Monthly Archives: May 2012

The Mosaic Law and the Life of the Christian

14 Monday May 2012

Posted by in Things that Matter

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

On October 18th 2000, NBC aired an episode from the popular political drama The West Wing entitled The Midterms.[1] In this episode, United States President Josiah Bartlet observes Dr. Jenna Jacobs—a right wing, Bible believing, conservative radio host—sitting in the crowd. The President singles out Jacobs regarding her view that homosexuality is an abomination. Jacobs swiftly responds, “I don’t call homosexuality an abomination, Mr. President, the Bible does.” The President only manages to get out, “Yes it does, Leviticus…” before he is cut off by Jacobs who finishes his thought saying, “18:22.” Noticeably irritated, President Bartlet begins to question the consistency of Jacobs’ views of other Old Testament laws. Bartlet claims that one member of his staff prefers to work on the Sabbath, but according to Exodus 35:2, “whoever does any work on [the Sabbath] shall be put to death.”[2] President Bartlet sarcastically asks, “am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it ok to call the police?” After more questions of the sort, the camera slowly zooms onto Jacobs’ befuddled expression as the President walks out of the room, apparently victorious.

Clearly the producers of this episode do not think the Old Testament has relevance in modern times. Nonetheless, the episode brings into focus a very important issue, namely there is an apparent tension between the Mosaic Law and the Christian life. For example, Christians retain some of the Mosaic Laws, such as prohibitions against murder,[3] adultery,[4] or stealing[5] while simultaneously dismissing others like keeping the Sabbath,[6] the death penalty for adulterers[7] or following particular food laws.[8] This raises an obvious question: is the Christian inconsistent with her view of the Mosaic Law? In other words, are Christians simply picking and choosing what they like and dismissing what they do not? The short answer is no. For the Christian, the Mosaic Law is not a binding covenant because it was a specific agreement made between God and the Jews that was later fulfilled by Jesus who instituted a new covenant in which the Christian participates.[9] To support this thesis, I will defend three specific assertions. First, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic Law and His righteousness is credited to the Christian. Second, we will discuss how Jesus established a new covenant in which the Christian now participates. Finally, discussion will continue on how Christians are not bound by the morality of the Mosaic Law per se.

To begin, it will do us well to examine how the New Testament illuminates Jesus’ fulfillment of the Mosaic Law. This establishment is vital because if the Mosaic Law is fulfilled, then it is not binding on the Christian. This is not to say that Jesus eliminated the Law; in fact, He was quick to make this distinction Himself: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”[10] Moo explains that “Jesus [is telling] his disciples to look to himself as the fulfiller of the law for guidance in the way they are to live.”[11] As one continues through the New Testament, Paul indicates that Christ is the culmination of the Law. Romans 10:4 reads, “Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”[12] Here, Paul tells the reader that the Law comes to fruition in Jesus. Moo’s exegesis of this verse is helpful:

Paul is saying that Christ is the one to whom the law has all along been pointing—its goal. But now that goal has been reached, the regime of the law is ended, just as a race is ended once the finish line, its goal, has been attained. This does not mean, of course, that the law ceases to exists or even that it has no more relevance to believers. What is suggested, rather, is that the law has ceased to have a central and determinative role in God’s plan among his people…the Mosaic Law points to Christ and is dethroned from its position of significance in mediating God’s will to his people with the coming of Christ.[13]

In other words, Moo notes the purpose of the Law was to point to Jesus—the ultimate goal. Once the goal was attained, namely Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law, its significance and place in God’s sovereign plan transformed. Yet, this does not mean that the Law dissolves. Jesus made this clear when He said, “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”[14] The significance of the Law and its current place in God’s salvation history is now different for the Christian. The biggest difference is the Mosaic Law is not currently binding to the new covenant believer.

Given this change, Christians are therefore not condemned if found in the saving grace of Christ. Romans 8:1-3 notes,

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.[15]

Paul qualifies that the Law does not condemn those who are found in Jesus. Christians, according to Paul, are liberated from the Law and are now identified in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. This means Jesus, by proxy, achieved the requirements set forth in the Law and His righteousness is credited to His followers. This is all possible because Christ brought the Law to culmination. Thus, the New Testament shows Jesus did not abolish the Law, but fulfilled it. Given this revelation, it is clear the constitutions of the Mosaic Law do not bind Christians.

Since the Law has been brought to culmination, it follows naturally that Jesus would establish a new covenant in which the Christian partakes. First, a new covenant was, in fact, foretold in the Old Testament. The Book of Jeremiah, purports a prophecy that God would make a new covenant with His people:

Behold, days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD, I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.[16]

The Mosaic Law was never intended to bring salvation to Israel.[17] In fact, it can be argued—given man’s fallen nature—the Mosaic Law was, in principle, impossible to keep. For this reason, some indicate it was envisioned to bring sinners to understand their full wretchedness and send them reeling to the Gospel.[18] “Therefore the Law,” explains the Apostle Paul, “has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.”[19] A blameless life by Jesus resulted in the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and brought forth a new covenant foretold in the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, which was revealed in the New Testament.[20] The author of Hebrews explains the transaction in the new covenant,

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.[21]

Consequently, the tutelage of the Law is no longer needed because Jesus has come and established a new covenant, which offers salvation through the free gift of grace.[22]

At this point, only questions of a practical nature remain. If the Mosaic Law “is not a direct and immediate source of guidance to the new covenant believer,”[23] how then should the Christian interact with the Mosaic Law? Why do new covenant believers apparently still religiously follow some of the Mosaic Laws, but not others?

It is true that Christians often maintain some regulations found in the Mosaic Law. Prohibitions against murder,[24] adultery,[25] or stealing[26] are all examples—but as we have observed, the Mosaic Law no longer binds the new covenant believer. Even though some moral laws in the Mosaic covenant overlap with particular moral laws Christians observe today, does not make the laws mandatory due to the Mosaic Law itself. Rather, these intersecting moral laws are followed by Christians because they are part of a superior moral law—the law of Christ—in which Christians are obligated in the new covenant.[27]

The term “law of Christ” originates in Pauline theology. Paul said, “Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.”[28] Certainly, the law of Christ is not a simple renaming of the Mosaic Law.[29] Moo contends, “Paul thought of the law of Christ as including within it the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic witness, based on his life and teaching, about what it means to reverence God in daily life.”[30] In other words, the law of Christ consists of the teachings of Jesus and the people that he trained as disciples. The teachings and commandments from Jesus and His disciples are too numerous to completely reference in this short essay, but a few examples would be Jesus’ well-known Sermon on the Mount[31] or Paul and James teaching, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[32] Interestingly, nine out of the ten commandants from the Mosaic Law are reiterated through the law of Christ—the only exception being the fourth commandment of remembering the Sabbath.[33] “Sabbath transfer theology,” explains Carson,  “has relied primarily on attempts to show the binding nature of the Decalogue as moral law.”[34] Carson says those who argue the Ten Commandments ultimately bind the Christian will often try to insist the Sabbath is a current commandment to be obeyed. However, the Scriptures attest that the Sabbath is no longer a requirement for the new covenant believer.

