Mohler’s Homo Ratio

It seems as though Dr. Albert Mohler has taken some heat for his recent foray into Mormonism by speaking at BYU. I say this because here recently he wrote an article which amounts to an apologia for his speaking at BYU (you can find the article here). I’ve already weighed in on the foolishness of Mohler of going to BYU in the first place (article here).

Let’s look at Mohler’s apologia.

One would think that since Dr. Albert Mohler is president of religious institution of higher learning, that he is a self-professed believer, that he is a minister,  that he is a Baptist, that he would go the Scriptures for any justification for his actions/words. Yet, this is not the case. Instead, he uses an ancient maxim, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” as the reason, the justification for joining hands with Mormons concerning the societal attack on marriage.

Mohler cites the foreign policy of the Allied powers in World War II adopting this maxim with their joining with the Soviet Union in order to defeat Nazi Germany. Any cursory study of that relationship clearly shows the Allies and the Soviet Union were not “friends” by any stretch of the imagination and in the end that alliance did irreparable damage to the countries which would eventually become the eastern bloc of nations as the “Iron Curtain” fell across Eastern Europe after the war. Read the sailor’s report of this “friendship” as they arrive in Murmansk or Archangel with matériel for the Soviet Union or the pilot’s accounts of treatment as they landed in the Soviet Union either by deliberate plans or by an emergency and one quickly comes away with the understanding we were not “friends.” For instance, the account of plane eight of the Doolittle Raiders who bombed Japan in April of 1942 as they land near Vladivostok. The Soviet Union was no “friend” to this American crew. The five crewmen would eventually plan their own escape and reach Persia in May of 1943. This maxim is hardly an “indispensable” or “inevitable” mandate to be used in foreign policy or anywhere else for that matter.

Mohler concludes his article by stating, “In a time of cultural conflict, the enemy of my enemy may well be our friend.” No, Dr. Mohler, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, especially when we are at odds with the Truth found in the Scriptures. Sorry, Dr. Mohler, your “reasoned” approach using an ancient, flawed maxim to justify your stance with Mormonism on marriage does not pass the test, the Biblical test (for starters, Rom 16:17; II Thess. 3:6, 14; II John 7-11). The Mormon church stands diametrically opposed to everything a Christian holds as Truth. They are indeed an enemy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Any kind of accommodation of Mormonism will only enrich Mormonism’s positions to the detriment of the Truth, just as the Allies accommodation of Stalin lead to the detriment of Eastern Europe’s freedom and plunged the world into a decades long Cold War.

There is a serious problem when men who supposedly stand firmly on the self-sufficiency of the Scriptures go off into human reasoning to justify their positions/actions. So much for Sola Scriptura being the call words of evangelicals, Mohler has shown us that it is homo ratio instead. Mohler has betrayed the very basic, the primary distinctive that Baptists have clung to for centuries, that the Bible is the sole authority for faith and practice.

Mohler joins hands with Mormons

We have Albert Mohler, president of Southern Seminary, the guiding citadel in the SBC for graduate work, being asked to come and speak at Brigham Young University, the guiding citadel for educating Mormon young people. And what brought about this meeting? Why, the heated debate concerning marriage, of course. Because of the ungodly push to pervert the institution of marriage, Mohler was invited to BYU to speak on behalf of traditional marriage.  Now some who call themselves fundamentalists have chimed in to say that there’s nothing really wrong with this picture, that Mohler at BYU to speak on marriage is just perfectly fine (see here and here) or not wise (see here and here). Now this same professor also stated once that he too could speak at a Mormon gathering without any qualms, given certain caveats which it seems Mohler was given or at least took since he distanced his theology from Mormon theology.[1] Mohler sound so similar to another evangelical, actually the father evangelist of evangelicalism, Billy Graham. Graham had this to say in his autobiography concerning the controversy over the 1957 New York crusade, “My own position was that we should be willing to work with all who were willing to work with us. Our message was clear, and if someone with a radically different theological view somehow decided to join with us in a Crusade that proclaimed Christ as the way of salvation, he or she was the one who was compromising personal convictions, not we.” (Just As I Am, pp. 303, 304)

Mohler is to be applauded for his unwillingness to share any theological commonality with his audience. And far too many are quick to laud him and let this incident stand as something quite acceptable. We must however, look at what brought Al Mohler to BYU. The issue at stake that brought Mohler to BYU is the onslaught of damage being done to the institution of marriage by our modern culture. True enough, a worthy topic to be spoken on by Christians. But do we have common ground with Mormons concerning Biblical marriage? The answer is a clear, unequivocal, NO!

