We discussed this in October.
And now ETS is discussing this in November. I did ask in the thread how Dr. Moreland’s accusation of bibliolatry might be distinguished from LDS accusations of bibliolatry.
Interesting, isn’t it?
You know who I solidly agree with, don’t you?
John Frame’s comment in the thread.
Thinking of heart issues . . . sufficiency of specific revelation, inerrancy, trinitarianism, etc. and etc.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
A lot of people out there misunderstand Moreland’s claim. I know this from a simple perusal of the comments appended to the online CT article. The connection you’re seeing between LDS and Moreland isn’t there. Please be careful about reasoning this way and putting it into print.
Just because we find Christians and non-Christians using the same arguments (or arguing for the same conclusions) in no way by itself makes those arguments suspect (Moreland wasn’t taking the accusation where the LDS do, by the way). Consider the following: Christians and LDS both argue against atheism, yet we Christians wouldn’t argue that the Christian who does so is somehow selling out to LDS. That would be to commit the genetic fallacy. Moreland was just making the commonsensical claim that we can know things outside of the Bible. He most certainly was not undercutting the authority of the Bible! To read this into his talk (and I’m not saying you were doing this, though others out there are) is uncharitable, to say the least.
Moreland’s claim should strike no one as troubling. When something is spoken of in the Bible, we inerrantists can know that it’s true (of course, provided we do our hermeneutical homework, and remain open to correction on our interpretations). But from the Bible giving us inerrant knowledge on a topic, it doesn’t follow that this is ALL the knowledge that exists on a particular subject.
This is why Moreland used the example of archeology. We have knowledge of ancient Jerusalem we’ve gained from the Bible. We also have knowledge about it gained from archaeological digs over the past couple centuries. We expect the two bodies of knowledge to harmonize. If, on some point, the two come into conflict, well, then, we go back and “redo the math” from the dig AND from Scripture (i.e. though Scripture is inerrant, our interpretations are fallible and should be open to correction, if necessary). Since Christianity is true, we can expect the things written in Scripture to be ceteris paribus investigatable today. He used the archeology example, to make features of the interaction of Biblical and extra-Biblical knowledge more clear. With that in mind, he then used the example of Charles Kraft’s (and others’) research into demons. If Kraft’s research is sound, which it most plausibly is, then just as we do in archeology, we should do here. That is, just as we sought to harmonize our knowledge of ancient Jerusalem from both sources, so we ought to harmonize that knowledge about demons from Scripture and from Kraft’s research. Moreland’s paper used this analogy to argue that we evangelicals regularly act (and teach) as if our knowledge on a variety of topics (demons among them) were limited only to what the Bible says.
Todd,
That is an interesting discussion you linked to. AAT wants to make is sound as though Moreland is merely making the non-controversial claim that the Bible does not contain every fact. The people who don’t want to hear what Moreland is saying seem to be grasping on to this one point of agreement and pretending that is all he said. If the write-up at that blog is correct, he appears to be saying more than that. Some of the points Moreland is making seem to be very close to those illustrated in the discussion between Geoff and Aaron (the one linked to in your post).
The Christianity Today link says that Moreland:
In Geoff’s discussion he said:
Isn’t this a near perfect example of Moreland’s claim that evangelicals are rejecting guidance and revelation through impressions?
Even though I couldn’t be more tired of the genuinely stupid accusation made by AAT that Mormons are not Christians, it seems especially fitting to address it in light of what Moreland is saying. What is the basis for considering Mormons to be non-Christian. Well, supposedly, it is the Bible, but on closer inspection, it is not really the Bible but one interpretation of some Biblical verses.
There is a dispute about what the Bible says about God, and a reasonable case can be made on both sides of the argument (which is why there are lots of people who believe sincerely in the Bible who disagree as to what is being said). I would have thought that the term “Christian” would apply to anyone who worships Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. However, it appears that “Christian,” instead, has come to mean something about whether or not someone agrees with AAT about what the Bible says.
