Current Shareware 1994 January/SHAR194.ISO/religion/crj0003a.zip/CRJ0003A.TXT

Text File | 1993-05-05 | 35KB | 675 lines

----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1993 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute.  It may not be altered or edited in any way.  It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge.  All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1993 by the Christian
Research Institute").  This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold.  This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.

If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit:  Copyright 1993 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500, San Juan Capistrano,
CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Are Mormons Christians?" by Stephen E. Robinson (Bookcraft, 1991)
(a book review from the Christian Research Journal, Fall 1992,
page 33, by Gordon R. Lewis).
    The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
-------------


*A Summary Critique*

    Although a god allegedly told Joseph Smith in his first vision
that he should join none of the Christian denominations, Stephen
Robinson now wants "to show that the arguments used to exclude
Latter-day Saints from the 'Christian' world are flawed" (p. vii).
Robinson, chairman of the Department of Ancient Scripture at
Brigham Young University, has taught religion at Presbyterian
and Methodist-related schools. He may be the only Latter-day
Saint (LDS) to earn tenure in a non-LDS college. Among a host of
recent efforts by Mormons to gain acceptance for their church as
Christian, Robinson's book is surely the most important and
sophisticated.


*WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN?*

    Crucial to Robinson's argument is his understanding of the
nature of Christianity and what a Christian is. In chapter 1 he
proposes a _generic_ definition of Christianity that fits all who
are usually classed as "Christian": Protestants -- from liberal to
evangelical, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox. With such an
inclusive definition, Robinson succeeds in showing that LDS may
be regarded Christian.

    But this approach to legitimizing Mormonism can only succeed
if a Christian does not need to believe in one personal,
transcendent God, one incarnate Christ, the completed atonement,
and one gospel of grace through faith alone. For mere descriptive
purposes, historians may classify every group that calls itself
Christian as Christian. Jesus Christ, however, did not do this.
Jesus taught that "the way" was narrow and that we should not
assume that all who call Jesus "Lord" are really Christians (Matt.
5:20; 7:13-23).

    In defining the one true church, would Robinson be satisfied
with a generic definition that includes _all_ churches calling
themselves Christian? Not if the LDS is the one true church --
with baptism accompanied with the laying on of hands by those in
authority in the "restored priesthood." Robinson's generic pattern
of defining terms like "church" or "Christian" is too broad to be
useful for purposes of normative Christian doctrine.

    Robinson's generic definition of a Christian from _Webster's
Third New International Dictionary_ is: "One who believes or
professes or is assumed to believe in Jesus Christ and the truth
as taught by him; an adherent of Christianity; one who has
accepted the Christian religious and moral principles of life; one
who has faith in and has pledged allegiance to God thought of as
revealed in Christ; one whose life is conformed to the doctrines
of Christ" (1). The second most common meaning of "Christian" in
Robinson's book is: "A member of a church or group professing
Christian doctrine or belief" (1).

    Having raised the issue of the nature of Christianity,
Robinson fails to interact with the relevant literature. For
example, he does not deal with evangelical literature such as J.
Gresham Machen's _What Is Christianity?_ (Eerdmans, 1950), _What
Is Faith?_ (Eerdmans, 1948), and _Christianity and Liberalism_
(Eerdmans, 1946). Nor does he consider Samuel J. Craig's
_Christianity Rightly So Called_ (Presbyterian and Reformed,
1957). These writers show why liberalism -- as represented in
Ludwig Feuerbach's _The Essence of Christianity_ (Harper &
Brothers, 1957), Adolph Harnack's _What Is Christianity?_ (Harper
& Brothers, 1957), and William Hamilton's _The New Essence of
Christianity_ (Association Press, 1961) -- cannot be regarded as
genuine Christianity.

    Robinson's chapter on "The Exclusion by Name-Calling"
correctly shows the difficulty of defining a "cult" on
psychological and sociological criteria, and points to the need
for objective doctrinal criteria for determining what a cult is.
He wrongly concludes, however, that "there are simply no objective
criteria for distinguishing religions from 'cults"' (29). Such a
sweeping generalization is uncharacteristic of responsible
scholarship and fails to take account of my proposal in a 1966
publication, _Confronting the Cults:_ "The term cult here
designates a religious group which claims authorization by Christ
and the Bible but neglects or distorts the gospel, the central
message of the Savior and the Scriptures."[1] In this same book,
I list seven questions drawn from explicit New Testament
statements -- all dealing with what one must believe to be saved
-- that enable one to distinguish authentic Christian faith from
inauthentic faiths. Several of these questions are concerned with
the person of Christ.


