I was shocked and saddened to see WORLD magazine—where I once served as blog editor—publish a piece of syncretistic drivel by their longtime columnist Andrée Seu:
It was obvious to me that [Glenn Beck] was a new creation in Christ. I know he’s Mormon and all that. I also remember reading a book by Professor Harvey Conn decades ago that said that you have to be very careful when judging a person’s salvation—some people with lousy theology have their hearts right with God, and some people with impeccable theology are cold toward God.
Glenn Beck isn’t cold toward God. He is red hot. He is “a brand plucked from the fire” (Zechariah 3:2). He knows what pit he was in—and he knows exactly who took him out of it. If I were his station manager I would be biting my fingernails every day, because the man just doesn’t hold back about Jesus, and I can say without hesitation that I have not heard the essentials of the gospel more clearly and boldly in any church than on his program.
I have heard all the criticisms, and I can find sympathy for them—about the Mormonism, about the dangers of religious syncretism, etc. But regarding the Mormon thing, I think we should regard Beck as an Apollos and pray for a Priscilla and Aquila in his life, to steer him better (Acts 18). I just don’t see how anyone can listen to the man for a solid week and not be as blessed as I am by his courage, his utter lack of fear of man, and his sharp and personal testimony of Christ’s transforming power.
A recent poll reveals that only two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants recognize that Mormons have religious beliefs somewhat (26%) or very (42%) different from our own. It’s distressing that so many believers can be so confused. But Seu should know better. And I know that the editors of WORLD know better. (Note: See update at the end of this post.)
But what I find even more appalling than the claim that a devout Mormon (who believes in tritheism) can be a “new creation in Christ” is her slur against the church.
Seu says, “I have not heard the essentials of the gospel more clearly and boldly in any church than on his program.” Really? What church does she attend? If it’s true that a Mormon has proclaimed the gospel of Christ more clearly on a radio show than her Christian pastor has done in her church, then why does she stay? (Assuming, of course, that she regularly attends a church.)
To be honest, I don’t believe she believes that; I think she made that up for effect. Unfortunately, she’s not alone in making such a despicable charge. It’s all too common nowadays for evangelicals to make the scurrilous claim that our churches are not preaching the Gospel. While there are certainly churches where this is the case, it is simply not true of the majority of our congregations. To claim otherwise, without sufficient evidence to the contrary, is a libel against the Bride of Christ.
Note: Justin Taylor has some wise thoughts on the matter and, not surprisingly, he is much more winsome about this outrage that I can be.
Update: My friend Mickey McLean, the web executive editor for WORLD, says the fault lies with him: “WORLD’s position: All of us need editing. Our website editing system failed in regard to Andrée’s post about Glenn Beck. The breadth of response points out confusion concerning Beck and where he stands.” And in a comment to that post he adds, “I take full responsibility for not taking a closer look at Andrée’s column before posting it to the site.”
As a web editor I can certainly empathize. At FT we allow our non-staff blogs to post freely and with few restrictions since we don’t claim to agree with them on all issues. (I sometimes cringe at seeing what makes it onto our website.) WORLD takes a stricter approach, which forces them to take a bit more responsibility. Also, as a columnist Seu is a direct representative of the magazine.
Nevertheless, Mickey’s response goes a long way in restoring my trust in that great publication. I appreciate his taking responsibility, though Seu is the one that should be held accountable.
September 17th, 2010 | 3:28 am | #1
Perhaps I’m not the most objective observer, here, bit I do have a perspective that could be helpful. I live in salt Lake City, uath, and although I am not mormon, I have many relatives who are mormon. And they DO believe that Christ saves them, and believe that Christ died on a cross, and was resurrected three days later, to save humanity from their (our sins). They don’t really care much for theological niceities, such as “tritheism”, etc. They believe in Christ, as much as any Catholic, Evangelical, etc.
Although being close, to something can alter one’s objectivity, it also can show better insight. Mormons, at least with respect to Jesus Christ, don’t believe that much differently, than other Christians.
September 17th, 2010 | 5:42 am | #2
I wouldn’t be so shocked. Devotees of World also secretly believe that Rush Limbaugh is a new creation in Christ–an apostle, in fact.
September 17th, 2010 | 8:28 am | #3
C. Ehrlich, if they “secretly” believe that about Rush, then how are we to know?
But seriously…
It doesn’t surprise me. I’d think that a number of the evangelicals in my own church would share similar sentiments. She is right that we are in no position to judge one’s status before God, and she might be right that Beck (or other Mormons for that matter) is some sort of spiritually immature Apollos, waiting for classical Christian mentors. (I certainly hope that he gets them and that his theology changes.)
But you’re right, Joe, that it’s a big jump from that to the determination that many Mormons are “new creations in Christ.” As she references Priscilla and Aquilla, one wonders what hellenist believers like them–immersed in a completely pagan environment–would have thought about Mormon theology (seeming rather pagan in its specifics, I’d say).
Are there people in Mormon congregations who wholly believe that it is Christ who saves them, but who really know very little about the specifics of Mormon theology? Sure. Just like there are plenty of people in evangelical churches who like Christian terminology and the church culture, but know–and believe in–very little about Christianity. In the end, God knows more than we do about those people’s hearts and motives.