Thus, if AAT is going to call Mormons non-Christian for disagreeing with him about what the Bible says (as he does above), one of the following seems to be required:
1) He is saying that Mormons are not really sincere believers in the Bible and he can tell because they disagree with his interpretation. In other words, the Bible is so clear in its doctrine about God that any disagreement is evidence of insincerity on the part of the person disagreeing.
2) He is saying that Mormons are simply too stupid to be Christians. In other words, the Bible is so clear in its doctrine about God that any disagreement is due to the the person disagreeing being too stupid to read the words and comprehend their clear and unambiguous meaning.
3) He is saying that the Bible must be interpreted according to non-Biblical creeds and that the title “Christian” is fundamentally defined by those non-Biblical creeds. Interpretations that do not follow those creeds are non-Christian by definition.
So, which is it AAT? Am I non-Christian because I am not as sincere as you, because I am not as smart as you, or because I reject non-Biblical creeds?
Well, Jacob, it was hard not to get agitated at reading what you’ve written above, because you’ve been most unfair in understanding my position. And then to say my comment (an accusation, evidently) is “generally stupid”? You need to read a little more carefully before making such vituperative comments.
Now, as a matter of fact, I do happen to think Mormons qua Mormons are non-Christians. But it was never the intent of my original comment to defend THAT point, so I’m puzzled why you fault me for not doing so. In fact, I didn’t even really make that claim outright to begin with! I was actually addressing an in-house evangelical issue to an evangelical audience and didn’t feel it necessary to waste the space on the tangential issue of Mormon-Christian apologetics.
Mormonism served as a foil for me to raise the following issue: I began by noting Todd’s observance that both Mormons and Moreland have “accused” Christians of bibliolatry (though actually the accusations only bear superficial similarities). Todd then asked, “What is different between the two camps’ accusations, if there is one?” I assumed behind this question was a concern that arguments of Moreland’s stripe are getting into dangerous territory. I didn’t answer Todd’s question, but instead, to get to what I took to be the heart of the issue, conceded for the sake of argument that even if there were no difference, then its being “Mormon reasoning,” or something like that, in no way entails Moreland is wrong, for that would be to commit the genetic fallacy. What ought to matter to an evangelical is not whether Mormons (or Buddhists, or Hindus, or whomever) make the same claim, but whether the claim is in fact true.
I assure you I have a thorough grasp of what Moreland was saying. Evangelicals have indeed generally shut the door to dreams, charismatic gifts, and guidance, and instead have either opted for cessationism or an “open but cautious” stance. Their grounding for this is that such caution is demanded by Scripture’s admonition against deception. Proponents of this view also generally believe that personal experience is mired in subjectivity to the extent that it’s highly unreliable as a source of knowledge. So when you combine the supposed general unreliability of personal experience with the warnings not to fall into deception, you wind up with a community that treats personal experience (particularly of dreams, charismatic gifts, divine guidance, etc.) with a guilty-til-proven-innocent mentality. But this is a very anemic epistemology.
Moreland was not advocating that we just blindly believe any old story of someone’s personal spiritual experience, nor was he advocating that any extra-Biblical knowledge revamp the core doctrines of Christianity, but neither was he advocating the typical evangelical skepticism toward personal experience. He was advocating a balance, and pointing out that evangelicals have swung too far towards skepticism. The bottom line: This needs to change in evangelicalism. There is charlatanry out there, to be sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s all charlatanry. We must evaluate these things on a case by case basis. Many evangelical theologians and pastors don’t do this; instead, they often rule it out completely. This needs to change. To integrate the two takes wisdom and discernment, to be sure, but we evangelicals are losing out on an important, perhaps necessary component, of human flourishing. This was Moreland’s point.
Well AAT, it is ironic that you tell me to read your comment more carefully and then admit that you do, in fact, hold the position I took issue with, namely that Mormons are non-Christian. You might try reading my comment more carefully because you said I called your comment “generally stupid” when I did nothing of the sort. The thing I called “genuinely stupid” was not your comment, but rather it was specifically stated as the “accusation made by AAT that Mormons are not Christians.” It is this accusation that I called stupid and I stand by that characterization of this specific accusation.
