All posts by Darrell

Will of God

Does God Have a Perfect Will And A Permissive Will?

11 Comments

Post Author:  Darrell

Over the past few years, I have heard several Christians I know utter statements such as, “I need to find out what job God wills for me to have.” or  “I’m praying to find out who God wills for me to marry.”  These statements are from people who believe that God has a “Perfect Will” for certain aspects of their lives, e.g., what job they should have, whom they should date or marry, or where they should live.  God’s Perfect Will is contrasted with His Permissive Will, i.e., that which falls outside of what He Perfectly Wills for us, but which He permits to happen.  God’s Perfect Will is seen as the goal for Christians, and finding it and living within it lead to blessings, while not seeking it or finding it leads to living inside God’s Permissive Will and missing out on blessings.    

How realistic is this viewpoint?  Does God have a Perfect Will for aspects of our lives such as the jobs we hold and the person we marry?  A couple of months ago I heard a wonderful podcast by Matthew Gallatin on Ancient Faith Radio where he shared a story that illustrates a serious challenge with the idea of God having a Perfect Will versus a Permissive Will.

John is a 24 year old Christian, and Jill is a 23 year old Christian.  God’s Perfect Will is for them is to meet, fall in love, marry one another, and raise a beautiful family together.  After meeting and going through 2 years of courtship, they fall in love, John proposes to Jill, and she happily accepts.  They are both excited for their future and set their wedding date.  When the big day comes, John waits at the altar while beautiful music plays.  However, while sitting in the dressing room, Jill gets cold feet and changes her mind.  She secretly dashes out the back door of the Church and catches the next flight to Las Vegas where she starts a new life.  She walks away from her Christian faith, meets Jack, a casino owner, and marries him.  She spends the rest of her life in an unhappy marriage with Jack.  Eventually, realizing that Jill is never returning to him, John moves on and marries a very nice Christian girl named Tammy.

God’s Perfect Will was for John and Jill to marry and raise a family together.  However, Jill chose to rebel against God and follow another path, living her life outside of God’s Perfect Will and inside His Permissive Will.  As a result, she missed out on the blessings God had prepared for her.  But where does this leave John?  John was seeking God’s Perfect Will for his life, and he found it in Jill.  He made the right decisions, asked her to marry him, and waited for her at the altar.  However, though no fault of his own, John is forced to live outside of God’s Perfect Will and inside His Permissive Will.  Because of Jill’s decision, he will now spend the rest of his married life in God’s Permissive Will, and he too will miss out on the blessings that flow from walking in God’s Perfect Will in relation to his marriage.

Does this seem right? Should John, who is seeking to live His life and follow God, be forced to live the rest of his life outside of God’s Perfect Will simply because Jill chose to rebel?  I would suggest not, especially given the fact that God has promised us that “…all things work together for good to those who love God…”  John loved God and was seeking His Perfect Will, so God would not hold out blessing him simply because Jill chose to rebel.  That makes absolutely no sense.

So what is God’s Will for our lives?  Bill has addressed this in a previous blog post here.  I will just add my thoughts that I believe God’s Will for us is pretty well summed up in Jesus’ High Priestly prayer in John 17:21-23:

That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.  And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:  I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

God wants us to be one with one another and one with the Holy Trinity.  He wants us!  That’s all… nothing more… nothing less.

Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Great Apostasy

Did The Church Fall Away?

53 Comments

Post Author: Darrell

One of the foundational teachings of Mormonism is that shortly after the death of the Apostles, the bulk of mankind rejected the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, and the world fell away from the plain and precious truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  As a result, the Church and the authority to act in God’s name were taken from the earth, and the world entered into a period known as the Great Apostasy.  It was not until God’s appearance to Joseph Smith in 1820, and his subsequent call to be a Prophet, that the Fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and God’s Church were once again restored to the earth.  Today, this fullness is known and taught only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 

During my last few years as a Mormon, I struggled with this teaching as I came to realize that it does not line up with what Christ promised us.  In Matthew 16:18, Christ says, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”   Mormonism teaches that with the restoration of the Gospel, Temples have been reestablished upon the earth.  Within these Temples, Mormons perform various Ordinances that are believed to be binding not only on earth, but also in heaven.  Two of these Ordinances are known as Baptism for the Dead and Endowment for the Dead.  They are performed vicariously for and in behalf of individuals who did not receive them in this life. 

