So the Mormons came to Visit...

I just want to make sure before I write all this that anyone who reads this knows that this is in no way meant to be a bragging session or a slam on the Mormons who came to visit me. It's not my desire to boast of how I won an argument. Instead, I hope that this is edifying for those who want to see how I personally dialogued with a couple of mormon missionaries last night. I also wanted to stress the importance of us trying not to win an argument, but also win these people to Christ. So here it goes...

One of the things Norman Geisler encouraged us to do was to read texts like the Book of Mormon and the Koran in order to be able to better dialogue with people of those faiths. I figured that if I could find a free Bible online then I could find these other two texts for free as well. I ordered both for free last week from various websites, and I figured that there would be Mormon missionaries who would personally deliver the Book of Mormon. I was right, and yesterday I received a call from them and we set up an appointment for them to come last night and visit. What follows are some observations from what took place.

First, let me say that the two guys who came by were really nice, respectful, and personable. Both were former athletes and big sports fans, and were very down to earth. I certainly think these were two guys I could be friends with. I think that we as evangelicals sadly salivate at the chance to nail a Mormon in a debate. We must defend doctrine boldly, but we must also remember that this is an opportunity to show the love of Christ and to hopefully bring two more people to the place where they make a decision to truly accept Jesus Christ. I think that we can defend doctrine but still not be nasty about it in situations like this. I pray I did that last night - my first comment to them was actually telling them that I didn't agree with them whatsoever, but I did love them with the love of Jesus and looked forward to having a friendly debate).



So here's some random thoughts -

1. It's important for we Christians to know what we believe in respect to Mormonism. We can't rely on a few Mormon stereotypes as our defense - those will be shot down quickly. Instead, we must be better equipped than that. I was thankful that I had done a good bit of research before they came last night. There were a number of verses that they quoted out of context that I was glad that I had read up on before they came.



2. There were three places in particular where I posed questions that I did not get any real answer to:

A. The first was when I asked them if the Bible is inerrant and without any error and they said, "yes, absolutely." I then turned to Mark when Jesus comments that there is no marriage in heaven and asked them how they can have a doctrine of eternal marriage if Jesus clearly teaches in the Bible that they claim is without error that there is no marriage in heaven. (Note: I had researched what their response would probably be - that Jesus was saying that no one will get married in heaven. If anyone reads that passage in its context Jesus is responding to a question about a woman who was married here on earth, so clearly that is not what he is saying. Also, the verse that was used to defend this was when Jesus says, "whatever your bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." This is again a clear example of the need to understand verses in context.)

B. The second was the issue that they believe that God is still giving revelation today to their prophets. I asked them if their prophets ever made a mistake and they said no, but there was a prophecy made by Joseph Smith that a huge temple would be built in Missouri within his generation. They said that this prophecy was not fulfilled because of "circumstances," by which they mean that the Mormon church was persecuted at the time of the prophecy making it impossible to build the temple. I asked them how it can be that Joseph Smith could be a true prophet if

a. the criteria for a biblical prophet is that his prophecies always come true,

b. that true prophecy is the word of God (who does not lie),

c. that God is all-knowing and sovereign and therefore no "circumstances" catch Him off guard that makes Him have to modify His prophecy.

d. Therefore, if they believe that God is in sovereign, all-knowing, and doesn't lie, then there cannot be true prophecy that God has to change just because His church was persecuted.

C. Sadly, I asked them when they decided to repent of their sin and recognize the need for a savior and reconciler towards God. Both testimonies were almost identical - they consisted of reading the book of Mormon and asking God if it was true and said that the "Holy Ghost" had confirmed it for them.

3. I think a lot of these guys really just need to lovingly be shown the contradictions in their doctrine. As I was pointing stuff out to them it seemed (at least to me) that they were somewhat surprised by many of these contradictions and had not considered them before.

4. Why are these guys so much more evangelical than we are? They have a faith that is built mostly on a book that is not historically reliable whatsoever. We Christians have a book that is the most historically reliable document in all of ancient history. We should be embarrassed that the Mormons are more eager to talk about a distorted Jesus than we are to talk about the Biblical Jesus.



There was much more that happened over the course of our 90 minute discussion, but these were just a few points that I was thinking over today.

Ravi Zacharias said...

"G. K. Chesterton correctly remarked that the problem with Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting but that it has been found difficult and left untried. In response to an article in The Times of London entitled 'What's Wrong with the World?' Chesterton replied,

'I am.

Yours truly,

G. K. Chesterton.'

That is precisely Jesus' point - we are wrong with the world."