I did mean to say that your comment was stupid, I don’t think your comment was stupid, and I don’t think you are stupid. Nothing personal was intended, I simply take issue with your referring to Mormons as non-Christian. On a blog entitled “Heart Issues for LDS” you should be aware that casually referring to Mormons as non-Christian may be challenged. If you want to have a evangelical-to-evangelical discussion where such things are taken for granted, this is hardly the place for it.
Now to Moreland, I don’t doubt that you understand what Moreland was saying. I’m sure you have a better understanding of it than me because I am simply going off the very brief discription of his comments on the Christianity Today blog. The thing that I was responding to in #2 when I said “AAT wants to make is sound as though Moreland is merely making the non-controversial claim that the Bible does not contain every fact” was these statements from you in #1:
Your characterization in #4 seems much harsher than these ones from #1. Your statements in #1 that Moreland is “just making the commonsensical claim that…” and that his claim should “strike no one as troubling” seemed to me to be downplaying the controversial nature of what he is saying. If I mistook your intent in those comments, I apologize. Your description in #4 seems much more in line with what I was gathering from his comments.
I agree with your assessment that “There is charlatanry out there, to be sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s all charlatanry.” I also agree that “Moreland was not advocating that we just blindly believe any old story of someone’s personal spiritual experience,” but then, I am not sure that anyone is advocating that position.
Jacob,
I’ll table the tit-for-tat. Todd made comments on the Christianity Today article at the conclusion of which he put a link to his own blog. I took this to be an invitation to a discussion tacitly circumscribed within a largely evangelical domain. Perhaps that’s not how he intended the invitation, but in that case, this may not be the discussion I was looking to join.
For now, however…
You’re right to notice the difference between #1 and #4. I’m sorry I didn’t make the connection more clear. The point is that there’s nothing IN PRINCIPLE (how do you italicize here?) that prohibits the controversial stuff in #4 from following from the innocuous stuff in #1. Many evangelicals don’t realize this. The more tame comments in #1, namely, that “Moreland was just making the commonsensical claim that we can know things outside of the Bible,” is true so far as it goes. (A friend tells me Moreland actually said in his talk something like, “I can’t believe the need is such that I have to write an academic paper on this subject…” i.e. He took himself to be offering at bottom a commonsense point.)
Moreland’s further point then, was that if we allow for extra-Biblical knowledge simpliciter, then the only way to deny the more controversial stuff would be by dealing with the specifics of each individual case; which is to say, by showing such and such a claim is false. It will generally not do to simply say, “The Bible is silent on that issue!”
Let me go back to an earlier example. Charles Kraft is prominently known for his missiological research and his research into demons, their behavior, and exorcisms. Many in the audience at ETS that day have probably dismissed Kraft on the ground that his research and the conclusions based thereupon are “not found the Bible”. When they dismiss him, they also usually dismiss the practical applications of his research, such as the possibility of the demonization of Christians and how to best minister to them (note to any evangelical readers: I didn’t say “possession”). But Moreland, using the example of archeology, pointed out the inconsistency of the people who dismiss Kraft solely on these grounds. Sure, we can still question Kraft’s claims, but it will have to be on OTHER grounds. Most responses to Kraft that I’ve seen are of the “not in the Bible”.
You say, “I also agree that ‘Moreland was not advocating that we just blindly believe any old story of someone’s personal spiritual experience,’ but then, I am not sure that anyone is advocating that position.” That is true, no one is advocating that position, but there are some who fear this follows from Moreland’s view (just browse the Christianity Today article comments for proof that people think this). Such a fear is emblematic of a second, more specific objection often leveled at extra-Biblical knowledge: if one starts allowing for “subjective personal experience” to count as a source of extra-Biblical knowledge, then one is thereby becoming a relativist about truth. But that’s nonsense, it seems to me: if some particular personal experience is not a justifiable ground for some belief, then its lack of justification will be due to some other reason than that it was “subjective”. I.e. we ought to evaluate subjective experiences on a case-by-case basis, just as we do with any other putative instance of knowledge.