Yes, the LDS believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, and believe that some sort of salvation comes from it. But denying Christ’s sole divinity is key to this whole debate. I’m only a few minutes from Hill Cumorah, so it’s a debate I’ve had a number of times.
September 17th, 2010 | 8:30 am | #4
Beck is now a false teacher. He was just a Mormon before.
The Mormon Jesus is a false Jesus. When one is a mormon, and is confronted withe true Gospel, they regect the truth, and they stick with Joseph Smith, their great prophet.
I have discussed these things with Mormons, and then can be very inspiring. Just check out the Tabernacle Choir this Christmas. They are impeccable.
But Satan comes as a beautiful angel of light, as does his church, and his people.
I shall pray for Glen to come to the true Christ, and the Gospel of grace, not a flase gospel of works, which is what the LDSaints teach and preach.
“But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.” -The Apostle Paul
September 17th, 2010 | 8:45 am | #5
donands: Do you really believe that mormons are under the influence of Satan? Why not just believe they’re wrong, or incorrect, and leave it at that?
September 17th, 2010 | 10:08 am | #6
Because: “And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray…..For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” Matt. 24
Also Paul says, (with inpired words from the Lord): “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.” 2 Corinth. 11
And it’s amazing that Joseph Smith had apostles, and the LDS’s have apostles, and they of course are false.
Also Smith was visited by Moroni, who is an angel.
Paul says: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Galatians
September 17th, 2010 | 11:20 am | #7
I’m astounded. I always thought she was a quite sensible and well-grounded sister.
September 17th, 2010 | 11:25 am | #8
This is a critical question, though I would add to it:
What church is she a member and subject to the authority of? As someone in a position of influence, she is responsible for what she writes to the public, and her church is responsible for keeping her accountable to her actions.
If she is not a member of a disciplining church as the Church in the NT and throughout history has always (and rightly) deemed necessary for obedience, then her public writings should be ignored. There are plenty of spiritually insightful people who submit to accountability.
If she is a member of a church, I’d be interested to hear what it is and what they think about her public writings.
September 17th, 2010 | 11:27 am | #9
What EM said.
September 17th, 2010 | 11:46 am | #10
Mickey McLean, editor of the WORLD site, now has a post up saying that Andree’s article should not have got past him.
September 17th, 2010 | 12:11 pm | #11
Bret,
The question we need to ask is the same one that Jesus asked Peter when He said “But who do you say that I am?” and that is where mormonism falls apart (written as a former mormon myself). An honest mormon must admit that they are talking about a completely different Jesus than evangelical Christians. We use the same words that mean something completely different. The Jesus of the Bible IS God and has the power to save to the uttermost. The “Jesus” of mormonism is different from us in maturity but not in type and is more of a helpful older brother who provides a good example than He is a Savior. The contrast between mormonism and Christianity couldn’t be more stark.
September 17th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #12
The outrage factor here is far overblown. Packer and Colson both endorsed Peter Kreeft’s book “Ecumenical jihad,” where he says much the same sort of thing Seu said in WORLD. Are we in such a place where we are aghast if someone says a Mormon person can also be a bona fide born again believer? The LDS Church is one thing, and an LDS individual is another. The harsh response of so many suggests they live in a rather theoretical world, to say the least. Glen Beck may understand the basic gospel and believe it?! OMG, say it ain’t so! I think the same thing may be true of Pope Benedict XVI! No way!! Besides, I don’t hear anyone saying they contact Seu before going all self-righteous. After years of good columns, doesn’t she deserve a little reticence prior to the blog screeching?
September 17th, 2010 | 4:48 pm | #13
But Andree didn’t say that Beck theoretically could be a believer — she said he *is* a believer, in her estimation. Unless she has reason to know that he denies Mormon Christology and places his faith in the Christ who actually exists, this is worse than unwarranted. And given that all the evidence about Beck’s Christology points in the opposite direction — that it indicates that he in fact believes in a false Christ — it means that she is placing zeal without knowledge *over* believing in Christ rather than an idol. Neither Jesus nor Paul placed enthusiasm in the practice of false religion ahead of the knowledge of the living God.
September 17th, 2010 | 5:47 pm | #14
As a lot of folks seem to see it, a friend of right-wing conservative politics is a friend of Jesus. Now the converse, of course, isn’t true. Should Jesus befriend an Hispanic immigrant, a Muslim or some proponent of social justice, right-wing conservatives won’t be finding room at their table.
September 17th, 2010 | 6:23 pm | #15
C. Ehrlich: “As a lot of folks seem to see it, a friend of right-wing conservative politics is a friend of Jesus.”
Then there’d be a lot of folks who aren’t seeing things rightly.
“Should Jesus befriend an Hispanic immigrant, a Muslim or some proponent of social justice, right-wing conservatives won’t be finding room at their table.”
Your hypothetical is merely rhetorical bluster.
September 17th, 2010 | 6:49 pm | #16
“Are we in such a place where we are aghast if someone says a Mormon person can also be a bona fide born again believer?”
Not aghast, but a big red flag should be seen.
September 18th, 2010 | 12:07 pm | #17
“…she said he *is* a believer, in her estimation.”