*AN ISSUE THAT "REALLY MATTERS" -- ONE'S VIEW OF CHRIST*

    After attempting to answer many charges and alleged
misrepresentations, Robinson thinks he gets down to the core issue
in his "Conclusions" (111-14): "Surely by now it will have dawned
on the discerning reader that of all the various arguments against
Latter-day Saints being considered Christians, not one -- not a
_single_ one -- claims that Latter-day Saints don't acknowledge
Jesus Christ as Lord. Consider the enormous implications of this
fact. The only issue that really matters is the only issue that is
carefully avoided!" (111)

    The error in this sweeping statement becomes evident upon
examining what Mormons mean when they say "Jesus is Lord." In 1966
my chapter on "The Bible, the Christian and Latter-day Saints"
asked: "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ (the anointed
Messiah) who was God (John 1:1) and became flesh (1:14)?"[2] All
of these beliefs are entailed in the biblical affirmation that
Jesus is Lord. Mormons holding official church doctrine do not
exclaim with Thomas, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).

    For Robinson, the fact that Mormons have an exalted view of
Christ is sufficient for classifying them as Christians:

         In fact, to use the terminology of biblical
         scholars, the Latter-day Saints have a very
         high Christology. That is, for the Latter-day
         Saints Jesus is not merely a good man, a
         teacher, or even a prophet; he is not merely a
         human being; he is not the son of Joseph and
         Mary who later became God's Son. In common
         with other Bible-oriented Christians, the
         Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus is the
         pre-existent Word of the Father who became the
         literal, physical, genetic Son of God. As the
         pre-existent Word he was the agent of the
         Father in the creation of all things. As the
         glorified Son he is the agent of the Father in
         the salvation of all humanity. We believe he
         was conceived of a virgin by the power of the
         Holy Ghost. We believe he led a sinless life,
         that he was morally and ethically perfect,
         that he healed the sick and raised the dead,
         that he walked on the water and multiplied the
         loaves and the fishes. We believe he set a
         perfect example for human beings to imitate
         and that humans have an obligation to follow
         his example in all things. Most important of
         all, we believe that he suffered and died on
         the cross as a volunteer sacrifice for
         humanity in order to bring about an atonement
         through the shedding of his blood. We believe
         that he was physically resurrected and that he
         ascended into the heavens, from which he will
         come at the end of this world to establish his
         kingdom upon the earth and eventually to judge
         both the living and the dead (113).

    This "high Christology" may be impressive, but it is more like
that of the ancient Arians who believed there was a time when the
Word was not (a view similar to that of contemporary Jehovah's
Witnesses), than the view espoused by historic Christianity.
Robinson's Jesus remains a _creature with a beginning in time_ and
not the Creator who is worthy of worship as God.

    Jesus' _oneness_ with God the Father and His _distinctness_
from the Father are best accounted for by the Trinitarian teaching
of _oneness in essence_ and _distinctness in persons._ It is true,
as Robinson points out, that affirmations of Jesus' oneness in
purpose with God (as opposed to oneness in nature with God)
account for some passages on the functional unity of Father and
Son (e.g., John 17:11). But this is not the case with other
passages, such as John 1:1: "The Word was with God and _the Word
was God."_ Only if Jesus was of the same nature and being as God
could the same divine attributes apply. Jesus said, "No one can
snatch them out of my hand" (John 10:27), and "No one can snatch
them out of my Father's hand" (v. 30). When Jesus explains that "I
and the Father are one" in this context, He teaches more than mere
agreement of purpose; He makes clear their _oneness in sovereign
power._ The later creeds did not "invent" the concepts of Christ's
divine and human natures, as Robinson argues (86); they found the
Bible teaching His human and divine characteristics and integrated
that teaching coherently.