What is Biblical marriage? Well, let’s let the Bible do its own speaking. Genesis. 2:18-24 records the first marriage, instituted and instigated by God Himself with Adam and Eve. We see that it was one man, one woman, for life. They were to leave their parents and embark on a new life together as one. In the Gospels we find Christ reiterating this understanding of marriage (Matt. 19:3-6) and we find that marriage is for this present life only, there are no continuing effects of marriage in heaven (Matt. 22:23-30).

Now, is this also the Mormon view of marriage? And the answer is…NO. What was the audience thinking when Mohler spoke of marriage? Well, Mormon doctrine taught them that we were initially spirit babies begotten by our Heavenly Father and Mother. Eventually, these spirit babies make it into the temporal world as humans living on this earth. The Mormon understanding of marriage is that they are to make their marriage a celestial marriage by having a wedding ceremony in a Mormon Temple which will seal their marriage for time and eternity.

 “Celestial Marriage essential to exaltation Another thing that we must not forget in this great plan of redemption and exaltation, is that a man must have a wife, and a woman a husband, to receive the fullness of exaltation. They must be sealed for time and all eternity in a temple; then their union will last forever…

“Parents will have eternal claim upon their posterity and will have the gift of eternal increase, if they obtain the exaltation. This is the crowning glory in the kingdom of God, and they will have no end…No man shall receive the fullness of eternity, of exaltation, alone; no woman shall receive that blessing alone;…No man can obtain that exaltation without receiving the covenants that belong to the priesthood.” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 40, 43 &44 {as quoted in The Bible and Mormon Doctrine, Sandra Tanner, p. 8})

So, were Al Mohler and the Mormons actually talking about the same thing when talking about “marriage”? Like so many other common words used by Christians and Mormons, they don’t mean the same thing to both groups. Believers, or more specifically the Bible has one meaning for words and Mormons, using those same words, have a completely different meaning. Mohler and the Mormons were not even on the same page in the conversation that they had. Which ultimately begs the question, Why DID Al Mohler accept the invitation to speak at BYU?

Now, for some marriage is a social, cultural issue, or at least they are trying to paint it as such so as to avoid any theological entanglements with some. But is it just a social, cultural phenomena? Well, here are the passages of Scriptures cited earlier which speak on the subject of marriage.

 

Genesis 2:18-24

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

 

Matthew 19:3-6

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

 

Matthew 22: 23-30

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

 

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

 

Is it not possible to view from the Scriptures a “doctrine” of marriage? Do we not gather other portion of Scriptures and label them, “the doctrine of _________”?  Is not the very concept of one man+one woman=one flesh (marriage) a Biblical truth and not just a social construct? We get our understanding, our beliefs concerning marriage, what it is, what constitutes it, etc., from the Bible and as such, it is then a teaching, a doctrine, if you will. Al Mohler went to BYU to arguably unite together with Mormons to push back at the societal devolution of the definition of marriage. He yoked himself together with Mormons on the topic of marriage. This is not just an “unwise” decision. With the differences of beliefs as to what “marriage” is that exists between the Bible and Mormon doctrine, one then really wonders just what was Mohler doing there in the first place. He spoke of the differences that exist in other beliefs yet he ostensibly seeks to equate the Biblical definition of marriage with the Mormon definition since he does not address the vast differences between said beliefs as he speaks of marriage. Should we really be esteeming this man Mohler?

---

[1] “Yes, anywhere means anywhere. If the Mormons seriously invited me to their Tabernacle to defend biblical Christianity (including Fundamentalism), I would go—subject to certain considerations. First, I would have to be free to say whatever I thought was the truth, including that Mormonism is a cult. Second, they should never expect me to recognize them in any way as Christians, or to imply that we were seeking some common ground. Third, they should never expect any return invitation from me, especially not if it would give them an opportunity to present their views” (taken from comments at SI, can be found here).

What about the blood of Christ?

I’ve let the dust settle some on the conversation that I note further down before bringing up this question, what about the blood of Christ? This is a question in regards to John MacArthur that will not go away regardless of how many times some at SharperIron will trot out links to MacArthur’s statement. Sure, John MacArthur believes in the blood of Christ and only the most inane would say anything to the contrary, but what does he believe about the blood of Christ?

