Pastor Jeff has put out his latest video, in which he responds to comments left mainly by LDS viewers on his previous videos. The first question that he responds to relates to the beliefs and practices of various different Christian denominations, and how they relate to each other. Skipping the initial introductory remarks, his response is as follows:
“As I have talked about in previous videos, I have actually been associated, or even a part of a lot of different denominations; and here is the main thing that I want to kind of point to. When it comes to core or essential doctrine, almost every Protestant denomination agrees on fundamental issues that we believe the Bible teaches, and are essentially non-negotiable, meaning if you believe something different, you are straying away from the truth that God has revealed in the scriptures. And though I am about to release a video that goes through all of these essential doctrines that are shared amongst Protestant denominations, for the sake of this video I will just point you to a creed. A creed is essentially a statement of faith that outlines sort of the main essential points of belief that is often memorized by Christians, and also even recited in different worship gatherings. For example the Nicene Creed, which says:”
Quotes the Nicene Creed, which I will skip, and then continues:
“So we essentially believe that if you adhere to these beliefs, ... this is a summation of the essential doctrines that tie all Christian denominations together. Now where there are going to be differences, are tied to non-essential beliefs, or doctrines that go outside of a lot of the things stated here. ... But at the end of the day, a lot of these issues that are outlined in the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and other statements of faith, usually agree on these fundamental issues. Now to be fair, I do need to point out that sometimes Christian denominations don’t play nicely with each other, that some of those distinctive issues, the non-essential issues, that they don’t agree on, can cause there to be a lot of debates, and maybe even some contention between denominations. And for the vast majority of those of us in Protestant Christianity, that grieves us, because we don’t believe that it is necessary for us to be fighting and dividing over non-essential issues, though to be fair, it does happen.”
That is a somewhat misleading and deceptive argument. He is trying to make out that because all Protestant denominations agree on the Nicene or the Apostles Creed, therefore they all agree on the “essentials,” and there are no serious disagreements among them. Any disagreements relate to the “non-essentials”. There are two problems with that. The first is that the Protestant churches are not the only ones who adhere to the Nicene or the Apostles Creed, the Catholic Church does too—and no two churches are further apart than Catholic and Protestant churches. The Protestant churches are bitterly opposed to the Catholic Church, its theology and doctrine, and consider it to be idolatrous and false, and they don’t have very nice things about the Pope, the sacrifice of the Mass, or the veneration of Mary etc. So just because the Protestant churches generally adhere to the creeds, it does not logically follow that they are in “general agreement,” and cannot have serious disagreements—any more than it prevents them from having serious disagreements with the Catholic Church. The differences and disagreements between the various Protestant churches and denominations are not “negotiable,” otherwise they would “negotiate” them away, and come to a unified agreement. That is point number one.
The second point is that, although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not formally adopted the Nicene or the Apostles Creeds, we generally agree with the basic doctrines that they contain. I can’t think of any major doctrine taught in either creed that I would disagree with—from an LDS perspective. And for the record, the Nicene Creed does not teach “Trinitarianism”—the theology of “three persons in one God,” or “three persons in one essence”. That is a later development. The Nicene Creed simply declares belief in the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost (as do Latter-day Saints); but it does not attempt to describe “how” the three “Persons” are joined or related to each other, or united into “one God”. I had previously discussed this topic in an earlier blog post which can be seen here.
At 5:28 minutes into the video he responds to someone who objects to his not adhering strictly to the Church’s guidelines concerning the proper use of the name of the Church, and avoiding nicknames like “Mormon” or “LDS,” when referring to the Church or its members. My answer to that is that the Church is not as fussed up about that now as some Church members might think, or as the Church’s original statement might imply. As long as people are sincere and genuine, and do not deliberately use such nicknames to disparage, denigrate, or belittle the Church, the Church would not have too big a problem with that. (“Mormon Church” for example would not be appropriate, but “LDS Church” would not be too far off the mark.)