    If the Christ of a Mormon is not the one true God (John 17:3)
who is eternal (John 1:1; Heb. 1:8-12; 5:6; 13:8), the object of
worship is a creature and worship itself becomes idolatry. If the
Christ of a Mormon is a spirit-child who has been procreated --
like countless other spirit children by the flesh-and-bone Father
and one of his wives -- then he is not uniquely of the same nature
as the Father, as the Bible and the historic church teach. If the
LDS Christ is our finite brother, not different in kind from us,
he is therefore not uniquely Immanuel -- "God with us" (Matt.
1:23). The Christ of the Bible is the unique God-man -- incarnate,
crucified, and risen once-for-all. Only if He was infinite God in
human flesh could His blood have infinite value for the
justification of all the billions of people who have ever sinned.


*IS A "HIGH" CHRISTOLOGY SUFFICIENT?*

    The first Christians believed that Jesus was Lord and Christ
(Acts 2:36). They also believed in one God, and Jesus was included
in the Godhead. A "high Christology" is not necessarily enough to
fit the evidence that He was far more than the first or highest
being in creation; He is the God-man.

    Robinson claims that the Nicene Creed "not only differs from,
but adds new concepts to, the biblical view" (73). He admits that
the Bible teaches oneness and threeness, but maintains that "the
scriptures themselves do not offer any explanation of how the
threeness and the oneness are related" (72).

    Here Robinson fails to appreciate the careful reasoning behind
the creed. Certainly the Scriptures do not explain _how_ God can
be three persons in one being, but they do lead us to the
conclusion that He _is_. Both the Old and New Testaments deny
polytheism (the belief in many gods) and teach that there is _one_
God. Thus the Bible's teaching forbids a view of the threeness
that leads to more than one God. However, a word study of "one" in
Scripture shows that in any one family, nation, or church, we may
expect a plurality of persons. Husband and wife are "one" flesh;
Israel is "one" nation with many people; the church is "one" body
with many personal members. The Bible's teaching on God's oneness
excludes polytheism but includes the possibility of _diversity in
unity._ The Bible also makes clear that within the unity of the
Godhead are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It further
teaches that each of the three _is_ God and each thinks, feels,
wills, and relates in personal ways.[3]

    Three types of passages need to be accounted for in one's
Christology. (1) Some passages speak of the limitations Christ
assumed when He took on a human nature in order to purchase man's
redemption. From this human perspective Christ could say, "the
Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). (2) Some passages refer to
His eternal personal distinctness from the Father as Son (John
3:16), Word (John 1:1), radiance (Heb. 1:3), and so forth. (3)
Some passages speak of His essential oneness with the Father in
being and attributes (John 10:30). The conclusion that the three
persons are one in both purpose and in essence best accounts for
the Bible's teaching that there is one divine Being and that the
fellowshiping Father, Son, and Spirit subsist as distinguishable
personal consciousnesses within that oneness.

    A Trinitarian statement such as we have in the Nicene Creed on
oneness of being and threeness of co-equal persons is not
something foreign to Scripture, but derived from it. The
Trinitarian doctrine most coherently integrates the varied lines
of teaching about God's oneness and threeness in Scripture. We ask
Mormons to believe the doctrine on _scriptural authority alone._
As B. B. Warfield said, "The formulation of the doctrine, although
not made in Scripture, is not opposed to Scripture. When we
assemble the...[separate parts of Scripture] into their organic
unity, we are not passing from Scripture, but entering more
thoroughly into the meaning of Scripture."[4] These "separate
parts" of Scripture include the New Testament teaching that (1)
there is but one God; (2) the personality of Jesus Christ is God
manifested in the flesh at Bethlehem, and the personality of the
Holy Spirit is God manifested at Pentecost. "What we mean by the
doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact
language of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of
the incarnate Son and outpoured Spirit."

    The doctrine that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures
-- one truly divine and the other truly human -- is a more
coherent account of the biblical data than a Mormon formulation in
which he is not essentially God. Similarly, the doctrine that God
is one in essence and subsists in three persons -- Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit -- is more coherent with the teaching on the
oneness and threeness of God than a committee of two separate
flesh-and-bone gods. (Although Mormons argue that to be persons
the first two needed flesh-and-bone bodies, the third "personage"
in this triumvirate, the Holy Ghost, is not flesh and bone.)