The fact Christians still hold almost all of the Ten Commandments causes the common misconception that the Mosaic Law is still an obligation of the Christian life. However, the Ten Commandments were not the only laws Jews were to keep in the Mosaic covenant. Hundreds of laws restricted the Jews. In fact, the Mosaic Law “consisted of 365 negative commands and 248 positive for a total of 613 commands.”[35] Therefore, it stands to reason, if Christians are required to hold the Ten Commandments in obligation to the Mosaic Law, then Christians are also bound to follow all 613 commandments in the Mosaic covenant. By simple reflection (along with the argumentation above), Christians are not guided by the morality of the Mosaic Law, which includes the Ten Commandments, in and of itself. The Mosaic Law is not the Christian’s contract with God. Rather, it was a contract made with God and the nation of Israel. All the while, Christians are under the new covenant established by Jesus.

The distinction that Christians do not hold to the morality of the Mosaic Law is important. If this distinction is misunderstood, significant theological errors quickly surface. For example, the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes the Sabbath is part of “God’s unchangeable law [that] requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath.”[36] Yet, the Mosaic Law has changed. In fact, Christ has fulfilled it:

God has given a later and further expression of His moral character and will in the person of Christ and in the teaching of His apostles, and to these, believers must be obedient, and that the earlier expression of God’s will in the Decalogue is partial and historically conditioned and binding only in so far as it is reaffirmed by its fulfillment in the life, death and resurrection of Christ and by the teaching of the New Testament writers. The major part of the Decalogue is reaffirmed in this way, but not the fourth commandment; so the Decalogue is not binding moral law.[37]

God has given His people further revelation. God made a pact with the nation of Israel in the form of the Mosaic Law,[38] but due to further revelation in Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law, it is no longer binding on Christians. The only commandments, in which the Christian is obligated, are the laws that have been reaffirmed by Jesus, His disciples and His apostles. Therefore, since the Sabbath commandment was not reiterated in the law of Christ, the Christian is not obligated to observe it in the way described in the Decalogue.

Moreover, the new covenant believer does not observe the Sabbath because it was a sign of the Old Covenant,

But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘You shall surely observe My Sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.[39]

Dr. Waltke teaches verbal agreements are often sealed with a symbol.[40] The Scriptures reveal God has a history of working this way with His people. For example, look no further than the Noahic covenant where the rainbow became an outward symbol of God’s promise not to destroy the Earth again;[41] or look at the Abrahamic covenant in which God used circumcision as the external symbol.[42] Even in the new covenant, the visible sign is the cup that symbolizes Jesus’ blood, which is the sacrifice providing the remission of sins.[43] Likewise, the Sabbath was the symbol for the Mosaic covenant that represented resting on the seventh day.[44] By observing this symbol, Israel proclaimed they were in covenant with the Creator of heaven and earth. This reflected to the nature-worshiping culture that Yahweh was the One who created all the forces of nature in only six days and rested on the seventh. Waltke claims it is important to remember when a covenant is done away with, the symbols are not kept. Christians are under the new covenant, whose symbol is the cup. Therefore, it would be inappropriate, according to Waltke, for Christians to keep the symbols of the old covenant.[45]

Any apparent inconsistency between the Christian life and the Mosaic Law is just that—an apparent inconsistency. Clearly, for the Christian the Mosaic Law is not a binding covenant. The Mosaic Law was a specific agreement made between God and the Jews. The Law was subsequently fulfilled by Jesus, who instituted a new covenant—with its own outward symbol—in which the Christian participates. Specific commandments that make up the Mosaic Law are no longer an obligation of the new covenant believer. This includes the Sabbath, which was not reiterated in the law of Christ. It is the symbol of the Mosaic Law, which ought not be practiced in light of new revelation through the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Given all the information discussed in this essay, one will now be able to discern the application of the Mosaic Law to the Christian life—especially if one were to be questioned by the President.

_____________________

Bibliography

Baylis, Albert. From Creation to the Cross: Understanding the First Half of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Carson, D.A. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Gundry, Stanely. Five Views on Law and Gospel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Keathley, J. Hampton. “The Mosaic Law: Its Function and Purpose in the New Testament.” http://bible.org/article/mosaic-law-its-function-and-purpose-new-testament (accessed December 3, 2011).

Waltke, Bruce. “Understanding the Old Testament: Lesson 5.” MP3. Institute of Theological Studies, 2006.

[1] The West Wing, “The Midterms,” episode 25, originally aired October 18, 2000, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI (accessed on December 3, 2011).

[2] All Scripture references will be from the New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise noted.

[3] Exod. 20:13.

[4] Exod. 20:14.

[5] Exod. 20:15.

[6] Exod. 20:8-11.

[7] Lev. 20:10.

[8] Lev. 11:7-8.

[9] Douglas Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses.” In Five Views on the Law and Gospel. Ed. Stanley N. Gundry. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 368.

[10] Matt. 5:17.

[11] Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” 357.

[12] Here I reference the New International Version due to its translation of the Greek word telos as culmination. See Douglas Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses.” In Five Views on the Law and Gospel. Ed. Stanley N. Gundry. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 357-359, for a detailed argument why culmination is the preferred translation.

[13] Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” 359.

[14] Matt. 5:18.

[15] Rom. 8:1-3.

[16] Jer. 31:31-33.

[17] Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” 328-335.

[18] Ibid., 328.

[19] Gal. 3:24-25

[20] Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8; 9:15; 12:24.

[21] Heb. 9:15.

[22] Eph. 2:8-9.

[23] Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” 375.

[24] Exod. 20:13.

[25] Exod. 20:14.

[26] Exod. 20:15.

[27] Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” 368.

[28] Gal. 6:2.

[29] Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” 368.

[30] Ibid., 369.

[31] Matt. 5, 6 & 7.