LDS doctrine teaches that when a person who is either an unfaithful Mormon or a non-Mormon dies, they go to a place known as Spirit Prison.  According to LDS.org, Spirit Prison is another name for Hell or Hades.[1]  It is contrasted with Paradise, the place where righteous Mormons go upon their death.  Those who reside in Spirit Prison have the opportunity to hear the teachings of the LDS Gospel.  If they accept them and their Temple Work (Ordinances of Baptism and Endowment) has been performed vicariously on their behalf, they can leave Hell and enter Paradise.[2]

This is where I found the LDS teaching to be problematic, for what does this mean for those individuals who lived and died during the Great Apostasy?  If Christ’s Church was really taken from the earth, and it was not restored until after Joseph Smith, what, according to Mormonism, has happened to all those individuals who lived and died during the period of the Great Apostasy?  Well, the reality of the fact is that they are in Hell.  Even if they accepted Christ, believed in Him, and strove to live by His teachings, they are still in Hell.  It is not until their Temple Work has been done that they can be released from Hell.   Even worse is the fact that the Temple Work for the majority of the Earth’s past population has not been done and will not be done for many years to come because we do not have their names.  Our records don’t go back that far. 

In my opinion, this teaching does not line up at all with Christ’s promise.  He told us that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church He established.  However, if LDS teaching is true, the Gates of Hell are prevailing against Christ’s Church and have been doing so since shortly after Christ’s ascension.  His Church was taken from the earth and those who lived lives seeking Him and living by His commandments are suffering in Hell as a result.  Not only is this teaching demeaning to the power of God, it also makes a complete mockery of Christ’s redeeming work.  He came to earth to unite humanity with divinity, bridging the gap between fallen mankind and the Creator of all.  However, according to Mormonism, many of those who have sought to follow Him are suffering in Hell for no other reason than they were born at the wrong time.

To be fair to Mormons, I must submit that Christ’s promise does not present a problem to their teachings alone.  Those who hold to strong fundamentalist Protestantism also encounter problems when comparing their beliefs to Christ’s promise.  I have spoken to many Protestants who believe that one cannot be a “faithful Catholic” or a “faithful Eastern Orthodox Christian” and still be saved.  They believe that the teachings of both of these great Churches are a corruption of what Christ taught and that if one holds to their teachings they are “non-Christian.”  However, the truth is that many of the core teachings of these Churches date back to the earliest times in Christianity, so if they are corruptions, they are corruptions that instilled themselves in the Church from virtually the very beginning of Christendom.  For example, the teaching that the Eucharist contains the Real Presence of Christ was a fundamental teaching of the Church from around the year 100, and the veneration of Mary can be dated to at least the middle 100’s.  By default then, stating that those who hold these beliefs are non-Christian is to state that the Church, from the earliest of times, apostatized in some of its key doctrines very early and remained that way until after the reformation.  Therefore, at its heart, this is to believe that the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church for nearly 1500 years, dooming those who held to its key teachings to Hell.  Do we really believe that?

Think about it. 

 [1]http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?index=8&locale=0&sourceId=a5352f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD.  Accessed 7/18/011.

Bible Interpretation, Creeds

Do the Creeds Matter? Part 2

34 Comments

Post Author:  Darrell

In my last post, I conducted a poll as to whether or not the Nicene Creed is relevant and authoritative in Christianity today.  Thus far, the results are as follows:  48% believe it to be both relevant and authoritative, 21% believe it to be relevant, but not authoritative, and a relatively small number (17%) believe it to be completely irrelevant.  Given the tone of my post, you will find it no surprise that I fall in line with the majority opinion, holding the Nicene Creed to be both relevant and authoritative.