You seem well-spoken and intelligent, Jacob, and I regret that we don’t see eye-to-eye on the issue of salvation, but if you (or others wish), the above is the general direction I’m hoping to proceed with the discussion. If not, then I won’t be offended to head elsewhere.
I often think it is better to allow these discussions to take place without using them for apologetics. When Evangelicals discuss amongst themselves these issues, it may be better to leave the LDS factor out of the equation. Why? Because once you raise the LDS question, then often the strategy from the Evangelical point to view is to somehow distinguish bibliolatry critiques of some LDS with bibliolatry critiques of Evangelicals.
However, by bringing in the fact that a “new religious movement” may agree with Moreland, then the focus of the discussion moves in a different direction. Instead of Evangelicals engaging the issues raised by Moreland on their own merit, then the focus becomes, how can we prevent this discussion from being used as material for LDS to use against us? This is one the extremely unfortunate result of apologetics and one reason I feel that apologetics continues to fail us.
The goal, I think, should be to allow the conversation to go forward. I think it should go forward not because it will make LDS arguments sound more reasonable, and not because it will persuade Evangelicals that Mormonism is true. But simply because it is important in and of itself and I think it is good for the Evangelical community to do so, it is good for their spiritual well-being.
Issues may be raised by those in a different faith, but because these questions originate in another faith group it is ignored. This happens in both camps. For example, Robert Millet once explained that when he asked his dad why they don’t believe in grace, he father replied, ‘Because the Baptists do.’ Likewise, why should the issues that Moreland raises carry different weight when he says it, than when some LDS says the same thing? The reason is because we suspect that the “Other” cannot have anything valid or anything to contribute. We let labels get in the way and blind us to the issues. Rather than simply ‘critiques on bibliolatry,’ we have to have ‘Evangelical’ critiques and ‘LDS’ critiques. Why not simply critiques? Can’t different groups raise the same issue? Isn’t it possible that some of these critiques may be the same? Or it is impossible that one Evangelical and one LDS could have the exact same thought or reaction against ‘bibliolatry’? It is unfortunate that this tendency to label occurs, but because it does occur, I would rather let the energy be channeled into moving the discussion forward among Evangelicals, than divert that energy and attention towards engaging in side-line apologetics which will not move the discussion forward and might actually inhibit it.
Here is another reason for my position. If certain Evangelicals suspect that Moreland is saying the same thing as LDS, then he may lose credibility, his views may become suspected of contamination, and he may even be forced to distinguish himself from LDS critiques in order to put his critics at ease. It is in the best interest of those who disagree with Moreland to point out, “Hey, you say things that Mormons say.” This is tantamount to saying, “Your critiques border on heresy.” And my concern is that in some respects, this may also be used as essentially a masked version of an ad hominem attack (i.e. judging Moreland based on whether his arguments sound like those of others, rather than judging them on their own merit). This is the same thing that always seems to happen. Owen and Mosser, Craig Blomberg, Greg Johnson, Gerald McDermott, Richard Mouw and even Craig Hazen have had to confess to other Evangelicals and say, “Hey, don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying Mormons are Christian okay? Calm down.” In other words, Evangelicals simply will not let them move forward with discussion, they will not listen to what they have to say unless they do ‘apologetics’ first. Let’s not needlessly place Moreland in the same situation. Why can’t we just allow Evangelicals to say things that might happen to coincide with things LDS have said without forcing them to confess that they aren’t agreeing with Mormons? The test of whether Moreland’s argument has merit should not depend on whether Mormons may say the same things. Moreland’s argument should be evaluated on its own merit, and he shouldn’t have to be drawn needlessly into apologetics.
I’m not saying that groups may not approach some issue from different vantage points, but we should allow the discussion to develop and explore all issues without immediately labeling an argument as “LDS” or “Evangelical.” The unfortunate result is that some possibilities may be eradicated simply because they sound too similar to something raised by a different group, where if that group had not been there, the possibility may have been accepted and embraced.
