In his book attempting to critique Latter-day Saint Christology, we read the following from Bill Grover, a Reformed apologist:
Regarding only issues related to topics discussed in this book, an evangelical subscribes to (1) the inspiration and inerrancy of the autographa (originals) of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, that the original wording the New Testament can be determined, and that this Scripture alone is the final authority over doctrine and practice, not ancient creeds or supposed modern revelation . . .(Bill Grover, The One Natured Jesus of Meandering Mormonism [St. Petersburg, Fla.: BookLocker, 2019], 9)
Unlike the original Mormon “prophet” who with incredible vanity corrected the text of the Bible in his “Inspired Translation” and added whole passages to the Bible without any research into textual matters, semantics, and syntax, none of these varied and scholarly evangelical helps were produced by imaginary revelations but instead by diligent effort which is, after all, ordained by Scripture itself.
Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15
Please note: The text does not say that the word of truth should be rightly divided by claiming later revelation.
Evangelicals strive to understand the truth about the Gospel and God, which truth they believe was already fully revealed; evangelicals do not invent a new truth but follow Jude’s requirement,
“I . . . exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. verse 3
The Faith already has been delivered! (pp. 24-25)
Mormons assert that the Bible as it now is inadequate because “plain and precious truths” have been taken out of it (Millet, LDS Beliefs [2011], 346). The Mormon Encyclopedia asserts that “the biblical text alone is insufficient for salvation” (Robinson 1992:401 my bold).
However, an evangelical may respond by noting that John, in 20:31, states,
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Clearly according to the inspired apostle, he has written in sufficient detail to allow believers to be saved. (pp. 26-27)
Please note: Where does the Bible teach that eternal intelligences were created into human spirits by being born of heavenly parents and then many of them fought a great pre-mortal war? You guessed it; it does not! (p. 36)
On the other hand, As Millett, the Mormon, probably rightly affirms about his ‘prophet,’ Joseph Smith, “knew it was impossible to resolve religious questions by any appeal to the existing Bible” (LDS Beliefs [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011], 347)!
How convenient, then, that the ‘prophet’ was blessed with all this new ‘revelation’ to justify his many um, shall I be generous and say “adventuresome” opinions which he would not possibly confirm by using the Bible. (pp. 64-65)
Needless to say, Grover never provides any meaningful exegesis of the relevant texts or underlying issues beyond referencing a text and hoping for the best, such as John 20:31. For a full discussion of the doctrine as well as lengthy exegesis of all the relevant passages, see:
Interestingly, in another work on Christology, Grover shows us that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not sufficient to provide answers to key Christological issues (hardly a “minor” or “tertiary” area of disagreement!):
Bill Grover, Comprehending Christ: A Theology of How and Why Christian Theologians Disagree about Christ’s Person (St. Petersburg, Fla.: BookLocker, 2019)
The book itself is a witness to the failure of Sola Scriptura and the belief of the formal sufficiency of the Bible. The following are the topics discussed where Evangelicals disagree:
Christ in the Trinity
1. Does the name ‘Son of God’ indicate an eternal role subordination?
2. Is belief in the eternal role subordination of the Son a denial of Homoousios (oneness of nature)?
3. Are there three faculties of will in God?
4. Are Trinal relationships in the economic Trinity (God acting in creation) those in the immanent Trinity (God in himself)?
5. Are operations of the Trinity inseperable?
6. Is the Covenant of Redemption Biblical?
7. If Christ is eternally begotten, must that require him to be eternally role subordinate?
8. As Christ was sent by the Father, does that require Christ to be eternally role subordinate to the Father?
9. As I was the Father who predestines, does that mean that the Son is eternally role subordinate?
10. As the Father created through the Son, is the Son subject to the Father?
11. As the Son is at the right hand of power or at the right hand of God, does that mean that the Son is of a lower rank in authority?
Chis In Subordinate Scripture
Chis In Subordinate Scripture
12. John 5:18, 19 . . The Son can only do what he sees the Father doing
13. John 6:48, Christ came from Heaven to do the Father’s will
14. John 14:28. The Father is greater than the Son
15. 1 Corinthians 11:3. God is the authority over Christ
16. 1 Corinthians 15:28. The Son will be subject to God
17. Galatians 4:4, 5. When the right time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman to redeem sinners
18. Ephesians 1:3-5. The Father chose us in Christ before creation and he predestined us.
19. Philippians 2:6. While in God’s nature, Christ did not grasp at being God’s equal
20. Hebrews 5:8, 9. Even though he is God’s Son, by suffering he learned to obey, and he became the source of our salvation.
