that are at odds with God and that is what personal revelation lends itself to. If not, then why the contrary statements between the LDS prophets?
Enjoy your week John. I must say, I will not respond often on this thread as I have already spent much time here and conversing on this issue. I believe that the paper (which I spent over 2 years researching and reading first hand sources) I linked to gives more than enough evidence that Mormonism is not Chrisitan. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I hope that it has given you something to think on and I pray the Holy Spirit uses it to lead you to Himself.
j razz
J Razz,
There is no error in scripture in how it relates to man the exact message God chose for it to relate.
This premise is well put, and it’s where we differ on this matter. I believe things are clear when God inspires men. But I find much compelling Biblical and historical evidence that suggests God does not force continual perfect preservation or interpretation of the resulting texts. Hence, I perceive the need for prophets.
Now, if you remember, I offered my comments to explain, not to persuade. It’s unfortunate that you reacted as if I were trying to convince you of something. I was not.
However, your reaction here demonstrates something very clearly. It seems that while you did read some source material, neither the result of your study nor your posts during this discussion demonstrate that you have honestly tried to accurately capture what Mormons believe.
There’s a difference between reading and interviewing in an attempt to get things to use for your argument versus reading and interviewing to get the facts, completely and accurately enough that those you study simply nod yes, yes, yes as they read what you’ve written and see that you nevertheless disagree with them completely.
Instead of trying to work from the facts up, it seems obvious you had a point to prove and simply set out make facts fit to support it.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were trying to get the facts right. However, it’s a common trap when researching something you’re passionate about to rush the accuracy part, especially when the way you undestand it, regardless whether it’s wrong, fits so well with your premise. And, intentionally or not, it’s obvious you’ve fallen into this trap.
I know you’ll protest, but when you, an outsider, attempt to tell me what the doctrine of my church is without making the effort to get even some of the basics right (as demonstrated by the post above), it shows that you are willing to manipulate facts. It’s clear you are so bent on proving your position that you have sacrificed intellectual honesty.
I am always happy to explain. All the points you raise all have very logical explanations. Some answers might not be acceptable to you. That’s okay. But truth is never served by setting up strawmen.
Thanks for your closing well wishes. However, I do hope in the future that you will try to capture first, with the intent to truly understand, and then draw conclusions.
For the rest of you trying to help people with what you see as the deception of Mormonism, I would ask you to please get your facts right. Assail the doctrine and history all you want, but please assail the right doctrine and history. Nothing will undermine you more than when those you’re trying to pursuade find out you were either sloppy or superficial with your research or willfully misconstruing your facts.
For an example of an outsider who does not accept Mormon doctrine but made the effort to get it right, please refer to Jordan Vajda’s paper comparing Mormonism and Eastern Ortodoxy.
Jordan Vajda is a Dominican Catholic priest. At the present time, he serves in the Catholic campus ministry at the Newman Center adjacent to the University of Washington in Seattle.
It is an excellent essay which in no way agrees with or placates Mormon doctrine, yet it gets the facts right. What’s more, it does so in such a way that instead of putting the people you disagree with on the defensive, it actually gets them to listen.
Thanks for the link John.
As for your comment: Instead of trying to work from the facts up, it seems obvious you had a point to prove and simply set out make facts fit to support it.
Actually no. I was intrigued by your religion due to the fact that it seemed to do so much for family values and aide in helping others to understand the need for family and the benefit of having a loving family. That was something I lacked (to an extent) growing up and that is what led me to look into Mormonism. At the time I thought it was just another denomination. By the way, I found out about Mormonism through the family value based commercials you all ran- very appealing.
It wasn’t until I started reading more than the Book of Mormon and meeting with LDS missionaries that I started seeing some stark differences between LDS and Christianity. That is when I started to look into the issue. It was not until about 8 years later that I chose to write a paper on it and compile some of the information I studied back in high school while gathering new information along the way over the course of two years.
I started out with a genuine interest in your religion (that I thought was a denomination), but the facts dissuaded me from moving over to it. From that background came the paper, not the other way around. I did not set out to prove anything first. I set out to learn. From that learning came my conclusion on the matter.
For the record, I am not bitter towards Mormons nor do I slam the door in their face when they come to my house. I believe Mormons to be decieved and therefore labor all the more to help them see the truth of Scripture.