[32] Gal. 5:14 & James 6:2.

[33] Moo, “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” 376.

[34] Ibid., 391.

[35] J. Hampton Keathley, “The Mosaic Law: Its Function and Purpose in the New Testament.”

[36] The Seventh-day Adventist Church, “Fundamental Beliefs,” http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html (accessed December 7, 2011)

[37] D.A. Carson, D.A., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1982), 392.

[38] Exod. 19-24.

[39] Exod. 31:13, 17.

[40] Bruce Waltke, “Understanding the Old Testament: Lesson 5.” MP3. Institute of Theological Studies, 2006.

[41] Gen. 9.

[42] Gen. 12:1-3, Gen. 15:18 & Gen. 17:10.

[43] 1 Cor. 11:25

[44] Exod. 31:12-18.

[45] Bruce Waltke, “Understanding the Old Testament: Lesson 5.” MP3. Institute of Theological Studies, 2006.

The Nature of God: Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity

14 Monday May 2012

Posted by in Things that Matter

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On April 7th1844, the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith delivered what former Brigham Young University professor, Richard Bushman, called “one of the most startling and heterodox [sermons] of the nineteenth century.”[1] The sermon was delivered in honor of a late Mormon elder King Follet, who had died the previous month. The King Follett Discourse, along with many other authoritative Latter-day Saint (LDS) teachings, “[make] clear how far Smith had departed from conventional Christian theology.”[2] Still, the Prophet himself claimed, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God…”[3] This is true. The character and the nature of God are paramount to any worldview or belief system. But why are Smith’s teachings considered startling and heterodox? Is the God described by Joseph Smith not the same as the God of the Bible? Simply put, no. An analysis of God’s nature in both Mormonism and classical Christianity reveals contradictory views, which cannot possibly be considered identical.

Consequently, it will be our goal to examine the nature of God in Mormonism and classical Christianity. My task will be to illuminate three specific areas. First, a Biblical defense of Trinitarian monotheism will be presented then contrasted with the LDS belief in a plurality of Gods. Second, the LDS teaching that God has a body of flesh and bones will be measured up to the Biblical teaching of God being incorporeal. Finally, God’s nature in relation to creation will be examined. The Biblical teaching is that God created entire universe out of complete nothingness; yet the Mormon view presents God only as the organizer of existing matter; not the ultimate creator. These three teachings alone, present contradictory metaphysical views of the nature of God. Thus, after the dust has settled, it will be clear that the Mormon and classical Christian view of God are striking different. So much so, that in the end it will be apparent that Latter-day Saints and traditional Christians do not worship the same God.

To begin, let us look at the classical Christian doctrine of God’s nature; the Trinity. According to Wayne Grudem, “we may define the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.”[4] This doctrine is frequently misunderstood and is therefore often criticized by those outside orthodox Christian denominations. For example, one common objection claims that the Trinity is not God’s true nature because the word Trinity is not found in the Bible. While technically correct that the word Trinity is absent, nothing is proven by this observation. The fact that the word Trinity does not appear in the Bible is irrelevant. Traditional Christianity has not come to the conclusion that God is a triune because the word is found in the Scriptures. Rather, the belief comes from a summary of the teachings in the Bible that there is one God, who is three distinct persons, who are all fully God.[5] Likewise, the word incarnation is not found in the Bible, nevertheless, one can believe the concept because the notion that God became flesh is clearly taught in the first chapter of the Gospel of John.

This doctrine is complex and thus must be carefully explained. If misunderstood, one could think the Trinity is logically incoherent claiming three cannot be one.[6] Or one could err like Arius of Alexandria, who taught that the Son and the Holy Spirit have not always existed and were not of the same nature as the Father.[7] Just as easily, one could fall into Modalism. Modalism asserts that God is only one person, who simply appears to the viewer in distinct modes rather than persons.[8] Nevertheless, Arianism and Modalism were both condemned as heresy during the 4th century.[9] Properly understanding the doctrine of the Trinity matters; for if one blunders on the character and nature of God, they could be in danger of worshiping false or non-existent gods.

Although the doctrine of the Trinity is complicated, the solid Biblical foundation is undeniable. Space does not allow for an adequate defense of the Trinity, nevertheless a number of Biblical references revealing three essential truths will be reviewed: First, God is three persons, second each person is fully God and third there is only one God.[10]

Trinitarian doctrine imparts that God’s nature is made up of three persons. Meaning, the Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.[11] The Bible naturally teaches this concept. John 3:17[12] establishes the distinction between the Father and Son, “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” Later, in John 14:26 Jesus says, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” These two verses alone plainly show the Father is distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son. Therefore, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all distinct persons.

Demonstrating each person—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—is divine flows effortlessly the Bible. First, the Father’s divinity is validated in 1 Peter 1:2a which reads, “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…” Second, Jesus was called “My Lord and my God” by Thomas in John 20:28 and in Colossians 2:9 it says that “in [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form…” Third, the person of the Holy Spirit is equally treated as God. For example, in Acts 5:3, Peter rebuked Ananias for lying to the Holy Spirit. Later in verse 4, it is explained that Ananias did not lie “to men but to God.” Therefore, the Biblical data shows each person—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—is considered God.

Christian theism believes while there are three persons who are called God, there is only one God. This belief makes orthodox Christianity a monotheistic religion. Monotheism can be defined as “the belief in only one God.”[13] Deuteronomy 6:4 is a classic verse used to explain the Christian belief in only one God: “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!” The New Testament similarly teaches there is only one God. Take for example what Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 2:5a: “For there is one God…” Regardless if one looks in the Old Testament or the New, unmistakably the Biblically teaching is monotheism. Thus, a proper understanding of the Biblical data teaches there is only one God, the nature of this God is comprised of three persons and each of these persons is divine.

But, the question remains: Is the Trinitarian view of God the teaching of Mormonism? At first glace, one might say yes. One could point to where Joseph Smith taught, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”[14] This statement certainly resembles the orthodox teaching of the Trinity. Nevertheless, Latter-day Saints reject the notion of the Trinity. Take for example Joseph Smith’s assessment:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow–three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization…All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.[15]

Evidently Smith is, at least implicitly, denying Trinitarianism. Calling the doctrine curious, strange and monstrous certainly is not a ringing endorsement. Still, when Smith’s teachings are investigated further, it is plain to see that explicit denials of the Trinitarianism surface.