Again, do the kids at YoungLife have correct Christology? Come on. If Truth is true, can it no shine through human confusion and error. If you wipe away the Mormon temple games and spurrious scriptures, could not a Mormon in today’s secular culture easily be trusting on Jesus’ cross to forgive his failures, and is that not what being a Christian is all about. Seu was not writing about his “Right Wing” politics, but his right heart attitude. Faith in Jesus as savior and repentance from sin are what it is all about. Most believers don’t even understand Trinitarianism, and many probably hold to a vague Mormon polytheism, just like many LDS likely hold to a Christian monotheism despite their own teaching. A mormon is far closer to orthodox Christian thinking on the atonement than was John Adams, the covert Unitarian over whom Evangelicals swoon. I am not saying we can know Beck’s state. I am saying Seu’s statement is hardly as outrageous as the “outage” heaped on her immediately.
September 18th, 2010 | 1:11 pm | #18
“Most believers don’t even understand Trinitarianism,”
What do you mean by that?
September 18th, 2010 | 2:07 pm | #19
I think Joe has a point. Few normal believers, understand the nuances of trinitarian Christology, and the philosophical basis for it. From a purely practical standpoint, most average, evangelicals, think of Jesus, probably in away similar to most average mormons: He’s a divine being, in human form, distinct from the Father. Obviously, Christian LEADERS think differently, but those with, shall we say, a naive understanding of theology, predominate in the pews.
An interesting question: Does one’s salvation depend merely on accepting Christ and his attonment, or, does one need a correct understandingof the theology? If it’s the latter, then most evangelicals, along with everyone’s favorite targets, mormons, are unsaved.
September 18th, 2010 | 2:16 pm | #20
Not understanding something and actively, consciously, and zealously embracing a contradictory view are not equivalent. A Young Life kid who expressed Christological beliefs comparable to Mormonism would need to be set straight QUICK and if he actively resisted proper teaching and continued to insist on beliefs utterly incompatible with the reality of Jesus and the power of His saving work, then yeah, I’d question anyone who insisted that he was nonetheless all good to go because he’d learned nice salvation language while hanging around Christians.
The issue isn’t whether someone has to be completely correct; the issue is whether someone actively and doggedly insists that the real Jesus is an idol, and an idol is the real one. Beck is no Mormon neophyte or fool; he understands the theology well enough to blaspheme against the real Jesus.
September 18th, 2010 | 2:40 pm | #21
Pentamom: Few people, have the philosophical sophistication to really understand christology. Are you saying that a full understanding is necessary, for salvation, or merely trusting those who do have that full understanding?
Also, if someone, through good intentions, believes that the mormon Jesus is the correct Jesus, still unsaved, or are only the one’s who intentionally (no doubt guided by Satan) believes it, when he knows better, unsaved?
You seem to imply that Mr. Beck is in the latter category. But he would have to be pretty IQ challenged to pretend to believe something he knows is false. What’s his motivation?
September 18th, 2010 | 4:42 pm | #22
I’m having difficulty understanding why people are having difficulty understanding what I’m saying.
I’m NOT saying a perfect understanding of Christology is necessary. I think I’ve said that at least twice.
I’m saying you shouldn’t be able to put your trust in someone who is distinctly and definitively NOT Jesus as He really is, defend that position that He is not what He really is, and have evangelicals fall all over themselves being “absolutely sure” you’re a Christian because you use the word “Jesus” in some religious sense and stand for biblically based morality.
Analogy: if a man doesn’t really understand his wife, well, that’s normal. If he goes around insisting that she’s 5′ 10″, blond, and Italian, when she’s really 5′ 2″ and African *and argues when people try to set him straight*, should sensible people really give him credit for both being sane and loving his wife rather than a figment of his imagination?
Or is the distinction between a Jesus who is the sibling of Lucifer and the firstborn of many gods really more trivial than a wife’s height and race?
September 18th, 2010 | 6:37 pm | #23
“..you shouldn’t be able to put your trust in someone who is distinctly and definitively NOT Jesus as He really is” p-mom
Seems like the bottom line to me.
When one is regenerated in the Holy Spirit, and is a new creation in Christ, and is in the light, and out of the darkness, this same person will trust in the Christ of Scripture. He will be a babe for a while, but his growth will be from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Word. And he will hunger for the truth, and thirst for the Spirit, because he is now a child of God the Father, and a friend of Jesus Christ, his, or her Savior.
I talked with two Jehovah Witnesses the other day, and they are quite gentle, and nice, and say they love Jesus and God, and yet they do not acknowledge the deity of Christ. They are dead, though they appear to be alive. Which means their deadness is very dead.
have a great Lord’s day. All praise and glory to Jesus Christ, and our Father, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
September 18th, 2010 | 7:03 pm | #24
Petamom: But why isn’t a perfect understanding of Christology necessary? Perhaps that’s what God wants? My point was to make a distinction between those who honestly believe their mormonism, verses those who honestly believe their evangelicalism, and yet, from a practical standpoint, believe in roughly the same Jesus. Are they both going to Hell, due to their wrong beliefs, or is it enough that their hearts are in the right place? Or does God consider merely belonging to the mormon religion, so beyond the pale, that their good intentions don’t matter?
September 18th, 2010 | 9:40 pm | #25
The Jesus of Mormonism and Jesus aren’t “roughly the same being.” They’re mutually exclusive.
