Answering W.A. Grudem on Mormonism!–Part I

Wayne Grudem published the first edition of his popular and well known book on Systematic Theology over 26 years ago in November 1994, which I read around 20 years ago. I generally found it to be a well written and interesting book, although not free from theological errors. He didn’t have very complimentary things to say about “Mormonism,” the theology of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in the first edition of his book; but I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and assumed it was based on ignorance and uninformed bias, rather than malice or disregard for the truth. The second edition of his book was published around six months ago in December 2020; so I decided to get hold of a copy of the second edition as well to see what changes he had made. I discovered that in this edition he has pulled out all the stops, and has gone out into open war against the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. He has devoted 6 pages of his book to attacking the theology of the restored Church on various grounds, which can no longer be excused on the basis of ignorance or even general prejudice, therefore they need to be addressed. He starts on page 325 of the book, with the following introductory remarks:

“At the end of these chapters on the attributes of God and the doctrine of the Trinity, it is appropriate to say something about the differences between Christianity and Mormonism, because Mormons teach a vastly different understanding of who God is.

“The ten main points in this additional note are taken from the brief, remarkably insightful book by Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Mormon. After each point I have added some comments of my own, taken both from the discussion of Mormonism by Rhodes and from my own understanding of Christian theology. (For those who are interested, Rhodes has also published a much more extensively documented book on Mormonism, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons.)”

Then follows his 10 point criticisms of restored gospel, which he has borrowed almost entirely from the writings of Ron Rhodes (an avowed anti-Mormon)—without any attempt to look at the other side of the argument to get a balanced opinion. As a trained scholar, he knows that to get a balanced opinion of something, you talk to both sides of the argument, not just to one side. You are not going to get a balanced opinion of Jesus by just talking to the Pharisees, to the Jewish Rabies, or to the Sanhedrin; nor are you going to get a balanced opinion by talking to the likes of Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, to bring it closer to our time. You may want to talk to them as well; but to get a balanced opinion, you would also want to talk to his true followers and disciples, such as Peter and Paul, James and John, and Mary Magdalene; or to bring it closer to our time, you might want to speak to the likes of Billy Graham, C. S. Lewis, and Martin Luther King. The fact that he has chosen to base his views on the theology of the restored gospel entirely on the writings of an arch critic and an avowed anti-Mormon, without attempting to obtain a balanced opinion by talking to Latter-day Saints themselves, and consulting the Church’s official sources, to find out from them what they actually believe, proves that his motives are not sincere. He is not interested in knowing the truth. He has an agenda. That discredits him as a faithful Christian scholar, and his book as a faithful, unbiased representation of true Christian doctrine. So let us examine his objections to the theology and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and see how they stand up against the standard of truth. He lists 10 criticisms of the theology of the restored gospel under 10 subheadings (almost entirely borrowed from Ron Rhodes), as follows:

“1. The Mormon Church is Not The ‘Restored Church’”

That is his first objection, for which he outlines the following reasons:

“In 1820, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, went into the woods to pray and ask God which church to join. At that point, two personages, the Father and the Son, appeared to him, and the Son told him not to join any church, because ‘the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.’ This led Smith to found the Mormon church as the ‘one true church,’ a ‘restored church.’

“It is important to understand the implications of this claim. It means that all the majestic, eloquent summaries of the Christian faith that have been preserved in the major creeds throughout the centuries are ‘an abomination.’ Consider the Nicene Creed (AD 325, 38):”

That is not what it means at all. That quote is taken out of context. It is not an accurate representation of what God actually told Joseph Smith. Here is the complete quote (emphasis added):

Joseph Smith–History 1:

18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects [whom he had previously encountered] was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner therefore did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

That is what God actually told Joseph Smith. In that quote, God is condemning specifically the Protestant preachers and ministers whom Joseph Smith had encountered in the “religious excitement” that he speaks of. It is their (Protestant) “creeds” and confessions that are specifically being condemned, not the entire creeds of Christendom; and certainly not the early Christian creeds, which were composed two millennia before. Then he quotes the Nicene Creed (which is not being condemned), and draws the following conclusion from it:

“If this creed is an “abomination,” then this involves a denial of (1) God as the Creator of heaven and earth. (2) Jesus Christ as the eternal Son of God. (3) the virgin birth of Christ, (4) the crucifixion of Christ for our salvation, (5) the resurrection of Christ on the third day, (6) Christ’s second coming: (7) the final judgment at which Christ will be the judge. (8) the deity of the Holy Spirit, (9) our future resurrection. (10) our future eternal life in the world to come.”