Assail the doctrine and history all you want, but please assail the right doctrine and history.
I understand your charge here, but I have asked you to show me where I have failed in this in previous posts. You have not provided me with evidence to the contrary, you have just simply made these types of statements.
John I will let you have the last word on this as I have several reports to get in today. Thanks again for the discussion and for being a gentleman about it.
j razz
Very briefly, John, as I hope to get to the more time-consuming question, later.
I agree, with caveats, that “You can’t have faith sufficient for salvation without it producing some fruit.” (The thief on the cross had no opportunity for such fruit, but his genuine faith would have no doubt produced fruit given that opportunity.)
But, indeed, it is the faith that is sufficient for salvation, not the works. Works are the eventual result of saving faith, but they do not save; and works are necessary for sanctification, but not salvation. It is by works that we grow into maturity as God’s adopted children, but they have no role whatsoever in the adoption itself. Salvation is by God’s grace alone, through our faith alone.
Certainly the Old Testament records a pattern of God waiting until after a man’s faith produced works before that faith was confirmed in a very public miracle, but post hoc ergo propter hoc is generally fallacious; how much more untrustworthy is temporal analysis when dealing with an omniscient God who exists outside of time? Your conclusion is drawn in the face of Ephesians and Hebrews, when one’s conclusion ought to conform not only to the OT accounts but to the NT explanation for those accounts and its clear theological principles: by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
About Card’s essay, I still don’t think physicists do (or should) appeal to laymen’s definitions when talking about work or weight, so I don’t understand why theologians should. I doubt Card would make this appeal in even other circumstances: how many people wrongly thinks that “immaculate conception” and “virgin birth” are synonymous? And I think his specific “ordinary” definition deliberately avoids a facet of Judeo-Christian doctrine that is important even to common people: monotheism.
But my complaint wasn’t this appeal to numbers, but the inconsistency of this appeal. The consensus of church councils in the past is not relevant in determining what Christianity is, but a consensus of common people now is relevant. How? He never explains.
And Card argues that, since the “ordinary” definition would include Mormons (which I dispute), Mormons are Christians. Okay, but the definition would also surely include Catholics or Baptists or both, but that doesn’t stop him from excluding them as quote-unquote “Christians.”
My problem isn’t simply Card’s argument from numbers, but his inconsistent use of it, invoking it when it’s convenient and disparaging it when it’s not.
It seems like the only criterion he has for the validity of an argument is whether it supports his conclusion. Do you have a problem with that, is what I wonder.
J Razz,
You have not provided me with evidence to the contrary, you have just simply made these types of statements.
Brother, this sounds like you are asking me to debate you on what Mormon doctrine is. Is that what you’re doing?
The facts of the doctrine are not things needing debate. They are what they are. You can debate whether they’re logical or supported by the Bible or found in creedal Christianity. But the doctrine is what it is. If you want to ask clarifying questions in an attempt to understand, go ahead. But if you want to correct me, well, you’re barking up the wrong tree–I really don’t think you want me hauling in 50 quotes and more source material for your pleasure to establish that, yes, I do know what I’m talking about.
Bubba,
by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.
Again, I think you’re quibbling with me.
That marvelous chapter in Hebrews about faith suggests to me that action and faith are inseparable. However, I do want to understand you. Tell me this: that example of the $100k in the bank that only needs to be picked up, walk through it with me from your pov. I’m having a hard time seeing how it’s not a gift if the guy just has to go pick it up.
I can see that faith comes first. “Hey, I’ve deposited $100k in your account.” The “preacher” places the idea in your mind. If you have faith and desire, then you go to the bank and get it. If you don’t, you don’t go and you never get it. But you could go to the bank every day of your life and never generate the $100k because walking to the bank has no power to produce it. So the receiver would never boast–my walking earned me this money. But the receiption is still predicated upon his walk. I’m honestly not seeing how your model of faith works with this example.
As for Card’s point about the usage, look, you have to understand he’s coming from the pov of a writer, a guy who deals with English usage every day. So his argument is not doctrinal or social community based, but linguistic.
That’s why it’s not working for you.
Dictionary makers used to try to be prescritive and say how a word should be used. Today they are simply descriptive–how do people actually use it. Whatever a community uses a word to mean, that’s what it means. They simply put in common usage. So if someone begins saying “burrito” to mean “cool” and it catches on, then at some point it will be in the dictionary with that definition despite all the chefs who want to keep the usage fixed.
