What An Open Mind Is Not

I see more and more people associating having this “open mind” to being liberal. Political and theological liberalism then become the only true representation of having an open mind. If you believe that gay marriage is immoral—then you have a closed mind. If you believe that one worldview is right and others are wrong—then you have a closed mind. The list could go on and on.

There are some glaring problems with this definition of having an open mind. First, when you say that saying any other worldview is wrong then you essentially believe in nothing. This is the conundrum that is implicit in Postmodernity. Moral relativism is one of a few grave philosophical and logical errors that are made when you step in Postmodern philosophy. The problem is that when you believe in everything then you believe nothing. A critical thinker doesn’t let everything into their minds.

The other issue is that when you write off those with a particular ideology as close minded then the accuser ends up with the closed mind. Much like the relativist fallacy in moral relativism it is self defeating. Is there a better way to approach a more balanced definition of having an open mind?

A Definition Worth Defining

Let’s try this definition to guide our discussion.

Open Mind: Having an “open mind” is when an individual can objectively judge truth claims in light of their own presuppositions in the pursuit of truth and knowledge.

Notice there are a couple of important points in this definition. Notice that this definition applies to an individual to avoid applying the definition to a group of people who falls prey to groupthink. The person also evaluates truth claims which can be anything from a political ideology to a religion. Presuppositions also can greatly color the way we test truth claims so the person has to be honest with their presuppositions and not let a set of presuppositions immediately decide how one feels on an issue. This point is crucial, and its importance is worth noting.

Finally, having an open mind must mean you are seeking truth and knowledge.. If you subscribe to moral relativism you aren’t really searching for anything absolute or meaningful to your existence. Also, if you simply entertain an idea or philosophy as a hobby it will hinder your ability to objectively judge it as opposed to someone who is seeing to know if something is truthful.

Let’s Move On

Let’s use this definition to avoid calling a Christian, or anyone else who believes in absolutes, as close minded. I apply this definition as my friend Aaron Shafovaloff once told me. He said that if someone provided him with an objective, logical, and truthful presentation that Christianity is false that he would hopefully have the where with all to abandon Christianity. That is a great application of our definition, and I invite all to challenge myself and each other.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

From the outset, I must candidly confess that a thoroughgoing, point-by-point rebuttal of the positions argued for in the article above is beyond the scope of my brief response. The positions espoused were hundreds of years in the making, and to unravel everything assumed or explicitly stated would take a rather lengthy volume. And besides, there are already many good, exegetically-sound explanations of the Reformed views on justification and sanctification, an excellent example of the former being Obadiah Grew’s The Lord Our Righteousness; and of the latter, Walter Marshall’s The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. If anyone is seriously wanting to understand the historic Protestant teaching on these important topics, I would point him to these works.

Instead, I only desire two things: first, to point out, in brief, how the article misrepresents the Protestant viewpoint, for the benefit of anyone wanting a more accurate description to consider. And second, to give a brief explanation of why this viewpoint is so vital and non-negotiable to us.

Clarifying the Protestant Understanding

The article in question contains such descriptions of the Protestant teaching on justification as the following:

“Sanctifying grace implies a real transformation of the soul. Recall that most of the Protestant Reformers denied that a real transformation takes place. They said God doesn’t actually wipe away our sins. Our souls don’t become spotless and holy in themselves. Instead, they remain corrupted, sinful, full of sin. God merely throws a cloak over them and treats them as if they were spotless, knowing all the while that they’re not.”

“But that isn’t the Catholic view. We believe souls really are cleansed by an infusion of the supernatural life. Paul speaks of us as “a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17), “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph. 4:24). Of course, we’re still subject to temptations to sin; we still suffer the effects of Adam’s Fall in that sense (what theologians call “concupiscence”); but God removes the guilt from our souls. We may still have a tendency to sin, but God has removed the sins we have, much like a mother might wash the dirt off of a child who has a tendency to get dirty again.”