Joseph Smith’s taught of a “plurality of Gods.”[16] This surely could be the clearest example of his rejection of Trinitarianism. “Authoritative Mormon texts such as the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith’s later sermons,” explains Dr. Carl Mosser, a professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University, “explicitly teach that many Gods exist.”[17] Not only do they exist but Mosser contends Smith taught “These Gods rule over other worlds and are not objections of worship for the inhabitants of this world.”[18] In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Smith defends his conviction in the belief of multiple Gods. Contemporaries of Smith were concerned with his heterodox teachings regarding the nature of God. So, Smith looked to defend teachings against what he called “some malicious and corrupt men” who had “apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”[19] Smith’s goal was “to take up [the teaching of a plurality Gods] and lay it clearly before the people, and show [his] faith is in relation to this interesting matter.”[20] Joseph Smith explains,

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ is a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods…we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural, and who can contradict it?[21]

Smith goes on to say that the “doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine” and that it is “all over the face of the Bible.”[22] However, as we have discovered earlier, the Bible actually teaches the nature of God is monotheistic. Clearly, by no stretch of the imagination, could one consider Joseph Smith a Trinitarian monotheist.

But, how then should the fundamental teachings Smith be categorized?  On the surface, it may be natural to say Mormons are polytheists. Polytheism is “the worldview that many finite gods exist in the world.”[23] However, given what Smith later clarified to his followers, a more precise characterization is helpful. Smith taught that man ought to be concerned with only the God that is “pertaining to us.”[24] In fact, Smith said “there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one.”[25] Smith also imparted that “the heads of the Gods” at some point, “appointed one God for us” whom the Latter-day Saints are subject to.[26] This resembles henotheism, which is sort of polytheism that believes there is an ultimate god ruling over many gods; or simply a belief in one god, but also acknowledging the existence of the multiple deities.[27] Properly characterized, the Mormon view of God is henotheistic. Undoubtedly, Smith himself was not a Trinitarian monotheist nor did he teach it.

Yet, it should be noted that some modern Latter-day Saints have distanced themselves from Smith’s instruction of God’s nature. Robert Millet—a professor of religious education at Brigham Young University—explains his belief about the nature of God:

Latter-day Saints believe that while the members of the Godhead are totally and completely one—infinitely more than they are separate—there exists an ordinal relationship among them; that is, the order of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not arbitrary…Latter-day Saints do not believe in an ontological oneness within the Trinity, that is, that our Heavenly Father, our divine Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit are in fact, the same being.[28]

Here, Millet explicitly denies that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ontologically one God. This, in essence, is a denial of the Trinity. Millet conveniently does not mention whether or not other deities exist in this passage. However, he is not silent on the subject:

The Latter-day Saints, who believe in the Godhead, are no more polytheistic than are Christians who believe in the Trinity. God and Christ are the objects of our worship. Even though Mormons believe in the ultimate deification of man, I am unaware of any reference in LDS literature that speaks of worshiping any being other than the ones within the Godhead. Latter-day Saints believe in “one God” in the sense that they love and serve one Godhead, one divine presidency, each of whom possesses all of the attributes of Godhood.[29]

Putting aside Millet’s poor characterization of Trinitarian monotheism, he unmistakably holds a significantly different view of God than Joseph Smith. Regardless, both Millet and Smith fall out of orthodoxy with their views of God’s nature when compared with classical and Biblical Christianity.

According to Francis Beckwith, to say that God is incorporeal is to say that “[God] is not composed of matter or constrained by limitations all material entities are faced with. He does not occupy space and is not governed by the laws of physics.”[30] Thus, logically if God incorporeal then he must be bodiless.[31] A sound Biblical foundation can be used to ground this belief. First, in John 4:24 Jesus says, “God is spirit.” Emery Bancroft clarifies spirit as “not a refined form of matter, but an immaterial substance, [that is] invisible, uncompounded, [and] indestructible.”[32] Scripturally, this idea is refined in Luke 24:39 where Jesus tells the disciples “for a spirit does not have flesh and bones.” On the authority of Jesus alone, one could conclude that God does not have a physical body. Additionally, one can implicitly come to this conclusion by reflecting on Romans 1:20, 1 Timothy 1:17 and Colossians 1:15. Each one of these verses teach that God is invisible or unseen, which makes it highly unlikely that God would have a physical body. Moreover, God cannot be a physical being because 1 Kings 8:27 states, “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built!” This passage highlights the fact God cannot be contained by physical parameters such as earth or heaven. Lastly, since God is the creator of the entire material universe, it would be impossible for God to also be material. For if God was material, he would have had to create himself, which is absurd. Thus, when the Bible is observed it is easy to see that God certainly does not have a physical body. He is immaterial, invisible and does not consist of any matter like that of his creation.[33]

One objection to the view that God is incorporeal is a group of Biblical texts that appear to describe God in physical terms. For example, Exodus 7:5 mentions God’s hands, Numbers 6:24 tells of God’s face, Psalm 33:6 references God’s mouth, Psalm 34:15 speaks of God’s eyes and Psalm 89:10 addresses God’s arm. But if God does not have physical body, then why does his word describe himself in such a way? Emery Bancroft rationalizes that “those passages of Scripture which seem to ascribe to God the possession of bodily parts and organs, as eyes and hands, are to be regarded as anthropomorphic and symbolic.”[34] Wayne Grudem adds,

Sometimes people have been troubled by the fact that there is anthropomorphic language in Scripture. But this should not be troubling to us, for, if God is going to teach by direct experience (such as his attributes), he has to teach us in terms of what we do know. This is why all that Scripture says about God is ‘anthropomorphic’ in a broad sense (speaking of God either in human terms or in terms of creation we know). This fact does not mean that Scripture gives us wrong or misleading ideas about God, for this is the way that God has chosen to reveal himself to us, and to reveal himself truly and accurately. Nonetheless, it should caution us not take any one of these descriptions by itself and isolate it from its immediate context or from the rest of what Scripture says about God.[35]

Biblical anthropomorphic imageries of God should not lead a person to think God is embodied. Obviously, as Grudem and Bancroft point out, context is king. In other words, one needs to understand how to read and exegete the text to understand its proper meaning. Even broadly speaking, this principle is sound for all kinds of theological topics, but is paramount when studying the nature of God. Nonetheless, when accurately understood, it is clear the Bible teaches that God is incorporeal.