People don’t go to Hell for wrong beliefs, they go to Hell for their sins. Only Jesus can take them away. But a cardboard cutout named “Jesus” can’t, and the Mormon figment of the imagination called “Jesus” can’t, because they’re not *nearly* enough like the real one. There isn’t really much commonality between them besides the name, the claim of having walked the earth ~2000 years ago, and the attribution of some form of divinity and power to them. That’s the point. These are not subtle shadings of exactly how the hypostatic union works; you couldn’t recognize one in the description of the other if they didn’t allegedly share the same name.
September 18th, 2010 | 9:54 pm | #26
“The Jesus of Mormonism and Jesus aren’t “roughly the same being.” They’re mutually exclusive.”
Amen.
He ain’t gonna get it, I’m afraid, as pure and simple as it is.
Paul said, that there is one Lord, one Father, one Gospel, etc. He also said there are false Jesus’, that people like to accept.
Paul also said: “If anyone, even an ANGEL, preaches another gospel, even if we do, let them be accursed.”
It’s all boiled down to the bottom of the pot, where there is absolutely no more discussion. Amen and amen.
But guess what,……
September 18th, 2010 | 9:57 pm | #27
pentamom; I din’t say that they were. I said that the beliefs, of average mormons, and average evangelicals, are roughly the same. They both tend to see Jesus as the literal son of God the father, and as an essentially physical being, although a divine one.
If an average mormon, and an average evangelical, both repent of their sins, and believe that Jesus, even though their conceptions s of Jesus are inaccurate, would Jesus still forgive them, and overlook their incorrect conceptions. If not, how “correct”, in one’s understanding of the ontological nature of Jesus, must one be, (and assuming that, since we’re human, we cannot have an absolutely correct understanding of Jesus’s true nature) before Jesus forgives one?
September 18th, 2010 | 10:06 pm | #28
Donsands; I guess you’re missing my point. Unfortunately, you’re not going to really understand mormonism, if you insist on seeing it in the worst possible light. you seem to imply that mormonism, was initiated by satan. Obviously, you have every right to believe this way, but I seriously doubt that you’ll really understand mormonism, with your failure to empathize with their situation.
Like I’ve said, I’m not a mormon, and I don’t find mormonism at all plausible. But i’ve tried to empatheize with them, and it’s understanable that mormonism arose, when it did, in the ninteenth century, due to historical factors.
September 18th, 2010 | 11:09 pm | #29
“..due to historical factors.”
Due to Moroni, and Joe Smith.
September 19th, 2010 | 12:04 am | #30
Pentamom:
The wife analogy is a pretty good one, I’ll grant you!
September 19th, 2010 | 12:54 am | #31
donsands: I understand that you don’t believe mormonism. Neither do I. But why the disrespect? There are good, decent, intelligent people, who believe it. I know, because I’m related to them, and will attest to their great characters.
The historical factors are complicated, and therefore beyond the scope of this post, but antebellum america, was a fertile area for new religious movements.
September 19th, 2010 | 12:11 pm | #32
No disrespect really, just speaking the truth about a false religion.
Satan is a live and well, and he roams about to see whom he might devour, with his false teachings, and with his cruelty as well. As Martin Luther said, “there are black devils and white devils”.
Mormonism is a white devil.
September 19th, 2010 | 8:08 pm | #33
Tom,
A Biblical undershepherd feeds and protects the sheep entrusted to him while shooting wolves.
September 19th, 2010 | 8:18 pm | #34
I disagree with mormonism, but I respect it, and think that it’s unfair to attribute demonic qualities, to religions that one disagrees with.
September 19th, 2010 | 8:36 pm | #35
TUAD: You still didn’t answer Tom’s question.
September 19th, 2010 | 8:52 pm | #36
“..and think that it’s unfair to attribute demonic qualities, to religions that one disagrees with.”
Then you need to study the Word of God my friend.
Jesus said to the Jews: “Your father is the devil.”
There’s light. There’s darkness. The god of this world, the prince of the power of the air, rules over all (Eph. 2:1-2) who are not in the light. God wants us to shine the Gospel light in this dark, and so some may grope for the truth and find it, through God’s sovereign grace and mercy.
September 19th, 2010 | 9:23 pm | #37
donsands: Am I understanding you correctly? Are you claiming that Jews, are demonic? I sure hope not. I’ll give you an oppurtunity to clarify your position.
September 19th, 2010 | 10:29 pm | #38
“They [the Jews] answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
The truth is clear. may the Lord open your heart, and mind Bret.
September 19th, 2010 | 10:43 pm | #39
Who knew that there would be a theology test administered before you enter the pearly gates?
There should be no doubt of my critique-of-Mormonism street cred. (See http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0310231949/qid=1042902795/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/102-7474256-0601758 )
But the question of theological truth is different than the question of whether a specific list of theological doctrines must be believed in order to avoid eternal damnation. And how sophisticated should one be? Perhaps some Evangelical grandma can’t articulate Nicene Trinitarianism and instead plods through something that sounds like Mormon-theism-lite. Does she get in?
Or suppose she’s not an ordinary grandma, but one trained in historical theology, and she rejects Chalcedonian Christology while still believing that Jesus is God? That was enough to get you excommunicated at Chalcedon. But within Evangelicalism this heresy is acceptable, since it is not obviously inconsistent with sola scriptura. Does she get in? Or suppose she is a Unitarian, and having read the Bible simply cannot believe that the Word is of the same substance as the Father. What do you say to her? Do you say, it does not matter, it is a matter of obedience to the Church’s authority on these matters? But Evangelicals do not have that option. So, because it all depends on her intellectual ability to understand and believe that doctrine, she should buy some posthumous asbestos water skis, since no matter how hard she tries she can’t buy Trinitarianism.