This description is simply not accurate: the fact is, all responsible Protestant theologians believe that, at the moment of regeneration, God cleanses a sinner’s soul, removing all the guilt and stain of sin. He also transforms the sinner quite thoroughly, so that he may be called a new creation, someone created anew in the image of Christ, someone whose day-to-day life will begin to reflect this monumental change by degrees. The problem (from the Catholic point of view) is that these realities are not properly called ‘justification’ in the Protestant system (or in the scriptures, for that matter). They are referred to in such terms as ‘washing,’ ‘regeneration,’ and so on. To say that Protestants don't believe in a real transformation of the soul just because this transformation is not called 'justification' is similar to saying they don't believe in bananas simply because they do not call them 'oranges'. Transformation, cleansing, and so on take place in the life of every believer, but those processes are called ‘transformation’ and ‘cleansing,’ not ‘justification,’ which simply does not carry that range of meanings.

So the first problem of misrepresentation is simply caused by a confusion of terminology; but a further, more substantial misrepresentation is also implicit in the description under consideration. The charge is made that, in the Protestant understanding of justification, ‘God merely throws a cloak over them and treats them as if they were spotless, knowing all the while that they’re not.’ This is a deceptive statement, because it combines elements of the truth with utter falsehood. The fact is, that justification is a legal term, used in the technical sense of passing a verdict in the courtroom. It is also a fact that the image of being covered with Christ’s righteousness, as with a cloak, is a fond metaphor for the New Testament authors. But we must not forget that it is a metaphor, and we must not make the mistake of confusing two different word pictures, with disastrous results. The metaphor of being covered with Christ’s righteousness does not mean that our own guilt is not taken away. It does not mean that we always stay just as dirty underneath. That is simply not the point of the metaphor. The fact is, that our guilt is really taken away, we are really washed and cleansed underneath â?? but that’s not all that happens! Not only is our guilt removed, but a positive righteousness is given to us. The image of a cloak speaks to this second part of the twofold exchange that took place on the cross; and to use its narrow perspective to deny the first part, that our guilt is actually removed, is a big problem.

And then, it also brings up another problem when we get to the matter of justification. If we actually are guilty, then when God passes the verdict ‘Not guilty,’ it must just be a ‘pretending’. This caricature of Protestant theology comes again from a misuse of nuanced terminology. That we have been covered with Christ’s righteousness does not mean that we have not been cleansed. If it did, God’s verdict would be unjust. As it is, he is both just and the justifier of the one who believes in Christ.

Justification is a courtroom verdict, indeed; but the all-just Judge is certainly passing the correct verdict! He has taken all the steps to ensure that, when a believer stands before him in the courtroom, the only right decision that could be made is ‘not guilty!’. He has really taken away all guilt; and he has really provided all necessary righteousness. He has done both of these things through the cross of Christ. But to say that, because ‘justification’ does not refer to the process of cleansing, it therefore just gives a verdict which only pretends that the process was carried out, is completely unwarranted. It is as if a person asked if we believed we owned an entire car, and we said, ‘Yes, I believe that.’ ‘But you say that the steering wheel does not contain four tires and a motor! A real car has four tires and a motor. You must not believe you own the entire car after all!’ Yes, I own the entire car, but the simple fact is, the steering wheel only speaks to one particular part of that car. That I refuse to use the term ‘steering wheel’ to refer to four tires and a motor does not mean that I deny the existence of four tires and a motor. In the same way, because I refuse to use the forensic term justification to mean ‘transformation,’ ‘cleansing,’ etc., does not mean that I deny the existence of those things. I just prefer to call them by their correct names â?? because if I don’t tremendous and potentially harmful confusion may result.

Proceeding on, the article makes the further statement:

“The Protestant misunderstanding of justification lies in its claim that justification is merely a forensic (i.e., purely declaratory) legal declaration by God that the sinner is now “justified.” If you “accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior,” he declares you justified, though he doesn’t really make you justified or sanctified; your soul is in the same state as it was before; but you’re eligible for heaven.”

“A person is expected thereafter to undergo sanctification (don’t make the mistake of thinking Protestants say sanctification is unimportant), but the degree of sanctification achieved is, ultimately, immaterial to the question of whether you’ll get to heaven. You will, since you’re justified; and justification as a purely legal declaration is what counts. Unfortunately, this scheme is a legal fiction. It amounts to God telling an untruth by saying the sinner has been justified, while all along he knows that the sinner is not really justified, but is only covered under the “cloak” of Christ’s righteousness. But, what God declares, he does. “[S]o shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it” (Is. 55:11). So, when God declares you justified, he makes you justified. Any justification that is not woven together with sanctification is no justification at all.”

