Theological Musings

ell, I didn’t quite realize what fun we would have with the last couple of posts. And I certainly didn’t realize that my “short list” would get such an interesting response! But I would like to try to address some of the major points that have been raised in a further attempt to make my case for simplicity.

Please understand that I have every intention of keeping the conversation as civil as it has been. One of my unwritten goals for this blog is still keeping this blog a “safe” place to discuss theological issues without mudslinging, namecalling, etc. And I owe a lot to you, my readers, for helping keep that tone in the comments section. I am blessed to have you here on my little blog. So, with that being said, let me now share what’s on my heart in this area.

The first issue that came up, raised by Earl, is the example of Mormons. Earl feels that my short list would be (at least verbally) “ok” with Mormons, and therefore, my list is insufficient. After all, if it lets the Mormons in, it must be bad, because we all know that Mormons are in a cult, and can’t possibly be saved. (Yes, that’s slightly tongue-in-cheek!) And so, we come to this question, raised by Earl: Do you consider Mormons, who follow their doctrine, to be orthodox Christians?

Now, this question actually represents a subtle switching of the topic by Earl, albeit I’m sure quite unintentionally. Earl began by saying that my list would include Mormons as Christians, but then asked if I consider Mormons to be orthodox Christians. That is actually a whole different subject that would be something of a rabbit trail right now, so I don’t want to get too distracted with it. I’ll make a note to come back to it at some point, though, and that is the topic of “orthodoxy”. Specifically, it would be interesting to discuss what that term means, where it comes from, who holds the gavel in determining what is (and is not) orthodox. But if you don’t mind, Earl, I’m going to scrap the word “orthodox” from your question and answer the more basic question of whether or not I would consider Mormons to be Christians.

Well, actually, you’re probably going to think that I’m copping out on the answer, rather than answering it directly, but it really does have a lot to do with the main point I was trying to make in the recent posts. That point is this: I am not trying to create a statement of faith (or confession) which is based on anything other than Scripture. Additionally, I am not coming at this from an angle of making sure that certain people are excluded.

To look at a statement of faith (even if it’s informal) and say, “But that would allow for [insert name of group you are convinced is headed straight to Hell] to claim they are Christians” is to come at it from the wrong angle. My response to this type of statement is, “Who says they aren’t?” It seems that we are starting with a presupposition that we know who’s in and who’s out. That’s a dangerous place to begin.

Listen, I don’t mean to be patronizing about this, but it’s completely up to God whether or not to let a member of the Mormons into Heaven. For that matter, it’s completely up to Him whether or not to let any of us in! And Scripture reveals to us that the way to the Father is through faith in Jesus Christ. So if someone is putting their faith in Jesus as the way to the Father, then there’s not much we can say about it.

The reality is, we are all wrong in some area of our beliefs. Now, I am no expert on Mormon doctrine, and frankly I don’t need to be for this conversation because this conversation doesn’t need to be about whether or not Mormons could subscribe to my short list and call themselves Christians. The point is how far are we going to go in adding to the list of what people need to believe in order to be welcomed as a Christian? And why is it ok for us to be wrong in some areas, but it’s not ok for someone else to be wrong?

I have heard similar comments made (in various discussions) about Roman Catholics, about Oneness Pentecostals, about charismatics in general, about Methodists, about Anglicans…you get the picture? Every group thinks they have the “inside scoop” on what is necessary, and they can’t handle the thought that others might be “in” as well.

I have to be honest here and say that, in some senses, Earl and Isabel have proven the point I was making that the lines we draw end up being more divisive than anything. And I continue to contend that those lines go beyond Scripture. For example, what did Paul respond when asked what one should do to be saved (Acts 16:30-31)? He said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, the only Son of God, conceived of a virgin by the Holy Spirit….” No. He said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.” And later, in writing to the church at Corinth, he said that the essence of what he preached was that Jesus died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and raised again on the third day according to the Scriptures. That’s a far cry from where the creeds and confessions of the last 2,000 years have taken us!