AAT and Jacob, thanks for the civil interaction. From my standpoint, it has been good. AAT, for one thing, whatever statements ETS evangelical scholars would make, some intelligent LDS scholars are eagerly looking for similarity and contrast. There has already been a co-beligerance of dialogue between Pinnock and LDS. Perhaps in the future, there might very well be a co-beligerance of dialogue set up on this very topic of bibliolatry among evangelicals and LDS. So I am sensitive to these things.
ATT,
I recently read the book, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul by J. P. Moreland.
I profited from the book. I do hunger for myself and my church family in Idaho Falls to flourish upward and inward in the beautiful unfolding of God’s glory. To worship God deeply with our minds.
But for LDS, the Bible seems to be only the starting point for future soul growth and intellectual progression.
I am curious to know from Moreland and you over how much evangelicalism has exhausted from the Scriptures what there is to know about God. Secondly, according to Moreland, what are the parameters of sufficiency that Scripture claims?
Thirdly, I believe in sharing and following human impressions, desires, and exciting discoveries spurred on by the God-granted tools of our reason and imagination as we delight ourselves in the Lord. But I admit my personal fallability in contrast to scriptural infallability. My reasoning and my imagination are both tinged with errant depravity. The Spirit who speaks through Scripture is the testing stone.
I am expecting a great infusion of charismatic gifts yet to come, centered around the coming of Christ, but for now, I am very cautious, testing the spirits with the word.
In your estimation, what book by Kraft gives his most straightforward research. I am unfamiliar with his direct sources.
Jacob
If the JST didn’t keep popping all over in current pop LDS works that I read, I would think our discussion would just be over biblical interpretation rather than text. And with the growing interest among LDS academia in Joseph’s amendations, and other higher critical ideas of scribal supplementation and ecclesiastical redactors, the text itself is becoming the raging debate. I do think for most LDS the testing stone for faith and practice is personal revelation in the encounters with modern LDS revelation and not “Old World” biblical revelation.
Aquinas, thoughtful words here.
But to rule out apologetics completely in any of my conversation is to go against my own conscience in seeking to promote and defend the Lord’s glory.
You see what I am saying?
Aquinas in #7 seems to be beating the same drum AAT was hitting with his comment about the genetic fallacy. Certainly I agree with the sentiment in both cases.
AAT, your analysis in #6 seems very reasonable and I think I can agree without reservation to what you have said.
Aquinas said the following:
AAT casually referred to Mormons as non-Christians earlier in this conversation. It appears that Evangelicals take it for granted that Mormons are not Christians. Since this is off-topic for this post, I will make a request of Todd. Would you be willing to put up a post on why I don’t qualify as a Christian?
I want it noted that I am not quoting the actual words of any of those evangelical scholars and pastors. I think most people can see it is not even a paraphrase but simply my interpretation of what happens when Evangelical scholars engage in dialogue with Latter-day Saints. They are challenged by their fellow Evangelicals who demand clarification and want assurance that these Evangelicals are not legitimizing Mormonism and they make these statements not necessarily to other LDS but to Evangelicals in an in-house discussion. While I had examples in my minds of various interactions over the year as I wrote this, it is a meta-interpretation and my impressions over the years. If you have not followed the dialogues of these gentlemen over the years then don’t take my statement as any of them actually saying Mormons are not Christian. My point isn’t that they are saying Mormons are not Christian; my point is that their community pushing them to clarify that they are not conceding too much to Mormonism. My point again is that apologetics interferes with dialogue. I should have been more careful and if I could revise it I would say they are being forced to say, “No, I’m not saying that Mormons believe exactly like we do. Calm down.” Again, my point is that no one will listen to the substance of their arguments because the only thing they are concerned about is maintaining the sharp distinction between Mormonism and Evangelicalism. Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong in maintaining distinctives per se. The problem I have is when you cannot hear what anyone says and are not willing to listen to what anyone says, until they first perform the ritual disclaimer.