    New concepts are added to Scripture, not by the creeds of
Nicea and Chalcedon, but by Joseph Smith's doctrine of a
flesh-and-bone God (see, for example, Doctrine and Covenants
130:22). Robinson's uncritical acceptance of Joseph Smith's
interpretation of an alleged vision makes it impossible for him to
accept the Trinitarian teaching of the Bible. Is one young man's
interpretation of a poorly substantiated vision a reliable base
on which to challenge the Bible's consistent refutation of
polytheism and support of one God who is spirit? If God's eternal
being includes a flesh-and-bone body, Solomon could not have said,
"The heaven, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much
less this temple I have built!" (1 Kings 8:27). The eternal Word
added a human nature (made up of a human body and spirit) for
purposes of incarnation and redemption in space and time; but
remained truly divine. The _body_ is the material aspect of His
human nature, the divine nature forever remains _spirit._ So long
as Mormons contradict Scripture by affirming more than one God
they are not worshiping the one God whom Christians worship and
serve.

    It is not anti-Mormon argumentation that excludes the LDS from
the Christian faith, but their own disbelief of the biblical
teaching about Jesus. The Scriptures grant the right to be called
"Christian" to all who receive Jesus (John 1:12) as the eternal
(not just pre-existent) Word who was continuously and personally
_with_ the one true God (v. 1) and was the one true God (v. 1) who
became flesh (v. 14).


*DO CHRISTIANS AFFIRM DEIFICATION?*

    Generally speaking, Robinson accurately says, "No two
denominations, and few individual Christians agree on every detail
of Christian doctrine" (57). Given the freedom people have in
Christ, diversity of beliefs often appears in details. Robinson
correctly reports that Christians "do not agree among themselves
upon exactly what the standard is" (58) -- that is, there is no
single, complete standard of Christian doctrine for all Christian
denominations. Admittedly, "the doctrine of Christians is not
always true" (59). Christians affirm inerrancy _only_ of
Scripture.

    In chapters 6 and 8, Robinson would appear to be arguing that
since Christians can believe in doctrines that are neither
biblical nor true, Mormons can be Christians! But it is not
believing false, unbiblical doctrines that gives a person the
right to be called a redeemed child of God.

    Whether true or false, Robinson says, Christians have believed
in _self-deification._ So Mormons should not be excluded from
Christianity because of this doctrine. Robinson writes:

    Early Christian saints and theologians, later Greek
    Orthodoxy, modern Protestant evangelists, and even C. S.
    Lewis have all professed their belief in a doctrine of
    deification. The scriptures themselves talk of many
    "gods" and use the term _god_ in a limited sense for
    beings other than the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost
    . . . . If scripture can use the term gods for non-
    ultimate beings; if the early Church could, if Christ
    himself could, then Latter-day Saints cannot conceivably
    be accused of being outside the Christian tradition for
    using the same term in the same way (70).

    For Robinson's argument to hold, Mormons must use the term
"gods" in the same way as the Christians mentioned. But this is
not the case. Robinson states the assumption behind the Mormon
concept: "It is indisputable that Latter-day Saints believe....the
famous couplet of Lorenzo Snow, fifth President of the LDS church,
[which] states:

    'As man now is, God once was;
    As God now is, man may be'" (60).

    Mormon apostle and theologian Bruce R. McConkie explains the
frame of reference for this affirmation -- the Mormon doctrine of
_eternal progression:_

    In the full sense, eternal progression is enjoyed only by
    those who receive exaltation. Exalted persons gain the
    fulness of the Father; they have all power, all
    knowledge, and all wisdom; they gain a fulness of truth,
    becoming one with the Father. . . . Those who gain
    exaltation, having thus enjoyed the fulness of eternal
    progression, become like God.[5]

    Both Mormon and Christian writers seem sometimes to confuse
being like God _in some respects_ with _becoming_ god. Christians
may compare a person with God in holiness, mercy, or love, but
they should never affirm that a person _is_ God, or even _a_ god.

