Evangelicals and the Restored Gospel

Volume Four—Chapter One EVANGELICALS AND THE RESTORED GOSPEL

#Introduction

The Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored to earth in their fulness, including the Lord’s priesthood or authority, church organization, doctrines, and ordinances. This good news is spreading over the earth in spite of oppositions of several types. It seems clear to me that today and in the future—perhaps even until the Lord’s second coming—the Christian body that will most vociferously oppose the promulgation and flourishing of the restored Church will be evangelical Protestantism. Wisdom dictates that each interested member of the Church become fully informed. We will examine closely the Evangelicals’ most important beliefs and compare them to those of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. We will also carefully consider how Evangelicals view our beliefs and how we should view theirs. This comparison of doctrines should help us perceive and appreciate ours in a sharper contemporary perspective.

I do not wish to see any member of the Church become combative or contentious toward the Evangelicals. I do, however, want each to become completely comfortable and confident with their rhetoric. I believe all who undertake this study will find reassurance, strength, and peace.

As a resource for the chapters in this volume, I have drawn on the book, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation (hereafter HWD), published in 1997 by InterVarsity Press in Downers Grove, Illinois. It is coauthored by an evangelical scholar, Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, and an LDS scholar, Dr. Stephen E. Robinson. Each is deeply committed to and exceptionally knowledgeable about his own church and doctrine. These two authors became acquainted at scholarly biblical conferences and formed a genuine friendship. In conversation one day, they acknowledged the rancor between Evangelicals and Mormons and agreed to try to do something about it. They decided to collaborate on a book. They settled on four key doctrinal topics: scripture, God and deification, Christ and the Trinity, and salvation. Each wrote his own essay on each topic. They then shared their essays with the other and afterward re-wrote their own essays based partly on what the other had written. The result is an excellent and most informative book.

Surprisingly (to me at least), the book excited much hostility among some Evangelicals—I hope only a relative few. It stimulated angry reviews, book-length rebuttals, radio talk shows intended to “protect” Evangelicals against the book, anti- Mormon seminars, refusal of Christian bookstores to stock the “evil publication,” accusations against Dr. Robinson questioning his honesty and sincerity, threats to boycott InterVarsity Press, and even threatened suits against Brother Robinson and the Church.

In 1999, Daniel C. Peterson, then the editor of FARMS Review of Books, a publication of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies and Brigham Young University, decided to publish a review of How Wide the Divide? It appeared in FARMS Review of Books, volume 11, number 2, 1999 (hereafter FRB). It contains a number of helpful articles, upon which I have also drawn in writing the chapters in this volume. They include editorial comments by Dr. Peterson and a review of Blomberg and Robinson’s book by two Evangelical scholars, Paul L. Owen and Carl A. Mosser. Two other articles reviewed Blomberg and Robinson’s book. These were authored by Blake T. Ostler also William J. Hamblin and Daniel C. Peterson. There is also an article on “Philosophy and Early Christianity” by Daniel W. Graham and James L. Siebach and two reviews of Owen and Mosser’s article—one by David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter and the other by Roger D. Cook. References to any of these authors’ writings in the chapters that follow will be to their contributions in these two works (How Wide the Divide? and FARMS Review of Books) unless otherwise stated.

Let us first review briefly the historical roots of evangelical Protestants.

#Medieval Catholic Church

By AD 1500 the Christian world was rife with apostasy and corruption. The apostolic leadership of the Savior’s church had long since been replaced by a series of popes. The tyrannical leadership and gross infidelity of some of these popes, by the beginning of the 16th century, few doubted. The doctrines of Christ’s early church had been altered to include celibacy of the priesthood, original sin, infant baptism, transubstantiation, monasticism, withholding of scripture from the masses, a high form of worship rich in pomp and ritual, and full involvement in secular governmental matters enabled by church wealth and political power. The church had begun to use the sale of indulgences as a source of income. Those who purchased indulgences were assured forgiveness of sin for themselves and even for their dead ancestors. Particularly heinous sins, of course, required greater payment. Those who spoke against the Catholic Church ran the risk of being imprisoned or, sometimes, burned alive or beheaded for heresy.

#The Reformation

Inspired reformers like Martin Luther, the well-known German Monk, began to speak out against the Catholic Church. On October 31, 1517, he posted 95 theses in Latin on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. These described 95 ways in which Christ’s New Testament church and gospel had been substantially altered by the Roman Catholic Church.

The resulting Protestant Reformation did little to restore religious peace. It also failed to restore the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ. The several Protestant groups that resulted could not be reconciled to one another. They disagreed over doctrines and contended bitterly for members and for influence. Inquisitions, by both Catholics and Protestants, resulted in mass torturings and executions.

Today, most Protestant groups trace their spiritual ancestry to the Reformation and to the churches and theological traditions derived from reformers such as Martin Luther (Lutherans), John Calvin (Baptists), and John Wesley (Methodists). They, along with the Catholics (Roman and Eastern Orthodox), comprise historic Christianity. Catholics and Protestants are said to comply with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Today, they refer to themselves as “orthodox Christians.”

#Evangelicals

What is an Evangelical? They are theologically conservative Protestants who belong to many different institutional Protestant Churches including Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Free Methodists, Nazarenes, most Pentecostals, many African- American churches, some Mennonites, Episcopalians, and a large number of independent churches.