We’ve already discussed the problem with calling God’s verdict a ‘legal fiction’ â?? God has made a reality, through Christ, what he then declares to be a reality. It is not a fiction, but a truthful verdict. But another problem that arises is the non sequitur this article makes, that since justification is a final and irrevocable verdict, therefore the degree of sanctification is irrelevant as to whether or not one ‘makes it to heaven’. Again, the truth is to be found, not in denying one or the other truth, but in giving each one its proper place and relationship.

The fact is, that God always sanctifies those whom he justifies. Those who show no sanctification cannot claim justification. Habitual sinners will not inherit the Kingdom, no matter how many aisles they’ve walked down in their lives. The problem comes when one misunderstands the nature of the necessity. Sanctification is necessary not as a means to an end, but as part of the end itself. Heaven is heaven because there will be no sin there; and therefore, people will be able to fellowship with the God who is too holy to look upon sin. Perfect sanctification is the goal, and so it is necessary for salvation. But it is not the means of getting there. Suppose I wanted to go on vacation in Hawaii: a jet would be a necessary means of getting there; but Hawaii itself would be a necessary element for the completion of my goal. In the work of salvation, sinlessness is a part of ‘Hawaii’. Heaven would not be heaven if sin were there.

Another (more biblical) illustration would be a vine. The goal is grapes; and so, by definition, the presence of grapes is necessary for the goal. But the means is the vital connection of the branches to the living vine. That is how the grapes come about. You could water a branch all day long, but it wouldn’t give you grapes unless there were some necessary means involved â?? and those means include a connection with the vine.

Holiness is a necessary part of salvation. The production of the holiness is a necessary part of the journey to heaven. But there is also a necessity of means, and these means include regeneration, forgiveness, transformation, justification, and in brief, the way in which all of these necessary things come about â?? union with Christ. If I want to arrive in Hawaii, it’s necessary that I go there. The going is necessary for my goal. And if I want to get to heaven, it’s necessary that I go in the path of holiness. The farther I go toward Hawaii, the closer I get to it. The farther I go toward the land of holiness, the closer I get to being practically holy. But I can no more make myself holy without the manifold means that God has provided in Christ than I could fly to Hawaii without wings, jet engines, fuel, and so on.

Here is one more quotation:

“Most Fundamentalists go on to say that losing ground in the sanctification battle won’t jeopardize your justification. You might sin worse than you did before “getting saved,” but you’ll enter heaven anyway, because you can’t undo your justification, which has nothing to do with whether you have supernatural life in your soul”

Again, this is a misrepresentation along the lines of saying that, if one refuses to call a tire a steering wheel, he must not believe that tires exist. Justification is not the impartation of spiritual life, but it is a verdict which truthfully presupposes that spiritual life was in fact imparted. It is impossible for justification to exist apart from spiritual life or sanctification precisely because it is impossible for God to lie. If one has no sanctification, then he has not been justified.

The Importance of a Correct Understanding

The error of confusing justification with sanctification is an error that subverts the entire gospel. Justification speaks of an actual righteousness that is perfect and acceptable to God. Sanctification speaks of a practical righteousness that necessarily follows the imputation of an actual righteousness, and will one day display that actual righteousness fully (in heaven). Justification renders the verdict that Christ's righteousness has been given to us. Sanctification proves the reality of that verdict by working out this freely given righteousness in our own lives. So then, in a fundamental sense, the righteousness spoken of in justification is an external righteousness. It is something that is given to us. But the righteousness spoken of in sanctification is an internal righteousness. It is something that is worked in us.

To say that justification depends on the latter kind of righteousness (the kind that is worked in us) puts us in an impossible situation. Either God is not 100% just, and so he can take an imperfect righteousness and say, ‘Ok, that’s good enough â?? you weren’t always fully righteous, but you showed righteousness a good bit of the time, so you’re good enough to fellowship with me.’ Or else, if God is 100% just, then our practical righteousness must be flawless and complete for him to accept us. If we’ve ever sinned, then we will never be able to stand in God’s presence. So which is it? If we’re trusting in the righteousness that God imparts to us, or works out in our daily lives, for our justification, that is for the verdict that we are acceptable to him, then are we hoping that God is willing to overlook our flaws because he’s not that holy after all? Or are we really thinking that we have no flaws?