I am reminded by what the Lord has said in Doctrine and Covenants 107:1-4. According to this account, the “Melchizedek Priesthood” was originally called, “the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God”. But the early church in the days of Melchizedek, decided to call it the “Melchizedek Priesthood” instead, “out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name”. The same principle I believe would apply to the official name of the Church. It is indeed the correct name by which the Church is and should be known. But out of respect for the name of the “Supreme Being,” it would not be wise or appropriate to casually repeat it too often. It is also true that in some situations, such as when creating a video thumbnail like he says, or in a Twitter message for example where you are very limited in the number of characters you can use, it is sometimes not possible to use the full name of the Church, and fit everything else you want to say in the Tweet.
At 7:32 minutes into the video he responds to someone who questions his objection to the LDS belief that angels are or can be resurrected, glorified, and sanctified human beings. I had previously responded to his objections in an earlier blog post which can be seen here. In this video he tries to justify his opinion further by providing additional scripture references to support his views, which require a further response. He begins as follows:
“This is a good question that was on the video that I did in Palmyra, when I first learned that the LDS Church teaches that Moroni was not just an angel, which is what I thought he was, but he was actually a former warrior and prophet. That is not what is taught in the rest of Christianity, and I said that in that video, which is where this question is coming from.”
That is already presenting a false dichotomy. Moroni was “just an angel”. His former earthly identity and ministry as a prophet and warrior does not prevent him from now acting as “just an angel”. And he was not the only such “angel” that visited Joseph Smith. There were many others, including Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, and many others. There are no other kinds of “angels”. And they are all now “just angels”. Then he quotes two additional scriptures in support of his theology of angels, as follows:
“And there are a few passages of scripture I will point to as to why we don’t believe the Bible teaches that mankind becomes angels. One of the main verses I would point to is found in Hebrews chapter 1, where it is talking about Jesus’s relationship to mankind, and how Jesus was actually sent to mankind. He came below the angels in order to minister to mankind. It says in Hebrews 1:13-14, ‘To which of the angels did God ever say, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet? Are not all Angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?’ In other words, angels are specifically meant to minister to those who inherit salvation, which means angels don’t inherit salvation. They serve those who inherit salvation, which is mankind, which is who Jesus was sent to in order to bring Redemption.”
That is the most absurd and illogical scripture interpretation I have heard for a long time. The main theme in Hebrews Chapter 1 is centered on describing the greatness of Jesus, and how he is even greater than angels. That is what the entire chapter is all about. The bit that he quotes occurs right at the end of the chapter, and is as follows:
Hebrews 1:
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time [like he did to Jesus], Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
The entire passage is about the greatness of Jesus, that he is even greater than angels. It effectively puts the angels just below Jesus in greatness. The chapter contains references to Psalms 8 and 110. And just because one of the functions of angels [not the only function] is to “minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation,” it does not logically follow that they are not themselves saved, or “heirs of salvation”. That is the most absurd biblical hermeneutics imaginable. How can they minister salvation to men, if they are not themselves saved? How can they act as ministering agents for God, and be in his presence, if they are not themselves “saved” or “heirs of salvation?” If they are not “saved,” or “heirs of salvation,” then they must be “heirs of damnation!” In the economy of God, one is either ultimately saved or damned. You can’t be somewhere in the middle. So Pastor Jeff thinks that all the angels of God are damned! And according to the Bible, the function of angels is not just to “minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation”. That is one of their functions, but not the only one. In the Bible, there are many functions assigned to angels, both of destruction as well as salvation. In the Old Testament, God sent two angels to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness, and rescued Lot (Genesis 19). In 2 Chronicles 32:21, God sends an angel to destroy the armies of the Assyrians who besieged Jerusalem. In 1 Chronicles chapter 21, God sends an angel to destroy Jerusalem because of the sin of David. See also Numbers chapter 22, and 2 Kings chapter 6. In the New Testament, likewise many different functions are assigned to angels, including descending with Jesus to judge the earth (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 2 Thes. 1:7). See further Matt. 13:41, 49; 16:27; 24:31; 25:31; Luke 12:8-9. If angels are not “saved,” if they are not “heirs of salvation,” how can they dwell in the presence of God, act as his messengers, and perform such great works that they do for the Lord? Then he continues as follows:
“I think another verse that I would point to would be in 1 Peter 1:12, where Peter is trying to encourage the local congregation that he is writing to, to have confidence in the truth that was given to them through the prophets. And he even makes a reference in verse 12 of chapter 1 where he says, “It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves. But you (talking about the prophets), when they spoke of the things that have now been told to you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit Sent from Heaven. Even angels long to look into these things,” which means angels are separate beings that are sort of standing on the sideline, or being used by God in the Redemptive plan, but they aren’t the ones who are receiving Redemption. They are actually longing to look into these things, to understand God’s Redemptive work for mankind. So those are just a few examples out of the Bible as to why we don’t teach, nor do we believe the Bible teaches that angels were at one point men, or that we will in some way progress into being angels.”
