Monday, April 4, 2011
Who is at the Center of Christianity?
Over the past couple of months our pastor has been preaching through Romans 9. One of the key issues that has come out and come up in discussion is how man-ceneterd (anthropocentric in theological parlance) even the church's theology can be. One of the great emphasis in my own theology is the need for all of life (including how we think) to be centered around God, that is, to be God-centered (theocentric in theological parlance). Why is this of such importance? Because when we realize how far reaching the effects of sin are, the depth and breadth to which it affects every aspect of who we are as humans, we begin to realize that to find salvation in all areas of life it must be found in God. To borrow build on the words of Dr. John Hannah, to be man-centered is to look inward on ourselves in the hope to find answers (salvation) for our sins, our problems, our iniquities, our short-comings or to look outward to others (whether it be to other individuals or to a society, system, philosophy, or movement) to find our answers, our salvation. Rather, we must look upward to the Creator of the universe as He has revealed Himself in Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ in order to find our answers, to find our salvation.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Evangelical Christians willing to support a Mormon revival?
This evening after church one of the ladies I attend church with and have a great deal of respect for (especially because of her walk with Christ) excitedly shared with me how pleased she was with Glenn Beck's comments at the "Restoring Honor" rally. I listened intently as she recounted how Beck called for revival from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. When I pointed out to her that Beck is a Mormon, her faced dropped; she thought a moment said, "Well, I guess you have to take things with a grain of salt." Indeed. But in the case of Beck, Christians need to do more than that. We need to realize that the revival he calls for is a return to the god(s) and gospel of the Mormons not the God and gospel of Christianity.
There is real danger here that Christians are willing (probably unknowingly in most instances as in the case of my friend above) to embrace a Mormon as the leader in the call for spiritual revival. To put it bluntly, Mormons do not believe in the same God, Jesus, or gospel that Christians do. Cf. the article 'Crown of gospel is upon our heads' in Church News (official church newsletter from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) from Saturday, June 20, 1998. In the article then Mormon church president (and prophet according to Mormon theology) Gordon B. Hinckley in response to the claim that Mormons do not believe in the "traditional Christ" states, "No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they [referring to Christians who believe in the historic Christian view of Christ] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak." Well said Mr. Hinckley.
Sidebar: For sake of clarity I want to acknowledge that Mormons believe they are "Christians" as they "believe in Christ" (cf. the comments by Gordon Hinckley in the same article above). However, as Hinckley acknowledges they believe in a different Christ than Christians do. Unfortunately, Mormons have chosen to adopt the same labels and terminology as Christians which confuses things a great deal and makes it easy for Christians to be deceived by their language. The "Christ" that Mormons follow is not the same God-man as the Christ that Christians follow. (I applaud Hinckley for willingly and rightly acknowledging as much.)
For some time I've had a concern that too many Christians (particularly those who call themselves "evangelical Christians") associate Christianity with conservative politics and social conservatism (typically the Republican party, Republican candidates, and politically conservative talking heads such as Beck). This is a fundamental problem. Christianity does not find its hope and/or salvation in politics or social reform. Christianity finds its hope in the person and work of Jesus Christ as expressed in the gospel of historic Christianity. This is why it is so disconcerting to me for Christians to stand behind Beck and cheer as he calls for revival. Do Christians really want a Mormon revival? Honestly, I know they don't.
Don't get me wrong here. I know many Mormons who are among some of the nicest people you will ever know. They have a high moral compass and great ethics. And I believe they have every right to be active in politics and have a voice in America. There are many social issues that I see eye-to-eye on with Mormons. And in the specific case of Glenn Beck, I agree with some of what he says on social and political issues. But this is no different than many of the Muslim friends I have as well. They are some of the nicest people you will ever know with a high moral compass and great ethics. And I can go a step further: this is no different than some of my atheist and agnostic friends I have as well. They are some of the nicest people you will ever know and have a high moral compass and great ethics. My point here is this: just because I agree with these other individuals on social and political issues does NOT mean I agree with them on issues of salvation and theology. My plea here is that Christians need to be more discerning and careful about WHO they support, WHAT they are supporting the person on, and WHY they throw their support behind someone on particular issues. While I would support Glenn Beck on some social and political issues; I definitely would not support him as a leader of spiritual revival.
