Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Dr. Albert Mohler’s second visit to BYU: or Balaam’s second chance


Well, here we are again, addressing the issue of Dr. Albert Mohler’s foray into Mormonism. Oh, to be sure and to make it clear, the message given was not in any way caving into any form of recognition of Mormonism (but then neither were Balaam’s messages, they too were spot on). The message itself is not the issue, just as Balaam’s messages were not the issue. To use another blogger’s grandiose title, we have Dr. Albert Mohler, a great “defender of the faith” standing with a crowd of the enemy of that faith (again, much like Balaam standing with the Moabites, enemies of God’s people the Israelites).

What is to be gained by this interchange? Mohler would have us to believe it is to garner support, common cause of moral values, to have future cell mates. Is Mohler so ignorant of Mormonism to think that they would not, for the sake of expediency change their position on certain moral issues when they clash with society? Look at Mormon history. From its founding polygamy was the norm, was their teaching, was necessary for the propagation of future worlds, but then came Utah’s statehood desires. Obviously, polygamy had to go in order to gain acceptance, so the powers that be rescinded polygamous beliefs and monogamy was the order of the day. That was in the decades leading up to the Utah’s 1896 statehood. Fast forward to the 1960’s, now we have the civil rights issue of the segregation of blacks. In Mormon teaching, blacks were not capable of becoming Mormons. They were a despised race, but then came those societal pressures again, and voila, the powers that be came through in a pinch and blacks were accepted. Is there any reason why we should believe the outcome would be different for the societal issues of our day such as homosexual marriage? Utah is already being confronted with the acceptance of homosexuality, do we really think that the Mormon elders will resist to the point of being jailed? But I digress a bit.

I wish to draw our attention to these couple of statements; “You are a university that stands, as all great universities stand, for the importance of ideas and the honor of seeking after the truth. I come to honor the importance of ideas and the centrality of the search for truth with you.” And then in closing, “I pray that God will use this lecture to his gloryand I pray God’s blessings upon you until we meet again.” (emphasis mine)

Really, Dr. Mohler, BYU is a university “seeking after the truth”? Is there any professor at BYU that is teaching Christian doctrine concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Is there any professor laying bare the fallacies of Mormon doctrine? If not, then there is no way that it could be said that they are “seeking after the truth.” This is a Mormon institution of higher learning preparing the next generation of Mormons to propagate Mormon doctrine, not to propagate or seek after the truth.

The closing phrase of Mohler’s speech rings rather worthy of John’s condemnation, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (II John 10, 11)

I call our attention to this quote,

The proper response to such false teachers is a major concern of John’s second epistle. John is directly concerned with one particular way of denying the gospel, refusing to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. John says that many people (presumably, people who view themselves as Christians) do not make this confession. Such persons, says John, are deceivers and antichrists (2 John 7). They do not have God (2 John 9).

John’s teaching cannot be limited to only Christological errors, however. The problem with denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is that it eviscerates the gospel. This is a different way of denying the gospel that the one that Paul encountered among the Galatians, but the response of the two apostles is decidedly akin. The similarity of their reactions suggests that their attitude ought to be directed toward all those who profess Christ while denying the gospel.

John cautions his readers to beware lest they lose their full reward (2 John 8). At first glance, this caution is puzzling. How would such a loss be incurred? John hints at the answer to this question in his instruction about proper responses to those who teach apostasy. John tells his reader not to receive these teachers into their houses nor even to give them a civil greeting (2 John 10). (emphasis mine)

Most likely these prohibitions are intended to apply to ministry relationships rather than social interaction. Nevertheless, they probably seemed as severe to John’s original readers as they do today. Then or now, what John required is a violation of basic civility. He demanded that no recognition or encouragement at all be given to someone who was teaching a false gospel, not even the encouragement of a civil greeting. (emphasis mine)

John had his reasons. Even the most insignificant encouragement to someone who is proclaiming a false gospel brings one into fellowship with the evil that follows (2 John 11). Apparently Christians can gain a share in the evil that apostates do. The apostate and the one who encourages the apostate have a common stake in the results of the false gospel. That is probably why John warned his readers about losing their reward. God would hardly reward someone for helping to spread apostasy.

