On the Arian Controversy

17 Monday Dec 2012

Posted by allston10 in Things that Matter

Tags

4th Century, Alister McGrath, Arianism, Arianism heretical, Arius, Arius' songs, Athanasius, Battle of Milvian Bridge, Begotten not made, Bruce Shelley, Chi Rho, Christ, Christianity, Constantine, Constantine's conversion, Constantine's vision, Council of Nicea, Diocletian, Ecumenical council, Eusebius, God of very God, Heresy, Heterodox, homoiousios, homoousios, Identity of Jesus, Idolatry, Is Jesus God, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus is God, Milvian bridge, Nicene Creed, one substance with the Father, Refutation of Arianism, Salvation, Savior, the blessing of heresy, Trinity

Throughout the history of the Christian church, there have been many events, which have decisively shaped the future of Christianity. The Protestant Reformation and the Great Schism are a few which immediately come to mind. While these events are certainly important, there was a controversy in the early 4^th century, which rests at the very foundation of the Christian faith. This controversy pondered the proper understanding of the nature and identity of Jesus of Nazareth. Historians refer to this episode as the Arian controversy. The historical events stemming from the Arian controversy protected the church from a false view of the nature of Christ. The aim of this paper is explore the Arian controversy by investigating the events which lead up this debate, explaining what Arianism is and what it teaches, then clarifying why Arianism is a false understanding of Jesus’ nature, and finally, reporting on the historical event results which followed.

Historical Background

Within the pages of history is recorded an event which changed Christianity, and its ability to influence the world years to come. Until the time of Constantine, the Christian church and the state had an ever changing, and oftentimes, arduous relationship. In fact, just years before Constantine, under the emperor Diocletian, tremendous persecution rang out against the Christians. In an effort to run the administration of his empire more efficiently, Diocletian divided his kingdom into four territories. As divine providence would have it, Constantius Chlorus—the father of Constantine—governed one of these territories. Eventually, Constantine won many key battles against his rivals, the most important of which, at least for the Christian church, was the battle of Milvian Bridge.[1]

Constantine

Before the battle of Milvian Bridge, church historian Eusebius of Caesarea reports that Constantine took tome to pray and while doing so saw a vision. In the vision Constantine claimed,

He saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, about the sun, and an inscription, CONQUER BY THIS attached to it…Then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in the all engagements with his enemies.[2]

According to Dowley, Constantine then took the Chi and Rho—the first two initials of the Greek rendering of the name of Christ—which he had seen in his vision, and placed it on the shields of his soldiers.[3] Constantine was victorious at the battle of Milvian Bridge. He deemed his success a confirmation that his vision was truly from God and the Christian religion was superior among all others.[4]

Chi Rho

Shelley explains how many historians question whether Constantine’s conversion was genuine, or simply a political scheme. Regardless, after his purported vision, Constantine favored Christianity publicly, generously helping with the construction of church buildings, was baptized and instituted many freedoms to Christian ministers that they previously had not enjoyed.[5] A byproduct of this newfound religious freedom allowed for theological debate, especially in terms of the true identity of the nature of Jesus.

“One of the greatest challenges,” explains Alister McGrath, “faced by the early church was the weaving together of the threads of the New Testament witness to the identity of Jesus of Nazareth into a coherent theological tapestry.”[6] Understandably, this must have been a difficult task. Whether the Christian was Jewish or Gentile, the main question which rose out of the newfound religious freedom, was the identity of Jesus. Through the theological debates, many diverse attempts to categorize Jesus’ identity developed. Yet, one overarching theme was clear; the early church would have nothing to do with Jesus merely being “God’s deputy.”[7] In other words, the early church rejected even the most honoring ways of categorizing Christ’s identity within the motif of Jesus simply as God’s helper. Eventually, the early church realized that they would have to put aside all known philosophies and religious prototypes, as none would suffice.[8] It was at this time, the central doctrine of the Incarnation, “the act of God the Son whereby he took to himself a human nature,”[9] took hold. Even so, the notion of Incarnation was not without its opposition. Many were troubled by apparent philosophical difficulties within this doctrine. Ultimately, the discussion came to a head in the early 4^th century by an Egyptian movement called Arianism.

What is Arianism? What Does It Teach?

Arianism is best described as the theological teachings of a 4^th century Alexandrian presbyter named Arius. Arius—who lived from 250 A.D. – 336 A.D.—was an influential teacher, responsible for the Baucalis—one of the twelve churches in Alexandria.[10] Dowley explains Arius was a very “persuasive preacher, with a following of clergy and ascetics.”[11] Many sources claim Arius was a clever marketer; presenting his teachings in popular songs and jingles.[12] Below is a tune, which according to Knoll, was sung by Arius while defending his views at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.:

The uncreated God has made the Son

A beginning of things created,

Any by adoption has God made the Son

Into an advancement of himself.