Two insightful articles were written that made observations in regards to Beck and Christians at the "Restoring Honor" rally:
(1) Eric Sapp of the Eleison Group wrote "Open-Minded Evangelicals Answer Mormon Beck's Call for Revival." What I appreciate about Sapp's article is how it points out the odd union that has occurred.
Sapp also makes an interesting point in his article about language used by Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Land referred to Mormonism as a "different religion" rather than as a "cult." The issue here is a connotative one. When people here "religion" the tone is softer and does not come across as dangerous or pejorative. But when someone says "cult" it is a harsher term and conjures up images of fanatics and nut cases. I am a Southern Baptist (have been the vast majority of my life), and I feel for Land. When dealing with Mormons in the public square, he must be careful with his words. While the theologian in me says "call a spade a spade," (i.e. Mormonism is a cult in a technical and normative sense of the term), I can empathize with why Land would have to use the term "religion." Ironically, by calling Mormonism a religion Land may actually be distancing Mormonism further from Christianity than if he were to call it a "cult" (a point no doubt not missed by Land; he's a highly intelligent man...Princeton and Oxford educated). Regardless if you call Mormonism a "cult" or a "religion," it does not align with historic Christianity and is not Christian.
(2) Dr. Russell Moore, Senior Vice President for Academic Administration and Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, wrote the article "Point of View: God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck." Moore articulates well the issues that support of Beck brings up. It's well worth reading.
So what should Christians do? Fundamentally, we need to refocus where we put our hope, namely, in the person and work of Jesus Christ as confessed by the Christian Church throughout history. It is His gospel and not the "gospel" of social reform that Christianity finds its hope in. No amount of governmental and social reform will save people because the fundamental issue is a spiritual one not a moral one. Sin is the fundamental issue, and Christians must have a high view of sin (realizing its pervasiveness in all of life) AND a high view of Christ (realizing that it is He alone that has and can address the sin problem). The only true way to redeem the world over is for His kingdom, His rule and reign to come (not some human government) because no human institution (no matter how moral and "spiritual" it may be) can deliver us from sin.
There is real danger here that Christians are willing (probably unknowingly in most instances as in the case of my friend above) to embrace a Mormon as the leader in the call for spiritual revival. To put it bluntly, Mormons do not believe in the same God, Jesus, or gospel that Christians do. Cf. the article 'Crown of gospel is upon our heads' in Church News (official church newsletter from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) from Saturday, June 20, 1998. In the article then Mormon church president (and prophet according to Mormon theology) Gordon B. Hinckley in response to the claim that Mormons do not believe in the "traditional Christ" states, "No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they [referring to Christians who believe in the historic Christian view of Christ] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak." Well said Mr. Hinckley.
Sidebar: For sake of clarity I want to acknowledge that Mormons believe they are "Christians" as they "believe in Christ" (cf. the comments by Gordon Hinckley in the same article above). However, as Hinckley acknowledges they believe in a different Christ than Christians do. Unfortunately, Mormons have chosen to adopt the same labels and terminology as Christians which confuses things a great deal and makes it easy for Christians to be deceived by their language. The "Christ" that Mormons follow is not the same God-man as the Christ that Christians follow. (I applaud Hinckley for willingly and rightly acknowledging as much.)
For some time I've had a concern that too many Christians (particularly those who call themselves "evangelical Christians") associate Christianity with conservative politics and social conservatism (typically the Republican party, Republican candidates, and politically conservative talking heads such as Beck). This is a fundamental problem. Christianity does not find its hope and/or salvation in politics or social reform. Christianity finds its hope in the person and work of Jesus Christ as expressed in the gospel of historic Christianity. This is why it is so disconcerting to me for Christians to stand behind Beck and cheer as he calls for revival. Do Christians really want a Mormon revival? Honestly, I know they don't.
Don't get me wrong here. I know many Mormons who are among some of the nicest people you will ever know. They have a high moral compass and great ethics. And I believe they have every right to be active in politics and have a voice in America. There are many social issues that I see eye-to-eye on with Mormons. And in the specific case of Glenn Beck, I agree with some of what he says on social and political issues. But this is no different than many of the Muslim friends I have as well. They are some of the nicest people you will ever know with a high moral compass and great ethics. And I can go a step further: this is no different than some of my atheist and agnostic friends I have as well. They are some of the nicest people you will ever know and have a high moral compass and great ethics. My point here is this: just because I agree with these other individuals on social and political issues does NOT mean I agree with them on issues of salvation and theology. My plea here is that Christians need to be more discerning and careful about WHO they support, WHAT they are supporting the person on, and WHY they throw their support behind someone on particular issues. While I would support Glenn Beck on some social and political issues; I definitely would not support him as a leader of spiritual revival.