None of these doctrines are questioned, disputed, or denied by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are all acceptable teachings of the Church—and indeed confirmed in the Book of Mormon and other canonized scripture of the Church. The Nicene Creed is not entirely flawless. The phrase, “of one substance with the Father” found in the creed is not a biblical expression, and therefore can lead to theological errors, which indeed it has over the subsequent centuries. But still, that is not what God was referring to when he condemned the creeds of those “sects” that Joseph had encountered, and whom he was inquiring about. Then he continues as follows:

“Most of these doctrines and many others are found in numerous other major creeds of the Christian church, including the Apostles Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, the Formula of Concord, the Westminster Confession of Faith and many others (see appendix 1, pp. 1438-88).”

The problem with that statement is that he is lumping together too many unrelated things. You don’t lump together the simple creeds of the early Christian church, such as the Apostles Creed; with the elaborate and lengthy formulations and “confessions” of later Protestantism, which bear no resemblance nor relationship with them. The Apostles Creed is a tiny expression of faith which can be written on ¼ of a sheet of paper. The “Westminster Confession of Faith” is a lengthy and elaborate statement which runs into 47 pages; and the “Formula of Concord” runs to 125 pages. There is no comparison between them and the simple creeds of the early Christian church. The latter Protestant creeds and confessions do contain heretical teachings and false doctrines which are “abominable” in the sight of God. Let’s examine some in more detail. Here is one from the Westminster Confession. In chapter 1, paragraph 1 of the confession, regarding the Bible, it says the following (emphasis added):

“1. … which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.”

This is the original version, composed in the archaic English of nearly 400 years ago in 1463. More modernized versions of it also exist. Here are a couple of quotes from more modernized versions:

“1. … The Bible is especially important now that God has stopped revealing His will in the ways that He used to.”

“1. … Since God no longer reveals himself to his people in those earlier ways, Holy Scripture is absolutely essential.”

In this quote the Westminster Confession is denying God’s right to speak at any time in the future again. It is saying that God having spoken once in the Bible, he will never speak again. Who are they to shut the mouth of God, and deny him the right to speak anytime he wants to? That is a blasphemous declaration. He may not be speaking to them, but it doesn’t mean that he will never speak again at any other time to anyone else. Scripture as we have it certainly is essential, no denying that; but it doesn’t translate into saying that God will never speak again, at any other time in the future to anyone else. It is an abominable heresy and a blasphemous declaration, shutting the mouth of God, and denying him the right to speak any time he wants to. Here is another quote, from chapter 2, paragraph 1:

“1. There is but one only, living, and true God: who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute.”

That is the classic version. Here are a couple of modernized versions of the same statement:

“1. There is only one living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a completely pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or emotions, unchangeable, immensely vast, eternal, limitless, almighty, completely wise, completely holy, completely free, and completely absolute.”

“1. There is only one living and true God. He’s infinite and perfect. He’s pure and invisible spirit. He doesn’t have a body, multiple parts, or human passions. He doesn’t change. He’s immense, eternal, and unable to be fully understood. He’s all-powerful, very wise, very holy, totally free, and absolute over everything.”

(Some of these are PDFs, which is not always easy to link to; but a Google search will easily find them.) These descriptions of God are heretical and false, and do not have biblical support. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God has no emotions. On the contrary, throughout the Bible God expresses emotions. And there are also many theophanies recorded in the Bible where God has appeared to man in the human form, having body, parts, and passions. Here are some examples:

Genesis 18:

1 And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

• • •

16 And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.

• • •

20 And the Lord said [to Abrahan], Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.

Here three men appear to Abraham, one of whom is God, and the other two are the two angels who later go to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. The two angels afterwards depart, and go on their way to do their job, while God stays behind, and continues to converse with Abraham, showing the anthropomorphic nature of God. The following are some further examples, no additional comments required:

Genesis 32:

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 24:

9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Numbers 12:

8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: …

Judges 13:

22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

1 Kings 22:

19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

2 Chronicles 18:

18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

Isaiah 6:

1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

Amos 9:

1 I Saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: …

Matthew 5:

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Acts 7:

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

The previous quotes from the Westminster Confession are examples of false doctrines taught in it; and there are more, which would be too tedious to attempt enumerate. That is what makes them an “abomination” in the sight of God. Then he adds:

“If creeds such as this [Nicene Creed] are ‘an abomination,’ then all the major doctrines of the Christian faith are false, and we Christianity at all. We are left with a different religion altogether.”