Supplement to Part 1

Interestingly enough, I came across this today. It turns out that D.A. Carson wrote about the very issue of RLCs (see the previous two posts) in the most recent Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Here's just an excerpt of what he said:

A particularly virulent form of this approach is hidden behind what Tony Campolo now approvingly calls “red letter Christians.” These red letter Christians, he says, hold the same theological commitments as do other evangelicals, but they take the words of Jesus especially seriously (they devote themselves to the “red letters” of some foolishly printed Bibles) and end up being more concerned than are other Christians for the poor, the hungry, and those at war. Oh, rubbish: this is merely one more futile exercise in trying to find a “canon within the canon” to bless my preferred brand of theology. That’s the first of two serious mistakes commonly practiced by these red letter Christians. The other is worse: their actual grasp of what the red letter words of Jesus are actually saying in context far too frequently leaves a great deal to be desired; more particularly, to read the words of Jesus and emphasize them apart from the narrative framework of each of the canonical gospels, in which the plot-line takes the reader to Jesus’ redeeming death and resurrection, not only has the result of down-playing Jesus’ death and resurrection, but regularly fails to see how the red-letter words of Jesus point to and unpack the significance of his impending crosswork. In other words, it is not only Paul who says that Jesus’ cross and resurrection constitute matters “of first importance” (1 Cor 15:3), and not only Paul who was resolved to know nothing among the Corinthians except Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 2:1–5), but the shape of the narrative in each canonical gospel says the same thing. In each case the narrative rushes toward the cross and resurrection; the cross and resurrection are the climax. So to interpret the narrative, including the red-letter words of Jesus, apart from the climax to which they are rushing, is necessarily a distortion of the canonical gospels themselves.

Part 1 - Why I Believe the Apostles' Teaching

I don't know how often you've heard something like the following: "Jesus didn't even teach about something like homosexuality, so who are we to say if it's right or wrong?" This is not a discussion of the homosexual issue, but this was where I most commonly heard this sort of reasoning used in a college classroom. The statement implies that it doesn't really matter whether or not the apostles may have written on this issue - if Jesus didn't explicitly say it, then we don't have the right to confidently say what God views as right or wrong.

I understand that it's easy to see those red words of Jesus on the page and think, "these really are the words of God." This hermeneutic does not overstate the authority of Jesus's words, but instead neglects the fact that the other words of Scripture contain the same authority since they all have the same Author. If the red words mark the words of God, then really everything from Genesis to Revelation should be marked in red! There are numerous verses I could cite to show God's involvement in Scripture. Here is one passage that is rarely quoted but is beautifully specific in its explanation of how God was intimately involved in the development of Scripture:

"We have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
- 2 Peter 1:19-21 (italics mine)

I love that expression "carried along by the Holy Spirit." The beauty of Scripture is not that it has a hodgepodge of uneducated authors who stuck their own opinion onto paper and claimed it as the word God. Instead, Scripture has one Divine Author who used a number of human authors throughout history to write the story of redemption and the Redeemer. I believe that this reason is sufficient in itself to explain the authority of the apostles' teaching. Since the Holy Spirit moved and guided them to write, we can trust their words as being the words of God. However, in case anyone regards this as being too simple a defense I also wanted to give the other big reason that I believe the teaching of the apostles.

Does it really make any sense that someone would regard Jesus' teaching as being authoritative but at the same time ignore the writings of the apostles - those whom He lived and ministered with, taught how to interpret Scripture, and gave them authority to continue His mission on earth? If anyone would be trustworthy to explain all that Jesus taught beyond what is written in the Gospel accounts, it would be men like Peter, John, and Paul (who obviously was not a part of Jesus' pre-resurrection ministry, but was as directly impacted and influenced by Jesus as anyone else in Scripture). Luke 24 talks about how the resurrected Christ personally opened the disciples' minds to be able to understand how to interpret and preach Scripture:

v. 32 - They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”

v. 44-48 - Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.

When studying history most people view the original source documents as valuable information when trying to understand what a man was really like. If studying Washington, any writing by his closest generals would be priceless. But with Christ, we have made ourselves the authoritative interpreter of what He was really like and what He really meant. The problem stems from understanding history in an evolutionary fashion, which assumes that we're smarter and better now than we were 2,000 years ago, and we are therefore more qualified to explain what Jesus meant and taught than His disciples. Such historical arrogance is not only misinformed, but also dangerous.

Let's also think about this logically- someone says that they believe the words of Jesus but not the words of apostles. Who do they think wrote down the words that are attributed to Jesus? There is no such thing as believing only in the words of Jesus. It's actually believing selectively in the writings of the apostles.

