Is
Mormonism Christian?
A Review of How Wide the Divide?
Eric
Pement
Cornerstone, vol. 26, issue 112 (1997), p. 43-44,
46-47
ISSN 0275-2743
A Review of
How Wide
the Divide?
by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson (InterVarsity Press, 1997).
How Wide
the Divide? (HWTD?)
is, to our knowledge, the first published academic dialogue of its kind.
Written to examine the differences between Mormon and evangelical faith,
it has drawn considerable heat already from Evangelicals?particularly those
involved in countercult ministry. There is also apparent unease from the
Mormon side, as the volume was originally to be copublished by InterVarsity
Press and Deseret Books (evangelical and Mormon publishers, respectively).
But Deseret, as Dr. Blomberg told Cornerstone,
apparently became leery of the project and decided to back out.
Dr. Blomberg,
a professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, and Dr. Robinson, a professor
of ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, each address four key
themes of the Bible, interacting closely with each other. At the end of
each chapter and at the end of the book, a joint statement of conclusions
is presented.
Despite its
worthwhile goals, we believe in several respects this book misses the target.
While points of agreement certainly exist between Mormons and Evangelicals,
the book comes too close to suggesting that Mormonism is ?Christian? or
perhaps a heterodox version of Christianity. In an interview with Cornerstone, Dr. Blomberg explained that he does not
believe Mormonism is Christian and that, in the final analysis, Mormonism
teaches a ?different Jesus? in the sense used in 2 Corinthians 11:4. However,
this clarity in personal conversation is not so apparent to the casual reader,
and we are especially concerned that the book does not adequately convey
Blomberg?s private convictions.
Misunderstandings
and Difficulties
HWTD? recognizes that Mormons and Evangelicals
have both been trying to ?win? each other for many years and makes no attempt
to quell this mutual evangelism. However, the authors assert that Evangelicals
have often misunderstood Mormon beliefs, just as Mormons have often misunderstood
the evangelical position.
Mormons often
find that the debate is over what they believe rather than whether
their beliefs are valid or biblical. Many times throughout the book, Professor
Robinson laments that Mormons are accused of things they do not believe,
and he wishes his statements regarding his own beliefs were accepted at
face value. ?For example,? Robinson writes, ?when I say that I believe in
Jesus Christ or in justification by faith in Christ, I often hear in return,
?Oh, no you don?t, and I can prove it,? accompanied by a flurry of prooftexts
culled from sources supposedly more reliable than I am on the subject of
what I believe? (p. 162).
Dr. Blomberg
didn?t address this concern in his response, so I will respond briefly.
Professor Robinson?s compatriots do not usually show up in my living room
to persuade me to join the church that they
founded, but to join the church that Joseph Smith
founded, supposedly under divine direction.
Robinson has
every right to the inviolability of his own beliefs. But if the act of bearing
testimony to the Book of Mormon and the benefits of the Latter-day Saints
(LDS) Melchizedek priesthood has an object in mind (namely, my conversion),
then it seems perfectly proper for me to introduce the doctrines of LDS
General Authorities who hold a higher church office than either Dr. Robinson
or the Mormon missionaries.
We believe
HWTD? is a good example of how dialogue
might be conducted in conversation. But it is not a good example of
how dialogue should be conducted in print.
Why? In a live conversation about a matter of controversy, it is normal
to let a dubious statement ?slide? past in order to arrive at a more important
point?if either party decides to debate every little misstatement, the conversation
will go nowhere. But in printed text, authors have time for fact-checking,
redrafting, and precise argumentation. In writing, space limitations may
force you to omit things you?d like to say (believe
me, I feel it now!), but you have the opportunity to make sure every word
counts. Moreover, since the written word is more permanent and liable to
vast distribution, we have a greater obligation not to let errors creep
into our own presentation nor to silently overlook misstatements or errors
by our respondent.
Another difficulty
we have with HWTD? occurs with Dr. Robinson as the
representative of Mormonism. Though Dr. Robinson is certainly in good standing
with the LDS Church, we believe he is much
closer to the evangelical position than the average Latter-day Saint. As
a result, evangelical readers may presume that the typical Mormon shares
Dr. Robinson?s beliefs on grace, monotheism, exaltation, and so forth.
Finally, though
Dr. Blomberg is well-suited for his defense of the New Testament and the
Christian gospel, he is not a specialist in Mormon history and theology.