You see, our imparted, practical righteousness is necessary, because God is taking us back to a state of perfect holiness. That’s how we were created, and that’s where God is taking us again. That’s what salvation is all about. But before we get there, we’ve all committed some terrible sins. And guess what â?? God is too holy just to overlook them! He is a righteous judge, and if the righteousness we hold up to him on judgment day is flawed, then we won’t arrive at that destination of perfect holiness. We’ll be cast into hell, where the flawed righteousness we hoped in receives its just reward. The only way to get to a place of perfect practical righteousness is to be given a perfect external righteousness on judgment day. And the only person that can give that perfect righteousness is Jesus â?? because he’s the only person who has ever won a perfect righteousness. If our hope in the courtroom is any righteousness that God is working in our daily lives, we will be disappointed, because it isn’t perfect. Our only hope is the righteousness of Christ.

The article under examination has the following tragic admission:

“Catholics see it differently. If you sin grievously, the supernatural life in your soul disappears, since it can’t co-exist with serious sin. You then cease to be justified. If you were to die while unjustified, you’d go to hell. But you can become re-justified by having the supernatural life renewed in your soul, and you can do that by responding to the actual graces God sends you.”

If your justification is indeed conditioned upon the holiness being worked out in your daily life, then of course it can disappear. In fact, it is an entirely impossible hope, if God is still completely righteous and our daily lives are not.

But what a certain hope we have when we trust in Jesus’ righteousness alone for our justification! What a solid rock that can never be moved! We can know that we are acceptable in God’s sight because his righteousness is now ours, and we can know that one day our practical holiness will reflect Jesus’ perfect holiness completely. We can know that our final destination â?? perfect holiness in the presence of God â?? is certain, because we are not the ones getting us there â?? the One who has already accomplished a perfect righteousness has undertaken to get us there. Jesus said, ‘Everyone who comes unto me, I will not cast out…this is the will of the One who sent me, that of everyone whom he has given to me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up in the last day’ (John 6:37–40). If Jesus has promised to lose no one who has truly come to him in faith, who are we to call him a liar, or suggest that he is not able to do what he had said? If we are trusting in Jesus' power and righteousness alone, then we have an immovable hope, and a certain future. If we are trusting in any righteousness that God is working in our own souls for a final verdict, then not only is our condemnation possible, it is certain. A wholly righteous God demands a perfect righteousness in his court; and that kind of righteousness can only come as a free gift from Christ. Trust in anything less’do that dishonor to the Son of God who freely offers his own perfect righteousness’and your condemnation is certain.

Miranda Claims to be the Antichrist

Miranda came out recently with a tattoo of “666” upon him, and now his followers are following suit and doing the same. He claims to be “the” antichrist; he says the following (see the video):

“666 antichrist means do not put your eyes on Jesus Christ of Nazareth put it on Jesus after the cross.”

He also claims that the translation we have of “antichrist” is incorrect as it should be the “new Christ.” This is beyond imagination. I am not going to re-hash content that I have already written about theological outlining the doctrine of the antichrist, because I have already done so in my “Man of Sin” series (part 1, 2). I do, however, want to spend some time reflecting on what the number 666 means in Biblical terminology.

The Mysterious 666

Here is the passage in which this mysterious number shows up.

“Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six.” (Rev 13:18)

A popular opinion among orthodox Christians is that the Greek form of Nero Caesar translated into Hebrew is the mathematical sum of 666. In some Latin texts the number is translated at 616 which is the numerical equivalent of Nero’s Latinized name in Hebrew. Kim Riddlebarger gives another important rationale behind this specific number.

“The meaning of the number is at least as significant as identifying to who it applies. The number of man, 666, is ‘perfectly imperfect’ in contrast to the number of perfection’seven. The thrice repeated number ‘6’ implies endless work without rest. The creational pattern was for humans to work for six days and then rest on the seventh as did the Creator. But in this case, those who take the mark of the beast work endlessly and never do enter the hoped-for Sabbath rest.“¹

This is certainly a plausible interpretation as Nero was the epitome of everything ungodly in the first century, but we must keep in mind that John wrote his epistle after the death of Nero. He actually wrote it during the reign of Domitian. Further, arguments against this interpretation are raised, because this translation is devoid of patristic writings.² Let us however not miss the forest for the trees on this issue.