That again is entirely an incorrect interpretation of 1 Peter 1:12. What that scripture means is that angels are not omniscient. They don’t know everything. There were great things being revealed at that time that even angels were not fully aware of. At the time of Jesus, things were being revealed to babes that had not previously been revealed to the wise and prudent (Matt. 11:25; Luke 10:21). Jesus came to “utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 13:35). No wonder that the angels were also interested to look into what was being revealed. It does not mean that the angels are not “saved,” or not “heirs of salvation”.
Jesus taught that the “greatest” in the kingdom of God are those who minister to and serve others (Matt. 20:25-28; 23:11; Mark 9:34-35; 10:44-45; Luke 22:24-27). What made Jesus the “greatest” is that he served others (Luke 22:27). He in fact performed the greatest act of service to others, by giving his life a “ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45). The fact that angels minister to and serve God and man, does not make them somehow inferior to or lower than men, but greater. He has it all backwards. That is what Calvinism, Protestantism, and “Reformed theology” does to people I guess; it makes all their theological brains get twisted and wrong! He has also missed this bit of scripture (among many others):
Hebrews 12:
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
To be “saved” means to have the privilege of coming to the “city of the living God,” to an “innumerable company of angels,” to “God the Judge of all,” to the “spirits of just men made perfect,” and to “Jesus the mediator of the new covenant”. How could that be, if angels are not “heirs of salvation?” How could they dwell in the presence of God, and act as his agents, if they are not “saved?” I did a search, and found that the word “angel” (and its derivatives) occur 283 times in the Bible: 108 times in the OT, and 175 times in the NT. Here is a link to the search results. A careful reading of all of those will prove a good education on the nature, purpose, and mission of angels.
At around 15:50 minutes into the video someone asks him a question about his understanding of “Mormon epistemology,” more specifically about: “How do Mormon methods of learning true things differ from your own?” To this Pastor Jeff gives a long and rambling reply—and also a partially incorrect answer from a Latter-day Saint perspective on the subject. To keep it brief, the Latter-day Saint understanding of the subject is expressed concisely and completely in the following quote from the Book of Mormon:
Moroni 10:
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
All truth is revealed and can be known by the power of the Holy Ghost, which also agrees fully with what the Bible teaches (John 16:12-14; 1 John 2:20, 27). None of the complicated stuff that he likes to add to it need to be added. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon agree on that. He likes to make it a lot more complicated than it is, as taught in the Bible. I suppose that is because he can’t defend his theological position otherwise, by sticking with the simplicity of the biblical teaching.
_______________
P. S.
Talking about the “essential” and the “non-essential,” since I posted this message one month ago, I have discovered the following interesting video on YouTube which has a good perspective on the “essential” vs. the “non-essential”:
No comments:
Post a Comment