Yet the Son’s substance is

Removed from the substance of the Father:

The Son is not equal to the Father,

Nor does he share the same substance.

God is the all-wise Father,

And the Son is the teacher of his mysteries.

The members of the Holy Trinity

Share unequal glories.[13]

According to McGrath and Knoll, only fragments and quotations of Arius’ teachings are available today. Nonetheless, historians are confident Arius’ essential teachings are not in question.[14] These fundamental teachings of Arius can be summed up in three statements. First, Arius alleged Jesus and the Father do not have the same substance. Second, Arius taught the Father, at a certain point in history, created Jesus. And third, Arius believed there was a time when Jesus did not exist.[15] Let us examine Arius’ reasons for teaching these three beliefs about the identity of Christ.

Arius

Dowley, Erickson and Knoll defend that Arius claimed his teachings were grounded in Biblical text.[16] For example, Arius used Scripture passages which imply that Jesus was a creature of sorts,[17] the Father is described as the only true God,[18] the Son was somehow inferior to the Father[19] and the Son contained such imperfections as weakness, ignorance or suffering.[20] Although Arius claimed to hold Jesus in the highest regard of all created beings, the sum effect of his teachings led Arius, and his followers, to a diminished status of the Christ to a lesser type of deity.

A Refutation of Arianism

Did Arius’ beliefs represent the proper Biblical understanding of the nature of Christ? Space does not allow for a full critique of Arius’ views, however, next we will look at two significant Biblical texts used by Arian teachers to defend their position: Proverbs 8:22 and Colossians 1:15.

Arius argued Jesus was a created being from Proverbs 8:22 which reads, “The Lord made me, at the beginning of His creation before His works of long ago.”[21] Considering Jesus is identified as God’s wisdom in other areas of Scripture,[22] and Proverbs chapter 8 is speaking of wisdom, Arians claim the Father created wisdom (or as Arians would argue, Jesus) at the beginning of his creation. Or to put it simply, God created Jesus. However, Grudem argues the commonly used Hebrew word for to create is bara. The problem for Arians is that bara is not used in verse 22. Instead, the word used is qanah. According to Grudem, qanah is used 84 times in the Old Testament and is always translated to get or acquire.[23] Therefore, the Arian claim that this verse is decisively teaching Jesus, the personification of wisdom, was created is, at the least inadequate, if not overtly false.

A second proof text used by Arians is Colossians 1:15, “[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.”[24] Indeed one can appreciate how Arius and his followers took this verse as confirmation for their view that Jesus was a created being. At first blush, the text says Jesus was the firstborn, implying his creation. However, this is surely a shallow and superficial position considering the fullness of the Biblical text. By the context of the passage, a careful reader can surmise that the reference to firstborn is a metaphor for privilege or rank. Moreover, even without the context of the entirety of the Colossians passage, one can make this determination from the whole of Biblical teaching on the meaning of firstborn.

If we look in the Psalms where there is discussion of the Davidic Covenant we can see David is called, “My Firstborn, the greatest of the kings of the earth.”[25] However, David was not the first King of Israel appointed by God; Saul was.[26] Consequently, God was speaking of David in a positional sense, rather than a chronological sense. The same is true in Exodus when Israel is called God’s firstborn, “…this is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son.”[27] Again, Israel was not the firstborn in any chronological sense, but rather in a sense regarding rights and privilege. Therefore, a proper understanding of the term firstborn Colossians 1:15 is of positional rank and right of leadership or authority, rather than of a created chronological understanding.

The use of these Biblical proof texts to defend a position highlights the importance of proper hermeneutics. One cannot, and should not, take a few verses to put together a systematic theology. Rather, one needs to examine the entirety of Scripture in order to mesh together the complete understanding of any doctrine. Without this, one could easily fall into error, just as the Arians did.