Whether the number used by John in his letter referred to Nero or not the point is that this mark is not a good thing to have! In fact, John describes in Rev 20:4 that only those who have not worshiped the beat or “had not received the mark on their forehead” are the only ones who come to life with Christ during the inter-advental age.

Conclusion

I want to stress that regardless of whether the number refers specifically to Nero or all people who operate in the spirit of Nero the point is that embracing the mark of the beast is not a positive thing. Further, Miranda’s awful interpretation of this passage only further proves that he is a deceiver and certainly not doing anything of God. We must continue to pray that God will rid the earth of this impostor.

1. Kim Riddlebarger, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist (pg. 113)
2. Fracis Gumerlock goes at length defending this interpretation showing up in fifth century writings in his article in the WTJ: Gumerlock, Francis X. “Nero Antichrist: Patristic Evidence for the Use of Nero’s Name in Calculating the Number of the Beast” (Rev 13:18).’ WTJ 68 #2 (2006): 347ff

One of the other things I want to note is that most lay people don’t worry about things such as this, and they also tend to despise denominationalism. Christians who struggle with this are those who have deep theological convictions, and these Christians find themselves in a denominational church out of conviction. This list is at the lowest common denominator; the sine qua non or “without which it could not be.” This is a hard topic, and I hope that my readers will contribute their thoughts on this topic.

If you hold these beliefs that doesn’t necessarily believe you had “good theology,” but these faiths are minimum that I believe the Scriptures teach that one needs to hold in order to be saved. Jesus says that “unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Mat 18:3), and this reflects the humble, child-like, basic belief we must have. This does not believe that I believe in “doctrinal regeneration,” but I do think the Scriptures speaks to this list.

Essential Christian Beliefs

» The Existence of God. This seems rather obvious, but I ran into the practicality of this when I met a self-proclaimed “Atheistic Christian.” The Bible doesn’t provide an apologetic for the existence of God’it assumes it.

» The Deity of Jesus Christ. If Jesus is not God then he could not be sinless, serve as our sacrificial lamb, and then he would not have raised from the dead. This also includes pre-existence of Christ.

» The Atonement of Jesus Christ. By this I don’t mean that we have a “limited” or “unlimited” view on the scope of the atonement, but I do mean that we believe that Jesus did pay for their sins in order to appease a holy God.

» The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the cornerstone of Christianity, and Paul lays this out in 1 Corinthians 15. Without the resurrection Christianity is futile, and we are still in our sins.

What About…?

» Justification By Faith Alone. This is probably the most difficult one, because it lies on the line between Catholics and Protestants. Even though I think it is a hallmark of orthodoxy, I cannot say this is “salvation essential;” because of the book of Galatians. Paul rebukes the Galatians for trusting in their following of the Mosaic Law (Gal 3:1–4); these Christians were saved in Paul’s mind, but they had a terrible misunderstanding. ¹

» The Inerrancy of Scripture. Does the Bible ever say that one must believe in one or another view of inerrancy defining that to the letter? No. The truth is that the only inerrant Scriptures were those that the authors wrote by the leading of the Holy Spirit, and we have none of those manuscripts today. That means that we trust the process of textual criticism and the faithfulness of God to preserve his message for his people.

» The Trinity. This is also a huge sticking point, but I would put this in the area of beliefs that there may be a misunderstanding in the beginning; but I think it is a belief that should be in a mature Christian. There are so many nuances in this, and the church has battled heresies through the history of the church. The question is: How much should we understand concerning the ontological nature of God in order to be saved?

» The Hypostatic Union. This is the unity of Jesus’ (post resurrection) divine and human nature as being “conjoined but not confused.” It certainly must be true that he had to become human in order to secure our bodily resurrection and that he could be our high priest. This is an understanding that can come with doctrinal mentoring and correction.