The “abomination” is not in the Nicene Creed. It is in the latter creeds and “confessions” of Protestantism, as the above examples demonstrate. Then he adds the following:

“Directly related to this idea is the second thing that Mormonism teaches, according to Ron Rhodes: ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) teaches that total apostasy engulfed the church soon after the death of the last apostle; therefore the “one true church” needed to be restored.’ But this claim is simply false, as is clear from an examination of documents from early church history.

“The apostle John, who wrote the book of Revelation, died in AD 90-95. But there were still many Christian leaders and teachers alive who had known John and the other apostles personally before they died. These authors are commonly known as the ‘Apostolic Fathers,’ and their writings are easily available in English or in Greek or both. Then for writings of early church leaders immediately after the Apostolic Fathers and until AD 325, there is the frequently reprinted ten-volume set called the Ante-Nicene Fathers, all in readily accessible English translations.

“Anyone can read these writings and see immediately that, though they are not perfect in their understanding of biblical doctrine, it is simply a falsehood to say that they have committed ‘total apostasy.’ Their writings frequently echo and regularly quote passages from both the Old and New Testaments. In fact, merely the index to scriptural quotations in these early Christian writers contains fifty-six pages of fine print referring to thousands of quotations from the Bible! Far from lapsing into “total apostasy,” the early church was repeatedly fighting off false teachers and bringing itself step-by-step into more and more precise and faithful doctrinal summaries of the teachings of Scripture.

“Any group that places itself in substantial opposition to the consensus of these early Christian writers, as the Mormon church does, is not a true ‘restored church,’ but is itself guilty of complete deviation from the Christian faith as taught in the Bible.”

These are more false claims and slanderous accusations against the theology of the restored gospel. That is not what the Church’s doctrine of the “Apostasy” is. It is not saying that all Christians lost their faith, and there were no more faithful and believing Christians left in the world, who had a saving faith in Jesus Christ. The “Apostasy” relates to the loss of Apostolic and priesthood authority in the early church, so that the church could not be governed by revelation by the Twelve Apostles, as the Christian church originally had been. The institution of the Twelve Apostles was never meant to be done away. Whenever one Apostle died, someone else was chosen to replace him, such as Matthias, who was chosen to replace Judas; or Paul, who was almost certainly chosen to replace James, the brother of John, who was put to death by Herod (Acts 12:1-2). The institution of the Twelve Apostles could not continue at that time because of persecution. They were all eventually martyred; therefore the church could no longer be led by revelation, as it was in the days of the Apostles; therefore it drifted doctrinally and theologically. The loss of the priesthood also meant that valid sacraments could no longer be performed. But it does not mean that there were no more true and believing Christians left in the world. The Book of Mormon teaches that in the latter days, God will restore the gospel through the Gentiles, rather than through the house of Israel; because the Gentiles believe in him, and the house of Israel don’t:

3 Nephi 16:

6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

And in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord acknowledges the true believing Christians among the Gentiles to be part of his church, and that they will be saved:

Doctrine and Covenants 10:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church [which already exists], but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church [meaning true believing Christians] need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

This revelation was received before the Restoration had taken place, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had been organized. In this quote, the word “church” is used in a generic sense, meaning all true believing Christians among the Gentiles. It is not used in a denominational sense, referring to any particular Christian church or denomination. In other words, God considers all true, faithful, believing Christians in the world to be part of his church, and they will be saved. So what he says does not correctly describe the doctrine of the Apostasy as taught by the restored Church.

There is also an interesting side-note to the above. All of those “Apostolic Fathers” and “Ante-Nicene Fathers” that he is telling us about, believed in the full theosis and deification of man! They believed that men can become gods! (Which he now denies.) Their literature on that subject is extensive, and quotations are numerous, see here for examples. He can’t have it both ways. They can’t be right when he likes them to be, and wrong when he doesn’t.

The second criticism that he raises against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints relates to the Book of Mormon, which I will leave to the next post, because this one has become long enough already.