Those who oppose the idea of the creeds being relevant and authoritative often appeal to the doctrine of sola scriptura, i.e., the doctrine that scripture alone is authoritative.  The general claim is that the Bible is the only authoritative source on Christian doctrine and life, and, as a result, the creeds can’t possibly carry any authority.  This position grew out of the classic and radical reformers reaction to papal abuses, and quite honestly, I can understand the sentiment behind it.

However, those who hold this position often fail to realize that while our beliefs may be rooted in scripture, it is often not scripture itself that is believed.  Instead, our beliefs are based upon our interpretation of scripture.  For example, while the Bible says that God is one, it does not tell us exactly how God is one. Nevertheless, most conservative Christians assert that God is one in nature, essence, and being.  These words and this belief are not explicitly taught in the Bible.  Instead, they are inferred based upon what the Bible does say and are thus, an interpretation of the biblical teachings relative to the nature of God.

Personally, I believe this is exactly what the creeds are: correct interpretations of scripture contained in short statements of faith.  However, I believe that their connection to Apostolic Tradition and the culmination of Church history have demonstrated them to be authoritative.  Most of the creeds were hard won, coming at the expense of much blood, sweat, and tears.  In large part, they have served as a source of unity for Christians, placing fences that help to delineate orthodoxy from heresy and heterodoxy.  The Nicene Creed came out of a long, hard fought battle with the Arian Heresy (Mormonism’s ancient cousin) and answered the question of how God is one once and for all.

Admittedly, the belief that the creeds are authoritative is a position of faith.  Epistemological certainty is impossible in an area such as this.  However, it is a position of faith that is supported by good reason, logic, and evidence.  In addition, those who believe they can’t be authoritative because “scripture alone is authoritative” hold their position to their own peril.  For, if the creeds can’t be authoritatively correct because they aren’t scripture, how do you know your interpretation is correct and authoritative, and by what authority do you judge differing positions to be wrong?  After all, your interpretation isn’t scripture.

Have a blessed day!

Darrell

Bible Interpretation, Creeds, Mormonism

Do The Creeds Matter?

3 Comments

Post Author:  Darrell

I recently spent some time on a Christian Facebook page that ministers to Mormons.  It is mostly made up of ex-Mormon Christians who feel very strongly about their faith and want to reach out to Mormons.  They write articles explaining the differences between Traditional Christianity and Mormonism and the problems with Mormon Theology and History in general.

A few days ago I had a cordial conversation with a Mormon gentleman regarding the Nicene Creed.  We were discussing the development of the creed, what its terms mean, and what the ante-Nicene Fathers believed in regards to the nature of God.  For those who are not familiar with Mormonism, the Nicene Creed is a particular point of contention for them as its teachings are in stark contrast to Mormonism.

While we were in the midst of the conversation an administrator on the website stepped in and deleted nearly our entire conversation.  When I asked why she did this, she proceeded to tell me that the Nicene Creed doesn’t matter and that the creeds are irrelevant to the subject of defining God, and she chastised me for being “overly intellectual.”

This has led me to do some pondering over the last few days.  What do Evangelical Christians believe when it comes to the Nicene Creed?  Does it matter?  Are any of the creeds relevant today?  Are they authoritative or are they simply their writer’s opinions?

Share your thoughts with me on this poll.  Once I’ve had a chance to digest the various opinions, I’ll likely write a blog post sharing some of my thoughts.

Eastern Orthodox, Mind-Body Theory

Are the Human Mind and Body Separate from Each Other?

12 Comments
Izbište-Eastern Orthodox Church
Image via Wikipedia

Post Author: Darrell

Recently, I have been studying the Eastern Orthodox tradition of Christianity, and quite honestly, I have found it to be a very intriguing faith.  They have a rich history and their faith is filled with traditions that hark back to the early Church.  Their approach to the Christian life and worship is unique, refreshing, and in many respects quite inspiring.

