Friday, November 30, 2007

Insulate

From the Blog of Pastor Steven Furtick:

God will never insulate me
from my need for Him.

I think too many of the prayers I pray revolve around God giving me more security.
Not the good kind of security: security in Christ, security in His Word, etc.
The kind of security that would make God unnecessary in my life.
In other words, false security.

I want God to tie up all the loose ends in my life, until I’ve got it all under control. Tell me the 50 year plan so I can get cracking, and never look back. And that’s just never going to happen.
The nature of relationship with God will not permit Him to position me circumstantially so deeply in my self-sufficiency that He becomes a footnote in my life.

God will never insulate me
from my need for Him.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Prove me Wrong.

This is the final result on a research essay I wrote for this quarter. Enjoy!

SALVATION AND THE MORMON CHURCH


Introduction

A critical look at evangelical Christian theology shows that a person following the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has the potential to be a born again Christian. Looking at this argument two questions are apparent. The first is, what exactly is involved in an individual appropriating the benefits of salvation? The second is, are there Biblical exceptions to the atonement being applied to a person, given that the correct Biblical steps have been followed to receive salvation?

Doctrines of Salvation

To begin, a foundation is needed on the subject of what evangelicals believe is required to acquire salvation. Paul Enns states that “Many passages of Scripture affirm that man’s only responsibility in salvation is believing the Gospel.”[1] The Gospel is defined as believing that Jesus was everything He claimed to be. For example that He was God, and that He died an atoning sacrifice for man’s sinfulness, and was bodily resurrected.[2] This basic idea is the evangelical salvation message and it provides a baseline for understanding what makes a person righteous in the sight of God. The same idea is stated a little differently by William Menzies and Stanley Horton who states that salvation is received through repentance to God, faith toward Jesus, and the regenerating and renewing work of the Holy Spirit.[3] This reflects the same idea from a different perspective explaining that the actual salvation is imparted by the Spirit, making it clear that it is not our own work.

All of these aspects describe one whole work of salvation and, much like the evangelical view of God, should not be broken apart. Often the idea of coming to Christ is twisted into an idea that one must make themselves right and then God will accept them. This idea is known as salvation by works and is unbiblical. It puts repentance before faith. Enns writes that, “It [repentance] should not be understood as a separate step in salvation.”[4] Understanding that sin has separated man from God is a part of the Gospel, but the essence of this is that God had to come as Jesus in order to make it right. Man had no way to return to God on his own.

Evangelicals believe that once one is saved that it will result in a changed life. James writes that, “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:17) Wayne Grundem states that, “This does not of course mean that the person will have a perfect life, but only that the pattern of life will not be one of continuing indulgence in sin.”[5] Although it is a clear teaching in evangelicalism that your works do not in any way merit salvation, after one experiences salvation it will result in a changed life.

Looking at the Latter Day Saint sources a distinction in terminology is needed. The term salvation is used quite differently in the Mormon church. Stephen Robinson, a professor of New Testament Studies at Brigham Young University, states that the term salvation when used by the Mormon church is not referring to the initial act of grace that atones for sin, but instead is a term used in reference to preparing oneself for future glory.[6] He also states that the Latter Day Saints endorse salvation by grace through faith, but that faith must not be removed from being faithful and fulfilling covenant obligations.[7] In an article by Jana Riess she writes, “If mere belief in Jesus Christ as savior is enough, then Mormons definitely make the cut.”[8]

Understanding Latter Day Saint Doctrine

In looking at the fundamental differences in salvation theology of the Latter Day Saint church Blomberg and Robinson come up with three major points. First is the ability to respond to the Gospel after death, second, is on how crucial baptism is, and the third is on the details of the afterlife.[9]

It is interesting that one of these three, how crucial baptism is, is also debated among evangelicalism. Robinson discusses this and notes that Latter Day Saints’ believe that the obedience necessary to be born again is to have faith in Christ, repent, and be baptized. He further states that, “Most evangelicals would agree with the first two, and some would agree with all three.”[10] Much of the confusion on this issue comes from Acts 2:38 where Peter responds to a question of how to be saved, “Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.’”

The ability to respond to the Gospel after death, and baptism by proxy for those already dead, is a distinctive of the Latter Day Saints church as is the concept of three different heavens following the Judgement. It must be noted, however, that neither of these doctrines actually affect any part of their basic gospel message to those who are alive. Faith in Christ is taught as the Latter Day Saint foundation for being right with God. Also the nature of God is understood to be different with God being three separate god’s who are one in purpose, but not in essence.