I can’t imagine the last judgment will be like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpx6XnankZ8
September 20th, 2010 | 10:14 am | #40
“..since no matter how hard she tries she can’t buy Trinitarianism.”
She will if the Holy Spirit regenerates her dead spirit and softens her callous heart, as He does to all sinners which the Lord died for, and the Father gave to His Son.
Jesus came to seek and to save His lost sheep, and to give them His truth, and they will hear His voice, and follow Him. Those who do not follow are not His sheep, they are not God’s.
And these will bear fruit of love. Love for Christ, and for His truth. Love rejoices in the truth.
September 20th, 2010 | 1:45 pm | #41
donsands writes:
“She will if the Holy Spirit regenerates her dead spirit and softens her callous heart, as He does to all sinners which the Lord died for, and the Father gave to His Son.”
That, of course, is not a real answer, since there are numerous (dare I say, millions) of Christians, like the non-theologian grandma (in my story above), who do not have a competent understanding of any major doctrines. So, with the exception of a tiny percentage of Christians trained in theology and who remain orthodox, all the rest of them are hard-hearted non-Spirit touched louts destined for hell? You can’t be serious.
In addition, if theological grandma is a Nestorian–though a Trinitarian–is she in? Chalcedon would pronounce her a heretic. Be careful, since most Protestant Evangelical philosophers are in fact Nestorians (and some are even kenotic theorists, which means that the Son in the Incarnation remained God but gave up his attributes). And what about the Openness guys, are they on or off the salvation train?
September 20th, 2010 | 2:03 pm | #42
Francis Beckwith,
From where do you get your intuitions about what the last judgment will be like? Why do you give them such authority?
And why do you suppose that “Evangelicals” believe that salvation “depends on…intellectual ability to understand and believe” the doctrine of the Trinity? Is this really a fair characterization of what Evangelicals believe? Do you suppose that Evangelicals therefore cannot consistently maintain that the mentally disabled and young children (as such) can be saved?
I don’t think you are being fair.
September 20th, 2010 | 2:09 pm | #43
It’s sure hard to not conclude that you guys aren’t intentionally missing donsands point, and Dr. Beckwith’s last answer demonstrates that plainly.
No one here has said that there is a theology exam or that one needs to be a theologian to be saved.
What donsands is saying and I’ve seen him say it many times before, is that there is a difference between incomplete understanding and refusing to believe the truth when it is taught.
So sure, one can not understand the Trinity and still be saved. But once the Trinity has been explained from Scripture, it cannot be safely disbelieved.
If a guy like Glen Beck, a practising Mormon, does not publically renounce the Mormon version of Jesus in favour of the Christian Jesus, he cannot be saved. He believes another gospel.
What causes all the confusion is the idea that good-living people ought to get some consideration on the last day. Scripture plainly teaches that no such consideration will be given.
There is no reason for a Christian to imagine that any religion that is not solidly biblical in every way, (Judaism included) is anything but demonic in origin. And there is no reason to believe that anyone who has not thrown themselves on the mercy of the only true God, as revealed in the Bible, only, will ever be saved.
Which is why, of course, a Glen Beck call for America to return to “God, however you envision him to be” (or whatever his exact words were), is really a call for America to become more pagan than it already is. There is not benefit in being religious or spiritual, if it is not solely based in the God revealed in Scripture and His only begotten son, Jesus.
I baffles me to no end that anyone claiming to be a Christian would argue that. And it convinces me that those arguing that either don’t understand, or just don’t believe, what the Bible teaches.
I’m hoping that is not understanding, because not believing is pretty eternal in it consequences.
September 20th, 2010 | 2:10 pm | #44
C. Ehrlich,
You beat me to that punch. Well said.
September 20th, 2010 | 2:47 pm | #45
“…all the rest of them are hard-hearted non-Spirit touched louts destined for hell? You can’t be serious.”
I didn’t say that.
I appreciate what Daryl said. That’s basically my heart.
There’s the simplicity of Christ and His truth, that all of God’s children will embrace. The deeper issues are another matter.
Greg Boyd may in fact not be a brother in Christ. He went out from Orthodoxy with his teachings that God doesn’t know the future.
Does he still believe the Gospel? The one that Paul said, “If anyone preaches a different gospel, then let them be accursed.”
I hope he does. I don’t know.
We can have error in our teachings. But not in the Gospel. If we twist the Gospel, especially by adding works to it, or even if an angel comes and does it, then let us be accursed.
September 20th, 2010 | 3:02 pm | #46
Are there heretics in Hell?
Are there heretics in Heaven?
Are there people with incomplete doctrine in Hell?
Are there people with incomplete doctrine in Heaven?
Support your speculation.
September 20th, 2010 | 3:44 pm | #47
TUAD,
I’ll bite.
Yes, no, yes,yes.
Heretics are people who, by definition, teach another gospel.
We won’t know fully (1 Cor. 13) until we are face to face with God. Right now we aren’t, so we don’t.
September 20th, 2010 | 7:06 pm | #48
“Greg Boyd may in fact not be a brother in Christ. He went out from Orthodoxy with his teachings that God doesn’t know the future.”