Secondly, as to the point about Mormons not being Christian. I have no problem with AAT making a post and using the phrase “Christians and non-Christians.” When I initially read his post I didn’t even notice this because I was too busy agreeing with the substance of his post. I agree with AAT that he was not explicitly saying that Mormons are not Christians in his post. His post was not an argument as to why Mormons were not Christian. Rather, it had to do with many of the things I am trying to say and in that respect, I was glad he made his post and appreciate it. Sure, it may have been nice to use the phrase “Evangelicals and Mormons” which leaves the Mormon question unanswered, rather than “Christian and non-Christian.” However, I am not going to disregard what someone says simply because they didn’t say the magic words, especially if we have never conversed before. For many Evangelicals they do not consider Mormons to be Christian, not because they have decided based on meeting and knowing individual Mormons that they do not live a Christ-centered life, but because they have been told this growing up all their life. The counter-cult community, while not influential in the LDS community, and most LDS remain un-persuaded by their writings, they do have a great impact in the Evangelical community and to a lesser extent the Catholic community. Whether we like it or not, in many instances Mormonism is de facto not considered part of Christianity. But if someone wants to take issue with that, the best place to begin is dialogue, not to immediately slam that person especially upon first contact. I just put up a post today on this topic titled, “Is Mormonism Christian? A Dialogue” which models the kind of dialogue which will lead to a greater understanding of one another.
Aquinas,
I knew you were not quoting those people or even paraphrasing something specific they said. I didn’t intend to imply you were, so I welcome your clarification on that point. As to the substance of what you were trying to communicate, I agree with your point and tried to say as much in #11. Further, I didn’t (and still don’t) disregard what AAT had to say.
My purpose for quoting you in #11 was simply to establish some reasons from this thread that I conclude Evangelicals don’t believe I am a Christian. On this point, you seem to agree with me when you say that “Whether we like it or not, in many instances Mormonism is de facto not considered part of Christianity.” Hopefully Todd will take me up on my request to post his reasons for not considering me a Christian.
You take me to task by saying that I should begin with dialogue, not slamming the person on first contact. Fine. What Evangelicals fail to understand (or pretend to fail to understand) is how hurtful it is for them to constantly insist that Mormons are not Christians. I can’t rule out that this is pretended ignorance since in so many cases this is overtly used as a hammer to beat on Mormonism. Even in your comment you say you have no problem with Mormons being referred to as non-Christian. Is that supposed to make me feel better about it, the fact that you don’t have a problem with someone labeling me as a non-Christian? Well, it doesn’t make me feel any better about it, and I take issue with the idea that because Evangelicals have become accustomed to slandering Mormons I shouldn’t react to it.
Jacob J, thanks for your understanding about my clarifications. I’ve communicated with a few of those individuals and I wanted to make sure my words were not misinterpreted by other readers who might come across this site, not that I thought you personally were misunderstanding them. I should have been clearer on that point.
I know that it is hurtful and that is a real hurt which I don’t take lightly. For me, it would be even more hurtful if someone with whom I’ve had discussions with and knew about my personal faith and knew me personally still said such things.
I’m not saying that I have no problem with Mormons being referred to as non-Christian in all situations. What I said exactly was “I have no problem with AAT making a post and using the phrase Christians and non-Christians.” Why would I say that? It was because to my knowledge this is the very first time that AAT has visited this site. I might be mistaken, but I think it is the first time you had ever communicated with him. It just seemed from my vantage point that there was very little conversation before asking him point blank, “So, which is it AAT? Am I non-Christian because I am not as sincere as you, because I am not as smart as you, or because I reject non-Biblical creeds?” How would you expect someone who has never met you before to respond to this introduction?