We might debate some of the implications of this passage, and in a full discussion some qualifications would be appropriate. Still, I think that one thing is reasonably clear: Christians who make a habit of encouraging apostate teachers are hardly models of Christian discernment. We should treat them as people who have a share in the evil of apostasy. (Four Views on The Spectrum of Evangelicalism, pp. 39, 40)

The author of this passage has continued to give Mohler a pass on his indiscretions and I don’t expect him to change even with Mohler’s second foray with Mormonism. He will in all likelihood find some “loophole” to try to wiggle through (like, Well, Mormons aren’t truly apostates therefore the passage in II John doesn’t apply with Mohler and Mormonism. Never mind Mormonism’s attempts at Christianizing their doctrine and their damning of millions of adherents to an eternity in hell by their Godless beliefs).

I have made allusions to Balaam along the way and I find Mohler’s foray into Mormonism in a bit of a parallel. Oh, the invitations are different, to be sure, but will the outcome be any different? Balaam’s messages were spot on, “thus saith the LORD.” Mohler’s messages have been spot on in his proclaiming exclusivity to the faith found in the Scriptures. But does anyone hold up Balaam as a paragon, an example to follow, one to imitate? No, the Scriptures are clear in their renouncing Balaam. Should we not be doing the same with Mohler? Or will there continue to be those within Fundamentalism who will make excuses for Dr. Albert Mohler because he’s been such a “defender of the faith”?

12 comments:

Jay Edwards said...

Hey Brian,
I'm still not sure how Mohler fits the Balaam profile. Balaam's intent was to curse the people of God, but since the Lord wouldn't let that happen Balaam gave the king the idea to infiltrate Israel with sexual immorality. I'm pretty sure Mohler is doing either of those things. Although, I do agree with you and have reservations about Mohler offering the blessing of the Lord upon them. I would like to know what he intended by it and have sent him an e-mail. If he does respond, I will pass along the response.
God Bless,
Jay Edwards

Brian said...

Jay, to bring some clarity to your confusion, Balaam did not go expecting to curse the Israelites. Here are some pertinent passages from Numbers to help you.
Numbers 22:13 “And Balaam rose up in the morning, and said unto the princes of Balak, Get you into your land: for the LORD refuseth to give me leave to go with you.”
Numbers 22: 18, 19 “And Balaam answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD my God, to do less or more. Now therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the LORD will say unto me more.”
Numbers 22:38 “And Balaam said unto Balak, Lo, I am come unto thee: have I now any power at all to say any thing? the word that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.”
Numbers 23:11, 12 “And Balak said unto Balaam, What hast thou done unto me? I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast blessed them altogether. And he answered and said, Must I not take heed to speak that which the LORD hath put in my mouth?”
Numbers 23:25, 26 “And Balak said unto Balaam, Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all. But Balaam answered and said unto Balak, Told not I thee, saying, All that the LORD speaketh, that I must do?”
Numbers 24:10-13 “And Balak’s anger was kindled against Balaam, and he smote his hands together: and Balak said unto Balaam, I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast altogether blessed them these three times. Therefore now flee thou to thy place: I thought to promote thee unto great honour; but, lo, the LORD hath kept thee back from honour. And Balaam said unto Balak, Spake I not also to thy messengers which thou sentest unto me, saying, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the LORD, to do either good or bad of mine own mind; but what the LORD saith, that will I speak?”
So yes, the parallel does exist and the outcome could very well be the similar. Oh, not the physical acts but spiritual adultery/debauchery may very well come from this. Evangelicals have been flocking to the Mormons for a while now and ever since Salt Lake City got the nod to host the winter Olympics, the Mormons changed their tune about being considered “Christians.” Prior to that event Mormons did not regard themselves as “Christians” and with that event on the horizon efforts were made to present themselves as just another sect of “Christianity” no different than a Baptist, Presbyterian, or such. And those efforts have been rewarded/recognized by the undiscerning within Evangelicalism.