The Orthodox view of the human person is especially interesting.  Many Western Christians hold to a dualistic view of the mind and the body, believing them to be separate types of reality with the mind being equivalent to the spirit and the body being purely material.  While there are many profound advantages to this view, it is not without some serious challenges.  For example, dualism fails to account for the dramatic change in personality and character that can occur from physical damage to the brain and/or chemical imbalances within the body.  If the mind and spirit are separate entities, why do such changes in personality take place when a purely physical entity such as the brain is damaged?  It appears that any rational explanation for this would have to account for a profound connection between mind and body, yet this connection is precisely what the dualistic view seeks to avoid.

The Eastern Tradition of Christianity takes a different approach to mind/body duality, essentially saying that it doesn’t exist.  Instead, Orthodox view human personhood as a unity between the mind and the body.  In The Orthodox Church, Timothy Ware says:

The west has often associated the image of God with the human soul or intellect.  While many Orthodox have done the same, others would say that since the human person is a single unified whole, the image of God embraces the entire person, body and soul as well. . . . Our body is not an enemy, but a partner and collaborator with our soul. [emphasis mine]

This is not to say that Orthodox believe that God has a body… they don’t.  They hold to a very traditional view of the Godhead, believing the Father to be spirit.  However, to the Orthodox, Christ’s incarnation united the physical and the spiritual.  Fourtenth century Saint of The Eastern Orthodox Church, Gregory Palamas, has been quoted as saying, “By taking a human body at the Incarnation, [Christ] has made the flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification.”

This unified view of the body and soul has a few similarities (although there are still many stark differences) to the mind/body theory known as Emergentism.  Emergentism says the human mind is not wholly separate from, nor entirely connected to, the body.  Instead, the mind, while produced by the brain, is entirely distinct from the brain.  As an analogy, we can look at magnetic fields and gravitational fields.  Both fields are produced by a generating physical object; however, they are also distinct from the generating physical object.  In the same way, Emergentism says that the mind emerges from the body (brain), but is still distinct from the body.

While this view has its challenges as well, it does appear to answer some of the questions left unanswered by the dualist.  Perhaps we Westerners have something to think about?

Strong Calvinism

Strong Calvinism and Voluntarism

33 Comments
Engraved from the original oil painting in the...
Image via Wikipedia

Post Author:  Darrell

Five Point Calvinism is commonly referred to by the acronym TULIP.  The “T” in TULIP stands for Total Depravity.  Theopedia defines it as follows: “[E]very person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation.”  The “I” in TULIP stands for Irresistible Grace, which according to Theopedia teaches that “the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (the elect), whereby in God’s timing, he overcomes their resistance to the call of the gospel and irresistibly brings them to a saving faith in Christ.”       

Critics of Five Point Calvinism claim that a strong interpretation of these two doctrines makes God out to be unloving at best and monstrous at worse.  The reasoning for this can be stated as follows.  A strong view of Total Depravity says that man is unable to choose God unless God first regenerates him, thereby giving him the ability to have faith.  In addition, Irresistible Grace says that if God gives a man faith, that individual is unable to resist the call and will come to God in faith.  In other words, those to whom God gives faith are going to heaven.  In fact, they are unable not to go to Heaven, for God’s grace is irresistible.  However, those to whom He does not give faith have absolutely no chance for Heaven because they are totally depraved and are unable to choose God. 

Here is the sticky point though – if man cannot choose God unless God first gives him faith, and if those to whom God does give faith are definitely going to Heaven, why doesn’t God give everybody faith?  Those He doesn’t are destined for Hell and have no other options.  God could save them, but He doesn’t.  How is it all-loving for God to give faith to some yet leave others with absolutely no options other than Hell?

One response I have received when discussing this dilemma with Strong Calvinists is that whatever God chooses to do is perfectly just simply because God wills it.  They then tell me to suggest otherwise is wrong because I am presuming to judge God.  I would like to point out two problems with this response.   First, it is begging the question that the Strong Calvinist positions on Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace are correct.  However, that is precisely the point being discussed.  Therefore, I am not judging God’s actions; rather, I am judging the merit of the Strong Calvinist’s opinion of what God’s actions have been.  Second, this response employs a radical form of Voluntarism – the belief that something is right simply because God wills it is to be so. Voluntarism creates some serious problems for the Calvinist, for it leads to inconsistency in their position on the nature of God and renders the doctrine that God is a simple unchangeable being (a central doctrine of traditional Christianity) untenable.  In his book Chosen But Free, Dr. Norman Geisler pointed this out quite eloquently.