Some half-truths about Mormon beliefs made by Professor Robinson fairly
begged for a response, yet none was forthcoming. It is possible that this
was due to Dr. Blomberg?s ?laid-back? approach, but it is also possible
that Blomberg was at a disadvantage in this regard. (Having a copy of the
Infobases LDS Collectors Library CD would have certainly helped him.) While
Dr. Blomberg?s familiarity with LDS theology is appreciable, some details
of Mormon thought appear to have been overlooked.
Approaching
Scripture
In the chapter
on Scripture, Dr. Blomberg introduces the reader to the Chicago Statement
on Biblical Inerrancy, a widely accepted treatise of how Evangelicals define
inerrancy. He shows the high degree of confidence we have that the present
biblical texts represent the original manuscripts of Scripture. He contrasts
this with the Book of Mormon?s claim that ?many plain and precious things?
have been removed from the Bible (1 Nephi 13:28), and briefly discusses
canonicity. (The Mormon canon of Scripture includes the Bible, the Book
of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.)
Blomberg makes
a telling critique of the Book of Mormon being a product of the nineteenth
century rather than an ancient document. He also describes the ?Joseph Smith
Translation? (JST)?a significant revision of the KJV text by Joseph Smith,
ostensibly to remedy an alleged mutilation of the Bible. (By the way, the
JST ?restores? such things as Adam being baptized by immersion in the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the mark of Cain being black
skin.[1])
Do Mormons
believe the Bible is inerrant? Amazingly, Dr. Robinson affirms that Latter-day
Saints would accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy where it pertains to the Bible (57, 63, 75, 89, 195)! I am skeptical
of this for several reasons:
Robinson writes,
?I would point out that John thought Jesus was crucified the afternoon before
Passover . . . while Matthew, Mark and Luke say Jesus ate the
Passover with the disciples and was crucified the morning after? (136).
Robinson never suggests that the contradiction might result from a reading
error on our part. In Robinson?s view, it seems one of the Gospel writers
presented false information.
Robinson says
that though the biblical texts are ?essentially correct in their present
form? (63), ?changes were made in the present text . . . between
A.D. 55 and 200? and ?it is the LDS contention that [even] the evidence
[for these changes] was deleted? (206 n17).
He claims
the JST revisions do not ?necessarily? restore ?the original texts of Matthew,
Mark, Luke or John? (65) and may even contain ?clarification and corrections
of the originals as well as corrections
to the original? (64). In other words,
the JST sometimes restores material deleted in the second century, sometimes
adds additional material needed for our day, and sometimes corrects mistakes
in the original texts.
It is therefore
difficult to resist the impression that Dr. Robinson is merely using the Chicago Statement to gain the confidence of Evangelicals,
and that he himself is either ignorant of its contents or somehow believes
that errors and false statements in the autographs do not affect inerrancy.
Finally, though
Dr. Robinson says he believes ?every book, every chapter, every verse? of
the Bible (17, 20, 72), neither he nor Dr. Blomberg inform us that, according
to the JST, ?The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.?[2] Since Mormons believe the JST is
?inspired? (64), does Robinson reject the Song of Solomon as well?
God and
Deification
Chapter 2
begins with Dr. Robinson?s presentation of the Mormon doctrine of God. He
avers that ?in the LDS view God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent,
infinite, eternal and unchangeable? (77). Yet He also ?has a body of flesh
and bones as tangible as man?s? (78) and was once a human being (87). Ages
ago, this Being advanced to Godhood and from then on has been unchangeable.
Furthermore,
Robinson asserts that God intends to deify His redeemed children, exalting
some of them to godhood, giving them not only His moral perfections but
His essential attributes such as omnipotence (82). He mistakenly claims
?only three passages in LDS Scripture? deal directly with deification (83),
omitting Abraham 4:1-5:20. He admits that quasi-canonical status has been
granted to Joseph Smith?s statement that ?God is an exalted man? and to
the popular Law of Eternal Progression: ?As man is, God once was; as God
now is, man may become? (85, 209 n12). Apart from these two aphorisms, Robinson
pleads with Evangelicals to ignore the ?speculations? of ?nineteenth-century
writers? (73, 85, 93), and focus on the more limited (and ambiguous) statements
in LDS canonical scripture.