Athanasius’ Arguments Against Arius

One of the great Christian apologists from Arius’ time was Athanasius of Alexandria. Athanasius lived from 296 A.D.—373 A.D. and was a key figure in defending orthodoxy from the Arian heresy. Athanasius used two brilliant arguments against the consistency of the Arian view. First, Athanasius argued God is the only one who can save sinners. In other words, Athanasius maintained in order for a person to interrupt the power of sin in their life, and achieve salvation from Christ, God would have to be the active agent. Athanasius’ main point was that God and God alone would have to be responsible for this change. No created being could cause salvation for another creature. As McGrath eloquently portrays, “if Christ is not God, he is part of the problem, not its solution.”[28]

St. Athanasius

Athanasius cleverly underscored the teaching of the Bible is that Jesus is the savior of the world. According to McGrath, Arius was “firmly committed to the idea that Christ was the savior of humanity.”[29] Yet as discussed above, Athanasius stressed the fact that only God could be the savior. Therefore, the tension in the Arian view is well defined. If Christ is the savior, then in order for Christ to save creatures, he cannot be a created being himself; for only God can save sinners. In other words, Arius has left himself with only two options: either accept that Jesus is God and responsible for saving the world, or admit that Jesus cannot redeem humanity. Thus, Arius’ views were at best inconsistent and at worse incoherent or illogical.

The second problem with Arianism, brought to light by Athanasius, was the reality that since the days of the New Testament itself, Christians have been praying to and worshiping Jesus. If Arius’ views regarding Jesus as merely a creature were correct, then certainly Christians would be guilty of worshiping a creature instead of God. This of course would imply that Christians were guilty of the deplorable sin of idolatry, the worship of anything that is not God. There is no doubt the teaching of Scripture, which Arius agreed with, deemed idolatry a serious sin. Therefore, Arius again was caught in the inconsistencies in his view of Christ’s nature. Arius was either to stop the practice of praying to and worshiping Jesus, or else consider himself an idolater. According to McGrath, Arius didn’t have a problem with those who worshiped Jesus, but would not agree with Athanasius’ conclusion.[30]

Historical Results

There is little doubt that the emperor Constantine was unsettled by the Arian controversy. According to Gwatkin, Constantine was not disturbed religiously by the debate, but rather more concerned with the potential political ramifications. Constantine recognized Egypt was a difficult region to rule in-and-of itself. He knew that a theological controversy—by which meager songs were causing deadly fights—was potentially an issue that could tear his empire apart.[31] Consequently, Constantine—who was desperately trying to be a unifying imperial influence—came to realize that his newfound religion was not unified.[32] Therefore, Constantine knew he needed to take care of this schism quickly. Perhaps not fully understanding the nature of the debate, Constantine first believed that this controversy “seemed a mere affair of words”[33] and could be settle easily if the differing parities could air out their differences together, in person. Accordingly in 325 A.D., Constantine called an ecumenical council to be held in his imperial palace at Nicaea in Asia Minor.[34]

Approximately 300 bishops, with an imperial escort, attended the council at the emperor’s request. This was welcomed change considering some of the bishops themselves were physically maimed from persecution just years earlier. Constantine himself sat in the middle of the conference gallery and presided over the initial meetings. “[Constantine] spoke briefly to the churchmen,” records Shelley, “reminding them that they must come to some agreement on the questions that divided them. Division in the church, he said, was worse than war.”[35]

Council of Nicea

The Arian doctrines were quickly declared heretical. Arius took the stand and was “courageous enough to state his views in the most uncompromising terms.”[36] Dowley explains that Arius was “condemned by his own words.”[37] Even with the Arian views quickly being considered error, much debate continued for days regarding a statement of belief from the council’s decision. To ensure the Arian blunder would be eliminated, the council produced a statement of orthodoxy. We have come to call this statement the Nicene Creed. Although space does not allow for a complete quotation of the creed, there are four significant assertions directed at the Arian heresy worth highlighting.

First, the Nicene Creed states Christ was “God of very God,”[38] emphasizing that Jesus was truly God and nothing less. Second, Christ was of “one substance with the Father,”[39] stressing the unity of the Son with the Father. Third, Christ was “begotten, not made”[40] highlighting that Jesus was never created. And fourth, that Christ took on a human nature “for us men and for our salvation.”[41] This of course was underscoring the importance which Athanasius argued that only God could bring salvation to man.[42] Of the estimated 300 bishops in attendance, only two, along with Arius, refused to signed the their names with agreement. This of course was a great success and sign of ecumenical unity!

Unfortunately, even with the superb agreement flowing out of the Council of Nicea, the Arian controversy did not, and has not gone away. Shortly following the council, a great controversy arose regarding the statement that Christ was homoousios (homo-, meaning same and -ousia meaning substance) or of one substance with the Father. This is because some asserted the Greek word that ought to be use is homoiousios. This word means of similar substance (homoi- meaning similar and –ousia meaning substance). The only grammatical difference between these two words is the i, or in Greek what is called the iota. But theologically the difference is much more than a single iota; it is vital! Knoll explains, “in the end, homoousios [of one substance] won out because it reinforced as unequivocally as possible the fact that Christ was truly ‘very God of very God.”[43]