Their theological conservatism implies they are dedicated to conserving the major theological truths that have been ascribed to since the Reformation. They make up the majority of the world’s Protestant population today. There are two other Protestant groups with which Evangelicals would not identify:

1. Liberal Protestants are sometimes referred to as secular, modern, or humanistic Protestants. “Liberal” is a term for certain Protestant congregations within denominations. There exist theologically liberal members of virtually every major Protestant denomination. They view the biblical stories as symbolic only. They regard the Bible as the witness of God rather than the word of God. They believe God created and continues to control the processes that account for the universe and all life (e.g. evolution) in a manner consistent with modern science. They feel goodness will somehow be rewarded and evil punished after death. How one conducts his life on earth is of pivotal importance. Some believe God is loving and forgiving, and all will go to heaven. Others believe salvation lies in doing good works and not harming others, regardless of one’s faith. Most liberal Protestants do not believe that Satan causes suffering, or even that he actually exists.

Modern humanism is evident among these liberals. Whatever is good for the individual is approved by God. Most liberal churches teach that abortion is morally wrong, but many ultimately support a woman’s right to choose. Many are accepting of homosexuality and gay rights.

2. “Fundamentalist” Protestants are strict separatists. They vigorously reject interdenominational or interreligious cooperation and dialogue. They arose in opposition to the modernist or liberal movements within Protestantism. The fundamentalists are particularly strong in America’s so-called Bible Belt, especially in the Deep South, in many Southern Baptist churches.

#The Rancor between Evangelicals and Mormons

In the first paragraph of his introduction to the book How Wide the Divide?, Stephen Robinson recounts an incident when he was a graduate student at Duke University. He was one of a few LDS representatives invited to participate with a citizens’ group organized to combat the proliferation of local “adult” businesses. Robinson and his LDS colleagues were asked to leave the gathering because a group of evangelical ministers threatened to walk out if Mormons were involved in the campaign. Robinson wrote, “So we withdrew, but the lesson was not lost on us—some Evangelicals oppose Mormons more vehemently than they oppose pornography” (HWD, 9).

Daniel Peterson offered two personal experiences of the unpleasant and unreasonable animosity some Evangelicals carry for the Church. He wrote:

Consider the claim made by Reachout Trust, an “anti-cult” ministry in the United Kingdom, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that Joseph Smith plays a role in the salvation of humankind as important as that of the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer. Dozens of lengthy, heavily documented, well-reasoned communications with informed Latter-day Saints—some of which offered explicit denials from authoritative Mormon sources of the very notion that Reachout Trust imputes to us—failed to convince the group’s leaders to drop the accusation, let alone to publish a retraction or correction. The claim was still present on Reachout Trust’s web site as late as 17 October 1999. Now, though, it is followed by the admission that “Many Mormons will disagree,” as if that vitally salient fact were wholly immaterial and as if Reachout Trust had ever actually located a believing Latter-day Saint who didn’t disagree.

Consider, too, the case of a group in Mesa, Arizona, calling itself “Concerned Christians.” In its newsletter at the beginning of 1999, Concerned Christians alleged that the manual currently used in the Relief Society and priesthood quorum classes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints declares that neither the Church nor Brigham Young ever practiced plural marriage. This, said the newsletter, was just another specimen of the deceptiveness of Mormonism and its leaders. But the accusation made by Concerned Christians can easily be tested—the manual is widely available—and is demonstrably untrue. Nonetheless, over the course of correspondence extending from 4 January 1999 to 25

February 1999, Jim Robertson and Mike Burns of Concerned Christians simply refused either to justify their false accusation or to retract it.

I simply cannot see any way to view either case as anything other than a prime specimen of unembarrassed, the-end-justifies-all-means dishonesty (FRB, vi-vii).

Stephen Robinson in, How Wide the Divide?, commented on the hostility between Evangelicals and Mormons and then suggested that the blame should be evenly distributed. Hamblin and Peterson disagree:

We find this very implausible, indeed objectionable. No Latter-day Saints make their living as professional anti-evangelicals. Latter-day Saints do not picket new Baptist churches, or broadcast against evangelical beliefs, or hold seminars in their chapels to critique Protestant theology, or publish books and pamphlets denouncing fundamentalists, or distribute films exposing the sordid facts about other denominations, or seek to exclude Calvinists from community interfaith associations, or boycott evangelical-owned businesses. There are no Latter-day Saint tabloids dedicated to fighting the Assemblies of God. We have never turned our church curriculum over to a multiweek discussion of the errors of the Southern Baptist Convention. Yet, all of these things have been done, and are being done, to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The situation is not symmetrical (FRB, 183).

#Religious Labels

Evangelicals are loath to refer to any church group with doctrines differing from theirs as “orthodox Christians.” Many are becoming increasingly aware of, and dismayed and disturbed by, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our doctrines. They prefer to regard us as a “cult” which label implies we are extremists and not part of the Christian mainstream. They refuse to acknowledge us as legitimate Christians. While some in the Lord’s Church find this to be annoying, those who truly understand the Church in its proper perspective eventually come to regard it as an amusing irony.