However, the teachings of Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints disagree with this point of view. “We believe,” explains Robert Millet “that God the Father is an exalted man, a corporeal being, a personage of flesh and bones.”[36] Millet also clarifies the LDS belief in God’s physical embodiment “is one of the most important of all truths restored in this dispensation.”[37] Where would a modern day Mormon scholar get such an idea that God has a physical body? Look no farther than the teachings of Joseph Smith in the afore mentioned King Follet Discourse,

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. This is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person image, and very form as a man.[38]

Undoubtedly, Smith had wondered far from Biblical orthodoxy with this teaching. Yet, the teaching of God’s embodiment is found in more than just the King Follet Discourse. The teaching is also found in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is a collection of revelations and pronouncements from Joseph Smith. In section 130:22 Smith writes,

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

In light of these two teachings of Smith and the proclamation from Millet, one can see that the teaching of the Mormon Church unequivocally instills that God has a physical body.

The LDS belief that God is a material and physical embodied being directly contradicts the Biblical notion of God’s spiritual nature. Moreover, this belief causes some additional problems for the Mormon worldview. If God is a material and physical being, he then of course, consists of matter. Anything physical is made up of—at a very small level—atoms and subatomic particles. The problem for the Mormon worldview is that all of the matter, atoms and subatomic particles are governed by the natural laws of the universe. Therefore, if God is made up of matter, atoms and subatomic particles, then he too is governed by the natural laws of the universe. For if the laws of the universe did not exist, then neither would the Mormon God. In other words, the laws of nature are necessary for the Mormon God to exist. This would entail that the Mormon God could not cause the natural laws to exist; because if he did, then he would cause himself to exist; which is absurd.[39]

Our final discussion point will be to look at God’s role in creation. First, classical Christian theism believes that God is the creator and sustainer of the Universe.[40] Christian orthodoxy believes that God created the universe ex nihilo—a Latin phrase for “out of nothing.”[41] To suitably understand the traditional Christian view, one will need to understand what nothingness means. “Properly understood,” clarifies noted philosopher William Lane Craig, “nothing does not mean just empty space. Nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, even space itself. As such, nothingness has literally not properties at all, since there isn’t anything to have any properties!”[42] Craig’s point is to make the distinction that God did not create the universe out of any existing matter, but literally out of nothingness. Creation ex nihilo is consistent with the Biblical text; for example, John 1:3 expounds, “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” The phrase “all things” is later mentioned in Acts 17 and Hebrews 11 to mean the entire universe.[43] Additionally, the shear logic of the verse excludes anything—including all matter and physical material of the universe—could come into being apart from Jesus.

Yet again, the Mormon view of God seriously detaches itself from orthodoxy. Mormons believe the gods did not create the universe ex nihilo;[44] rather the gods simply organized the chaotic matter that was eternally present.[45] Mormons therefore “believe that the material universe has existed forever.” Therefore, before the organization the universe was in a “state of chaos.”[46] These beliefs find their origin in the Book of Abraham—found in the Pearl of Great Price—one of the Mormon Standard Works. Abraham 3:24b states, “…[the Gods] will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;” Comparably, Abraham 4:1 reads, “And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.” In addition to the Book of Abraham, the teachings of the Prophets describe God’s role in creation. First, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught:

[W]hy [do] the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and He is within me, and comprehends more than all the world: and I will associate myself with Him…Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos–chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.[47]

Next, Brigham Young—the second LDS Prophet—taught:

To assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took this matter and organized this earth from it.[48]

The Biblical account of creation; paralleled with the Mormon traditions are irreconcilable. Clearly, as seen in the Book of Abraham and by the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, Mormonism provides a drastically different view of creation. But for the moment, let us put the Biblical heterodoxy aside to examine the LDS teaching of an eternal universe and the serious worldview issues that surface.

Dr. William Lane Craig, in his book Reasonable Faith, explains the philosophical argument for an impossibility of forming an actual infinite collection of things by adding one member after another. Basically, the argument claims it is impossible to cross an actual infinity. Meaning, if the universe was infinite, it would be philosophically impossible to actually reach the present moment in time. For example, if we were to count backward from zero infinitely, we could never reach a stopping point. In principle, we would count forever. Therefore, if we cannot find a beginning, then we could not reverse ourselves to start moving forward to get to the present moment in time, thus making an infinite universe philosophically impossible. [49]

Dr. Craig then looks at a scientific argument, which deals with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This law says that the universe is constantly losing its energy and it cannot be reversed. In other words, the universe is cooling off. Even in localized cases where there are gains in energy, such as a star forming, the net effect is actually negative for the universe as whole. This is important because if the universe is infinitely old, then the universe would have run out of energy infinitely long ago.  We know that the universe has not run out of energy, therefore the universe is must be finite.[50] Consequently, these two philosophical and scientific arguments strongly suggest the universe is finite and therefore, the Mormon worldview and their teachings do not corresponded to the way the world is purported to be. In other words, the Mormon worldview is not true.

Richard Bushman hit the nail on the head when he said the “[Joseph] Smith[‘s teachings] had departed from conventional Christian theology.”[51] The goal has been to show that God’s nature in both Mormonism and classical Christianity are contradictory and therefore cannot be considered the same God. Our discussion alone about the orthodox view of Trinitarian monotheism, compared with Mormonism’s henotheism, ought to be enough to show the divorce in the two worldviews. Yet, we also considered Mormonism’s teaching that God has a physical body contrasted with those who hold the Biblical teaching that God is incorporeal.  And finally, the discovery that the God of Mormonism is not the ultimate creator causes serious philosophical and scientific problems for the LDS worldview; juxtaposed with the classical Christian worldview of creation ex nihilo which has excellent explanatory power.

Mormons, very badly, want to be considered Christians. Deep offense is taken if a Mormon was told he or she is not a Christian. In fact, an official LDS websites has the following questions regarding the subject:

Why would anyone say such a thing? Isn’t the name of our church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not worship Christ? Is not the Book of Mormon another testament of Jesus Christ? How could anyone seriously doubt that Latter-day Saints are Christians?[52]

These questions seem disingenuous. The simple fact that a person claims to be something does not make it true they are such a thing. This is obvious. Dr. Carl Mosser writes, “In continuity with earliest Christianity, the tradition of Christian orthodoxy has always insisted that devotion to Christ is not sufficient in itself to qualify a religious movement as authentically Christian.”[53] If the definition of being a Christian were simply insisting devotion to Jesus, then yes, Mormonism and Christianity would be identical. But, given the data presented; could one honestly say the Mormon view of the nature of God is the exact same as the orthodox Christian view of God? No. Mormonism is not Christianity and Christianity is not Mormonism.