That doesn’t seem to be a fair representation of what Greg believes. He teaches that the future is open and God knows it as such. This means that he knows what will happen and what might happen. This understanding of God’s omniscience flows from a doctrine of creation, not a doctrine of God. Greg has repeatedly cleared this up for all of his critics, yet it continues to fall on deaf ears. Those ears always seem to belong to those who are quick to tell us who they think is or is not a brother, and they curiously fail to make an effort to represent the views of the person in question in such a way that they would be acceptable to the person holding them. I only bring this up because the accusations are so serious, and the evidence is not being handled in an equally seriously way. Hand-waving and sloganeering will not do.
September 20th, 2010 | 7:54 pm | #49
“Boyd says that people have tried to evade the meaning of these texts by saying that God is speaking “anthropomorphically.” Moreover the only reason one would argue this way, he says, is that one brings to the text a philosophical presupposition that God cannot literally change his mind.
But I do not argue this way. I say that there is a real change in God’s mind, but that this does not imply a lack of foreknowledge.” -John Piper
“A natural reading of 1 Samuel 15 would seem to imply that there is a way that God does “repent” and a way that he does not. That is what I am arguing in the texts that Boyd puts forward. He insists that God repents in a way that implies lack of foreknowledge of what is coming. I think this is the kind of “repentance” that would fall under Samuel’s criticism: “God is not a man that he should repent.”"-John Piper
Genesis 22:9-12
“Boyd says that God did not know if Abraham would remain faithful and that the words “now I know” are disingenuous if this were not so. The test would be a charade if God already knew the outcome.” -John Piper
Here’s link if you want to see what Greg teaches, and how John Piper argues against his view: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/answering-greg-boyds-openness-of-god-texts
September 20th, 2010 | 8:08 pm | #50
One of the problems, that I see here, is the turning, of God, into some legalistic robot, who will only save those with perfect understandings, of his ontological nature. Or, that God only saves those who have explicitly accepted Him, as their personal savior, when, through no fault of their own, were never introduced to Him. That’s not God.
God’s mercy, and love is greater, than our finite attempts to put Him into our little conceptual boxes.
September 20th, 2010 | 8:09 pm | #51
I have a question that is not related to the Mormon issue but is related to the what-we-have-to-believe-to-be-saved issue. What if you know what you’re “supposed” to believe but you have serious doubts about these beliefs, despite praying and asking God to remove these doubts? Will God honor that request if one is sincere in asking?
September 20th, 2010 | 8:17 pm | #52
“What if you know what you’re “supposed” to believe but you have serious doubts about these beliefs, despite praying and asking God to remove these doubts?”
Have you in fact believed, I would ask. Do you really trust that Jesus Christ died for your sins, and you have asked Him for forgiveness, and so His mercy is dear to your soul, and you actually have a love for Him, and for His name?
Even the newly born from the dead sinner has a new heart, and it will be different. The struggle with doubt will never leave us, until we die, or Christ returns.
September 20th, 2010 | 8:19 pm | #53
Dosands, I understand the points being made, but they are being made by John Piper, not Greg Boyd. I’ve read Beyond the Bounds and other works against Open Theism at DG and I don’t think they are supporting your characterization of Boyd stated above, “That God doesn’t know the future.”
Take the example you cite from Genesis. Boyd remains consistent in his thinking, because he believes the nature of libertarian freedom entails an open view of the future. God does not know what Abraham WILL do because there is nothing in the future that determines what he will do outside of Abraham’s choice (which up till that point has not happened). Surely God knows what Abraham MIGHT do, or might not do given such and such circumstances, and so devices the test to find out what he WILL do. Piper goes on to disagree with this interpretation to say that the contents of God’s knowledge do not include what “might” happen–only what “will” happen.
In my view Boyd’s reading of the text does not determine the open view of the future. I think he comes to it a priori with the belief that libertarian freedom necessarily entails an open future, and he attempts to “save the appearances” in the text that God does not know what Abraham will do.
Even Greg says that ” John acknowledges, I unequivocally affirm the omniscience of God.” (http://www.revivaltheology.net/9_openness/piper.html) He goes on to say, “John’s disagreement with me thus isn’t over whether or not God is omniscient. It is a disagreement over the contents of reality, which the omniscient God knows.”
This is such an important distinction, and I must insist upon it when bringing charges of heresy against Open Theists, and worse judging whether they are saved. I hope you understand.
September 20th, 2010 | 8:25 pm | #54
nshapland,
You ask some important questions. I think we should dispense with the idea that God will do such and such if we do x “sincerely,” for it always grounds God’s actions upon our actions in a deterministic fashion. God promises that he will be with us until the very end of the age (Matt 28:20) and can be present with us in the midst of our doubts. He allows us to wrestle with him (like Jacob) in search of a blessing we know only he can give. Faith is not crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s of a doctrinal statement of faith, but believing God exists and rewards those who seek him (Heb 11). It is much more messy than fundamentalism allows, and I encourage you to keep praying and following where God leads you.
September 20th, 2010 | 8:39 pm | #55
donsands and Adam: thankyou for your replies. I don’t expect all doubt to go away but would like a little peace. If faith is a gift from God, and I am struggling with the basics of faith (despite praying for help), what does that mean?