» The Holy Spirit. Now I’m not saying we can overtly deny the existence of the Holy Spirit, but I can say that we can have a misguided view in both our understanding of the Holy Spirit in his role in the Godhead and his role in both regeneration and sanctification.²

Resources

I listened to two good talks from a radio show called “Theology UnPlugged” on this very issue. I suggest the talks, because they speak in humility and wrestle with the issues honestly.

• Salvation Essentials (Part 1)
• Salvation Essentials (Part 2)

1. Now I do believe that if you continue to believe this after studying the Scriptures for an extended amount of time then I would call into question their faith, because this doctrine summarizes that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, by the work of Christ alone.
2. My pastor right now is doing a good sermon series on the basics of pneumatology or the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.  He realizes that we very well can be saved and have a misunderstanding on this doctrine.

Examples abound of this influence, but here are a few tangible examples.

Why Only One Way?

The belief in the exclusivity of the Gospel in that Jesus Christ is the only name under that one might be saved (Acts 4:12; Joh 14:6) is coming under increasing scrutiny from both within and outside of the Christian community. Most Christians simply don’t know how to recognize when postmodernity is influencing their world view, and increasingly Christians are becoming more and more influenced by worldly philosophy and not the Scriptures.

What Does It Mean To You?

Have you ever been in a Bible study where a passage is read, and the question is asked: “What do you think this passage means?” Often times, after going around the group, we are told by the leader to accept them as all valid (in one way or another). Too often unity is interpreted in a sense that leads to doctrinal indifference. When God reveals himself it is not left to the agent to decide how he will interpret the revelation; God reveals himself in a specific way that is most glorifying to himself. We must approach the Scriptures as containing foundational, inerrant, and sufficient truth in which to build our entire epistemology and world view. Anything less than that falls short of giving God his due glory.

What Is God’s Will For My Life?

Certainly one thing we all struggle with is understanding where God would have us, but the great truth is that this question shouldn’t be a question. I’ve heard all to often from believers that they feel that God would have them have a certain vocation, family structure, etc. How many times in the Scriptures do the people of God sit around struggling with what God would have them do? Certainly they struggle with disbelief (such as Abraham not having offspring), but they never question the substance of what God is doing in their lives for his glory.

I believe the greatest impetus to this problem is trying to conjure a view of God’s “calling” is influenced by our individualistic and humanistic culture. We can often get into a trap of viewing God’s calling as a democracy; the majority does not decide what God will and will not have done. It comes from his mind alone.

Recapturing God’s Word

The time is now more important than ever to rediscover the eternal truths contained within God’s eternal word his son Jesus, and his written word given for our instruction. When we start developing our world view’s on the Scriptures then we see with increasing clarity that reality is not in the eye of the beholder but of the creator.

“There are very few events of ancient history better attested with sound evidence than the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s secure in its place in the annals of history, and its evidence is sufficiently impressive to demand an answer from every one in the world”

Please take a few moments to read the article. It will greatly benefit your faith.

“Several years have now passed since I first realized how numerous were the false opinions that in my youth I had taken to be true, and thus how doubtful were all those that I had subsequently built upon them. And thus I realized that once in my life I had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundation, if I wanted to establish anything firm and lasting the the sciences.“¹

From modeling Rene’s pursuit, I then learned of what it meant to have an existence in such a massive universe. The study of probability theory concerning the existence of life led me to shy away from such naturalistic conclusions. Slowly, my existential understanding of man and his purpose was eroding away. It was then left to answer if “God” was a personal or inpersonal force; was he out to get us or was he for us; and also whether he had any desire to relate to us in a understandable form.

The Search For A Personal Creator

The concepts underlying Deism (that God started the universe but has since had no involvement) seemed irrelevant at best and horrific at worst. Why would God create us only to leave us to our own devices? It seemed incompatible with sound reason, and I realize it was a position often accepted out of necessity by scientists or other skeptics who couldn’t explain their cosmology any other way but admitted to a designer.

The idea of God as a personal force (contra Buddhism, Daoism, and other Eastern thought) found the most appeal to my philosophical conclusions. The God apparent in monotheism seemed the most logical and intuitive (with the premise that the existence of God is intuitive [Rom 1:18–20]). Only the God of Christianity appeared to answer the questions I had looming in my mind. To realize that God desired not only to make himself known but also known in a personal way is a very intriguing and compelling thought.