Bibliography

Bancroft, Emery. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Barney, Kevin. “Do We Have a Mother in Heaven?” http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/MotherInHeaven.pdf  (accessed on October 28th, 2011).

Beckwith, Francis, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen. The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Bickel, Bruce and Stan Jantz. World Religions and Cults 101. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2002.

Bickmore, Barry. “Does the Book of Mormon Teach Mainstream Trinitarianism or Modalism?”

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/BoMTrin.pdf (accessed on October 28th, 2011).

Bushman, Richard Lyman. Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton: Crossway, 2008.

Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

Geisler, Norman, Francis Beckwith, Ron Rhodes, et el., The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1998.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Martin, Walter. The Kingdom of the Cults. Edited by Hank Hanegraaff. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997.

Mather, George, Larry Nichols and Alvin Schmidt. Encyclopedia Dictionary of Cults, Sects and World Religions. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

McDermott, Gerald and Robert Millet. Claiming Christ: A Mormon—Evangelical Debate. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007.

Millet, Robert. “What We Believe.” http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=2575 (accessed on October 28th, 2011).

Mosser, Carl and Paul Owen. “Mormonism.” In To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, edited by Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, 324-349. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Mosser, Carl. “Classifying Mormon Theism.” (accessed from Blackboard on October 28th, 2011).

Reynolds, Noel. “Reason and Revelation” http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6805 (accessed November 15, 2011)

Robinson, Stephen. “Are Mormons Christians” http://lds.org/new-era/1998/05/are-mormons-christians?lang=eng (accessed November 15, 2011)

Shelley, Bruce. Church History in Plain Language. 3rd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008.

Smith, Joseph. “The King Follet Discourse” http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm#* (accessed October 28, 2011).

Smith, Joseph. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Joseph-Smith/Teachings/ (accessed November 9th, 2011)

Young, Brigham. Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church. http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-14/ (accessed November 9th, 2011)

[1] Richard Bushman, Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 71.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 6.

[4] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 226.

[5] Ibid., 226-227.

[6] This is one objection made by Robert Millet, a Mormon scholar, in Claiming Christ: A Mormon—Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007), 80.

[7] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 243.

[8] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 242; Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 492.

[9] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language. 3rd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), 99-103. Arianism was condemned at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Modalism (also known as Sabellianism because of its origins with a teacher named Sabellius) was most prominently rejected by Athanasius of Alexandria who defended of the theology of the Council of Nicea.

[10] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 231.

[11] Ibid.

[12] All quotations from the Bible will be taken from the New American Standard Bible, unless otherwise noted.

[13] George Mather, Larry Nichols and Alvin Schmidt, Encyclopedia Dictionary of Cults, Sects and World Religions 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 424.

[14] Joseph Smith, The Pearl of Great Price: Articles of Faith, 1:1.

[15] Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 370.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Carl Mosser, “Classifying Mormon Theism”.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 370.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 370.

[23] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 602.

[24] Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 370.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 316.

[28] Gerald McDermott and Robert Millet, Claiming Christ: A Mormon—Evangelical Debate (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007), 79.

[29] Robert Millet, The Mormon Faith: A New Look at Christianity. As quoted from “http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/polytheism.htm”

[30] Francis Beckwith, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 196.

[31] Francis Beckwith, The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), 52.

[32] Bancroft, Christian Theology, 71.

[33] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 188.

[34] Bancroft, Christian Theology, 71.

[35] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 188.

[36] Robert Millet, “What We Believe”

[37] Ibid.

[38] Joseph Smith, “The King Follet Discourse”

[39] Stephen Parrish and Carl Mosser, The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 204-205.

[40] Beckwith, The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism, 53.

[41] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 262-263.

[42] William Lane Craig. On Guard (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010), 76.

[43] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 263.

[44] Noel Reynolds, “Reason and Revelation”
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6805

[45] Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 350.

[46] Parrish and Mosser, The New Mormon Challenge, 201.

[47] Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section 6, 350.

[48] Brigham Young, The Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, 116.

[49] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 120.

[50] Ibid., 140-142.

[51] Bushman, Mormonism, 71.

[52] Stephen Robinson, “Are Mormons Christians” http://lds.org/new-era/1998/05/are-mormons-christians?lang=eng

[53] Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, “Mormonism” in To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, edited by Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, 324-349. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 331.

Moral Subjectivism & C.S. Lewis

12 Saturday May 2012

Posted by in Insights from Clive Staples, Things that Matter

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

I cannot remember a time when I denied the existence of God. My earliest memories include parental teachings about the truths of Christianity. My parents implicitly taught me that the Christian worldview entails a belief in objective morality. By objective morality I mean statements about morality are, in fact, stating truths about the moral action itself rather than about any individual’s personal taste or preferences. However, this is not the prevailing view of morality in many parts of the world today. Moral subjectivism—or more commonly know as moral relativism—is rampant and has a stronghold in mainstream culture. Moral subjectivism is the view that statements regarding morality are declaring truths about personal preferences, tastes or circumstances. Additionally, moral subjectivism holds that morality arises within individuals, not from an objective or transcendent standard.

Even though my parents presented the truth of objective morality during my developmental years, I became influenced by my culture. In fact—although I was still a deeply committed Christian—by the time I was a senior in college I fell into error by explaining morality in subjectivist terms.

One can understand my previous view by a conversation I once had with my girlfriend (who is now my wife) about the nature of morality. At one point in the conversation, my girlfriend inquired about how I understood morality. I replied morality was, “relative to each person.” As a dedicated Christian—who understood the truth of objective morality—she became alarmed and probed for the reasons I believed this to be true. I defended my (once held) view by presenting various understandings of modesty from assorted cultures. I said, “some cultures define modesty very liberally; some do not wear clothes at all! Then contrast those with cultures in which its immodest to even have an uncovered ankle.” This to me was evidence that morality was subjective.

Luckily, around this time, I began to read the writings of C.S. Lewis. Lewis was a moral objectivist and in many of his writings gave arguments defending moral objectivism. C.S. Lewis’ arguments against moral relativism were convincing and foundational in my understanding of the reality of moral objectivism. This post will examine Lewis’ arguments for what he called—among other names—the Moral Law. We will assess Lewis’ contentions that: all people are conscious of the Moral Law, this Moral Law is independent of any cultural differences, the Moral Law is more than mere personal taste or natural instinct. Finally, after this examination, it will be clear that the Moral Law cannot be subjective, but rather objective. Consequently, moral relativism must be false. All together we will see how Lewis’ resolution to the nature of morality was extremely helpful to a struggle in my personal faith development.