[Strong Calvinists] are inconsistent with their own position on the nature of God.  On the one hand, they claim God’s mercy is based in His supreme and sovereign will – He can will anything He wants to will and show mercy on anyone to whom He wants to show mercy.  On the other hand, they claim that God’s holiness and justice are unchanging.  He cannot be unholy or unjust, even if He wanted to be.  By His very nature God must punish sin.  But they cannot have it both ways.  For as a simple unchangeable being, all of His attributes are unchangeable.  If He is just (and He is), then He must be unchangeably just at all times to all persons in all circumstances.  And if He is loving (and He is), then he must be unchangeably loving to all persons at all times in all circumstances.  To be other than this would be to act contrary to his unchangeable nature, which is impossible (Chosen But Free, Pg.246). 

I couldn’t have said it better.

Bottom line – if God is all-loving, He has to be loving to all.  To irresistibly save some by giving them faith, yet withhold the ability to exercise faith from others, thereby dooming them to Hell, is most certainly not all-loving.  In addition, parsing up God’s loving nature by saying He can show love to some and withhold it from others violates His nature as a simple unchangeable being.  In my opinion, this presents some serious challenges to the Strong Calvinist positions of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace.

Mormonism

Mormon Church Visit

16 Comments
LDS Church Annaberg-Buchholz
Image via Wikipedia

Post Author:  Darrell

The Sunday before last some friends and I attended services at a local Ward of the Mormon Church.  This is the first time I have attended the LDS Church since leaving it for Christianity a few years ago.  For any Mormons reading this, please know that we were very polite and courteous during our visit.  We did not debate, argue, or disrupt any of their services.  For the most part, we listened quietly and asked a few non-confrontational questions during Sunday School.  In fact, we were so polite that the Second Counselor in the Bishopric invited us to come back (note: we won’t!)!

I have been discussing Mormonism on-line since leaving the Church, and being back reminded me of something that I had forgotten: there are some substantial differences between the Mormonism that is portrayed on-line by amateur LDS Apologists and the Mormonism as taught and practiced in the church Wards.

I realize that not all Mormons are going to believe exactly the same thing on every single issue and that some may be more nuanced in their beliefs than others.  However, I believe the difference we see between chapel Mormons and internet Mormons is more than mere nuance.  In on-line conversations, I have had internet Mormons declare emphatically that such and such is not Mormon doctrine.  However, when in the Mormon Church I have had chapel Mormons declare just as emphatically that such and such is Mormon doctrine.

For example, while at church this past Sunday, my friends and I attended the Gospel Principle’s class, the Sunday School class designed for investigators, i.e., those who are researching the church. During class, the teacher shared with us how “keeping the commandments” is a vital part of the formula for attaining salvation.  We politely pointed out how we believe that faith alone is all that is needed for salvation and that works are a result of, not a requirement for, salvation.  We then asked for clarification to make sure we understood exactly what she was saying.  In response, one of the members of class told us that keeping the commandments is not only vital to salvation, but there are some commandments that if not kept, will damn a person.

Unfortunately the bell rang ending class, so we didn’t have time to follow up with more questions.  However, I assume she was referring to Spencer W. Kimball’s book The Miracle of Forgiveness where he points out that murder is a nearly unforgivable sin and that denying the Holy Spirit (decreed by some to be apostasy from the Mormon Church) is unforgivable.

Here is the kicker though… we were taught this by a Mormon Sunday School Teacher in a class designed to teach investigators about Mormon beliefs.  The lady who taught the class has supposedly been called by God to teach the doctrine of God’s one and only true Church to investigators, yet in numerous conversations on-line, I have had internet Mormons tell me repeatedly that the LDS Church does not teach that works are required for salvation.  Instead, they say that the Mormon Church teaches salvation by faith alone.  Why the huge discrepancy?