Over at Sharper Iron, some have brought it back to people’s attention. Some men are expecting some level of apology for past statements by fundamentalists, and fundamental fellowships (in this case the FBFI). While everyone trots out the words of condemnation by various men against MacArthur, no one is actually bringing up what John MacArthur has said. I find this quite odd. Some are quick to jump on the FBFI for their past denunciation of MacArthur yet no one is looking at what John MacArthur has said to see if it is worth denouncing. Any denunciation is simply and quickly dismissed seemingly just because it is against MacArthur. Here are links to the comments referred to above (see here and here and here and here). By using excerpts from Rolland McCune’s Systematic Theology as a support of John MacArthur, a commentor gives the reader the idea that what MacArthur believes is the same as what McCune articulates (see here). Again, this is done without one quote from MacArthur.

This does beg us to respond to the proverbial elephant in the room, that being, what does MacArthur say about the blood of Christ? It is not enough to say, yes, John MacArthur believes in the blood of Christ. This statement means nothing. It says nothing as to what MacArthur actually believes about that blood.

So, let’s let John MacArthur speak for himself. Here are some quotes from MacArthur himself about the blood of Christ. The first two are transcribed from this audio of Phil Johnson and John MacArthur talking about this very thing (found here).

“I have tried to make that distinction—that when the New Testament refers to salvation by His blood that it is not talking about salvation by His fluid. It uses blood as a metaphor or a synonym for death because it conveys the violence of it.” (emphasis mine)

“When the New Testament is talking about the blood of Christ it is talking about the death of Christ, but it uses blood because that is a metaphor that speaks of the violence of his death.” (emphasis mine)

In the audio you’ll notice that several times MacArthur will build strawmen arguments about his beliefs. These strawmen have nothing to do with the controversy surrounding him about his belief about the blood.

Let’s also look into MacArthur’s commentary writing to find what else he says about the blood. In his commentary on Hebrews, The New Covenant—part 3 (9:15-28) he writes,

“The second reason for the death of Christ was that forgiveness demands blood. This truth is directly in line with the previous point, but with a different shade of meaning. Blood is a symbol (emphasis mine) of death, and therefore follows closely the idea of a testator’s having to die in order for a will to become effective.” (p. 236)

“It was not Jesus’ physical blood that saves us, but His dying on our behalf, which is symbolized (emphasis mine) by the shedding of His physical blood.” (p. 237)

“The purpose of the blood was to symbolize (emphasis mine) sacrifice for sin, which brought cleansing from sin.” (p.237)

“Since the penalty for sin is death, nothing but death, symbolized (emphasis mine) by the shedding of blood, can atone for sin.” (p. 237. 238)

Now, when the Scriptures speak of the blood of Christ is this what we are supposed to think? That it is simply a symbol for His death? Now granted MacArthur says many good things in this commentary about the blood of Christ but as we see with the above excerpts those good statements are interspersed with these.

Those at SI noted about how this issue of MacArthur and the blood hasn’t gone away. Well, of course it hasn’t and it’s not going to go away. Every new copy of MacArthur’s Hebrews commentary placed into the hands of each new preacher or lay person will raise this question again and again.

Now before, some go to the extremes, no, I am not of a Romanish bent that the blood of Christ is eternally being offered, okay. I am asking this question though. Is Christ’s blood merely, simply a symbol for His death? I don’t think so. MacArthur leads us to think that Christ’s blood and His death are one in the same thing with his use of the words synonym, metaphor, and symbol/symbolize.

More important than what a man thinks about a subject, what does the Scriptures say? Let’s look at several passages beginning in Genesis.

Genesis 9:3, 4

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

God gave commandment to Noah and his sons that they could eat animals now but not the blood because the life of the flesh is the blood. God sets apart blood here giving it a special emphasis.

Ex 12:7, 13, 22, 23

And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.

For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

Notice that in the initiation of the Passover, God says nothing about the animal sacrifice that was consumed that night as being efficacious, but He does mention that the blood must be applied to the doorposts and lintels of their homes. The death of the animal was not sufficient, the blood must be applied.

Exodus 24:4-8

And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the LORD.