Better relations start one individual at a time, one conversation at a time. From my point of view, the relationship between AAT and Jacob J is the place to begin. That initial contact between a Mormon and an Evangelical is important. That is where change happens if it happens at all. The change that happens at academic conferences or at the doctrinal and theological level is one thing. But its power pales in comparison to the change that can occur at the personal and individual level. It’s clear that you have been hurt and I don’t claim to have experienced the same situations that you have, and if I had been hurt like you have, perhaps I would react the same way. I don’t think there is anything I can say that will make you feel better. You have every right to react as you see fit. Maybe I’m wrong to offer these observations and if I am then I apologize.
To all,
Aquinas
I’m glad you’re willing to sympathize with my pragmatic concern–one in which all of us share an interest, I take it–in distinguishing between the evangelical and LDS audiences reading this thread. My worry was indeed that the average evangelical reader here (or a reader of some of the Christianity Today comments) might likely entangle one hot-button issue (a discussion on the sufficiency of Scripture) with another (the Mormon-evangelical dialog/debate). That would be an unfortunate and unwarranted mess. And based on the fact that things said online often take on a life of their own, get taken out of context, and become cannon fodder elsewhere, I was hoping to encourage evangelical consideration of Moreland’s thesis, but to do so in a way that would not risk insinuating something untrue of him or his argument. This is a mark of great maturity on your part to concern yourself with someone else’s reputation, even when that someone is rather far removed from your daily life (I assume).
Jacob,
Know that my praising Aquinas for this is not to say that you do not share similar concerns. After reading some of your background, I understand a little better how my original post may have touched a sore spot. I meant no personal offense.
Todd,
Love Your God with All Your Mind is a great read. For me, it was a very formative book, both personally and vocationally. To your very good questions, I take it that Moreland himself having posted his ETS paper online gives you something initially to work with. That’s a start, and we can discuss your thoughts further. About the Kraft books, a good defense of his methodology is the work cited in Moreland’s paper. Also, Moreland’s book “Kingdom Triangle” has helped me greatly in wrestling through these issues. In fact, if you only had time to pick up one item to serve as a jumping off point into this whole thing (and who exactly is flush with time these days?) Kingdom Triangle would be the one to go with.
And lastly, to anyone interested–both evangelicals and LDS–Moreland just today posted a lengthy comment in the aforementioned Christianity Today ETS blog. He references his website, http://www.kingdomtriangle.com, which has a link to his paper. Maybe there’ll be some interesting blogging life starting up there given that there’s so much discussion about that paper.
I just noticed the hyperlink doesn’t work in my previous post. The website exists, though.
Lemme try again.
http://www.kingdomtriangle.com
There. Stupid computers.
Great discussion but I am very interested in what Jacob presented that so far seems to have gone unanswered:
I too would like to know which one it is, not only of AAT but also, perhaps more specifically, of Todd.
It seems very artificial to claim that the issue of “one substance” is the touchstone of who can be called a Christian. This is not in the plain language of the Bible but rather follows from the oft-repeated Evangelical creedalist syllogism meant to bridge the transition between the OT and the presence of the literal Son of God in the NT. Such a syllogism is one reading or interpretation of the text but it is not necessary; other interpretations also follow from the text, interpretations that do not need the aide of a Greek philosophical concept (homoousios) to bridge the gap.
What I hear Evangelical creedalists saying is that salvation hinges on the Bible, and not just on the Bible (after all, Latter-day Saints read and know the Bible as well as Evangelical creedalists), but on the Bible as printed within the last couple of hundred years (i.e. not containing books that originally were part of the canon such as the Shepherd of Hermas) and as interpreted by American Evangelical creedalists (so, for example, Anglicans just might not be saved if their beliefs encompass a view that the Bible is sufficient — and thereby rejecting personal revelation and the role of prophets and apostles together with their Evangelical creedalist cousins — but not necessarily inerrant, thereby partaking in heresy according to their Evangelical creedalist cousins).
It seems unlikely that this is the Gospel that Jesus Christ preached when he sojourned on earth, set apart apostles and gave them priesthood authority through the laying on of hands, and founded his Church with the Apostles as his representatives on earth to lead the Church, with himself as the chief cornerstone.
Evangelical creedalists can do little, it seems, to avoid the identification of Jacob’s option # 3 above with their beliefs.