We would be hard-pressed to complete a single day without encountering or observing some type of disagreement or quarrelling. Lewis said, “quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong.”[1] Yet, when men take exception with the actions of others, they are not simply expressing their own personal preferences or tastes; the man is actually “appealing to some type of standard of behaviour [sic] which he expects the other man to know about.”[2] What is interesting is that the second man knows about this standard as well. Lewis rationalizes that the second man does not simply reject the standard out of hand, but rather tries to justify his behavior by telling the first man he did not actually violate it.[3] By this analysis, Lewis argues all men—whether “Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, [or] Oriental alike”[4]—are aware of this standard. Lewis called this standard the Law of Nature,[5] Law of Human Nature,[6] Moral Law,[7] Rule of Decent Behaviour [sic],[8] or the Tao.[9] Principally, Lewis contends the Tao is the ultimate standard of “Right and Wrong,”[10] which all men come to agree upon.

While discussing the Tao, it is important to establish that it is autonomous of any cultural variations. According to Lewis, the idea that cultural behaviors differ so substantially—that no common thread is visible—is “a good, solid, resounding lie.”[11] Lewis was not afraid to admit some cultures appear to have dissimilar understandings of conventional social behaviors.[12] Yet these differences, according to Lewis, “never amounted to anything like a total difference.”[13] In fact, Lewis compiled a list of moral values—from which various cultures all agreed upon—and placed them side-by-side to give an illustration of the objectivity of the Tao.[14]

However, even if there were differences, this would not be the Achilles heel for the Tao. To understand my point, we need only to reflect back to the time when working algebra problems in high school. Many times, two students would come up with different answers for the same algebra problem. Does this mean there is no correct, objective answer? Of course not! One (or perhaps both) of the students is merely mistaken. The same is true of morality. Simply because two people—or cultures—disagree about a moral value, does not mean there is not a right (or objective) answer. Disagreement does not support subjectivism.

Next, we shall discuss Lewis’ arguments that the Tao is more than mere personal taste or natural instinct. First, let us look at personal taste; “true for you, but not for me” is a common idiom of modern society. However, even though people may claim this phrase as true, they rarely live by it. Lewis said, “whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later.”[15] What Lewis means is that a person may claim morality is only true depending on the person’s personal taste, however as soon as someone steals his wallet for example, this same person appeals that the action was really wrong, not that he just did not like it. This person cannot live out their worldview without at some point—even implicitly—appealing to the Tao.

In my experience, the second most common objection to the reality of the objectivity of the Moral Law is the idea it originates from “herd instinct.”[16] Lewis brilliantly helped me come to understand why natural instinct cannot account for the Tao. To illustrate this point, Lewis presents a case where we hear a cry for help from a person in danger. Within us, two distinctive desires arise: the first is our herd instinct, which would be to help the man.  The other is for self-preservation, which is to leave the man alone, and stay out of danger our self.[17] The problem is that neither of these desires tells us what we ought to do. And this is where Lewis reminds us of the third impulse which judges between the two previous desires. This impulse tells us we ought to help the man or that helping the man is the right thing to do. Clearly, this third compulsion cannot be either of the first two desires, but rather a transcendent impulse as it stands over and above to be the objective arbiter. A desire to act out a particular instinct is much different than what one ought to do.

Lewis continues by explaining that natural desires—in and of themselves—are neither good nor bad. This is evident as soon as one takes a certain natural desire and sets it up as the one desire, which you will follow, no matter what.[18] Doing this could be very hazardous.  At one point or another, there will be a situation where following this instinct comes up against what you would have otherwise considered wrong. Lewis provides the example of maternal love. This is a good instinct to have, but at times, needs to be restrained or it “will lead to unfairness towards other people’s children.”[19] Therefore, Lewis demonstrates that a transcendent authority of what ought to do is necessary, which is only possible with an objective Moral Law.

Therefore, Lewis gives a solid and convincing argument that all men are aware of a transcendent standard of right and wrong, which he famously called the Tao. Attempts to explain away the objectivity of this self evident Moral Law are lacking. We have seen that cultural differences do nothing to undermine the Tao and that it is much more significant than mere personal taste or natural instinct. After our examination the only conclusion, which follows, is that morality is not subjective, but rather objective. Moral relativism is false.

Shortly after reading Lewis, I was forced to do one of the cruelest moral obligations known to man: admit I was wrong. The depth of Lewis’ arguments forced me to abandon any belief in subjective morality. Luckily, this was not foreign to my Christian worldview and the transition was quite smooth, that is, except for the fact that my wife will now and forever be able to say: “you were wrong.”

[1] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 4.

[2] Ibid., 3.

[3] Ibid.

[4] C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 18.

[5] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 5.

[6] Ibid., 9.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 9.

[9] Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 18.

[10] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 6.

[11] C. S. Lewis, “The Poison of Subjectivism,” in Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 77.

[12] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 5.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 83-101.

[15] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 6.

[16] Ibid., 7.

[17] Ibid., 9.

[18] Ibid., 11.

[19] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 11.

Materialism & CS Lewis

12 Saturday May 2012

Posted by in Insights from Clive Staples, Things that Matter

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

In their book, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Dr. J.P. Moreland and Dr. William Lane Craig define materialism as “the view that the only substances that exist are material substances.”[1] In other words, Moreland and Craig are describing materialism as the belief that the only things that exist are things comprised of physical matter. Countless modernist ascribe to this worldview by incorrectly believing matter is the only thing that exists metaphysically. Consequently, these same people also believe the immaterial and supernatural worldviews are fictitious. Due to the vibrant imagery of the supernatural found in C.S. Lewis’ writings, one may find it difficult to grasp that during a period of his upbringing, Lewis believed in the metaphysical philosophy of materialism.[2] However, Lewis eventually—through careful reflection and the realization that there were many learned people who rejected materialism[3]—changed his metaphysical viewpoint on reality. In fact, after his conversion to theism, Lewis articulated a powerful argument against the materialistic worldview. C.S. Lewis’ argument from rationality devastates the philosophy of materialism. The aim of this post is to examine C.S. Lewis’ thought regarding the problem of materialism by studying Lewis’ argument from rationality.