Just how does
Dr. Robinson justify the Mormon belief that men can become Gods, and that
a prior God existed who bestowed deity on God the Father? Robinson says
these questions ?are not the subjects of biblical information,? and the
additional revelations from Joseph Smith are ?not contradicting the Bible
but filling in its theological gaps? (86).
When Dr. Blomberg
presents the evangelical position, he does not inform the readers of the
LDS belief in one or more Heavenly Mothers, something surely relevant to
this topic. I also believe Isaiah 43:10 would have been relevant here: ?Before
Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.? This passage shuts
the door on antecedent Gods (necessary to raise
God the Father from mortality to divinity) and on the creation of subsequent
Gods through deification. Other passages such as Isaiah 45:5 (?there is
no God besides Me?) and Isaiah 46:9 (?I am God,
and there is none like Me?) are also pertinent, since Mormonism
teaches that the Heavenly Mother is a partner like
and with the Heavenly Father in a sacred,
covenantal relationship.
While discussing
his misgivings about the LDS position, Dr. Blomberg repeats the claim of
Dr. Robinson that only ?unofficial Mormonism developed its notion of the
Creator God as merely one among the other gods, who was created by them?
(105).
The supposedly
unofficial ?notion? of a God who was Himself created came from none other
than Joseph Smith, in the same sermon which gives Mormons the normative
statement that God is an exalted man. Smith claimed that previous Gods exalted
our God to deity. When Professor Robinson asks us to ignore the ?speculations?
of nineteenth-century writers, he is really referring to Joseph Smith, Brigham
Young, and the early prophets of the LDS Church.
Jesus Christ
and the Trinity
Dr. Blomberg
opens by presenting the evangelical view of the two natures of Christ, showing
that Christ could be functionally subordinate to the Father (below
Him in position or operation), and also ontologically
equal to the Father (equal in essence or being). These two concepts are
not contradictory, just as an earthly parent and child possess different
functions but equal natures. Blomberg explains why Evangelicals believe
in one God in three Persons, but Robinson writes that though ?Mormons can
accept the formula? (129), they prefer to conceive of God as consisting
of three ?separate and distinct divine beings? (131). (Current editions
of the Encyclopedia
of Mormonism and
Mormon Doctrine refer to the Godhead as ?three Gods,?
but Professor Robinson doesn?t tell us that.)
Blomberg observes
that numerous verses from the Book of Mormon show a fierce monotheism (almost
to the point of modalism), but that Smith?s later revelations regarding
plural Gods can better be explained as a developing (I would say contradictory)
theology (125). A little earlier, he says we get the impression ?that Mormons
see Christ as a created being, even if he is the first and highest of all
creation? (121). In response, Robinson quotes John 1:1, defending Jesus
?in his preexistent state as God? (136). It should be noted that Joseph
Smith revised John 1:1, removing the deity of
Christ from this verse (though His deity is preserved
in other parts of LDS Scripture).
Second, Doctrine
and Covenants (D&C) 93:21, 23 has Jesus saying, ?I was in the beginning
with the Father, and am the Firstborn. . . . Ye were also in the
beginning with the Father.? Mormons believe in the eternal preexistence
of all spirits, not just the spirit of
Jesus. The Heavenly Parents, through procreation, provided spirit bodies
for them all, including Christ. According to Mormon Doctrine, ?Christ is literally our Elder Brother. Since all men are the
personal spirit children of the Father, and since Christ was the Firstborn
spirit offspring, it follows that he is the Elder Brother of all men.?[3] However, Christ was generated first,
and then as God He created the universe (D&C 38:1-3). Dr. Blomberg gets
the ?impression? from Mormons that Christ is a created being, but that idea
is in fact standard teaching from LDS authorities.
Salvation
in Mormonism
Salvation
by grace through faith is the watershed which separates Christianity from
every other world religion. The Evangelical position is that we are saved
solely by grace through faith in the risen Christ. Robinson writes that
?Latter-day Saints find ?salvation by grace alone?
to be unbiblical? (148) and seeks to identify with an Arminian position
which requires obedience to the will of God and ?enduring to the end? (149)
to be finally saved, since (by Arminian and Wesleyan standards) a believer
can lose his salvation.
In the LDS
view, one?s ?works? contribute to rewards or exaltation in the afterlife,
and Robinson says ?continued faithfulness is required
in order not to fall from grace after we have been saved? (159). The issue
of ?Lordship salvation? is raised here (i.e., if Jesus is not truly Lord,
is He truly Savior?), and Mormons, according to Robinson, also identify
with this facet of Evangelicalism.