For a church that is supposed to have the “plain and precious truths” of the restored gospel, there certainly is a lot of confusion amongst its members as to exactly what it teaches.  Perhaps the Church has apostatised again and the on-line Mormons should form a newly restored LDS Church – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Internet Mormons.

Mormonism

Do Mormons Worship the God of the Bible? Part 7

11 Comments

Post Author:  Darrell

When comparing the nature of the Mormon Jesus to the Jesus Christ of the Bible, several significant differences become readily apparent. Deut. 6:4 tells us emphatically that God is one in nature: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” In addition, in John 10:30, Jesus tells us that He “and the Father are one.” When Christ uttered these words, the Jews picked up stones to kill Him, because they knew precisely what He was asserting; namely, that He is one with God and that, as a consequence of God being one in nature, that He Himself is God.

The biblical assertion that Jesus is God is confirmed by several other passages of scripture. Col. 2:9 says, “For in him [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” In addition, in John 8:58, Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I Am.” Once again, when He said this, the Jews tried to stone Him, because they realized He was taking upon Himself the name of God by applying to Himself God’s declaration in Exod. 3:14: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am’.” In addition, Jesus taught in John 8:12, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” At first glance, this verse may sound like it is simply a beautiful metaphor; however, a closer analysis reveals that Christ is referencing the Old Testament teaching in Ps. 27:1: “The Lord is my light.” Christ was literally proclaiming Himself to be the Yahweh of the Old Testament, and, thus, the God of all.

Verses such as those above place Mormons in a difficult position: how can their Jesus, a Jesus who was spiritually born of and is ontologically separate from God the Father, be God if there is only one God and God is one? The typical Mormon response to this problem is to say that God and Jesus are one in purpose and not one in nature; however, this answer falls decisively short of solving the problem, for Mormons are still forced to tackle the issue that their Christ has not always been God and had a God prior to Him, i.e., God the Father. The God of the Bible tells us that He has always been God and that there have never been any Gods besides Him: “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me” (Isa. 43:10). Unfortunately for the Mormon Church, the LDS Jesus does not meet this standard and thus, cannot be the Jesus of the Bible.

In conclusion, as this series of posts has demonstrated, there are several significant differences between the God of Mormonism and the God of the Bible. The Mormon Godhead is comprised of three Gods who are separate and distinct in nature. However, the Bible teaches that there is but one God. Both the Mormon God the Father and the Mormon God the Son are embodied in flesh and bone, and as a result, cannot be in more than one place at a time. In contrast, the God of the Bible is said to be a spirit who is both invisible and omnipresent.

The Mormon God the Father is an exalted man who progressed and earned the honorific title God through a process similar to the one through which mankind is now going. However, the Bible teaches that God is not a man and has always been God. In addition, according to the Bible, God is not an honorific title that a being earns. Rather, it is something God simply is. Mormonism also teaches that God and man are the same species. On the other hand, the Bible makes it clear that God is self-existent and necessary, while man is contingent. Consequently, the idea that man and God are the same species is, from a biblical perspective, completely illogical.

The Mormon God the Son was spirit born of the Father and a Heavenly Mother, making Him ontologically separate from the Father. As a result, He has not always been God, and instead, progressed through obedience in a pre-mortal life to become “like unto God.” In contrast, the Jesus of the Bible is one with God. Consequently, the biblical profession of the eternality of God, i.e., that He has always been God, having no Gods before, after, or besides Him, applies equally to Christ making His nature inconsistent with the spirit born nature of the Mormon Jesus.  For these reasons, it is readily apparent that the nature of the Mormon God and the nature of the God of the Bible are diametrically opposed to one another. In reality, there is no meaningful way to view them as describing the same being. As a result, it can be decisively said that the God of Mormonism is most certainly not the God of the Bible.