    If Mormons were using the word "gods" to mean beings with
power over others in a nonultimate sense, as of Satan, the god of
this world (2 Cor. 4:4), or of judges, as Jesus (John 10:34) and
the Psalmist did (Ps. 82:6), there would be little difficulty. But
the couplet of President Snow and the LDS doctrine of eternal
progression have God evolving in the past as we are now. This is
different than the Bible's references to nonultimate gods.

    Nor is anything comparable to the Mormon doctrine of eternal
progression found in the church fathers. A statement from Irenaeus
is typical -- it may sound like it supports the Mormon view on the
surface, but in reality it does not: "If the Word became a man, it
was so men may become gods." In context, Irenaeus (like other
church fathers) meant that regenerate sinners can become like God
_in some respects._ We can become holy and loving as God is holy
and loving. Irenaeus did not affirm that we can become gods
through an eternal progression or evolution. He did not affirm
that God was once as we are now.

    Athanasius wrote, "He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might
become God." The Mormon view makes Christ a man who became divine;
Athanasius teaches that Christ was God who became man
once-for-all. "For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body
capable of death, in order that it, though belonging to _The Word
Who is above all,_ might become in dying a sufficient exchange for
all" (emphasis added).[6] For Athanasius all else is temporary,
but "He Who remains is God and very Son of God, the sole-begotten
Word."[7] We must conclude that the Western church fathers are
misunderstood if they are alleged to teach an eternal progression
to literal godhood.

    If Mormons want to teach early Christian doctrine they will
follow Augustine in making a radical distinction between the
Creator and the creation. They will affirm with Paul in Romans
1:25 that worship and service of the creature is sin.

    In the Eastern Orthodox Church a greater emphasis is placed on
deification, but it remains distinct from the Mormon doctrine. The
Eastern Orthodox emphasize renewal in the image and likeness of
God in sharing His communicable attributes such as knowledge (Col.
3:10), righteousness, and true holiness (Eph. 4:24). But an
Orthodox writer explains: "This does not mean that human beings
are able to become God in his essence. But it does mean that they
can become 'gods' by grace even as they remain creatures of a
human nature."[8] Thus, Eastern writers deny that humans can
become equal with God as He is now. And there is no suggestion
that God was ever as we are. There is a difference between being
like God in some respects (communicable attributes) and being God
_by nature._

    _The Westminster Dictionary of Christianity_ says that
deification is an Eastern Orthodox doctrine that we become like
God by participation in divine virtues such as mercy and love or
by sharing in divine energies. But we do not participate in God's
very essence, which remains totally mysterious and inaccessible.
Mormons who claim that we become gods in essence find no support
for this in the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification.

    Robinson also claims that televangelists Paul Crouch, Robert
Tilton, and Kenneth Copeland affirm deification. While it is true
that these Word-Faith proponents speak of believers being "in the
God class," they do not teach that "as man now is, God once was."
In any case, Robinson does not strengthen his case by citing
teachers who themselves are considered aberrant or heretical by
many Christians.

    Did C. S. Lewis support an LDS concept of deification? In _The
Weight of Glory,_ the imaginative writer uses figurative language
to express the radical change in believers from the dullest and
most uninteresting persons in this life to "gods" and "goddesses"
in glory.[9] He must be understood metaphorically in view of his
general defense of theism. Similarly, when in _Mere Christianity_
he says we turn permanently into new little Christs sharing God's
power, joy, knowledge, and eternity,[10] he is speaking in terms
of our likeness to God being renewed. And in _The Screwtape
Letters_ his claim that God intends to fill heaven with "little
replicas of himself"[11] refers to replicas in certain qualities,
not to becoming literal gods. When writing with less literary
license Lewis refers to "the immeasurable difference not only
between what He [God] is and what all other things are but between
the very mode of His existence and theirs."[12]

    The "eternal progression" doctrine of Snow and his fellow
Mormon prophets is part and parcel of the evolutionary view of
human stages and opportunities in eternal life -- from pre-
existence through the spirit world, mortal life on earth, and into
the heavenly telestial, terrestrial, and celestial kingdoms. At
its highest level, the latter involves godhood for those loyal to
the church in this life. None of the listed sources in their
proper contexts support the doctrine _as Mormons hold it._ Hence,
these sources are not examples of people called "Christian" who
affirm self-deification in the Mormon sense.