And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Again, we notice that animals are sacrificed but then specifically the blood is reserved for a special purpose, being sprinkled on the altar and upon the people. Keil & Delitzsch, in their commentary make this statement;

The division of the blood had reference to the two parties to the covenant, who were to be brought by the covenant into a living unity…For this was not a mixture of different kinds of blood, but it was a division of one blood, and that sacrificial blood, in which animal life was offered instead of human life, making expiation as a pure life for sinful man, and by virtue of this expiation restoring the fellowship between God and man which had been destroyed by sin. But the sacrificial blood itself only acquired this signification through the sprinkling or swinging upon the altar, by virtue of which the human soul was received, in the soul of the animal sacrificed for man, into the fellowship of the divine grace manifested upon the altar, in order that, through the power of this sin-forgiving and sin-destroying grace, it might be sanctified to a new and holy life. In this way the sacrificial blood acquired the signification of a vital principle endued with the power of divine grace; and this was communicated to the people by means of the sprinkling of the blood. As the only reason for dividing the sacrificial blood into two parts was, that the blood sprinkled upon the altar could not be taken off again and sprinkled upon the people; the two halves of the blood are to be regarded as one blood, which was first of all sprinkled upon the altar, and then upon the people. In the blood sprinkled upon the altar, the natural life of the people was given up to God, as a life that had passed through death, to be pervaded by His grace; and then through the sprinkling upon the people it was restored to them again, as a life renewed by the grace of God. In this way the blood not only became a bond of union between Jehovah and His people, but as the blood of the covenant, it became a vital power, holy and divine, uniting Israel and its God; and the sprinkling of the people with this blood was an actual renewal of life, a transposition of Israel into the kingdom of God, in which it was filled with the powers of God’s spirit of grace, and sanctified into a kingdom of priests, a holy nation of Jehovah (Ex. 19:6). And this covenant was made ‘upon all the words’ which Jehovah had spoken, and the people had promised to observe. Consequently it had for its foundation the divine law and right, as the rule of life for Israel.

In the opening chapters of Leviticus, God lays out His instructions for how service was to be rendered in the Tabernacle. In the first 8 chapters of Leviticus, “blood” is used some 39 times (88 times in the whole book). Since the use of this word is in conjunction with the actual sacrificing (i.e. the death of an animal) and it’s use is differentiated from the animal itself, then it seems most reasonable to understand that “blood” is not synonymous with, a metaphor for, or symbolizes the “death” of the animal as John MacArthur leads us to believe by his statements. The reason is obvious, animals were sacrificed on the altar AND their blood was sprinkled on or applied to certain objects or persons. BOTH the sacrifice of the animal was necessary AND the applying of the blood was necessary. Two acts were accomplished to satisfy God’s commands to His people, not one or the other, BOTH must be done. God also makes it very clear in Lev. 17:11, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” that it is the blood that is in view here, not just the animal sacrifice on the altar. This is BOTH/AND not either/or, a synonym, a metaphor, or symbolizes.

I move on to the New Testament. We know that all those sacrifices, which could never take away sin, were a foreshadow of the One Perfect sacrifice for sin, the Lord Jesus Christ. The very fact in our partaking of communion, the Lord’s Table, shows the significance of the BOTH/AND. In the bread we remember, “This is my body, which was broken for you,” we also partake of the fruit of the vine (grape juice), “For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” We do not partake of one element recognizing that they are symbolical, a metaphor, or a synonym of the other.

The Scriptures paint an entirely different picture. For in the Scriptures, both in the many OT sacrifices and in the NT’s presentation Christ’s sacrifice, we see a BOTH/AND when it comes to the blood and death. Whether it is the Passover, where the lamb is given and whose body is to be consumed by the family AND its blood applied to the doorposts and lintel or the sanctifying of the Tabernacle with the sacrifice of the animal on the altar AND the sprinkling of all things associated with the Tabernacle with the blood, to the Day of Atonement where once again an animal is sacrificed on the altar AND its blood sprinkled on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies, we see that BOTH a sacrifice (the death of an animal) AND its blood sprinkled were to be done. Not one or the other but BOTH were necessary, thus eliminating the idea of just taking some blood from an animal and letting it live and also not just killing an animal and sacrificing its body on the altar. The complete fulfillment of the sacrifices in the Old Testament is seen in the sacrifice and shed blood of our precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So, does John MacArthur believe in the blood of Jesus Christ? The answer is yes, but more importantly is what MacArthur believes about His blood. John MacArthur, in the very least, has portrayed a very poor picture of the blood of Christ. John MacArthur has done what John MacArthur seems to do best, over react in the opposite direction to some error of extreme. His Lordship Salvation as articulated in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus, is an overreaction to easy believism. His statements on the blood of Christ are an overreaction to those extremists who have taken the blood of Christ into the realm of possessing various mystical powers.

Let’s let the Scriptures say what It has to say and not twist and pervert them to mean something It doesn’t.