Isabel raised the point about thinking it necessary to include that Jesus was the “only Son of God”, and even expressed some disappointment that I hadn’t even included the phrase “Son of God” at all. Raborn has already stolen some of my thunder in responding to this, but I want to reiterate the point he made. If you read the New Testament, you will find that Jesus is not referred to as the “only Son of God”. We are told that we, too, are given the power (the right) to become “sons of God”. And as Raborn pointed out, there are other passages that refer to Jesus as the “first born”.

(As a side note, I think the NIV really botched John 3:16 when they translated huion ton monogene as “one and only Son”. While it is true that Luke uses the same Greek word in referring to a single offspring, using this translation for John’s usage of the word contradicts other Scriptures, as I am demonstrating here. It is better seen as a uniqueness of how Christ was “begotten” in a way different to how we become sons [i.e., through adoption].)

You see, folks, this is exactly the problem I’m trying to highlight here. In our enthusiasm for “orthodoxy” and making sure that all our t’s are crossed and our i’s are dotted, we have gone beyond the teaching of Scripture and made a doctrine “essential” that is not even accurately stated. Now, do I have all the answers for what it means that we become “sons of God”? No, I don’t claim to. But I do know that it means that I can’t honestly say that Jesus is the only “son of God” without ignoring some Scriptures entirely, and twisting others.

With regard to the virgin birth, if that is such an essential doctrine, why do we not see it being preached in the New Testament? Why did Paul never refer to it? Why is it never contained in summaries of the Gospel as recorded by Paul? Note that I’m not saying I don’t believe in the virgin birth! Please don’t misunderstand my point here. What I’m saying is that if it is so essential that we must include it in our confessions, then why was it not central in the New Testament record of sermons preached?

In further illustrating my point for me, Earl and Isabel mentioned that the problems they see with my “short list” are exactly why we have confessions. To use Earl’s words:

But this gives you a flavor of what can happen with short confessions. This is why various historical creeds were developed, such as the Nicene Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon were developed, to address these kind of issues.

And with that comment, we have come full circle to my point about sola scriptura. What I see in Earl’s comment here is that the creeds were developed in order to make sure that people knew what they were supposed to believe. Scripture, apparently, was not enough to use as a guide. Things had to be boiled down to propositions that (to continue beating this horse) went further than Scripture itself, and then these became (and still are considered to be) the measuring rod.

Let’s look at Chalcedon, for example, which concludes with the following words: as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. This equates “the Creed of the holy Fathers” with the teaching of the prophets and of Jesus Himself. So here, we have a creed (or definition, if you want to use that term, instead) giving equal weight to another creed.

Or, let’s take a look at my favorite to pick on, the Athanasian Creed (attributed to Athanasius, but doubted by scholars as being from him). The language used in the Athanasian Creed drives many evangelical definitions of the Trinity. And this Creed makes it abundantly clear that one must embrace this definition in order to be saved. Allow me to quote portions here:

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being….

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity….

This is the catholic faith.

One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

Does anyone else see what I see? Here are statements that are not clearly spelled out in Scripture, yet this statement says that one “cannot be saved” without subscribing to it! This is exactly what I’m talking about! We cannot add to Scripture in this way by creating statements and telling people they must embrace them in order to be saved. What arrogance! What foolishness!

And so, I once again open myself up for criticism here, but I feel that I cannot state this any more clearly. Beliefs such as the virgin birth, Jesus being the Son of God, etc. might be all well and good. But where do we draw the line? “Orthodoxy” for many centuries has forced many other doctrines on us as being “essential”, and I take my stand here against that. Not against the beliefs themselves, but the implication (or outright assertion) that one must subscribe to every one of them in order to be considered “in”.

Earl and Isabel, I appreciate your dialogue here, and I hope it continues. But I would strongly encourage both of you to think about the implications of what you are saying. First of all, the implication that we have to somehow make sure that certain people are excluded. And second, the implication that the creeds and confessions that have gone before are consistent with Scripture. Please, let’s start with what Scripture actually says, and work from there! But let’s not go beyond that, or add to it, or force something back onto it that’s not there, and then make that a divisive issue.

Until next time,

steve