The initial premise to Lewis’ argument from rationality is this: for a proposition to be considered true, false or meaningful, then said proposition must have a rational source.  Lewis argues, “if the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too.”[4] Lewis contends if materialism is true, then the entire universe—and of course all of the matter within it—is merely “accidental by-products of the movement of atoms.”[5] Lewis claims if materialism is true, then all things that exist—including thoughts and propositions—will find its foundational origins in nothing more than nonsensical atomic collisions. Clearly, there is nothing rational about random and accidental natural processes. Thus, Lewis’ first premise is seamless: if materialism is true, then propositions and thoughts cannot be considered rational, because their ontology is irrational.

The second premise of Lewis’ argument claims that no physical matter—or collection of solely material objects—can institute any kind of rational thought. To prove his point, Lewis cleverly, applies this materialistic philosophy to organic life and human thought. Lewis undoubtedly understood that materialism was synonymous with physicalism—the view that “human beings [are] completely physical.”[6] Physicalism asserts there is no such thing as the soul or an immaterial self. Thus, it would be impossible for a person to create thoughts independent of the physical body. Given the all-inclusive philosophy of materialism and physicalism, it would also apply to all parts of the body—specifically the brain. Therefore, even if man’s thoughts are complex (and appear to be rational), on the materialistic worldview, these thoughts are nothing more than a collection of accidental molecular and atomic collisions. At this point, Lewis begins to drive the dagger of doubt into materialism.

Lewis draws on the intuition that inadvertent by-products of atomic collisions do not have the explanatory power to justify rational thinking. Lewis explains the materialist’s conundrum,

If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true?[7]

As mentioned earlier, materialism entails everything in the universe—including thoughts—are random and accidental processes. Here Lewis unveils the serious repercussions, which surface for holding to this worldview. The quote clarifies that if materialism is true, then “all our present thoughts are mere accidents.”[8] Skillfully, Lewis rationalizes that this would also include the thoughts of the person who believes materialism is convincing. Here, Lewis supports the third premise of his argument: propositions made in a materialistic worldview would be mere accidental by-products and one would have no reason to believe them as true.

Let us examine Lewis’ claim for a brief moment. Consider for the sake of argument that a man’s thoughts are nothing more than physical matter, which resulted from random, and accidental means. What could we anticipate of this man’s thoughts? In principle, if the thought was material, a scientist could tell how much it weighed, where it was located or its dimensional size. However, one thing the scientist could not determine is if the man’s thoughts are true or false. Moreover, if thoughts are simply physical matter, it is no different than any other natural law. Take for example the law of gravity; scientists do not claim gravity to true of false, but simply a law that exists.

Consequently, Lewis claims that if our thoughts are purely material, it is nonsensical to claim them as either true or false. To prove his point, Lewis specifically highlights the following proposition: the philosophy of materialism is true. Even deprived of much reflection, one can begin to see the underlying problem. Namely, if materialism is true, then all thoughts and rational are neither true nor false, they are simply accidental by-products of colliding atoms. Thus, according to materialism, if thoughts are not true or false, why ought one think that the proposition the philosophy of materialism is true is actually factual? Lewis accurately explains there is “no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give [us] a correct account of all the other accidents.”[9] In other words, for any worldview to be true, it must account for rational thinking. Problematically, materialism does not.

The idea that knowledge depends on valid reasoning is an overarching theme Lewis reflects upon. In his book Miracles, Lewis explains,

All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really ‘must’ be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.[10]

If our thoughts are merely a feeling in our own brain and not an external proposition, which is either true or false; then it is impossible for anyone to have knowledge. However, for the sciences to operate, actual reasoning must take place. Brilliantly, Lewis attacks materialism by saying, “it follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight.[11] Consequently, if the materialistic account of the universe is correct, then the rational thought “materialism is true” would not a real insight by its own definition. Therefore, Lewis correctly asserts that the materialist claims are, at their core, self-refuting.[12] Thus, Lewis establishes the fourth premise to his argument: human reasoning is necessary for knowledge and cannot simply be the by-product of a purely materialistic process.

Therefore, we can summarize Lewis’ thought regarding the problem of materialism by reviewing his argument from rationality. First, for a proposition to be considered true, false or even relevant, then this proposition must have a rational foundation. Lewis demonstrated that if materialism were true, then all things that exist—including thoughts—would find its most basic origins in nothing more than nonsensical atomic collisions. Furthermore, Lewis argued physical matter alone could not constitute any kind of rational thought. Next, Lewis explained how propositions that are merely accidental by-products, have no reason to be believed as true or false. Subsequently, Lewis substantiates that human reasoning is necessary for any kind of scientific knowledge—including that which is needed to establish a materialistic philosophy—and thus materialism is essentially self-refuting. Hence, the conclusion of Lewis’ argument must follow that since rationality exists, materialism is false. By examining Lewis thoughts on materialism—specifically his argument from rationality—this post has demonstrated that Lewis was correct in determining that materialism is false.

Lewis explains in his autobiography the paramount reason he was a materialist was not based on scientific inquiry or after years of study but actually due to a dire need for independence. Lewis understood that in order to keep his atheistic worldview, he must hold onto materialism. For atheism, materialism is the only game in town. Lewis did not want God looking over his shoulder and causing “interference.”[13] However, as soon as Lewis started honestly reflecting on the workings of materialistic philosophy, he realized it did not match what he knew to be true of reality. Yet, Lewis ultimately was not committed to being comfortable, for he “didn’t go to religion to make [him] happy,”[14] but rather to follow what was true.

[1] William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 229.

[2] C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life (Orlando: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 1955), 165-181.

[3] Ibid., 175.

[4] C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), 52.

[5] Lewis, God in the Dock, 52.

[6] Craig and Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 229.

[7] Lewis, God in the Dock, 52.

[8] Lewis, God in the Dock, 52.

[9] Lewis, God in the Dock, 52-53.

[10] C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: HarperCollins, 2002), 218.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Lewis, Surprised by Joy, 172.

[14] Lewis, God in the Dock, 58.

Religion and Happiness

08 Tuesday May 2012

Posted by in Insights from Clive Staples

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Which of the religions of the world gives to its followers the greatest happiness? While it lasts, the religion of worshiping oneself is the best.

I have an elderly acquaintance of about eighty, who has lived a life of unbroken selfishness and self-admiration from the earliest years, and is, more or less, I regret to say, one of the happieset men I know. From the moral point of view it is very difficult! I am not approaching the questions from that angle. As you perhaps know, I haven’t always been a Christian. I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.

-CS Lewis (God in the Dock)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.