Two insightful articles were written that made observations in regards to Beck and Christians at the "Restoring Honor" rally:
(1) Eric Sapp of the Eleison Group wrote "Open-Minded Evangelicals Answer Mormon Beck's Call for Revival." What I appreciate about Sapp's article is how it points out the odd union that has occurred.
Sapp also makes an interesting point in his article about language used by Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. Land referred to Mormonism as a "different religion" rather than as a "cult." The issue here is a connotative one. When people here "religion" the tone is softer and does not come across as dangerous or pejorative. But when someone says "cult" it is a harsher term and conjures up images of fanatics and nut cases. I am a Southern Baptist (have been the vast majority of my life), and I feel for Land. When dealing with Mormons in the public square, he must be careful with his words. While the theologian in me says "call a spade a spade," (i.e. Mormonism is a cult in a technical and normative sense of the term), I can empathize with why Land would have to use the term "religion." Ironically, by calling Mormonism a religion Land may actually be distancing Mormonism further from Christianity than if he were to call it a "cult" (a point no doubt not missed by Land; he's a highly intelligent man...Princeton and Oxford educated). Regardless if you call Mormonism a "cult" or a "religion," it does not align with historic Christianity and is not Christian.
(2) Dr. Russell Moore, Senior Vice President for Academic Administration and Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, wrote the article "Point of View: God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck." Moore articulates well the issues that support of Beck brings up. It's well worth reading.
So what should Christians do? Fundamentally, we need to refocus where we put our hope, namely, in the person and work of Jesus Christ as confessed by the Christian Church throughout history. It is His gospel and not the "gospel" of social reform that Christianity finds its hope in. No amount of governmental and social reform will save people because the fundamental issue is a spiritual one not a moral one. Sin is the fundamental issue, and Christians must have a high view of sin (realizing its pervasiveness in all of life) AND a high view of Christ (realizing that it is He alone that has and can address the sin problem). The only true way to redeem the world over is for His kingdom, His rule and reign to come (not some human government) because no human institution (no matter how moral and "spiritual" it may be) can deliver us from sin.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Fried Chicken and Hannah Montana: A Lesson in Affecting Culture
On our recent return from vacation in San Antonio, Dionne (that's my wife for those not in the know) went to the grocery store to pick up groceries for our empty pantry. While there she picked up some of that quality fried chicken every super market chain now produces. I was left in charge of the kids (only two were at home, so I was able to manage).
When Dionne returned with the fried chicken, she told me to let the kids know dinner was ready. Being the highly efficient individual that I am (read, lazy) I stayed in my chair, looked up from my book, and yelled, "Dinner is ready!" Due to the lack of initial response (surely my kids weren't ignoring me) I employed there names the second time: "Kara...Braden...dinner is ready!" Once again thwarted in my attempt, I walked to the bottom of the stairs and employed the all-powerful and famous "dad" voice and yelled, "Dinner's ready; let's go!!!"
Realizing I was not being heeded, I headed up the stairs. Then it became apparent the cause of my problem: music. I thought it was "Hannah Montana" but I was later assured it was "Pure NRG." (I believed them as even my kids have grown weary of hearing "The Climb" over and over and over and over... on our "Christian" radio station; my youngest son even complains about it and tells me to change the radio when he hears it...I love that kid!) As I peeked in my daughter's room, I found the two kids dancing (Wilson's can't dance, so use your imagination...ok...now stop laughing and keep reading) and singing (Wilson's can sing much either, so recommense your laughing until your content...alright, on we go). Once my presence was realized, I was able to tell the kids it was time to eat.
It got me to thinking a bit about interacting with culture in general and Western culture in particular. Many times Christian's are "screaming" into a culture filled with noise just like my yelling about "Fried Chicken" in the midst of "Hannah Montana". This is particularly a symptom of the postmodern tendency to proclaim all viewpoints as equals and the confusion that much of Western culture now lives in wondering what the truth really is. Many people are swimming in the sea of realitivity and Christians stand yelling into the noise filled culture, hoping our message will be heard. But what is needed is Christians who meaningfully engage others with the message of hope, the message of redemption: the gospel.