Jay Edwards said...

Hey Brian,
Thanks for posting my earlier comment. Well, it seems pretty sure in Scripture that Balak's intent was to pay Balaam to curse the people of God for him. Balaam sure wanted to do it, but it was the Lord who wouldn't let that happen. Then Balaam gave Balak the suggestion to infiltrate God's people when he saw he could not curse them himself. Balaam was doing everything he could think of to get that money and he personally had intent to curse God's people. I still don't understand your hostility toward my comments here. I am not defending Dr. Mohler here, but I don't think your "Balaam parallel" plays out in this situation. I do wish you would be a little more specific in which evangelicals are flocking to Mormons to consider them as "Christians". I'm not hearing any of them say or imply it.
God Bless,
Jay Edwards

Brian said...

Jay, so you know that Balaam "wanted" to curse the Israelites but God said no. Really? what verse in the narrative says that he wanted to? I don't find it.
We don't have the end result of these Evangelical forays with the LDS, so neither of us know the outcome just like no Israelite knew what the outcome would be when they first saw Balaam on the hillsides with Balak. I am not holding my breath that somehow a different outcome will result.
By their (Evangelicals, Al Mohler, Ravi Zacharias, Mouw, to name a few) very presence they lend a level of recognition/reward regardless of the force of their words to the contrary. These men have no business being there, period. Evangelicals have played loose and light with their testimony for the cause of Christ throughout the past 50 years. This is just one more notch in that belt of compromise.
This foray does not help the cause of Christ in Mormon dominated portions of the West. My counterparts in Utah, Wyoming, southern Idaho, Nevada, and elsewhere are not profited by this as they seek to reach Mormons with the true message of salvation in the Book of books, the Bible. Like the Israelites of Numbers, they are looking up and seeing "the man of God" standing with the enemy.

Jay Edwards said...

Hey Brian,
I guess what I do see is a man (Balaam) who has riches dangled in front of him by a king (Balak) and is doing everything he can to get to them. When I see Balaam saying "I CANNOT go beyond the word of the LORD my God" he wasn't saying it because he was a man of integrity, but because the LORD was literally withholding Balaam's ability to do otherwise. I say it seems his intent was clear because he knew God wouldn't let him curse His people after the 1st instance. Yet he tried on two more occasions to get the treasure Balak was offering him and the ONLY way to get to it was to curse God's people. The episode with the talking donkey is also important in revealing the heart of Balaam here. Num. 22:32 says:"And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me:"
Thanks for responding, I hope this makes my previous response clearer.
God Bless,
Jay Edwards

Brian said...

To Mike A., your "what if" scenario is getting too far off topic. Let keep to the article at hand. But to answer your questions, yes, I would protest. As a Baptist, we have a history of seeking to uphold the right of everyone to worship as they please. With that though, does not mean that I would join up with Mormons in organized protests.

Brian said...

To Mike A, I'm not going to let this conversation digress. If you wish to contend that your thoughts and examples are indeed the issue then blog away on your own.

Andrew said...

And Mohler's first visit to Northland for Founder's Day:

http://www.ni.edu/news-events/founders-days-2014

Brian said...

Andrew, thanks for stopping by. Yes, Mohler's first visit to NIU but then evangelicals do tend to go to evangelical institutions, so it's really no news.

Jay Edwards said...

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this new development at BJU

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/education/2014/05/08/new-bju-president-announced-today/8857031/

Brian said...

Jay, I will be brief in reply to your post since I do not want to divert this thread off topic.
Time will tell if Steve Pettit is a good choice for president of BJU. BJU is my alma mater twice over, my children have/are attending there for their college education, so I have an interest in what is going on. I send you to Don Johnson's blog to see his brief thoughts on BJU's new president. BJU certainly could have done worse in choosing a president. Pettit and I disagree on where to get music, as can be found in an article I wrote on the topic. So, we shall see how this develops.

Jay Edwards said...

Thanks Brian.