I’m not sure what to do–or if there is anything that I can do…
September 20th, 2010 | 8:44 pm | #56
Again, Bret insists, in his first sentence, on not reading what anyone who is agreeing with donsands point and still trying to claim that anyone is insisting on theological perfection.
And, in his second sentence, refuses to believe what Scripture plainly teaches.
To say that when the bible insists that not only is Jesus the only way of salvation, but that faith comes by hearing and not some other way, that it must be wrong, well whatever else that might be, it isn’t Christian.
It is not now, nor has it ever been about putting God in a box, it’s about insisting that God actually meant what he said, and any argument to the contrary is to argue with God, not any of us.
nshapland,
Assuming you’re describing yourself, well, you’re right where all of us are at one point or another. Remember the man with the demon possessed son, who said to Jesus “Lord I believe, help my unbelief.”
Adam,
Perhaps I’m misreading you, but to say that God can’t know what I will decide, because I haven’t decided it yet, is to say that he doesn’t know the future, and it is to deny that he “declares the end from the beginning.”
Boyd may not explicitly deny God’s omniscience, but he certainly denies his sovereignty. (Although I don’t doubt that he would deny that statement as well.)
September 20th, 2010 | 8:45 pm | #57
nshapland,
I think that, at bottom, faith is that thing in you that cries out and says “If you don’t save me, then I won’t be saved, because I am utterly lost without you.”
September 20th, 2010 | 9:48 pm | #58
nshapland, I will reply to via email. That way we can carry on more privately than in this forum. Thanks for reading.
Daryl, you are right: it comes down to how one conceives of sovereignty.
September 20th, 2010 | 10:36 pm | #59
Adam–ok, thanks, but does my email address show up?
September 21st, 2010 | 6:34 am | #60
“I understand the points being made, but they are being made by John Piper”
And who is John Piper. Piper is very familiar with Greg’s false teaching.
My own patsor, Greg Dutcher, read Boyd’s book. I asked him is Greg in error? He said, “It’s heresy.”
There’s so much more that could be said about Greg Boyd, with his teachings.
But as I said, I don’t know that he has denied the gospel of grace completely. Though he does lean toward a “purgatory” type of after life for the child of God.
I have seen Greg play the drums, and he is very skilled in his drumming. But he is quite unskilled in the Scriptures.
September 21st, 2010 | 10:16 am | #61
Dosands, I know who John Piper is. Appealing to his authority is not relevant here. My point is that we have a duty to represent people we charge with heresy with terms they would accept (something Greg did in his reply to John). You failed to do even that, and my point is that it is very serious because the charges are serious. You have every right to believe what your pastor says, but you do not have a right to believe you have fairly represented what Greg has said. True, Piper wanted Greg out of the GBC, but he stopped short of calling him a heretic–someone who is teaching a false gospel. He said he was not “opposing a person, but a teaching”–which of course was Greg’s views on God’s foreknowledge. Incidentally, the GBC didn’t find Piper’s case persuasive and allowed Greg to stay.
I know it may seem like I am picking on you, but I must press this point, because it is widespread through certain parts of Christianity to judge someone heretical without even having a proper understanding of what is being judged.
September 21st, 2010 | 3:12 pm | #62
Daryl: The question is how much knowledge of God’s nature is enough, for salvation? One here’s different things, from, not only different sects, within Christianity, but different people.
Must one believe in the Trinity? If so, how does this make sense to a Bible believing Christian, such as yourself, since the Trinity is no where mentioned in the bible?
September 21st, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #63
Bret,
Of course the Trinity is mentioned in the bible.
Let me illustrate:
Lyle Ray Little lived in Blenheim Ontario
His oldest son was Duncan Lyle Little.
Duncan Lyle’s youngest son is Daryl Little.
Question: Did I just mention my Grandfather or did I not?
Of course I did. But, like the word Trinity, I did it without mentioning the word.
Again, though, you’ve asked the wrong question. All one needs to be saved, is to know that Jesus died fro my sins and if I repent and believe in Him, then I will be saved.
However, if, once I profess belief, I learn of the Trinity and refuse to believe it, then I cannot be saved. Because what I’ve done is demonstrate that I’ve never actually believed in Jesus, because without the Trinity, there is no real Jesus.
And a real believer will embrace the doctrine of the Trinity, as best they can, in submission to holy scripture. A non-believer will not be in submission to the text.
September 21st, 2010 | 4:18 pm | #64
“I know it may seem like I am picking on you”
I don’t feel that at all.
I have heard Greg here and there. I have heard his friends, John Sanders & Clark Pinnock, rest his soul.
From all I heard, and from what I know, Open Theism says that God doesn’t know, for 100% sure, what the future will be like. Though He does know the “possibilities”. It could be all bad, or all good, or a mixture.
Perhaps Boyd is a little different than Sanders and Pinnock, I don’t know.
I admit I don’t know exactly what each teaches fully.
I would say to teach that God does not know exactly what the future will look like, according to His will, which is what I just heard Greg say on Youtube, is a false teaching. The teaching is heresy, because it is not with orthodoxy.
I have a good friend who is a full preterist. He is outside of orthodoxy, and yet he loves Christ, and we are still friends.
I believe I could be friends with Boyd. One of my best friends likes Greg, and visits his website a lot, as does my son-in-law.