Mormonism

Do Mormons Worship the God of the Bible? Part 6

1 Comment

Post Author: Darrell

The formal name of the Mormon Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Many people believe that because the name of the church includes the words Jesus Christ, Mormons worship the Christ of the Bible. However, a closer analysis reveals several startling differences between the Jesus of Mormonism and the Jesus of the Bible. While many claim that these differences are simply peripheral in nature, in reality, they are central aspects in defining the nature of the being that is worshiped. As a consequence, when the Jesus Christ of Mormonism is compared to the Christ of the Bible, it becomes obvious that they are most certainly not the same being.

The Mormon Church teaches that all mankind existed as spirit sons and daughters of God in a pre-mortal world. Humans were spirit born into this world of God the Father and a Heavenly Mother. While there are varying opinions among LDS theologians as to exactly how this spirit birth took place, Mormons are united in the belief that all humans lived there as spirit brothers and sisters and that the firstborn among them was Jesus Christ. Former Mormon leader LeGrand Richards says, “Christ was not only the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, but . . . he was the Firstborn in the spirit.” In 1916, the LDS First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles said, “Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is . . . Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors.” Former Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie says Christ “is the Firstborn of the Father.”

As a result of this common spirit birth, in Mormonism, Jesus Christ is viewed as literally being the elder spirit brother of all mankind. However, His station as firstborn carries some significance. In The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles, the LDS Church teaches that Jesus “was the birthright son, and he retained that birthright by strict obedience. Through the aeons and ages of premortality, he advanced and progressed until, as Abraham described [in the Mormon Scripture The Pearl of Great Price], he stood as one ‘like unto God’.”

Being spirit born of heavenly parents and our elder spirit brother, the Mormon Jesus is as ontologically separate from God the Father as all other humans. Mormons believe Him to be united with the Father in purpose; nevertheless, they do not believe that the Father and the Son are one being. In addition, given the fact that Jesus is portrayed as having advanced to become like unto God, He has not always existed as God. Instead, He is a separate being who earned the right to be considered a God through obedience.

In the next post, we will look at the biblical problems presented by the Jesus of Mormonism and wrap up this series of posts.  Stick around… only one more to go.

Mormonism

Do Mormons Worship the God of the Bible? Part 5

Leave a comment

Post Author:  Darrell

From a biblical perspective, there are several issues with the Mormon view of God the Father as described in the previous post. First, contrary to Mormon teachings, the Bible says very clearly that God is not, nor has He ever been, a man. Num. 23:19 says, “God is not man [emphasis mine], that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.” First Sam. 15:29 says, “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man [emphasis mine], that he should have regret.”

In addition, the Bible repeatedly says that there are no Gods other than God the Father. As a result, the Mormon teachings that God the Father has a father who was God prior to Him and that man can progress to become a God himself contradict the Bible. Isa. 43:10 says, “You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Isa. 44:6 says, “Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.’” The Lord continues this point in verse 8 of the same chapter where He further declares, “Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”

Second, the Mormon understanding of the word God as an honorific title is completely incompatible with biblical teachings. As the previously cited verses demonstrate, scripture is very emphatic that there are no other Gods besides God the Father, and, as a consequence, He has always been God. As a result, it is impossible for Him to have earned the title God, because God is something that He has always been; it is something He simply is.

Third, contrary to Mormon teachings, the Bible says that God and man are separate and distinct in nature and, as a result, are not the same species. Since God has always existed as God, He is uncreated and self-existent in nature. In contrast, humans are contingent in being, i.e., they are dependent upon God for their very existence. God is the only being in existence that is not contingent upon anything else for his existence. In Exod. 3:14, God gives us a small glimpse into this fact about His nature: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: “I AM has sent me to you”.'” Speaking of this verse, Bible Commentator James E. Smith says, “The statement ‘I am who I am’ can be rendered a number of different ways in English. The statement basically emphasizes the timelessness of God. He is the self-existing one, the Eternal, the one without beginning or end.” In addition, The Apologetics Study Bible says, “Exod. 3:14 actually teaches a distinction between God and humans. God alone is the eternal, self-existing one. Humans are created beings.” Consequently, the Mormon idea that God and man, the uncreated and the created, the self-existent and the contingent, are the same species is completely illogical and foreign to the Bible.

In the next post, I will look at the LDS teachings on the nature of Christ as compared to the Bible.