*THE GOOD NEWS OF JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH*

    Robinson claims that Mormons teach salvation by grace and not
works, and so are well within the spectrum of views that are
generally accepted as Christian. How can Mormons claim to teach
salvation by grace alone? Robinson answers: "It is impossible to
_earn_ or _deserve_ any of the blessings of God in any sense that
leaves the individual unindebted to God's grace" (105). "We
participate in our salvation as we attempt to keep the
commandments of God, but we can never earn it ourselves or bring
it to pass on our own merits, no matter how well we may think we
are doing" (106). Robinson also holds that redemption is not of
individual effort; one must be born again and so grace is an
essential condition for salvation (106-7). As good as these
statements sound, they do not uphold salvation by grace _alone._

    Bruce R. McConkie explains: "All men are saved by grace alone
without any act on their part, meaning that they are resurrected
and become immortal because of the atoning sacrifice of
Christ."[13] In Mormon theology, all people are raised from the
dead and become immortal through grace alone. But not many will
be _exalted._ How can one achieve exaltation? "This is called
salvation by grace coupled with obedience to the laws and
ordinances of the gospel."[14] Then, after ridiculing the idea of
Christ's shed blood as the sole ground of forgiveness, McConkie
adds: "Salvation in the kingdom of God is available because of the
atoning blood of Christ. But it is received only on the condition
of faith, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end in keeping
the commandments of God."[15]

    Differences may be acknowledged among Christians on the
general issue of grace and works, but there is little excuse for
confusion regarding one's legal status before God's law.
Justification, an essential element of the Good News, is only
mentioned twice by Robinson and is neither defined nor affirmed.

    Both grace and works are involved in the Christian experience,
it is true, but they are exclusive of each other in relation to a
sinner's moral and spiritual standing before God's law. Mormons
tend to confuse the forensic (legal) and experiential categories.
The divine Judge has found all people who depend on merit for
their own acceptance with God falling short. In God's sight, a
score of ninety-nine is not a passing grade.

    Even the best Mormons are guilty before God, who knows their
hearts. All Mormons trusting in their own works are now under the
verdict of condemnation (Rom. 3:10-23). The only basis on which
God can be just and accept any Mormon as righteous is the perfect,
once-for-all sacrifice of Christ (Rom. 3:25-26). By adding works
to faith, Mormons make justification a matter of merit, not grace.
The principles of works and grace are mutually exclusive for
acceptance before the moral Judge of the universe. "And if by
grace, then it is no longer works; if it were, grace would no
longer be grace" (Rom. 11:6). The four laws of the Mormon gospel
(faith, repentance, baptism, and commandment-keeping) involve
works from beginning to end.

    Justification pardons from the guilt and penalty of one's past
and present sins, not just from Adamic guilt. "Whoever believes in
him is not condemned" (John 3:18). "I tell you the truth," Jesus
said, "whoever hears my word and believes him who has sent me has
eternal life and will not be condemned" (John 5:24). "I want you
to know," Paul wrote, "that through [Jesus] the forgiveness of
sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is
justified . . . " (Acts 13:38-39). "Since we have been justified
through faith, we have peace with God" (Rom. 5:1). "There is now
no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1).

    So long as Latter-day Saints ignore or ridicule justification,
it is impossible to assure them that they have the perfect
righteousness of Christ that comes from God as a gift (Rom. 10:3-
4). Like Paul, Mormons need to consider their own law-keeping as
rubbish in contrast to the perfect righteousness that comes from
God through faith in Christ (Phil. 3:8-9).

    Being a Christian begins as sinners repent of their self-
justification and trust the atonement of Christ alone for
acquittal and a righteous moral status. Belief in Christ's
Incarnation, death on the cross for our sins, and resurrection
from the dead directs repentant believers personally to trust the
living and exalted Christ of whom the gospel speaks.