The Salvation of Latter Day Saints

Daniel Pecota writes that, “Repentance and faith constitute the two essential elements of conversion.”[11] He also notes that saving faith requires divine enabling by the Holy Spirit.[12] This is interesting because what we have seen of Latter Day Saint doctrine on the subject appears to be the same in essence. Robinson claims that anyone who believes it possible to earn salvation is not a Christian or a Latter Day Saint and that, “Such a doctrine is foreign to the religion I practice and teach.”[13] It is important then to understand then that the Latter Day Saint doctrine of works is different in essence than the Evangelical one.

Menzies and Horton write that the evidences of Salvation are an inward witness of the Sprit and an outward life of righteousness.[14] There are many examples of this same idea in evangelical theology. One example being that salvation will produce a life of righteousness or else it was not genuine salvation. Is Evangelicalism hypocritical then for condemning an identical doctrine of the Latter Day Saint church? Robinson talks about this doctrine from the Latter Day Saint perspective. “Continued faithfulness is required in order not to fall from grace after we have been saved, [and] this is Armenianism, not synergism.”[15] Although some of the Reformed school of theology would disagree with the idea of falling from grace they still expect believers to be moving toward righteousness if they are truly saved. This is in agreement with what Robinson teaching about Latter Day Saint doctrine when he states, “All true Christians must share in principle the desire to serve God.”[16]

In an anti-cult book written by James Jornstad it is interesting that he also notes that often terms used in Evangelical Christianity are used in different ways by Mormons. He writes on the same idea from earlier, that in Latter Day Saint writings written for their internal use the term salvation is used in a general sense to refer to the resurrection and in the individual sense in reference to being exalted to the Celestial Kingdom.[17] Differences in terminology are clearly not enough to eliminate the power of the atonement from being applicable in the life of an individual Latter Day Saint. However we also have to consider the Latter Day Saint theology on the nature of God and the Trinity. It is so different from orthodox Christianity that the Catholic Church issued a statement that Mormon baptisms were invalid.[18]

Grudem writes that a true saving faith includes knowledge, approval, and personal trust.[19] So the question remains if from the perspective that Latter Day Saint church takes on salvation and the nature of God if they have this knowledge, approval, and personal trust. Do they know who Christ is and what He has done, believe in Him, and trust Him alone for their personal salvation? If a correct analysis of current Latter Day Saint orthodox belief is presented here then the possibility exists, from the Evangelical viewpoint, for born-again Mormons. This is not to say that all Mormons are born-again, any more than everyone in an Evangelical church is born-again. The conclusion of Blomberg in his essay about salvation and the Latter Day Saint church is relevant, “Inadequate understanding of God or the Trinity does not affect the triune God’s ability to provide salvation for those who sincerely trust in Him, through Christ, however imperfect their understanding may be.”[20]

Conclusions

Blomberg concluded after this last statement that salvation by faith is not fair.[21] Looking at current Latter Day Saint theology it is clear that they have the basic beliefs, according to Evangelical theology, to have salvation by faith in Christ. The sin of misinterpreting the nature of God and Jesus is no worse or different than any other and can be forgiven through Christ’s complete work. There is no clear Biblical exception to the atonement of Jesus and therefore no sin, outside the rejection of that atonement, that leads to rejection by God. A member of the Latter Day Saint church is judged or justified based on whether or not they have put their faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God.



[1] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), 332.

[2] Ibid., 332.

[3] William W. Menzies and Stanley M. Horton, Bible Doctrines: A Pentecostal Perspective (Springfield: Logion Press, 1993), 96.

[4] Enns, 330.

[5] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 704.

[6] Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 155.

[7] Ibid., 155.

[8] Jana Riess, “We’re Christians Too,” The Christian Century, October 2, 2007, 9-10.

[9] Blomberg, Robinson, 187.

[10] Ibid., 157.

[11] Stanley M. Horton, ed., Systematic Theology (Springfield: Logion Press, 1995), 361.

[12] Ibid., 363-364.

[13] Blomberg, Robinson, 143.

[14] Menzies, Horton, 96.

[15] Blomberg, Robinson, 159.

[16] Ibid., 147

[17] James Bjornstad, Counterfeits at Your Door (Ventura: Regal Books, 1979), 132-133.

[18] Gill Donovan, “Vatican says Mormon baptisms are invalid – Brief Article,” National Catholic Reporter, August 10, 2001, 10.

[19] Grundem 709-712

[20] Blomberg, Robinson, 185.

[21] Ibid., 185.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Out of Commision

Sorry about the long time between posts.

And sorry if I don't get your email or phone calls. I have 60ish pages of writing to do by Monday.

Peace!

Sunday, November 11, 2007

The Symbols of the Kingdom.

