This is the first of several posts on Blomberg and Robinson's How Wide the Divide: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation. The format of the book is its biggest strength -- each chapter contains a joint conclusion in which the authors summarize the exchange, with an emphasis on restating the many points of belief that both share (despite the often confusing use of different terminology by Mormons and Evangelicals). That seems like a nice way to approach an interfaith exchange and accounts, I believe, for the success and continuing relevance of the book.
Here's the first paragraph of the joint conclusion for the chapter titled "Christ & the Trinity":
Both Evangelicals and the LDS believe in the simultaneous oneness and threeness of God, though Evangelicals understand God's oneness as an ontological oneness of being, while the LDS understand it as a oneness of mind, will and purpose. Both sides accept the biblical data about Christ and the Trinity, but interpret them by different extrabiblical standards (the ancient creeds for Evangelicals, the modern revelations of Joseph Smith for Mormons).
In his own portion of that chapter, Robinson states the Mormon objection to the Evangelical formulation of the Trinity more directly: "That God is simultaneously three and one I have no doubt because the Bible and the Book of Mormon both tell me so, but I do not trust the intellectuals of the Hellenistic church to have figured out exactly how this is so (1 Cor. 3:19), nor do I invest their theories and conclusions with the authority of Scripture."
Blomberg's portion of the chapter is a very accessible summary of the Evangelical view of the Trinity, rather useful for Mormons who are unfamiliar with the delicate distinctions required in such a discussion. He also articulates a variety of objections to and critiques of the LDS view of the Trinity (for which the term "Godhead" is used in LDS discussions). In what appears to be a response to Robinson's comments quoted above, Blomberg notes, "Few Evangelicals claim that everything in the historic creeds of the early church is demonstrably biblical in derivation. ... We do usually claim that the heart of these creeds' affirmations about God, Christ and the Spirit can be supported biblically and that other statements are logical corollaries of the Bible's teachings."
That's a kind admission by Blomberg. So many Evangelicals charge that because Mormons don't accept the "historic creeds" they are therefore unbiblical and not Christian. Blomberg seems to admit that it is the creeds that are, at least in part, unbiblical. So if the Mormons refuse to accept the creeds as binding doctrinal formulations because they are (at least in part) unbiblical, this makes Mormons more biblical than Evangelicals who accept them as definitive statements ... right? It's sort of a silly exchange, but it's the turf many Evangelicals choose to stand on in their critique of the LDS view of God, so that's where I'll discuss it. As I see it, Evangelicals who continue to make this charge are either uninformed (if they don't realize the creeds are in part unbiblical) or hypocritical (if they do realize this, but nevertheless call Mormons unbiblical for rejecting unbiblical creeds).
I'm not being harsh, just straightforward. I applaud the interfaith discussion model pioneered by Blomberg and Robinson, and carried forward by other scholars from both camps. Any Evangelical or Mormon who reads this book will likely be surprised both at what the other camp believes and what their own camp believes (when carefully spelled out as it is in this book).
I'll round this out with a few quotes from LDS scripture that support Robinson's claim that Mormons do accept both the threeness and oneness of God, although, as noted, the Mormon view of the nature of the threeness of God differs from the Evangelical-creedal-philosophical account of that threeness. The first article of faith from the canonized LDS Articles of Faith states:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
The Book of Mormon is equally forthright in portraying God in terms of both threeness and oneness. Here is an oft-quoted exhortation at 2 Nephi 31:20-21, concluding with a standard trinitarian formula.
Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
Perhaps the most surprising passage on this topic in LDS scripture is D&C 20:21-28, which is a portion of what amounts to a short LDS creedal statement embedded in a longer revelation on church organization and government, given at the time of the initial formal organization of the LDS Church in April 1830. It, too, concludes, "Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end."
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Theophilus,
Let's distill the two sides of this discussion down to their essential elements and you should be able to see the distinction.
Mormons interpret the Bible based on additional revealed scripture.
Evangelical interpret the Bible based on intellectual argument and debate.
It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with the Mormon claim, it's the substance of the claim that matters. To wit: Mormons interpret scripture within scripture. Evangelicals interpret scripture outside of scripture.
I agree with Theophilus that it is unpersuasive to argue that because a term is not found in the bible that it is unbiblical or that it would contradict the biblical data. This is an argument that individuals should either use less or use with more caution and care.
The point about interfaith dialogues is not so that in the end everyone will agree about everything. Rather, one of the purposes in my view is that where there is disagreement, the disagreement should be on the right things, where there is actual disagreement. But this can only happen when both sides are informed and seek to understand the other side. At times perhaps part of interfaith dialogue is allowing both sides to vent and express their frustration. However, we should also have the goal to move beyond venting and move beyond expressing frustration about how we have been treated, to increasing mutual understanding.