Probably more than ever Christians must be prepared to give an account of our hope at all times (1 Pet 3:15; 2 Tim 4:2). This isn't about "shotgun" evangelism ("I'll spray the message around and hope I hit someone"); this is about meaningfully engaging in conversations (multiple, repeated engagements) so that non-Christians can thoroughly and rightly understand the hope and redemption found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. This means leaving the safe confines of our comfortable Christian environments and seeking out those who are doomed to eternal punishment in a very real place called hell. This means being willing to deal with hard questions and engaging those questions sincerely and honestly. This means taking missions and evangelism seriously, with a willingness to be ignored or rejected, or even worse, to be heard and believed and then have to explain ourselves and live our lives in the context of the gospel.
When Dionne returned with the fried chicken, she told me to let the kids know dinner was ready. Being the highly efficient individual that I am (read, lazy) I stayed in my chair, looked up from my book, and yelled, "Dinner is ready!" Due to the lack of initial response (surely my kids weren't ignoring me) I employed there names the second time: "Kara...Braden...dinner is ready!" Once again thwarted in my attempt, I walked to the bottom of the stairs and employed the all-powerful and famous "dad" voice and yelled, "Dinner's ready; let's go!!!"
Realizing I was not being heeded, I headed up the stairs. Then it became apparent the cause of my problem: music. I thought it was "Hannah Montana" but I was later assured it was "Pure NRG." (I believed them as even my kids have grown weary of hearing "The Climb" over and over and over and over... on our "Christian" radio station; my youngest son even complains about it and tells me to change the radio when he hears it...I love that kid!) As I peeked in my daughter's room, I found the two kids dancing (Wilson's can't dance, so use your imagination...ok...now stop laughing and keep reading) and singing (Wilson's can sing much either, so recommense your laughing until your content...alright, on we go). Once my presence was realized, I was able to tell the kids it was time to eat.
It got me to thinking a bit about interacting with culture in general and Western culture in particular. Many times Christian's are "screaming" into a culture filled with noise just like my yelling about "Fried Chicken" in the midst of "Hannah Montana". This is particularly a symptom of the postmodern tendency to proclaim all viewpoints as equals and the confusion that much of Western culture now lives in wondering what the truth really is. Many people are swimming in the sea of realitivity and Christians stand yelling into the noise filled culture, hoping our message will be heard. But what is needed is Christians who meaningfully engage others with the message of hope, the message of redemption: the gospel.
Probably more than ever Christians must be prepared to give an account of our hope at all times (1 Pet 3:15; 2 Tim 4:2). This isn't about "shotgun" evangelism ("I'll spray the message around and hope I hit someone"); this is about meaningfully engaging in conversations (multiple, repeated engagements) so that non-Christians can thoroughly and rightly understand the hope and redemption found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. This means leaving the safe confines of our comfortable Christian environments and seeking out those who are doomed to eternal punishment in a very real place called hell. This means being willing to deal with hard questions and engaging those questions sincerely and honestly. This means taking missions and evangelism seriously, with a willingness to be ignored or rejected, or even worse, to be heard and believed and then have to explain ourselves and live our lives in the context of the gospel.
Some thoughts on the Imago Dei
The imago dei (latin for "image of God") has been a long discussed topic in Christian theology. It has also been an interest of mine in no small part because it is the key defining difference of humans from the rest of creation. Genesis 1:26-27 clearly articulates that man (both male and female) is created in the image of God.
An interesting connection between the Ten Commandments (Deut 5:8) and Gen 1:26-27. (Note: This idea is not original to me...I fail to remember where I first read this.) One of the reasons, if not the primary reason, that God commanded the Israelites not to create images was because God had already created an image of Himself: man. Hence, there was no need for an image to be created to represent God.
Here are some reflections on what it means that man is created in the image of God:
1) We are all God's image bearers.
Regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, etc. each human bears the image of God, though imperfectly and not completely.
2) Each of us images God in different ways.
No single human images God completely. Rather, the diversity in which God has created us (as indicated in the initial creation of "male and female") was intential so that God could be imaged properly among men.
3) We can not image God alone.
Solitude, whild good for a time, is not the intended design for imaging God. This goes back to point #2.
4) God is best imaged within community.
This is a reflection of two realities: a) God created us in His image and God is a community: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, by our very design God the imaging of God can only be accomplished properly within community. b) God created us as community. The one thing that God declares as "not good" after initial creation was that Adam was alone (Gen 2:18). Hence, male and female were created intentionally to live in community together as it best images God.