“The future is not eternally settled but is partly open to possibilities by God’s will.” -Greg Boyd
The future is unknown, and yet God knows all things–that are “possible”, maybe even probable, but not actual, yet, and so God doesn’t know exactly what will happen.
Is that a fair statement of Greg Boyd’s teaching?
September 21st, 2010 | 4:27 pm | #65
Daryl: Cospicuously absent, in your reply, is an actual quote, from the Bible, referring to the trinity, obviously, since the notion of the trinity, whether one believes it, or not, is no where to be found there. You think that it can be inferred, but not, without, some rather, shall we say, creative interpretation, that’s remotely connected to the facts.
At any rate, if merely believing in Jesus, and His savior traits, are enough to be saved, then why do you deny mormons, and catholics, heaven?
September 21st, 2010 | 4:29 pm | #66
Dosands, yes, I think you got there. Sorry for harping. I respect your position.
September 21st, 2010 | 4:32 pm | #67
“Of Course the trinity is mentioned in the bible”.
Ok, Daryl, where?
September 21st, 2010 | 4:42 pm | #68
Bret,
To your last sentence, because those groups clearly teach either another Jesus or another means by which he saves. So to believe in Jesus as told by either group is, by definition, to believe in another Christ.
To your first (and I though you might say that):
Father –
Romans 15:6 “so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Son-
John 20:28 “Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Holy Spirit –
Ephesians 4:30 – And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
If you think that’s creative, then so be it. It’s no more creative than my little exercise in my family tree was.
But to deny it, is to place oneself outside the Christian faith.
September 21st, 2010 | 4:54 pm | #69
Daryl: I respect your right to believe the way you wish, but it seems to reflect a naive, and limited historical perspective. The quotes that you provide, and your interpretation of them, are indeed creative.
You seem to be claiming that, not only must one believe in Jesus, and his saving grace, but also, one must get his ontological nature right.
But only partly right. You deny that it’s necessary for our understanding to be perfect, in order to be saved. But one must believe in Jesus, and believe he saves us, and believe in the trinity. Anything else? after all, I would hate for someone to believe all of these things, only to reach the pearly gates and be told, like those hapless mormons and catholics, sorry, close, but no cigar, there’s some other aspects of God that you must know.
And, really, now. Does anyone, really understand the trinity?
September 21st, 2010 | 5:06 pm | #70
Bret,
So you continue to do a couple things.
You pretend that anyone has said that someone must understand anything beyond “Repent and trust in Christ” to be saved.
And you continue to ignore the plain teaching of Scripture.
Who said someone must understand the Trinity?
The church, all branches, has always anathemetised those who deny the Trinity.
Paul is plain that to allow for any other means of salvation, including one that accepts Christ’s work and then adds to it, is to teach another gospel and thus be damned.
If you are asking:
But I don’t believe all that the Bible teaches. How much can I safely deny and still be saved.
If that’s the case, then the answer is, none of it.
If your question is:
What if I don’t believe quite right? Will Jesus still save me?
If that’s the case, then the answer is, don’t fear, Jesus saves the weak and the lame.
I too, respect anyone’s right to believe anything. And I respect anyone’s civil right to spread false teaching and call it the gospel.
But it still must be pointed out to be false. And it cannot be allowed to remain in the church.
September 21st, 2010 | 5:16 pm | #71
Daryl: You didn’t answer my question about where in the bible the trinity is mentioned. I’m sympathetic to why you ignored my request.
So, if you’re saying that one does not have to believe in the trinity, to be saved, then why are mormons, in your view, unsaved? They believe the bible. And they also believe that Jesus saves them.
You also state that Jesus saves the weak and lame. Well, why not save mormons, catholics, etc., as well? In your judgment, they certainly qualify as “weak and lame”.
Are you saying even Jesus has his limits, as to who he will save. He’ll save the weak and lame, but not if they’re THAT weak and lame?
With respect, I’m not “spreading false teaching”, I’m searching for the truth.
September 21st, 2010 | 5:22 pm | #72
Daryl: since you imply that you rely exclusively on the Bible for your understanding of Christianity, WHERE in the Bible, does it state that one must believe ALL of it, in order to be saved, and that the belief does NOT have to be “quite right”?
September 21st, 2010 | 5:43 pm | #73
Bret,
Since you insist on not reading or misreading posts…
What I said was, that if you’re looking for a minimalist belief system for yourself, in order to be saved, there isn’t one.
If you’re hoping that God will save an imperfectly understanding sinner, he will.
Since you have so often refused to accept Scripture as an answer to anything (the Trinity for instance), I’ll pass on answering your question regarding a bible verse. It won’t matter to you anyways.
If you can seriously believe that there is any correlation between the Mormon Jesus and the real one, I can’t help you…
September 21st, 2010 | 5:51 pm | #74
The last questions, that I asked, was simple: If you rely on the bible, for your beliefs, where in the bible, does it state that one must believe the bible, in order to be saved? And, where does it state that one does not have to believe it “quite right”?
September 21st, 2010 | 5:55 pm | #75
Daryl: I’m not looking for “your help”. Like I said, I’m looking for the truth.
But it seems to me, that when you get into a logical bind, you refuse to engage further. That’s understandable.
September 24th, 2010 | 7:36 am | #76
[...] Christians tell the differences between their theology and Mormon theology? Apparently not. from → Links ← Philosophy geared towards literature or science No [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact