Fully God...For an Awfully Long Time?
33 comments | Permalink
NT scholar Craig Blomberg offers a very strange comment in response to a blog post by Rob Bowman. The question is whether Mormons like Robert Millett--co-author of Claiming Christ: A Mormon—Evangelical Debate (Brazos, 2007)--truly affirm Christ's full deity:
"Do Mormons not believe in the deity of Jesus? . . . [T]here is no question for him [i.e., Millett] that for an awfully long time and certainly today, he [i.e., Jesus] is fully God."
I'd respectfully suggest that if someone thinks one can be fully God for an awfully long time (but not always), then he doesn't understand the meaning of the term"fully God."
Am I missing something here?
"Do Mormons not believe in the deity of Jesus? . . . [T]here is no question for him [i.e., Millett] that for an awfully long time and certainly today, he [i.e., Jesus] is fully God."
I'd respectfully suggest that if someone thinks one can be fully God for an awfully long time (but not always), then he doesn't understand the meaning of the term"fully God."
Am I missing something here?
posted by JT at Wednesday, November 28, 2007
33 Comments:
No, you are not missing something.
It is amazing the lengths that some people go to in order to be considered "nice". Political correctness is the disease of our age, and you have just witnessed another glaring example.
Never mind that the Mormon Jesus doesn't save, and has no connection with the God of the Bible. Never mind that Mormonism is nothing more than the age old lie repackaged for our times. Never mind that a God who was once a man is no God at all. Never mind all of this, we certainly wouldn't want to tell you that trusting this "god" will lead you right to hell. We are too "nice" to tell you the truth.
As Jerry said, you're not missing anything. I clicked on the link you provided and read Rob Bowman's response to Blomberg's comment. I thought Bowman gave a superb response.
Thanks for calling attention to this.
well, i would suggest that the discussion is about the meaning and identity of divinity and that it's possible to take an ontological infinity out of the orthodox definition of God. Of course, then you lose the connection to that Christians mean when we talk about God, but it is a way of affirming the divinity of Christ. This is Arianism - not that Christ is not divine, but that he has a beginning. The problem is that Christians are so bad at Church History that they might not have a problem with Arius.
A letter from Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
"Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning." (Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 41)
Samuel is thinking along the lines that I was. For Blomberg seems to be okay with the Arian Rallying cry "There is when he was not." We need to stay true to Athansius' Response: "There is not when he was not!" I would recommend that Blomberg go back to the Athanasian Creed if he needs a reminder of why Mormonism is and always will be a cult as long as they hold to Arianism.
I can't add to what everyone above has already commented on. But if you want more assurance, you're not missing anything there Justin.
It looks to me that Blomberg is trying to represent the Morman thinker. He isn't saying his correct, by any means.
Jerry,
Right on about being "nice." In the 2 part series that Al Mohler did for SGM (posted earlier by JT) on the transformation of Southern Seminary he made a remarkable statement. He said, "Evangelicalism is dying of the terminal sin of niceness" as it is often unwilling to call a spade a spade.
We must certainly speak the truth in love, but I think the love part has eclipsed the truth part in many quarters. And when love eclipses truth it no longer resembles genuine love, but a shallow counterfeit masking the truth and dangerously promoting deception.
Wait just one minute everyone. Let's try to adopt J.T.'s own attitude on this: the question, "Am I missing something?" surely is rooted in his knowledge of Craig Blomberg as one of the best and most thoroughly evangelical scholars alive. Thus the caution on his take. I offer two thoughts:
(1) It's not necessarily that you are missing something here, but it is important to look at what Blomberg does, and more importantly, does not say. He does say that Millett believes in this modified idea of Jesus' full divinity. What he does not say is that Millett is in any sense correct. He's just highlighting what Millett believers, inconsistent and incoherent that may be.
For that matter the comments on the Trinity are far more troubling, because there Blomberg does seem to come to the defense of Millett a little bit.
(2) "Political correctness is the disease of our age, and you have just witnessed another glaring example." Really? You really want to make that strong of a statement? I don't much like political correctness, but I think "the disease of our age" and "another glaring example" are both pretty badly overblown. If I was grading a paper with those words in it I'd take you to task for such a strong assertion.
Especially when the latter part is so unmerited. I'm pretty confident Blomberg thinks Mormons are eternally damned - not particularly p.c. On top of the fact that he's written a book with a Mormon to handle the debate (which requires a lot of time and effort if you don't think there's really that much at stake), but I'm aware of a comment he made a couple weeks ago at an evangelical/Mormon dialogue in Salt Lake City where he quite blatantly said that a Mormon understanding of Jesus will damn you. In front of a bunch of Mormons (including Millett, I think). Maybe some of us commenters in particular could be a little more careful about what we're accusing Blomberg of here.
Andrew, your caution is well deserved. I have regular meetings with Dr. Millet at BYU and have recently attended an Evangelical-Mormon dialogue back in October with Dr. Blomberg presenting on Grace-Works. Although, he did not mention Christology out right, he denied that their soteriology would lead them to salvation. He even stated that Dr. Millet's and Blake Ostler's attempts to redefine 2 Nephi 25:23 are grammatically untenable and furthermore beyond the authorial intent of Joseph Smith.
One only needs to read Blomberg's chapter in "The New Mormon Challenge" to see that he believes that Mormonism is not true Christianity or orthodox by any means. Millet's comments about "an awfully long time" for Christ's deity can only be accurrately described as idolatry for it does not represent the picture of Christ's utter supremacy over all things as Scripture portrays. However, Blomberg's comments are not compromising. In dialogue with the LDS, it is important to deal with the individual, rather than the system as a whole. Therefore, noting specifically what Millet thinks on the deity of Christ is the first step from which to dialogue. The next step is obviously one that needs to emphasize the eternality of Christ's deity and his ontological nature as God. This is of course is not something that Blomberg has denied or conceded to Millet. He has simply stated what Millet believes on the issue, which is essential for any form of decent communication. This provides clarification and helps the evangelical know where he needs to focus his energy in the discussion.
I'd agree with a few of the above - I don't think he's trying to be politically correct; I think he's talking about the current state of Mormon theology, which in fact is changing in some very important ways in a few very important circles. Not all, mind you, but I've heard multiple accounts of Mormon-evangelical interaction where the Mormons actually begin to doubt their own doctrines and concede some points, most notably about who Christ is.
Even if you didn't know this, however, most obvious should be that Blomberg does not say that Millett is correct. (At least not that I know of, based on this limited quotation.) To you naysaying commenters - chill.
Much of what has been written in these comments has been interesting, and some of it has been clarifying and helpful, but it seems like some have missed the point of Justin’s original post about the strangeness of Dr. Blomberg’s comment.
I dissected it a little to try to sort out what I think Justin’s very valid concern was:
Dr. Blomberg: “Do Mormons not believe in the deity of Jesus?...” [that is, in the sense of the evangelical/orthodox understanding of ‘deity’ – the background of the whole discussion is to what extent Mormon belief agrees with evangelical/orthodox belief. The question would be essentially meaningless if it meant: Do Mormons believe in the deity of Jesus in the sense of the Mormon understanding of deity?]
Dr. Blomberg: “…I’ve heard Bob [Millet] speak so many times on this issue, that I have no question at all that he does.” [So here Blomberg affirms that Mr. Millet ‘unquestionably’ does believe in the deity of Jesus (again, by implication, in accordance with the evangelical/orthodox understanding of that doctrine).]
Dr. Blomberg: “The disagreement remains in terms of what Jesus may have been “before the beginning” in Genesis 1:1. [But here Blomberg acknowledges that there is ‘disagreement’ between what the evangelical/orthodox understanding teaches (that Jesus is the pre-existent Son who has always been deity) and Millet’s Mormon belief (that Jesus became deity at some subsequent time. So what was just described as being unquestionable now seems to have been called into question.]
Dr. Blomberg: “But there is no question for him that for an awfully long time and certainly today, he is fully God.” [This is the assertion that seems incoherent: for the evangelical/orthodox understanding of being ‘fully God’ includes eternality, which logically precludes the idea that there could have been a time when the Son/Jesus was not God.]
So I agree with Justin’s characterization of these comments as ‘strange’ and I too wonder if I’ve missed something, since I have always respected Dr. Blomberg’s writings and scholarship. (I also recognize that, given the informality of the blogosphere, it’s certainly possible to say something in a way that doesn’t quite express what was intended.)
An interesting blog and set of posts. I appreciate those who give me the benefit of the doubt and am saddened by those who don't. The very people who lament that evangelicalism is too nice clearly are not in danger of being guilty of that, or of the fruit of the Spirit, or the virtues praised in the beatitudes, etc., etc. This is the truly sad part of contemporary evangelicalsim--the people who are quick to point out what they think is wrong with everybody else, inside and outside the camp, not tempered by the graciousness Galatians 6:1 commands even in those situations where person a knows fellow believer is CLEARLY wrong, much less in the gray areas.
It's also an discouraging experience to be "taught" so confidently by some who haven't studied nearly the amount that I have, as if they seriously think they are teaching me things I don't know and in which I need to be corrected. More humility and more study is needed on their part.
I have been privileged to be a part of a couple dozen events over the years involving evangelical and LDS scholars, a majority of them with Bob Millet present. No he is not an Arian; I have never heard him affirm that there was a time when Jesus was not. The issue, in light of the King Follet Discourse, which, for Bob at least, he has very consistently stressed is not a canonical source for him, however important it has been for many LDS, is whether there was a time in which God was merely a man. Millet denies this. As for "before the beginning," that's a phrase Stephen Robinson uses in the book we co-wrote a decade ago, oxymoronic though it may be. And yes, I'm not saying I agree with these perspectives, just wishing people would work harder to represent them accurately. Read Paul Owen's posts on Rob Bowman's blogsite for someone else who is doing this, and notice how Rob just doesn't get it in his responses to him or to me.
Here's a goal for dialogue in any religious conversation. Until you can state another person's views in language they would accept as having fairly represented them, you have no right to critique them. That's what you'd expect if others were critiquing you, and the golden rule is still in the Bible. Let's try working on that goal for awhile. Then when we get it right, move on to the critique. I'd far rather be "accused" of being nice than to come across sounding like my critics!
Dr. Blomberg,
I have read some of your work and greatly appreciate what you do (even though we would disagree on key issues) so please understand I mean no harm and I am not an opponent of yours. However, when you say this:
"It's also an discouraging experience to be "taught" so confidently by some who haven't studied nearly the amount that I have, as if they seriously think they are teaching me things I don't know and in which I need to be corrected. More humility and more study is needed on their part."
You come across somewhat arrogant. You assume in your correction that you know the amount of study that any one of those people have put in. I would bet you've "out-studied" them 10:1 if not more, however, your assessment is still an assumption and shows more that you were offended some would question you or assume to know more than you rather than the validity of your comment in question. You imply that you can only be taught by those that have matched your study habits... I don't see this as an attitude humility.
You were right, they need more humility. So do I. So do all of us. You pointing it out to them while taking a couple jabs is not really setting the example.
Once again, I am not your enemy. I am a nobody without a degree but I do have the Holy Spirit. I appreciate your work and hope you keep up the excellent scholarship.
With love,
Jared
Actually, I think Dr. Blomberg, whom I have never met, is right on with this one, that is, he has displayed the academic virtue of listening attentively and patiently to those with whom he is in dialogue. As a result, he is able to demonstrate such confidence. Besides, what your comment seems to suggest is more of an insecurity, Jared. This is why he is a teacher and why the rest of us should, in many cases, be less hasty with our accusations and a little more sturdy when receiving a gentle jab. Take it on the chin and carry on - it'll proabaly knock the nice out of a few of us and for the better.
j.p. mcc.
I agree with Blomberg and I don't see him being arrogant at all but just stating the truth that a lot of time (especially on the internet) people with little learning attempt to teach and correct people with a lot of learning. There's the arrogance and pride and someone needed to say it (thanks Blomberg). And what's even worse is that people like to jump on short statements often out of context (immediately context and the context of what a scholar has said elsewhere and throughout their career) and jump to crazy conclusions assuming the worst of a scholar and making them say more than they intended.
Unfortunately on blogs there's too much quickness to speak and less silence, listening and pondering.
It's sad that someone like Blomberg, so highly regarded in the Evangelical community, would have to come on a blog like this and defend himself.
Anyway that's just my opinion.
Dr. Blomberg or whoever has some wisdom on this question:
I think you are dead on with the fact that we should be able to clearly state what we are critiquing in a way that person would agree with. My question though is one does one do that with Mormons who are constantly vacillating on their beliefs and changing the meaning of words. Or even worse their official teachings and scriptures are constantly evolving as well. I think the answer to this has huge implications for how we dialouge and our apologetic methods.
humbly,
ted
Bryan L and Anon#2,
What you are all forgetting is the fact that the blog with which this post first originated is not run by academic slouches. Rob Bowman did not forget about the context with which Dr. Blomberg made that statement.
I think there is a false and arrogant assumption regarding Christian Scholarship here. Shall we conclude that people with no degrees are less learned than those with 6 degrees? Or their brains are not capable to interact with scholarship. I think not. It is true that in order to be considered a "scholar" in the academic field you must, but in the scriptures we are called to consider our life and doctrine no matter who we are. One of the ways with which we do this is seeking to read widely and study diligently regardless of a seminary education or not. You will not be proved faithful by how many degrees with which we hold, but by how faithful we have been. To be honest with you there are some men who have never been gotten a degree who I would rather have with me in battle regarding the scriptures than some with degrees.
Plus, do you know for a fact that Jerry, Steve, Justin Taylor, Calvdispy, etc have not read anything regarding mormonism, or church history, or any discussion regarding the divinity of Christ?
my fallible two cents
This post has been removed by the author.
Anon,
My comments were directed at this particular blog. And the comment I made concerning context pointed not only to the immediate context of Blomberg's statement but the context of Blomberg's other writings and career which some were not looking at but instead assuming that one particular statement that was quoted was enough to assume the worst of him.
"Shall we conclude that people with no degrees are less learned than those with 6 degrees? "
It depends on the subject but in general the answer would be yes. Are there exceptions? Yes but they are just that, exceptions and shouldn't be assumed to be the norm, in that everyone who participates on blogs and has no formal education is automatically more educated and informed than a scholar of Blomberg's caliber on issues like this.
"One of the ways with which we do this is seeking to read widely and study diligently regardless of a seminary education or not."
The problem is that very, very often this really doesn't take place and although someone may read a lot of books often they just read them from a particular perspective they agree with and not from one other than their own. That's not really being widely read and that is the difference between scholarship and causal reading.
Craig,
I earnestly hope that you recognize that, although I have disagreed with you, I have tried to give you (as you put it) "the benefit of the doubt." It ought to be possible to express disagreements vigorously (as the apostle Paul did, for example) while still exhibiting graciousness, fairness, and the fruit of the Spirit (of which Paul spoke in his most sharply worded epistle).
As I explain in my response to Paul Owen on the Parchment and Pen blogsite, the teaching of the King Follett Discourse that the Father was once a mere man like us before attaining Godhood is official LDS doctrine, even though various individuals in the LDS Church have personally disavowed it (http://tinyurl.com/286k9o). I welcome a response to my arguments on this point from you or Paul Owen or anyone else so inclined. I'm not at all questioning Millet's sincerity in stating that he personally does not accept that teaching, but I do question the claim that his view is representative of Mormonism.
You wrote:
<< And yes, I'm not saying I agree with these perspectives, just wishing people would work harder to represent them accurately. Read Paul Owen's posts on Rob Bowman's blogsite for someone else who is doing this, and notice how Rob just doesn't get it in his responses to him or to me. >>
If there is something I did not "get," again, I would be happy to have it pointed out to me. I work very hard to represent the views of others accurately. My long-stated favorite verse in the Bible is Proverbs 18:13 (I may be the only person on the planet who would say that!). I will admit that one thing I do not "get" is your declaration that my responses to you and Paul somehow demonstrate that I don't appreciate the importance of working hard to represent others accurately. My dear brother, the ball is in your court to show that I have failed in this area.
Dear Bryan,
I agree with you that we often speak too soon and know too little. I have been guilty of this probably thousands of times which is why I said NOTHING of the actual topic at hand (Mormonism). As stated, I appreciate Blomberg's work here and I have read some of his stuff (various articles, books where he is involved but did not author etc.) and I in know way want to act like I know more than him... I do not.
Yet I find it telling that he's concerned about the "arrogance" of bloggers (as you put it) when it comes to his own thoughts being critiqued and criticized (even unfairly) but otherwise we would have never known. This along with the fact that he is automatically assuming to know more than whoever is criticizing him is arrogant even if it's true.
We are to consider each other better than ourselves and outdo one another in showing honor. We should never be wise in our own sight. If Blomberg is truly concerned about brothers in Christ speaking too soon then it would be good for him to address it in an article for a wider audience than simply defend himself here on some blog comments and make it appear that he's concerned with others recognizing his superior intellect.
"Let another praise you, and not your own mouth;a stranger, and not your own lips."
Comments about our own qualifications and superior intellect are not necessary to correct others. If someone else does not respect Blomberg and his work enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, then Blomberg telling them that he is smarter and has worked harder than them is probably not going to do the trick.
I am not angry with anyone. I have no ill intentions and I don't want to stir up trouble. I suppose I am eager to cheer on Evangelical leaders and would love to see them deal with us commoners with such grace and humility that they could not be called into question. That is my heart towards Dr. Blomberg.
For what its worth, I also thought he was simply representing the case of someone else and not endorsing their beliefs. I found nothing wrong with his comment, it was just a little confusing and took some thought.
With love,
Jared
Hey Jared,
Still haven't gotten blogger account huh? : ) Half the time I can't tell if it's you and you just forgot to sign your name.
I guess from Blomberg's perspective it's like going to your mechanic and telling him he must have forgot to check the spark plugs or it's probably the alternator. Even if you tinker around with your own car and you've read "Fixing Cars for Dummies", you still don't go to a professional and assume that you are teaching them when it is their job to know that stuff. Another example would be if you went to your doctor. Just because you self-diagonised yourself based on info you got from the internet or your medical dictionary at home you wouldn't assume and act like you have things to teach them or that you know something they don't when they spent many, many years and thousands of dollars to do what they do. They would be right to imply that you are arrogant.
Listen, I say this as someone who doesn't have a degree in Biblical studies or theology or anything. And I read a lot and try to stay up with current scholarship. But it's not my job, it's not what I get paid to do and I don't have to have everything I say and write subjected to peer-review and potentially negatively effect my career. That being the case I would approach disagreement with someone over an issue that they've devoted their life to and it is their job to be an expert in with a lot more humility and not assume their ignorance on that topic or that I am actually teaching them something they do not know or have not come across. If I do then they have every right to call me out on it and remind me of their education and call into question mine just like my doctor or mechanic would.
But again that's just my opinion. Thanks for the conversation. Later.
Here is a draft of a blog post of mine scheduled to post in December on blog.mrm.org:
What is the status of the first half of the Lorenzo Snow couplet in Mormonism?
“As man is God once was, as God is man may be.”
Many non-Mormons make the mistake of either stereotyping Mormons as those who firmly believe in the entirety of the Lorenzo Snow couplet or over-generalizing Mormonism as strongly abandoning the belief. Based on the collective experience of myself and those in the ministry with me, here are some thoughts on the issue that I hope will be helpful to anyone trying to sort this out.
* Even the Mormons who disaffirm it find it an acceptable position for a Mormon to hold. Affirming the first half of the couplet (and even that God possibly was, probably was, or certainly was a sinner) isn’t seen as cause for a disciplinary council, disfellowship, or excommunication.
* Past leaders have explicitly affirmed it and their authoritative remarks on the issue have never been formally repudiated with the same degree of authoritativeness.
* Among those who take a position on the issue, it is still the dominant position over any minority readings of the King Follett Discourse (which the couplet has traditionally functioned to summarize).
* A large number of Mormons taken no position on the matter and don’t find the issue important enough to take a position on.
* Some Mormons see Hinckley’s public hedging/ambivalence on the issue as a license to back away from the traditional position and then learn toward having no position or having a minority, non-traditional position. Others see it as a justifiable public relations move, and see Hinckley’s subsequent Conference remarks (which referenced the famous interview) as innuendo that it is still doctrine.
* The position is no longer actively, unequivocally, explicitly affirmed in church curriculum or Sunday teaching.
* According to the more robust definitions of what constitutes “official” doctrine, such as the standard of Robert Millet which was recently endorsed on the LDS Newsroom, the first half of the Lorenzo Snow couplet fails the test of officiality. However, using this same standard many other basic, widely-held Mormon beliefs that are promoted in church-published, correlated literature are neither “official.” Mormonism has no official position on what constitutes an absolutely official position, so this issue is messy and probably not worth tackling in a context with few words available.
* Many Mormons are not aware of the more robust definitions suggested for what constitutes “official” doctrine, and simply assume the first half of the couplet is official doctrine. Many others, in the context of being challenged with the historic teaching, will take recourse in the fact that it isn’t official, even though they personally believe it (compare this with a common Mormon response when challenged over whether they believe in the existence of Heavenly Mother).
* The most significant non-traditional stance is as follows: the parallel in the King Follett Discourse and John 5:19 made between the mortal experience of the Father and the Son is stronger than the parallel between our mortal experience and that of the Father. Thus the parallel commonly perceived in the Lorenzo Snow couplet is too strong and unwarranted. Unlike us, the Father never was a sinner, never himself received forgiveness or benefited from an atonement, and probably was in a mortal experience to play the role of a savior like Jesus did.
Here is some concise language that is probably warranted in describing the status of the first half of the Lorenzo Snow couplet:
* It is the majority, dominant position.
* With some exceptions, many Mormons can be generalized as affirming/believing it, while many others would take a non-committal stance even while recognizing that the larger history and system of Mormon doctrine suggest that it is true.
* Mormons unanimously find the position acceptable to hold, i.e. not warranting any church disciplinary action.
* It is a traditional doctrine that has strong, continued life within Mormonism.
Aaron Shafovaloff
Mormonism Research Ministry
Justin, I agree the coent is off the mark and strange. However, I take exception with the wording of Jerry's comment, "Never mind that a God who was once man is no God at all." Jesus has always been fully God, at the same time, he once was fully man for 33 years.
Interesting, Aaron.
Very interesting.
As Dr. Millet said to us in the audience at the dialogue conference recently in SLC.
[Evangelicals],"Give us more time in developing our theology."
Remember that?
I think that believing in a Jesus who has been eternally a God will be the wave of the future for young LDS.
Todd, Millet's comment should indeed give pause to anyone who think Mormon doctrine is fully and permanently "developed". Personally, I'm not so sure if some fringe Mormon views (like those of Blake Ostler, that God the Father was always fully God) will be mainstreamed in the decades to come. And I've never, ever met an informed Mormon who believed that Jesus was always fully God. I'd personally have to see some hard evidence as a basis for optimism over future waves. Until then, we interact with Mormons where they are now.
PS I appreciate your blog and love all the evangelistic interaction you do with LDS folks.
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Hey Bryan,
To my knowledge I have never posted without signing off (including times when I go back and check to see if anyone has responded). So rest assured I am not attacking you under a false identity.
As I think I said before I agree with you. I agree with your illustrations, they were very clear and helpful. I did not oppose Blomberg's work nor do I want to unless it were painfully obvious he was heretical or something.
Instead, my concern is with the pot calling the kettle black. In light of God Blomberg knows NOTHING and neither do any of us. A mechanic is one thing, but when we are talking about the beliefs and convictions of different religions in light of God's Word and who Jesus Christ is it IS arrogant to talk about your superiority on the subject as if you obtained it on your own and don't owe all credit to God in the first place. In the case of Christian scholars, pastors and authors etc. it would be wise for them to remember that they have a following and they have people that look up to them and not to abuse the gifts God has given them or hold them over other people's heads when they (other people) are wrong.
How would you like Grudem to tell you that you're simply wrong to challenge his view of complementarianism (spelling?) because he's studied the subject more than you? Are you simply supposed to become complimentarian because he has studied more than you in the same way you would listen to your doctor because he knows more about the body? Would it be wrong for you to discern what he said and draw your own conclusions?
Would you have wanted Piper to come on your blog one of the times you stated your disagreement and simply say, "It would be wise for you to remember that I have studied the sovereignty of God far more than you have and you're questioning of my position and the conclusions you've drawn are therefore wrong and lacking graciousness?" No matter how he would word it, if that's what he was saying... it would be arrogant. He doesn't quote Scripture or reference any work to show you why you're off base and then actually encourage you to read it but instead makes a few subtle, sarcastic remarks and expects you to simply understand that you're wrong so his own "rightness" can be known. If that would be okay with you then I suppose we just have different ideas of humility and correcting with love.
Let me say again that I am not mad. I did not write any of this with sarcasm in mind and I do not intend to talk down. If I have then I apologize. Please accept it as a "failure to communicate." If you still disagree I suppose we can just agree to disagree (as we have done many times before). I still appreciate your input and I'm glad we're able to interact in a respectful way. I'm just wondering if you would feel the same way towards scholars you disagree with and if you would then why you have spoken out against what they've said in the past.
With love,
Jared
Hey Jared,
I didn't mean to imply nor did I think that you were attacking me anonymously. And there is no need to apologize about anything, we are just having a conversation and from all of our conversations in the past which have always been pleasant I assume your tone is like mine, just a regular conversation tone. No offense or anything like that. : )
Now on to your points (and this will probably be my last comments as we will just have to disagree on this).
I don't think Blomberg was simply reacting to a challenge of his views, I think he was reacting to people assuming he was giving into political correctness or a desire to be nice, that he didn't understand the seriousness of the issue or he truly didn't understand Mormonism and that he thinks it's just another denomination or something, and he was not aware of things like Arianism or the church creeds and needed to go back and do his homework. Read the initial comments again and see if you don't possibly see the same thing. Blomberg only pulled that card here he didn't try that at Bowman's blog (that I remember)where people were people were bringing up references and quotes, so my assumption is that is what was really setting him off.
"How would you like Grudem to tell you that you're simply wrong to challenge his view of complementarianism (spelling?)
because he's studied the subject more than you?
I doubt he would do that and I don't think Blomberg was doing that. Now if I assumed that Grudem hadn't done his homework, that he hadn't read the Bible or books by egalitarian authors, yet he was out there blabbing his mouth off about it then I would expect him to call me out on it and remind me that he has devoted a whole lot of his life to the study of this. If I acted like he had no knowledge of the meaning of kephale or hadn't read the primary sources or other scholars views on it and just assumed that he was ignorant of the relevant issues then again I would expect him to be a little tiffed with me especially if I don't even know greek or show a lack of knowledge of the relevant issues in my comments to him.
"Would you have wanted Piper to come on your blog one of the times you stated your disagreement and simply say, "It would be wise for you to remember that I have studied the sovereignty of God far more than you have and you're questioning of my position and the conclusions you've drawn are therefore wrong and lacking graciousness?" No matter how he would word it, if that's what he was saying... it would be arrogant."
Again I don't see this as what Blomberg was doing. To flip this around a little to something more recent if I stated that he hadn't read N. T. Wright's books or that he needs to go back and study the meaning of the Greek word for justification or other things like that then I would expect him to wonder how much I know.
On all these issues it's fine for me to form my own opinions but it's another thing for me to question the integrity or knowledge of particular scholars just because I disagree with them especially if it's one of their specialties (and not just something they've written on casually).
When you've read and studied a particular subject quite a bit then you can tell in the comments or remarks that people make about that subject whether they have or not, which usually take the form of caricatures or just plain rhetoric instead of substance. If Blomberg was picking up on that then I think it was valid for him to question it.
Just my opinion though so...
Have a good one.
Bryan
Interesting that my schedule found me spending a good portion of the day re-reading a manuscript on loving one's enemies--inside and outside of the church--for which I agreed to write a foreword. Now I return to the conversation to find Jared insisting I am arrogant. That certainly was not the spirit I was aware of as I wrote my first post. I could have simply responded with factual information but I thought perhaps I could share some of my heart--my frustration and sadness (which extends to so many blog postings that Christians contribute to; maybe it is almost inherent in the medium?)--when it appears to me like people are assuming I don't know what I'm talking about, or have said things without thinking about them or without investigating matters enough. Would those people phrase things that way to the people they critique if they were speaking to them face-to-face? If not, then we shouldn't do it in print either. If so, are we still sure that is best way to show love for Christian brothers and sisters (or for enemies)?
Thank you, Bryan, for much more adequately capturing both the contents and the spirit of my posting.
Rob, my frustrations with your interchange with Paul on the parchment and pen blog are threefold. 1) There is a defensiveness in almost every posting and an unwillingness to concede any of Paul's important points; it doesn't come across as someone genuinely seeking truth in love but just continuing to insist that one is right; 2) It's not just Bob Millet, but every one of the two dozen or so people our Evangelical-LDS dialogues have involved at one point or another, including three general authorities in more recent days, two heads of seventy and one of the twelve apostles, who have agreed that only the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants represent official Mormon teaching. Of course, many Mormons have believed and do believe many additional things. But we have plenty to talk about just based on those four Standard Works. All it does is add to their frustration that WE are the ones constantly changing in our positions when we cannot agree among ourselves what are the most important issues to discuss, challenge, agree on, etc. If evangelical apologists would agree to just stick to the Standard Works, we'd be a whole lot better off. 3) If we are all agreed that in the long run our greatest desire is to have the greatest assurance that individual LDS have come to Christ and/or to try to encourage the entire movement to move in more orthodox directions, all I can say from fifteen years of lots of experience with these key leaders is that our standard approach to focus almost exclusively on disagreements via argumentation that can at least be susceptible to being interpreted as "mean-spirited" and not to respect the definitions and differences they give us as what we should interact with is utterly counterproductive and keeps people from taking us seriously.
Jerry, in this context, it is impossible to be too nice. Until you've been a Mormon missionary and heard the full range of hostile, inflammatory and misled remarks that some have said to them in the name of Jesus as they have gone door to door, you cannot appreciate how much suspicion we have to overcome. Until you appreciate how they discern spiritual truth so much by the subjective features of good feelings, you'll keep making true statements in less than loving ways that will fall utterly on deaf ears. Conversely, one of the most encouraging things I've had LDS repeatedly say to me is that they have sensed the true Spirit of God in me (and colleagues) after we have dealt with controversial and divisive matters in a true spirit of humility and kindness, without in the least compromising sharing our convictions. Your assumption that I was motivated by political correctness couldn't have been more false. It is always biblical correctness I am after.
If I don't respond to every subsequent post it's simply that I'm swamped with other commitments at the moment.
Craig,
I find it distressing that you would offer such sharp personal judgments as that my responses to Paul Owen exhibited defensiveness and an unwillingness to concede any of his points and that I don’t “come across as someone genuinely seeking truth in love.” Apparently, unless I make some concessions in that exchange, I don’t really care about truth. Your “frustration” here presupposes not only that some of Paul’s criticisms of my position are sound but *also* that I have no excuse not to have been convinced by those criticisms. With all due respect, I just don’t think so.
There is some serious confusion today with regards to “official Mormon teaching.” I have addressed this confusion in my most recent post at Parchment and Pen, “Who’s Afraid of the King Follett Discourse?” In that post I elaborated on a distinction that Paul Owen himself made between sources of doctrine and expositions of doctrine. The Standard Works are the LDS Church’s canonical sources of doctrine, but in fact the LDS Church historically has drawn upon noncanonized statements from Joseph Smith, especially in his famous King Follett Discourse, when expounding on the Church’s doctrine. (Furthermore, as I point out in response to a comment from Paul, Smith himself strongly asserted that his doctrine in that sermon itself came from canonical Scripture!) A basic doctrinal manual like _Gospel Principles_, published by the LDS Church specifically for use in Sunday schools worldwide for some three decades, is not a canonical *source* of doctrine, but it is an official *exposition* of doctrine for the LDS Church. I would greatly appreciate your careful consideration of my argument in that post and any feedback you might wish to offer.
In conclusion, I do not see in all candor and humility anything in my posts or comments that could fairly or plausibly be construed as “mean-spirited.” I have tried as hard as I could to recognize the LDS Church’s right to define and articulate its doctrine as it sees fit. I have worked very hard to live up to my favorite verse in the Bible, Proverbs 18:13, which is my guiding principle in these matters. If I am in error, I wish to have this explained to me, because I loathe the idea of remaining in error far more than I fear having to admit I was wrong. And as I said on Parchment and Pen, I sincerely value and appreciate your superb scholarship and hope that we will be able to work together in the future as we have done previously.
Someone could utter both of the following statements in particular contexts and mean them both sincerely without contradiction. In fact, both of them can be true:
1. Jim thinks Jesus is fully God.
2. Jim does not think Jesus is fully God.
In particular, imagine someone who holds to a fully orthodox, Trinitarian and incarnational theology speaking of a Mormon, just as an example of a hypothetical case. The Trinitarian will say that Jesus is fully God and that the Mormon's claim to believe Jesus as fully God is a false claim. The Mormon doesn't believe that Jesus is fully God in the way that Jesus really is fully God. Thus the second claim.
Nevertheless, the Mormon does accept the sentence "Jesus is fully God" to be true. It's just that the Mormon doesn't mean it the way the Trinitarian would. So it would be true to say 1 if all you mean is that the Mormon would affirm that sentence. Given Dr. Blomberg's insistence that he's simply trying to be fair to what people actually say and not put words into their mouth, the only charitable way to read his statement is that it means what my hypothetical Trinitarian means when saying 1 and does not deny what my hypothetical Trinitarian means when saying 2.
[For anyone with philosophical training, what I'm saying here is making use of the de re/de dicto distinction. You can say the first statement and mean it de dicto, i.e. about what is said, while saying the second statement and meaning it de re, i.e. about the thing. A lot of fallacies rely on confusions between de re and de dicto statements, so it's worth knowing them backwards and forwards if you engage in a lot of argumentative discussion.]
It is disconcerting that a seminary professor/scholar/writer of commentator would be unclear on the fact that Mormonism is incompatible with Christianity.
Their soteriology is different, their Christology is different, and Mormons are henotheists (polytheists). Their religion is based upon a lie.
Certainly, one can find liberal Mormons, or those who are not orthodox. But seriously, they believe that Christ is an the result of sexual relations between Adam and Mary, that the Holy Spirit is an exalted man, and that Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan and that we can all evolve into gods and become gods of our own planets.
Has no one taken the time to take a gander at the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price?
Craig Blomberg is missing the point that the Mormons and the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society (JW') have more in common with each other than they do Christianity.
Keith,
Although I disagree with some of Craig Blomberg's comments, I must also correct something you wrote. Mormons do not believe that Jesus was the product of a sexual union between Adam and Mary. Few if any Mormons believe that God had sexual relations with Mary, and no Mormons today believe that Adam is God the Father (although Brigham Young did teach this idea).
I realize that the logic of the LDS view of the conception of Jesus does seem to imply that God and Mary had sexual relations. However, this simply is not a conclusion or inference that most Mormons accept.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home