This is from a reading review I wrote for a class. First I summarize the reading and them I reflect on it. I felt that my reflection was at least interesting if not significant, however, this is probally not the most exciting thing to read.

But you might learn something. So if you would like to feel free.

Erik Germesin
Jesus and the Gospels [GBIB561.30]
Reading Review of Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 369-473


Review
This reading begins by looking at how Jesus viewed the institutions and symbols of Israel and in doing so redefined them. Wright argues that Jesus did not intend to depart form Judaism as a whole but instead was calling Israel back to the intentions behind their traditions. Jesus was presenting that the return from exile, which is the real return of God to Zion, was happening in and through His work.

The return from exile was understood as being marked by a restoration of the whole of creation, which focused on the healing of the sick. Wright argues thats Jesus intended that His works of healing would be understood as representing this. Instead of restoring land Jesus instead restored people to wholeness. Jesus chose to act in a fashion that was symbolic in this way.

Family was another symbol in the Judaism that Jesus intentionally redefined. Jesus made it clear that He considered anyone who followed Him to be family and that as such they should act to each other as family. Family would normally be the first priority and Jesus challenged this by putting priority on the Kingdom. Wright notes that this was represented by Jesus in His sharing of table-fellowship with anyone who shared His agenda. Allegiance with Jesus was a new family tie that was more important that any other.

Wright shows how Jesus redefined Torah simply by stating that, “Forgiveness lay at the heart of the symbolic praxis which was to characterize his redefined Israel.” Jesus still intended this praxis of Torah to set His followers apart from the people around them. They were to demonstrate mercy and forgiveness to others as it was given to them.

Much like the Torah, Wright presents the Temple as not a bad symbol of Israel but one that Jesus intended to transcend. Jesus was controversial because He was claiming that in His work the Temple was being rebuilt. This also alludes into the idea that Jesus was able in Himself to provide forgiveness as this was an idea that went with Temple worship and the sacrifices. With this Wright discusses how all the symbols that Jesus redefined were all part of a return from exile for Israel.

Wright then addresses the questions of the Kingdom. The first of these, ‘who are we?’ Wright answers by stating that, “we are Israel, the chosen people of the creator god... in the process of being redeemed at last by this god, over against the spurious claimants who are either in power or mounting alternative programmes.” The question of, ‘where are we?’ Jesus answered by giving the news that the slaves were being freed and that the meek would inherit the land. Jesus looked at the question of, ‘what’s wrong?’ by identifying the true enemy, which was not Rome, but the Satan. ‘What’s the solution?’ could be simply stated as that Jesus was the solution as being the movement by which Israel would be restored. Finally the last question of, ‘what time is it?’ is that Jesus believed that Israel’s God was acting now, at the time of Jesus’ ministry so that the time of the Kingdom of God had arrived.

Reflection
Looking at the symbols of Israel is it clear that the ministry of Jesus was intended to address and redefine them. Considering the power that symbols have in the story of a culture it is safe to assume that Jesus wanted the symbols He presented to be significant in the Kingdom that He established. Just as Jesus restored people to wholeness, allowed all who followed Him to be treated as family, demonstrated grace and forgiveness, and showed Himself to be the source of forgiveness the church today is to use this as their example in their praxis.

It is clear in these that Jesus found people to be significant and not just ‘people’ as a whole group. The symbols that Jesus redefined all point to the idea that He valued individual people and their significance. This considers the idea that Jesus still restores people to wholeness, calls us to treat any who respond to His message as family, calls us to demonstrates grace and forgiveness to people, and shows himself to be the source of forgiveness.

The questions of the Kingdom that Wright presents also apply to the Church today as a source of analyzing our practice. Jesus’ Kingdom responses to these questions lead to an understanding that the Kingdom of God is now and those who are a part of this Kingdom need to know what is going on in it.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

Four Ministry Evaluation Areas for Leaders

Jim Wideman recently wrote a blog series highlighting four areas that ministry leaders should regularly evaluate. Here’s a summary:

  1. Your Attitude
    Do I have the heart of a servant?
    Am I an asset or a liability to my pastor?
    What is my attitude about others around me?
    Am I grumbling and complaining?
  2. Your Priorities
    It’s one thing to know your priorities, it’s another thing all together to live according to those priorities.
  3. Your Time Management
    How am I spending my time?
    Am I spending time daily with the Lord?
    Is my family suffering while my ministry is flourishing?
    Am I making time for personal growth and development?
  4. Your Performance
    Am I being a team builder or a one person show?
    What am I doing that someone else can do?
    Have I communicated clearly to all my workers what they are to do?
    Can I be relied on to complete assignments and keep commitments?