We may have computers, airplanes, air conditioning, and other cool inventions, but as for me, I will trust the words of the apostles in a heartbeat over my own naturally biased method of interpretation that is as far removed from the context in which Jesus taught and lived as can be. When it comes to understanding what Jesus preached and believed beyond the direct quotes of Him in the four gospels, I'll take the inspired words of those he was closest to without thinking twice.

Introducing the Issue: Some Scripture is God-breathed?

This is the introduction to the following two-part response to "red-letter Christians" (RLCs). The first part is called "Why I Believe the Apostles' Teaching," while the second is titled "Just Want to Follow Jesus?"

Allow me just a minute to specify what it is I'm addressing. I am not addressing the political movement led by men such as Tony Campolo or Brian McLaren. Instead, these are two essays discussing a hermeneutic (method of Biblical interpretation) that views Jesus' words (the red words in some Bibles) as authoritative and without error while the rest of Scripture is interpreted as having less authority, being the opinions of ordinary men, or being the production of various unsophsticated cultures that, when compared to the advancements made today, are thought to be obsolete.

This is not a complete defense of the inerrancy of Scripture, but instead a pair of brief essays that I hope will show 1. the reliability and authority of the apostles' teaching in the New Testament, which therefore means we should submit ourselves to their teaching, and 2. how often RLCs apply their selective hermeneutic on the red words they claim to fully believe.

Theological Conclusions from Gal. 5:1-6

I thought I would post the "theological conclusions" portion of my recent term paper for New Testament. As I already mentioned, I did it on Gal. 5:1-6, and this was what I concluded:

It would be irresponsible to emphasize any biblical truth from this text over the exclusive sufficiency of Christ. This truth is stated more specifically in ch. 2 of the text, but this is the foundational principle with which Paul boldly proclaims Christian freedom. There is nothing else that is necessary for salvation such as good works or rituals. Without Christ’s total capacity to save, Paul could not confidently command the Galatians to ignore the necessity of circumcision or to seek justification in the law. By knowing that Christ is enough, Paul does not have to be like his religious recipients in Galatia who hopelessly sought after righteousness in themselves with no direction other than their own misguided opinions. Paul confidently points them to Christ, who is the only means of salvation. It is in light of this necessary truth that all other theological principles from the text must be understood. The heart of the text is that anything that is depended upon for salvation beyond Christ must be cast off.

Marleyanity?

Megan and I went to see "I am Legend" a few weeks ago and both of us came away thinking that the movie is below average. However, one of the best parts of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Marley. His music is pretty much the soundtrack to the film, and if you look at this clip below you'll see that it included more than just his music, but also his worldview.

WARNING: if you're one of those people that doesn't like to know anything about a movie going into it I don't want to spoil it for you, so I've also posted what Robert Neville (Will Smith) says in the clip here:
ROBERT NEVILLE (talking about Bob Marley and explaining why his daughter is named Marley): He had this idea. It was kind of a virologist idea. He believed that you could cure racism and hate... literally cure it, by injecting music and love into people's lives. When he was scheduled to perform at a peace rally, a gunman came to his house and shot him down. Two days later he walked out on that stage and sang. When they asked him why - He said, "The people, who were trying to make this world worse... are not taking a day off. How can I? Light up the darkness."


While the movie wasn't that great I couldn't help but want to listen to more of Bob Marley's music and even know more about him. During this clip I was thinking that it would be interesting to read a biography about him. I have listened to some of his music since the movie, and I believe this is because they were able to make him an attractive historical figure in the film.

However, it got me wondering- what if when Will Smith was asked his daughter's name he instead responded something like, "Christina, she's named after Jesus Christ," and then went on to describe Jesus' worldview, who He was, some of His famous sayings from the Bible, and what he wanted for the world. Chances are, it would make many moviegoers uncomfortable. And that leaves me asking why someone like Bob Marley can be made attractive in a movie but Jesus can't. This isn't a post complaining that it's not fair that we as a society are naturally drawn to the scene above when if it was the same scene, but instead talking about Jesus, it would be offensive or laughed at by many. My point is to ask why this is? Has society become so calloused that they can't take an honest look at Jesus without a thousand negative presuppositions. Have we as the church given society good reason to have that callousness?

As usual, the blame probably lies with both parties. We as the church haven't done a great job of presenting Jesus Christ as someone who is much greater than Bob Marley (is the stuff that Will Smith said in that clip really all that different then what Jesus said?). And the world is rarely willing to look at Jesus with a fresh and humble outlook. Somebody has been in church before, or saw a documentary on the History Channel, or took a religion class in college, or once read part of the Bible, or grew up in "Christian America," and they aren't willing to acknowledge that they may not have Him figured out after all. Hopefully we as the church can live in such a way that they want to know more- "Light up the darkness" or better yet, "Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life'" (John 8:12).