Even today Arianism has not died out. In fact, if you have ever received a knock at your door from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, you have spoken with a few modern day Arians. Although the Jehovah’s Witnesses may not realize many of their essential doctrines agree with the 4^th century heretic Arius, the facts are undeniable. Jehovah’s Witnesses resurrect the old Arian heresy by teaching, among other things, that Christ is a created being and the Son is merely a lesser god, not Jehovah God.[44]

While there is certainly more that could be said regarding the Arian controversy, my exploration of the historical events stemming from the Arian controversy and how they protected the church from a false view of the nature of Christ is complete. By investigating the events, which lead up this debate, including Constantine’s conversion and rise to emperor, we saw how a fresh religious tolerance toward Christianity was fertile ground for theological debate. This tolerance allowed a man named Arius to begin teaching heretical doctrines regarding Jesus as a created being and not equal to the Father, among other things. Yet, after taking a closer look at Arius’ reasons for teaching these doctrines, we discovered each was insufficient for a justified belief. Additionally, the great Christian apologist Athanasius demonstrated that Arius’ views were at their least inconsistent, and at worst illogical. Ultimately, we saw that Arianism is a false understanding of the nature of Jesus. Although there was great celebration that resulted form the significant agreement in the Council of Nicea, we explored how even the smallest iota (literally) caused more dialogue on the true nature of Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, we briefly identified a well-known religious group, which still holds to many Arian doctrines today.

Arianism was not the first heretical movement in the Christian church. There have been some since and the New Testament promises that there will be more in the future. Although one never wishes for believers to fall into heresy, Carl Mosser argues that heresy can often be a blessing. Mosser writes:

When one surveys the history of Christian theology, it quickly becomes evident that many of the greatest theological insights occur in the course of responding to heterodox doctrines…The result—the blessing of heresy, one might say—was more accurate and profound understanding of the nature of God and our salvation.[45]

Mosser hits the nail on the head. Many of our greatest theological understandings have been related to a reaction to a heresy or heterodox movement. For example, the Judaizers provided St. Paul the opportunity to develop the doctrine of justification by faith. And certainly the Arian controversy provided 4^th century theologians, such as Athanasius and the bishops at the Council of Nicea to be very fruitful in their determination on what the Scriptures have to say about the true identity and nature of Jesus of Nazareth.

Bibliography

Athanasius. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

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

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.

Dowley, Tim. Introduction to the History of Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.

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

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

Gwatkin, Henry Melvill. The Arian Controversy. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1908.

Laing, Stefana. “Ancient Heresies Repackaged.” REASONS Conference Lecture. Faith Bible Church, The Woodlands, TX, October 13, 2012.

Martin, Walter. Jehovah’s Witnesses. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1957.

McGrath, Alister. Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. New York: HarperOne, 2009.

Noll, Mark. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.

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

[1] Mark Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000), 49.

[2] As quoted in, Noll, Turning Points, 50.

[3] Tim Dowley, Introduction to the History of Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 139.

[4] Bruce Shelly, Church History in Plain Language (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), 94.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Alister McGrath, Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 140.

[7] McGrath, Heresy, 141.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 543.

[10] Dowley, Introduction to the History of Christianity, 164.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.; Noll, Turning Points, 52-53; Shelly, Church History in Plain Language, 100-101.

[13] Quote in Noll, Turning Points, 52.

[14] Ibid.; McGrath, Heresy, 143.

[15] McGrath, Heresy, 143.

[16] Dowley, Introduction to the History of Christianity, 165; Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 713; Noll, Turning Points, 53.

[17] Proverbs 8:22, Acts 2:36, Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15 and Hebrew 3:2

[18] John 17:3

[19] John 14:28

[20] Mark 13:32

[21] All Biblical passages are from the Holman Christian Standard Bible unless otherwise noted.

[22] 1 Corinthians 1:24

[23] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 230.

[24] Emphasis mine.

[25] Psalm 89:27

[26] 1 Samuel 8

[27] Exodus 4:22

[28] McGrath, Heresy, 146.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] H.M. Gwatkin, The Arian Controversy (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1908), 18.

[32] McGrath, Heresy, 139.

[33] Gwatkin, The Arian Controversy, 18.

[34] Dowley, Introduction to the History of Christianity, 166.

[35] Shelly, Church History in Plain Language, 101.

[36] Ibid., 102.

[37] Dowley, Introduction to the History of Christianity, 166.

[38] Nicene Creed.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Noll, Turning Points, 57-58.

[43] Noll, Turning Points, 58.

[44] Walter Martin, Jehovah’s Witnesses (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1957).

[45] Carl Mosser, The New Mormon Challenge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 85.