We believe
Arminian and Mormon views of salvation should not
be equated for four reasons. (1) Due to its concept of the ?three degrees
of glory,? Mormonism teaches that everyone will be ?saved,? even liars,
adulterers, sorcerers, and whoremongers who die in unbelief (D&C 76:82,
103). Thus, faith in this life is not essential for salvation, which can
take place after death. (2) Mormonism teaches that for some sins, including
murder, adultery, and covenant-breaking, the atonement of Christ is not
sufficient to save them. According to a recent LDS president, ?If these
offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from
their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have
their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf.?[4] Though the LDS relate this to capital
punishment, it also relates to forgiveness before the
throne of God. (3) To Arminians, justification is a verdict of righteousness
imputed to the sinner. In LDS theology, ?Justification is available because
of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but it becomes operative in the life
of an individual only on conditions of personal righteousness.?[5] (4) In biblical theology, eternal
life and justification occur simultaneously and are appropriated in a single
act of faith. In LDS thinking, eternal life
means exaltation to godhood.
In their joint
conclusion, the authors affirm that Mormons and Evangelicals ?both believe
in the substitutionary atonement of Christ, justification by faith in Christ,
and salvation by grace? (187), although a footnote
to this statement says ?most Mormons would never use the term ?salvation
by grace,? and they would probably deny believing in it if asked?! Robinson
claims this is due to the Mormon custom of calling ?salvation? what Evangelicals
call ?sanctification,? i.e., a personal growth that is measured by obedience
to Christ. However, the problem lies far deeper. According to contemporary
LDS authorities, justification is only provisional, requiring good works
to ?become operative,? and eternal life is not obtained when we trust Christ
for salvation.
Conclusion
HWTD? leaves us with two areas of concern.
The first is a joint statement of ?foundational principles of the Christian
gospel? on page 195. It uses terms like one eternal God, saved, gospel,
and others which Mormons define differently than Evangelicals. This joint
statement is followed by a list of eleven issues of disagreement immediately
below it. This second list reveals the importance of definitions: whether
God is three beings, whether God was once a man, whether we are justified
by faith alone?all are matters needing additional
discussion.
Inevitable
comparisons will be drawn between this and the ?Evangelicals and Catholics
Together? (ECT) document. Blomberg told us there is really no cause for
such comparison. ?We stated several times, in italics so no one would miss
it, that these areas of agreement do not mean
that evangelism or proselytizing of each other should stop [see pp. 20,
141, 191]. One of the weaknesses of the ECT document is that people who
read it initially thought that was what they were saying, so the Evangelicals
went back to produce a second text affirming that evangelism among Roman
Catholics was a legitimate outreach. Our work never went that far, and we
never implied that sort of unanimity.?
The second
area of concern is in the authors? inadequate treatment of salvation and
atonement. Though correctly recognizing that salvation is the heart of the
Christian message, many key terms? including gospel, justification, eternal life, and original
sin-- were not defined
from standard and contemporary LDS sources. By allowing Dr. Robinson to
set the agenda by quoting mainly biblical and Book of Mormon references
(which are fairly orthodox), as well as his own writings, Mormonism appears
far more evangelical than it actually is.
We deeply
appreciate the irenic and charitable attitude of the authors, but we do
not believe that this presentation adequately portrays Mormonism for the
uninformed reader.
NOTES:
1. Adam?s baptism: Moses 6:52, Gen.
6:53 (JST). Cain being black: Moses 7:22, Gen. 7:29 (JST). [return]
2. Joseph Smith Jr., The Holy Scriptures, Containing the Old and New Testaments:
An Inspired Revision of the Authorized Version (Independence, Mo.: Herald Publishing House, 1944), 799. [return]
3. Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 214. [return]
4. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft,
1954), 135-136. [return]
5. McConkie, 408. [return]
original filename: CSM1126A.TXT
?Is Mormonism Christian? A Review
of How Wide the Divide??
Release A, 1 May 1998
Copyright © 1997 by
Eric Pement. This file may be reproduced on electronic media and communications
services without charge or permission from the author, so long as the wording
of the text remains unaltered. For additional information about our publications,
please contact <http://www.cornerstonemag.com/> or write to: Cornerstone, 939
W. Wilson Ave., Chicago, IL 60640-5706, U.S.A.