5) The marital relationship is key in imaging God.
The marriage of husband and wife (and let there be no mistake: God intentially designed marriage between man and woman, period) was designed from the beginning to image God. We later see in the New Testament that God also designed the marriage relationship to be an incarnational revelation of the relationship between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5).
6) The imago dei is marred and in need of redemption.
This is a result of the fall in Genesis 3. In viewing the redemption that Christ accomplished on the cross, we must view salvation at least in part as restoring the imago dei. When we consider salvation in its entirety we can see God's redemptive work to restore the imago dei: the person and work of Christ shows how the imago dei is to be properly lived out; the sanctification process is the process of restoring the imago dei to the individual Christian and to the Church as a community; glorification and the impartation of our new bodies is parto of the great eschatological hope that the imago dei will be restored as God intended from the beginning of creation.
An interesting connection between the Ten Commandments (Deut 5:8) and Gen 1:26-27. (Note: This idea is not original to me...I fail to remember where I first read this.) One of the reasons, if not the primary reason, that God commanded the Israelites not to create images was because God had already created an image of Himself: man. Hence, there was no need for an image to be created to represent God.
Here are some reflections on what it means that man is created in the image of God:
1) We are all God's image bearers.
Regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, etc. each human bears the image of God, though imperfectly and not completely.
2) Each of us images God in different ways.
No single human images God completely. Rather, the diversity in which God has created us (as indicated in the initial creation of "male and female") was intential so that God could be imaged properly among men.
3) We can not image God alone.
Solitude, whild good for a time, is not the intended design for imaging God. This goes back to point #2.
4) God is best imaged within community.
This is a reflection of two realities: a) God created us in His image and God is a community: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thus, by our very design God the imaging of God can only be accomplished properly within community. b) God created us as community. The one thing that God declares as "not good" after initial creation was that Adam was alone (Gen 2:18). Hence, male and female were created intentionally to live in community together as it best images God.
5) The marital relationship is key in imaging God.
The marriage of husband and wife (and let there be no mistake: God intentially designed marriage between man and woman, period) was designed from the beginning to image God. We later see in the New Testament that God also designed the marriage relationship to be an incarnational revelation of the relationship between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5).
6) The imago dei is marred and in need of redemption.
This is a result of the fall in Genesis 3. In viewing the redemption that Christ accomplished on the cross, we must view salvation at least in part as restoring the imago dei. When we consider salvation in its entirety we can see God's redemptive work to restore the imago dei: the person and work of Christ shows how the imago dei is to be properly lived out; the sanctification process is the process of restoring the imago dei to the individual Christian and to the Church as a community; glorification and the impartation of our new bodies is parto of the great eschatological hope that the imago dei will be restored as God intended from the beginning of creation.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Christianity vs. Jesusanity
I listened to the pod cast of a faculty forum addressing "What are People Saying About Jesus?" held during DTS Chapel (http://www.dts.edu/media/play/?MediaItemID=a43a01d8-402c-4ee9-81ef-25ed2d98ed21) in which Dr. Darrell Bock and Dr. Daniel Wallce address the issue of Jesus in the public square particularly from the perspective of the academic debate about the historical Jesus.
Now while this might not sound all too exciting, I think that Dr. Bock and Dr. Wallace articulate and delineate an idea that is all too easily lost in the day-to-day conversations Christians might have with non-believers. That distinction is the difference between "Christianity" and "Jesusanity".
"Christianity" should be understood to mean the historic view, belief, and confession of orthodox Christianity about Jesus Christ: he is fully God and fully man, unique like no other human who has or will live. This might sometimes be referred to as a "high view" of Christ, or a "high Christology", the "high" emphasizing that Christ is viewed uniquely and as deity.
"Jesusanity", on the other hand, takes a more mundane or humanistic view of Jesus Christ. Christ's deity is either seen as non-existent (e.g. Islam's view of Christ) or as a dimished deity that others may possess as well (e.g. Buddhism's view of Christ). That might sometimes be referred to as a "low view" of Christ or a "low Christology." The basic idea here is that Christ is not particularly unique (though those who hold such a view might espouse a great deal of respect for Jesus...e.g. Ghandi) and he is definitely not uniquely the God-man.
The underlying issue here is not just one of Christology (i.e. the view, belief, and understanding of Christ himself) but of Soteriology (i.e. how a person can be "saved").