It is true that many Latter-day Saints say that they reject the historic Christian creeds. In fact, there are two main disagreements. The first is with the content of creeds, the second is with the function of creeds. As to the content, in reality there is very little in the creeds that Latter-day Saint must reject. Many of the creeds only make sense if understood in their historical context and once a person takes the time to learn the history the reason for the creeds become much less confusing. The only term in the Nicene Creed that most Latter-day Saints would feel they cannot accept is to say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is "one being." Latter-day Saints reject this only because they feel it violates their understanding of the Father and the Son being two personages of flesh and bone. In the orthodox Christian conception, God is immaterial. As to the second disagreement, that creeds serve the function of determining who is included in the Christian polity, historically this has happened. However, Latter-day Saints should at least acknowledge that most, if not all, religious communities have mechanisms to determine who is part of the community and who is not. Often doctrine is part of this determination. In addition, it is important for Latter-day Saints to realize that creeds also serve the function of preserving the historical understanding of the faith as it has developed in the history of the Church. To say that one accepts creeds is often to say that one accepts the historic understanding of the Christian faith. It is to say that one identifies oneself with the historic Christian Church. Here in lies one of the key points of miscommunication. On the one hand, many Latter-day Saints argue that they are "Christian" while simultaneously arguing that they are not Catholic, Protestant nor Eastern Orthodox, and that their beliefs do not correspond to the doctrines as developed within the historic Christian tradition. Latter-day Saints typically fail to see the difficulty with this position and fail to sympathize with the difficulty of readily understanding this position. On this point, further expressing frustration or disbelief at how any one can not understand this position does little to increase mutual understanding. Rather, we need to proceed with a genuine desire to increase understanding and to really try to see things from each others perspective. There are many who are not willing to do this. However, part of How Wide the Divide is to show what is possible when people make a good faith attempt to understand another.
I have always thought that there are different degrees of murder. And the reason someone does so is important. For this reason I have come to the understanding (and been taught in church) that there is no forgiveness in this life for the sin of murder. It is something that will have to be dealt with after the killer dies. I was taught once that there will be some sort of punishment served in the next life between death and ultimate judgement for murderers. Even those that come to the knowledge of the gospel after their sin. Someone that is convicted of murder can not be baptized into the Latter-Day Saint church. Even if his/her prison sentence is finished (because convicted felons in jail also cannot be baptized). Taking a life in murder is such a serious action.
I don't know if someone convicted of manslaughter has the same restriction on baptism in this life or not.
I am very interested in this book now. It sounds like it is a very good source for ways of approaching interfaith dialogue.
aquinas:
Simply put and superbly written. I am humbled by your openness and objectivity. My response would simply be that in my view an ecumenical council that is comprised of religious scholars cannot make binding interpretations of scripture. The LDS view is that the authority of God does not reside in one's own intellect (independent of God), or the result of a scholarly debate. At some point people, even smart people, will inevitably veer off course. To then turn that collective, possibly incorrect, opinion into doctrine is to then make that opinion a primary basis upon which one's true acceptance of Christ is measured (by protestant standards). WOW, now that's a stretch...and for what?
The Christian world has taken the words of these councils and branded an "it is so" beside the statements, when the subscript should only read "it could possibly be so."
Most of the issues that protestants have with the LDS view are often from books and statements of past church leaders as though everything that came out of their respective mouths was official church doctrine. President Harold B. Lee refuted that idea when he said:
"If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."
The word of God to the Prophet and the existing standard works are the only official doctrine of the LDS church. Using that standard it is impossible to accept the opinions of the councils as doctrinally binding on LDS Christians because they contradict the official LDS scriptural view. That does not mean we redefine protestant men and women as non-Christian. It simply means that their understanding of some points is different that ours. To require someone to accept the creeds as an entry point to a belief in Christ is, in itself, non-biblical. If a man had nothing but the Bible (or the Book of Mormon for that matter) in his posession and believed that book and believed in Christ and prayed for a testimony of his divinity and recognized him as the Messiah and Savior of the world, he is Christian...ergo, the LDS are Christian. Perhaps not in your historical sense, which I accept. But why would historical/traditional precedent count for even one shekel in the eternal drama of God's children?
sloagm
I appreciate your comments. Many people of the world today say that the LDS people are not Christians because they do not follow mainstream Christianity. I appreciate the fact that you get it. Disciples of Jesus Christ are Christians no matter what denomination they spring from. Thank you for bringing that point up.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.