So he’s applying that mindset to people who say “we own” the right to say what is Christain and how it’s used. And he’s saying, no you don’t, because linguistically you don’t control such things. You can’t. They just are. And if you really want to play that game, then you’re going to be excluded yourself or exclude whole hosts of people now and through history who most people consider Christian.
Is that making sense? I don’t have a problem with it because, linguistically, he’s right. Whether you like it or not, Mormons are going to be called Christians by many even when they DO see the doctrinal differences.
However, I don’t think it gets to the heart of the matter. This isn’t a purely linguistic question. It’s a community/group psychology issue. It’s a community wanting to define what it is and what it is not. Those who want to say that are not like Mormons should be able to say that. But those who are Mormons should be able to use the terms they think best capture what they are and are not, and no Mormon is going to say they are Protestant or Catholic.
I don’t know what the right terms are. I just know we need to find them and quit trying to prevent the other community from defining themselves as they desire. Because it truly is not accurate.
John, your analogy of walking to the bank to withdraw a gift begs the question, what’s the specific analog to walking? What act is necessary for salvation?
To use your analogy, if a guy accepts on faith that the rich man deposited the money, and while walking to the bank, he gets hit by a car, fatally, he never gets the money.
Suppose a man accepts by faith God’s gift of grace, salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let’s further suppose that he’s about to do whatever action you insist is required to “activate” that gift, but he gets killed: heart attack, struck by lightning, crushed by a boulder, dying by crucifixion, whatever. What possible action is there that he should have done but didn’t because he was killed, and because he didn’t do it he isn’t saved?
At any rate, you continue to miss my point.
It’s not simply that he’s arguing from linguistics, and I’ll remind you of my problems with his argument:
1) After complaining that Mohler begged the question by invoking historical orthodoxy, Card himself begs the question: why should theologians consult the masses for the “ordinary” definitions of words when physicists most certainly do not and when the “ordinary” definition of terms like “immaculate conception” might actually be inaccurate? Maybe he has answer for this, but he didn’t provide one. If he’s going to question Mohler’s criterion, he should justify his own.
2) It’s probably not even the case that the “ordinary” definitions he provides are accurate. I suspect that implicit in most people’s conception of Christianity is that it is one of the three major monotheistic faiths, but — just as he suggests Mohler’s definition was designed to exclude Mormonism — Card’s inability to acknowledge monotheism as a central and widely acknowledged pillar of historical Christian results in a definition that appears to be designed to include Mormonism.
3) As I wrote before, “My problem isn’t simply Card’s argument from numbers, but his inconsistent use of it, invoking it when it’s convenient and disparaging it when it’s not.”
Consulting how early church councils defined Christianity is also a linguistic argument from numbers, but Card dismisses any attempt to factor it in because, apparently, the only “votes” matter to him is when he likes the outcome.
4) Most importantly, beyond all this, Card doesn’t want to extend to us the courtesy he demands from us. You write that this is the heart of the matter:
“This isn’t a purely linguistic question. It’s a community/group psychology issue. It’s a community wanting to define what it is and what it is not.”
Lovely sentiment, I’m sure, but Card wrote this:
And just as you [Mohler] would put any reference to Mormons as “Christians” in quotation marks, we Mormons refer to those who believe as you do as “Christians” in exactly the same way.
Why does Card feel justified in sneering at Catholics and Baptists as mere quote-unquote “Christians”? Is there an “ordinary” definition that includes Mormons but excludes everyone else?
Again, I’ll say that Card’s essay ought to be embarrasing to Mormons, and I can’t understand how you can miss this.
I’ll get around to your other question when I can, probably after the Independence Day break, but until then I want to know this:
Why is it okay for Card both to argue that Mormons are real Christians by appealing to what he calls “ordinary” definitions of the word and to deny that Catholics and Baptists are real Christians even though it’s obvious that A) any “ordinary” definition that Card could argue for would include them and B) the actual definitions he provides obviously include them?
Let’s go back to the definitions he used:
What if we define “Christians” the way most people would: “Believers in the divinity of Christ and in the necessity of the grace of Christ in order to be saved in the Kingdom of God.”