Further, I think Dr. Bock makes a valid point when he says that the church can not just see this as a Christology issue (i.e. inform your congregation about the proper view of Christ and the problem is solved) but a greater cultural issue requiring our attention to the discussions "around the Bible", as it were. In fact, this is as much Bibliology issue (i.e. the content and text of the Bible) as it is a Christology issue. It is about the reliability of the Biblical text (i.e. textual criticism) and the veracity of the story of the life of Christ (i.e. the historicity of Christ's life).
The Institute for Biblical Research (http://www.ibr-bbr.org) is doing some important work in this area around, which in includes what is called in scholarly circles the third quest for the historical Jesus.
Now while this might not sound all too exciting, I think that Dr. Bock and Dr. Wallace articulate and delineate an idea that is all too easily lost in the day-to-day conversations Christians might have with non-believers. That distinction is the difference between "Christianity" and "Jesusanity".
"Christianity" should be understood to mean the historic view, belief, and confession of orthodox Christianity about Jesus Christ: he is fully God and fully man, unique like no other human who has or will live. This might sometimes be referred to as a "high view" of Christ, or a "high Christology", the "high" emphasizing that Christ is viewed uniquely and as deity.
"Jesusanity", on the other hand, takes a more mundane or humanistic view of Jesus Christ. Christ's deity is either seen as non-existent (e.g. Islam's view of Christ) or as a dimished deity that others may possess as well (e.g. Buddhism's view of Christ). That might sometimes be referred to as a "low view" of Christ or a "low Christology." The basic idea here is that Christ is not particularly unique (though those who hold such a view might espouse a great deal of respect for Jesus...e.g. Ghandi) and he is definitely not uniquely the God-man.
The underlying issue here is not just one of Christology (i.e. the view, belief, and understanding of Christ himself) but of Soteriology (i.e. how a person can be "saved").
Further, I think Dr. Bock makes a valid point when he says that the church can not just see this as a Christology issue (i.e. inform your congregation about the proper view of Christ and the problem is solved) but a greater cultural issue requiring our attention to the discussions "around the Bible", as it were. In fact, this is as much Bibliology issue (i.e. the content and text of the Bible) as it is a Christology issue. It is about the reliability of the Biblical text (i.e. textual criticism) and the veracity of the story of the life of Christ (i.e. the historicity of Christ's life).
The Institute for Biblical Research (http://www.ibr-bbr.org) is doing some important work in this area around, which in includes what is called in scholarly circles the third quest for the historical Jesus.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Mormonism
Lately I've been reading a lot on Mormonism primarily because with the run of Mitt Romney for Pesident many more conversations are beginning to surface around "Is Mormonism Christian?" My short answer to that is, "No", and this is especially clear when comparing Mormonism to the historic tenets and beliefs of Christianity.
(Side note: This blog entry is not intended to address Mitt Romney's qualification or fitness to be President.)
As I read more about Mormonism, I am realizing that this is a religion founded, at least in part, on occult practices. Having read some about Joseph Smith's life, it is apparent that he dabbled in the occult (maybe more than dabbled). Mormonism seems to be an eccletic collection of various non-Christian beliefs with a Christian label slapped on it. In just about every major theological area it disagrees and many times stands in stark contrats to historic Christian confessions and beliefs.
Some of the area that Mormonism differs wildly from historic Christianity:
(Side note: This blog entry is not intended to address Mitt Romney's qualification or fitness to be President.)
As I read more about Mormonism, I am realizing that this is a religion founded, at least in part, on occult practices. Having read some about Joseph Smith's life, it is apparent that he dabbled in the occult (maybe more than dabbled). Mormonism seems to be an eccletic collection of various non-Christian beliefs with a Christian label slapped on it. In just about every major theological area it disagrees and many times stands in stark contrats to historic Christian confessions and beliefs.
Some of the area that Mormonism differs wildly from historic Christianity:
- The person of Christ
- The person of God the Father
- The person of the Holy Spirit
- The work of Christ
- The understanding of the Fall
- The content of the canon of Scripture
- The method and means of Salvation
- The meaning of "salvation"
- The doctrine of baptism
- The belief in one God
Mormonism is polytheistic and seems to reflect to some degree a Gnostic view of gods.
It's also interesting to note that the temple ceremonies that Mormon's practice seem to be a borrowed/inherited/adapted from Masonic tradition (which is no surprise seeing that many of the early Mormon leaders including Joseph Smith were Masons).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