    Individual Mormons and Baptists are Christians _if_ they
believe Christianity's central message, the gospel; neither
Mormons nor Baptists are Christians if they do not trust the
Christ of the biblical gospel. With all this, an LDS leader,
recently addressing my class, brought everything down to the test
of a religion's fruit. The LDS faith has produced an impressive
worldwide movement, but the question of the reliability of the one
it trusts remains. In his classic book, _Christianity and
Liberalism,_ Machen summarizes the heart of the problem:

    If the object is not really trustworthy then the faith is
    a false faith. It is perfectly true that such a false
    faith will often help a man. Things that are false will
    accomplish a great many useful things in the world. If I
    take a counterfeit coin and buy a dinner with it, the
    dinner is every bit as good as if the coin were a product
    of the mint. And what a very useful thing a dinner is!
    But just as I am on my way downtown to buy a dinner for
    a poor man, an expert tells me that my coin is a counter-
    feit. The miserable, heartless theorizer! While he is
    going into his uninteresting, learned details about the
    primitive history of that coin, a poor man is dying for
    want of bread. So it is with faith. Faith is so very
    useful, they tell us, that we must not scrutinize its
    basis in truth. But the great trouble is, such an
    avoidance of scrutiny itself involves the destruction of
    faith. For faith is essentially dogmatic. Despite all you
    can do, you cannot remove the element of faith from it.
    Faith is the opinion that some person will do something
    for you. If that person really will do that thing for
    you, then the faith is true. If he will not do it, then
    the faith is false. In the latter case, not all the
    benefits in the world will make the faith true. Though it
    has transformed the world from darkness to light, though
    it has produced thousands of glorious healthy lives, it
    remains a pathological phenomena. It is false, and sooner
    or later it is sure to be found out.[16]

-------------
    *Gordon R. Lewis*, Professor of Systematic Theology and
Christian Philosophy at Denver Seminary, chairs the Philosophy of
Religion department. (In its two-year MA degree one may
concentrate electives on ministry to new religions and cults.)
-------------


*NOTES*

 1 Gordon R. Lewis, _Confronting the Cults_ (Phillipsburg, NJ:
   Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1966), 3.
 2 _Ibid.,_ 60; chapter 3 in booklet form, "The Bible, the
   Christian and the Latter-day Saints," 22.
 3 The scriptural documentation is given in Gordon R. Lewis,
   _Decide for Yourself: A Theological Workbook_ (Downers Grove,
   IL: InterVarsity Press, 1970), 41-45; and in Gordon Lewis and
   Bruce Demarest, _Integrative Theology,_ vol. l (Grand Rapids:
   Zondervan, 1987): 251-89.
 4 B. B. Warfield, "Trinity," _International Standard Bible
   Encyclopedia_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 5:3012.
 5 Bruce R. McConkie, _Mormon Doctrine_ (Salt Lake City:
   Brookcraft, 1966), 239.
 6 Athanasius, _The Incarnation of the Word of God_ (New York:
   MacMillan, 1946), 35.
 7 _Ibid.,_ 95.
 8 Vigen Guroian, "The Shape of Orthodox Ethics" _Epiphany
   Journal,_ Fall 1991, 9.
 9 C. S. Lewis, _The Weight of Glory,_ rev. ed. (New York:
   Macmillan, 1980), 18.
10 C. S. Lewis, _Mere Christianity_ (New York: Macmillan, 1960),
   153, cf. 164.
11 C. S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters,_ rev. ed. (New York:
   Macmillan, 1982), 38.
12 C. S. Lewis, _Miracles_ (New York: Macmillan, 1948), 107.
13 Bruce R. McConkie, _What the Mormons Think of Christ_ (n.p.:
   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, n.d.), 24.
14 _Ibid._
15 _Ibid._ 9, 28.
16 J. Gresham Machen, _Christianity and Liberalism_ (Grand Rapids:
   Eerdmans, 1946), 142-43.


End of document, CRJ003A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"Are Mormons Christians?"
release A, April 26, 1993
R. Poll, CRI

(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

YOURS FOR THE ASKING

The Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the
late Dr. Walter R. Martin -- is a clearing house for current, in-
depth information on new religious movements and aberrant
Christian teachings.  We provide well-reasoned, carefully-
researched answers to concepts and ideas that challenge orthodox
Christianity.

Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking?  We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge.  Our informative
newsletter is freely available upon request as well.  Write or
call us today for information on topics of interest to you.  Our
first-rate staff will do everything possible to help you.

Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA  92693

[phone]

---------------
End of file.