Or, “People who believe Christ is the Son of God and the only way to please God is by following Christ’s teachings as best you can all your life.”
Or how about, “People who believe that the New Testament is scripture and that its account of the life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus is true and that we should act accordingly.”
We can come up with a lot of definitions that do a much better job of describing what most people mean when they use the word “Christian.”
Which of these definitions excludes Baptists and Catholics, and thus justifies his dismissing these groups as merely quote-unquote “Christians”?
Having spent my teen years in Mesa, AZ, which was founded by Mormons and seem to have Mormon Stakehouses on every corner, I was taught in the Baptist church I attended that Mormons were most definitely a cult for many of the reasons outlined above. Because I had many good friends who were Mormon, I had some exposure to the teachings within the their church. Never was there any emphasis placed on a relationship with Christ. Everything was about growing the church. That in and of itself made it a very cult-like atmosphere.
Entering into the adulthood and accepting Christ, spending more time in the Word and ultimately becoming a Catholic, my beliefs toward Mormons have not changed the more I’ve learned about them.
The one thing I will say about Mormons, they are some of the nicest, kindest and most compassionate people you will ever meet. Many christians, myself included, can learn a lot from them on this front. I can say from firsthand experience that more often than not, these characteristics they exhibit are genuine. Maybe they are driven by a goal of converting others, maybe they are not. Nevertheless, they seem to have nailed the loving others commandment.
FAITH AND WORKS
You didn’t answer my question about the gift. If it’s conditional upon something, is it still a gift?
And before I answer the scenario you presented, I think it would be best for me to see how you’ve reconciled Christ’s explict statment that only those that do, not those that say, enter into heaven, and James’s on the fact that faith without works is dead.
If you explained it above, I’m not getting it. Tell me how those fit. Perhaps I’ll agree with you and we can save a lot of runaround.
CARD
Why does Card feel justified in sneering at Catholics and Baptists as mere quote-unquote “Christians”? Is there an “ordinary” definition that includes Mormons but excludes everyone else?
He’s not sneering–you’ve missed the whole point. He’s saying if Mormons were to do what Mohler does, then we’d be making the same ridiculous mistake Mohler is by saying Catholics and Baptists aren’t Christians because they don’t believe Mormon doctrine.
Let’s look at Card’s statement again.
And just as you would put any reference to Mormons as “Christians” in quotation marks, we Mormons refer to those who believe as you do as “Christians” in exactly the same way.
How is it that Mohler defines Mormon “Christian”? It’s one that misses key doctrines. That’s how we see creedal definitions of Christ–they don’t describe the real Christ but something else.
But you keep forgetting the line just after the one that has you up in arms.
Here’s the difference. While we have no patience with creeds that owe more to Plato and other Greek philosophers than to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, we do recognize and respect as fellow Christians anyone who confesses that Christ is the Savior of the world.
Do Mormons think the creeds are right? No and we reject them just as firmly as you reject Joseph Smith. But instead of trying to exclude everyone else and label them as non-Christians, we “recognize and respect.”
So the ordinary definition would most certainly include Catholic and Baptist as well as Mormon. Not exclude them. That’s is point.
As for the numbers, you’re right: he’s playing both sides saying:
1) Votes don’t matter
and
2) But if you’re going to insist on votes, then let’s do it, not by some doctrine authority method (since nobody gave you the authority to police the English language and since we’d agree the decisions of so many such police seem ludicrous to us today), but by ordinary common usage. And by that standard Mormons would be Christian.
But then he goes on to say that focusing on these differences and squabbling about them ignores the fact that we could do so much more good by focusing instead on our commonalities and helping those who don’t even meet the ordinary definition of Christian.
There’s nothing there to be ashamed of, from my perspective. It all seems quite logical and compelling.
John,
Just out of curiosity, what do Mormons say that one must do to become a Christian?
-j
Joel,
The Church does not have any statement on the definition of “Christian” and who can be one and who can’t, except in general terms. What is discussed is what it means to come to Christ or be a follower of Christ. But we believe that none of us are perfect followers, nor do we start with a complete understanding. So what’s most important is the direction we’re heading given the light and knowledge we’ve received.