The Continued Search For Truth

While abbreviated, the search for truth I continue to struggle with. My friend, Aaron Shafovaloff, said one of the most provocative things I’ve ever heard (Christian or non-Christian). Paraphrased, he said that if someone presented him a logical, reasonable proof that Christianity is false the he would hope he would have the intellectual honesty to abandon it. I was taken a back to hear such a claim! But the resounding truth of the statement propelled me to continue searching for truth.

The Bible doesn’t not start with an proof of God’s existence per se, but throughout the Bible God's existence is defended through miracles, prophecy, and self-revelation. One needs only to read the account of the Exodus, conquest of Canaan, rescue from exile, and most importantly the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus gave miracles, apologised from the Old Testament of himself, and even appeared evidentially to his followers as a proof of his existence (which Paul uses as a defense of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15). It seems as though God wants us to search for him and worship him in spirit and truth.

“‘Come now, and let us reason together,’ Says the LORD, ‘Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool.’” (Isa 1:18)

1. Descartes, René, and Donald Cress. Meditations on First Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1993. pg. 17

This whole experience has given me a whole new appreciation for Aaron’s ministry in Utah. I gave his website to my co-worker, and it has sparked good conversation. I went first to his house, and I had dinner with his family and two sisters (missionaries). We had good conversation, but it came down to the fact that I had to tell them before I left that their Jesus won’t save them. I told him and the sisters that their Jesus was fundamentally different than the one I worship; he said I couldn’t make such accusations until I came to his congregation. That prompted my recent visit.

The Visit

I went today, and never have I felt so alone in my life. It wasn’t that the people weren’t friendly, because they eventually were (which all churches suffer from and especially mine). It was three hours with three different sections.

The first section is usually a sermon, but this week was the “testimony service.” People of all ages got up and said something like: “I testify that the Book of Mormon is true,” “I testify that the church [LDS] is true,” and “I testify that we have a prophet who receives guidance from God.” Through all the testimonies no mention of grace was made. They said “atonement” and “truth,” but they forgot the all important grace (Eph 2:8–10). In this service was also the time of “the sacrament” which is The Lord’s Supper/Communion to Protestants. What made it odd was that children were of “the Aaronic Priesthood” and administered the bread and water. The water was odd, and it was explained in the next section.

I went to the class that my friend taught which was “gospel principles.” It’s basically a confession of the LDS church. That lesson was on “the sacrament.” It was explained what the LDS church believes about the event. Passages from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrines & Covenants were all cited. In Doctrines & Covenants, Joseph Smith apparently received revelation from God that it doesn’t matter what is consumed in the event as long as the “truth of the event” is maintained. This is used to justify their use of water.

Lastly, I went to the “elder quorum“which is basically a meeting of the men aged 18–45. A short lesson was given about how God answers prayer (from their theological vantage point). The lesson taught again and again about human responsibility. It was actually stated that God honors the prayers of only those who act. It was striking to give so much emphasis on man’s action in regards to God’s answering prayer. Also taught was the Mormon emphasis on personal revelation. Personal revelation seems to take a higher precedent over written revelation in Mormon theology.

Future Mormon Ministry

I realize how appealing the theology is of Mormonism to somebody. If somebody told you that you would be with your family forever into eternity, and you would never leave the side of your husband/wife that is a comforting thought. The only problem is that heaven isn’t about earthly family but God’s family which will spend all eternity worshiping the God of Abraham. This lesson has made Paul’s teaching regarding sound doctrine very real.

“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim 4:1–4)

Prayer Requests

Please pray for my co-worker, his family, that congregation and Mormons around the world. They don’t worship the God of the Bible; their Jesus isn’t the Jesus that is revealed in the Scriptures. The Jesus I know isn’t created, isn’t a benchmark of divinity that we can reach in the eternal state, and He isn’t restoring his church through Joseph Smith.

I saw first hand their theology, and it is a theology of hopelessness and no grace. The Mormon gospel is not the true Gospel (Gal 1:6–7). We must earnestly proclaim to every tribe, tongue, and nation the Gospel of free grace which is good news.

“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He Before Me there was no God formed, and there will be none after Me.” (Isa 43:10)

Additional Information

• Jesus Not Joseph
• Mormonism in a Nutshell
• Mormon Challenge
• The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon (Video)