The Mosaic Law and the Life of the Christian

14 Monday May 2012

Posted by allston10 in Things that Matter

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

Christianity, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Law and Gospel, Mosaic Law, orthodoxy, Ten Commandments, The West Wing

On October 18^th 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 allston10 in Things that Matter

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

Bible, Christianity, Henotheism, Is Mormonism Christian, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, Latter-day Saints, LDS, Modalism, Mormonism, orthodoxy, Plurality of gods, Richard Bushman, Robert MIllet, The nature of God, Trinitariansim, Trinity, Wayne Grudem, Willaim Lane Craig

On April 7^th1844, 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 4^th 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 2^nd 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 28^th, 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 28^th, 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 28^th, 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 9^th, 2011)

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

Reflections on the death of Hitchens

17 Saturday Dec 2011

Posted by allston10 in Things that Matter

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

atheism, Biola, Christianity, Christopher Hitchens, death, Does God exist, God, grace, Hell, Houston, Jesus Christ, sin, William Lane Craig

Outspoken atheist and author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens died Thursday at the age of 62. Hitchens was fighting esophageal cancer. Coincidentally, Mr. Hitchens was being treated and subsequently died (relatively) close to my home in Houston, TX.

Given my interests in philosophy, theology and Christian Apologetics, I have watched, listened and read a fair amount of Mr. Hitchens’ material. Without a doubt, my most memorable Hitchens moment was his debate with Dr. William Lane Craig, conducted on the campus of Biola University. The topic was: Does God exist? This debate was fascinating. Although some may disagree, the general consensus was Craig won the debate, hands down. In fact, one atheist summed up the debate by saying:

Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.

Hitchens’ death triggered a few reflections that I would like to share. First, if atheism is correct, it does not ultimately provide any answers on the God question. What I mean is, if there were no God then the deceased would never be able to know this. Given atheism, when one dies, that is it. There are no thoughts or reflections after death. Obviously, one could not reflect on the existence of a divine being if they were not thinking. This is not an argument against atheism, only a reflection that even if the atheist turned out to be correct (I don’t think they are), they would never know it.

But on the other hand, if there is a God, the atheist knows without a doubt if God exists, postmortem. For if atheists are wrong, things do not go well for them in the afterlife. For this reason, I truly hope that Christians will think before they make snide, off color, rude or back handed comments about Hitchens or any other non-Christian’s eternal fate.

I think even the atheist would agree that, if Hell really does exist, it surely is nothing to joke about.

Christians ought not make light of someone who rejected the pardon that Christ. For we are all sinful (Rom. 3:23), and only by the grace of God, through Christ, can one be forgiven (Eph. 2:8).

Moreover, as I reflected on the death of Mr. Hitchens, I was reminded of his staunch rejection and hatred of God. He was in utter rebellion. I felt bad for him and hoped someday, before his inescapable death, saving grace would be found. Sadly, the many reports I’ve read say that nothing of the sort occurred…even in his final moments.

But what struck the strongest was the idea that Mr. Hitchens and I are not much different. Granted, he hated God and spoke against Him frequently and publicly. But ultimately I’m just as guilty as Hitchens. I’ve sinned against God, a lot. There are many mornings when I awake and reflect on my sin and it makes me ill. Even worse, at other times the sickness subsides and a different emotion surfaces: apathy. What could be worse?

It’s important to remember that all of us are the same. None follow after God (Rom. 3:10). We are all in rebellion. The fact of the matter is some simply hide it better than others. Hitchens, you and I are all in the same boat. Deep down, this is obvious. We all need forgiveness.

Therefore, let the death of one of the leading atheists, spur on reflections about rejection and sinfulness; not of the recently departed, but rather of the guilty reflection found in any mirror.

May God have mercy on us all.

The final step

25 Monday Jul 2011

Posted by allston10 in Insights from Clive Staples

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

CS Lewis, Jesus Christ, Surprised by Joy, Whipsnade Zoo

“I know very well when, but hardly how, the final step was taken. I was driven to Whipsnade one sunny morning. When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did. Yet I had not exactly spent the journey in thought. Nor in great emotion. ‘Emotional’ is perhaps the last word we can apply to some of the most important events. It was more like when a man, after [a] long sleep, still lying motionless in bed, becomes aware that he is now awake.”

-CS Lewis (Surprised by Joy)

Whipsnade Zoo

allston dee

~ Contend Earnestly

Tag Archives: Jesus Christ

On the Arian Controversy

The Mosaic Law and the Life of the Christian

The Nature of God: Mormonism and Orthodox Christianity

Reflections on the death of Hitchens

The final step

Follow “allston dee”

May 2013
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Mar
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31