Being a follower of Christ boils down to having faith in the atonement and the promises the Lord has made to the degree that you truly accept that Christ will make more of your life than you ever could on your own. Those who follow Christ sincerely truly believe and trust him, that he’s telling the truth and can deliver on his promises, and try to turn their lives over to Him by doing what He asks and trusting that what he tells us is true.
This includes a very wide range of people, e.g. it would include Catholics, the old reformers, Protestants, heathens who only knew bits and pieces of the doctrine but who, all of them, sincerely tried to follow the light and knowledge given them. Again, nobody starts their discipleship with a perfect knowledge or heart. That’s the purpose of it–to obtain God’s grace.
So what is also discussed is the idea that God leads you along grace for grace so your faith, charity, knowledge, etc. in Christ grows. What we believe is that it doesn’t matter where you are, but that Christ will lead you along, grace for grace, until you know in full and are changed in full to want what He wants and live as he showed us all how to live. We believe that’s how his Church operates as well, receiving more light and knowledge as it goes along sincerely following Christ.
So in all of this the thing we do is trust Him and try to perform whatever thing He asks. That’s what a follower of Christ would do.
Now there are nuances to this. We believe that the Spirit of Christ inspires every person on this planet, enticing them to do good. We believe our conscience is one manifestation of this. And so those people who have not even heard of Christ can still be following the Lord based on the light and knowledge they’ve been given. Is there more light and grace and knowledge and Spirit? Sure. Are they following Christ? Not expressly. But they are in the inward man and God will build on that if they let Him. Eventually, we believe all will have the chance to hear about the Messiah, in this life or the next before their resurrection, and move forward to receive the greater light, knowledge, and grace that awaits them. Some will not choose this. But that is their decision.
That’s the general gist of it. Does that answer your question?
VERY enlightening John.
Thanks for sharing.
John:
And before I answer the scenario you presented, I think it would be best for me to see how you’ve reconciled Christ’s explict statment that only those that do, not those that say, enter into heaven, and James’s on the fact that faith without works is dead.
I’d be happy to, if before I do, you could tell me what work the thief on the cross performed that activated God’s grace. Jesus told thief that he would be with Him in paradise, but it’s hard to see what good works the thief could have done, bleeding and asphyxiating to death because he was nailed to a cross.
He’s not sneering–you’ve missed the whole point. He’s saying if Mormons were to do what Mohler does, then we’d be making the same ridiculous mistake Mohler is by saying Catholics and Baptists aren’t Christians because they don’t believe Mormon doctrine.
No, John, Card said no such thing.
“And just as you would put any reference to Mormons as ‘Christians’ in quotation marks, we Mormons refer to those who believe as you do as ‘Christians’ in exactly the same way.”
He wrote, “we refer” — present tense, and in actuality. There was no indication that he suggested that Mormons don’t disregard Baptists and Catholics as psuedo-Christians, but “if” they were to do so, it would be mistake. He wrote that they do and implicitly approves of their doing so.
For you to write later that Card’s argument is compelling, you have to misconstrue what he actually wrote.
Some excellent information on James White’s site today (direct quotes from Mormon sources) that should leave no doubt as to whether Mormonism is Christianity.
www.aomin.org
Bubba,
You assume the thief was born again right there on the cross, don’t you? But nowhere does it say that. You also assume he was a completely godless man. But it’s possible he was good but made an unfortunate choice and stole because his family was starving or to pay off some other criminal that was threatening them or a million other reasons. Or perhaps he was finally found out for a theft that was in his long-ago past.
We know nothing about the man except that he calls Christ Lord on the cross and confirms he’s committed a crime. So it’s quite possible that the thief had already come to Christ, perhaps before he committed his crime, perhaps while in prison–who knows? The only real light this sheds on the requirements of salvation is that it shows that Christ saves sinners. But nobody here is questioning that
On another note, it’s interesting that both Matthew and Mark contradict Luke. Luke 17:34-36; Matt 27:44; Mark 15:32. Both of their accounts state that BOTH theives reviled Christ. They use “they.” So who has it right? I will assume Luke does, giving us more detail. But there is a descrepancy.
Okay, so let’s hear how you reconcile Paul with Christ and James. I really think we’ll be talking about the same thing.
On, Card: Bubba, you’re plucking one line out of context. By refusing to link the two paragraphs, it’s you who is misconstruing Card’s words.
Larry F,
Heck, you want source material, go to the source. Here is a link to the church’s