Christ in Historical Theology
Christ in Historical Theology
21. Do the Nicene experts, Athanasius and Hilary, teach the eternal role subordination of Christ?
22. Is Cyril of Alexandria correct that Christ does not act distinctly and differently through his two natures?
23. Does Nestorius teach that Christ is two persons?
24. Is Chalcedon’s two nature doctrine congruent with functional kenoticism?
25. Does Constantinople (680-681) err in requiring the belief of two wills in Christ?
26. Should Leonitius of Byzantium’s doctrine of enhypostasia (divine nature personalized humanity) be rejected?
27. Does Augustine or Calvin teach the eternal role subordination of the Son?
28. Does Warfield or Charles Hodge teach the eternal role subordination of the Son?
29. Is Hodge correct that Christ could have sinned but did not?
30. Is the Reformed view on the communication of attributes in Christ to be preferred over the Lutheran?
Christ in Functional Kenoticism
Christ in Functional Kenoticism
31. Can God change or give up the use of his divine attributes?
32. Does teaching that Christ gave up some divine powers to incarnate best prevent ascribing to Christ split personality?
33. Is functional kenoticism’s unifying Christ a tendency toward Monophysitism (one nature)?
34. Can Christ possess both divine omni attributes and human attributes?
35. Was the Son, in his Divine nature, ignorant of some things while on earth?
36. Was Christ’s divine nature confined in a body?
37. Did Christ’s divine nature suffer?
38. Does Philippians 2:7 teach that as God Christ gave up any attribute or the use of one?
39. Did Christ’s exaltation restore Christ’s use of divine attributes?
40. Is God limiting himself in creation and providence corollary to Christ emptying himself?
41. Is Cryptic Christology a better option than Kenotic Christology?
Commenting on the Lutheran vs. Reformed debate about the communication of Christ’s divine and human attributes, Grover writes (note how he cannot offer a definite answer; only his “opinion”):
30. Is the Reformed view on the communication of attributes to be preferred over the Lutheran?
The Lutherans teach that there are ‘three genera of the communication of attributes,” (1) the genus idiomaticum is that attributes of the natures are always ascribed to the person, (2) the genus Maiestaticum is that the divine nature shares omni attrubutes as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience with the human nature, and (3) the genus Apotelesmaticum is that the activity and operation of each nature is common to both natures. (Pieper, Christian Dogmatics II:143, 152, 243)
YES.
In contrast to the Lutheran view, the Reformed, as Hodge explains, is that while the attributes of each nature are predicated to the whole person, there is no sharing of attributes between the natures. (Systematic Theology II:392) Hodge presents three arguments against the Lutheran view: (1) In attempting to explain how two nature are joined in one person, the Lutherans are attempting “to explain the inscrutable,” (2) The Lutheran view is only necessary because of Luther’s view on the Lord’s Supper, and (3) The Lutheran view is unsatisfactory because it curtails activity of the Logos to the incarnate Christ, misapplies texts referencing the divinity to the humanity, and fails to understand that attributes cannot be separated from the substances which they express (413-417)
NO.
However, Hodge has not countered some of the arguments provided by the Lutherans for their dogma. Pieper devotes nearly 150 pages in explanation and defense of the Lutheran view. Much of Pieper’s defense can be summarized in arguments that the Reformed position: (1) By separating the actions of the two natures in Christ contradicts Scripture which states that the humanity of Christ is an organ or instrument of the divinity in texts as 1 Jon 3:8, John 6:5, and Ephesians 4:10; such Scriptures show that the work of the divinity and the humanity are inseparable.
Further, Piper argues, (2) The Reformed view debases the divine knowledge of the humanity of Christ which reveals God as in John 1:18, (3) fails to realize that only if the divinity is united with the humanity can it impart infinite value to Christ’s sufferings, 94) rejects the practical importance of the united action of the two natures as Christ being present with the church and with believers as in Matthew 28:18, 19, (5) is contrary to the personal union of God and man in Christ as taught in texts such as Colossians 1:19 and 2:9, (6) disregards patristic opinion as expressed by Leo and John of Damascus to the effect that each nature in Christ participates in the actions of the other. (Christian Dogmatics II:248, 251, 256, 259, 268, 269)
In my opinion, the Lutheran genus Maiestaticum—that the divinity of Christ shares omni attributes with the humanity of Christ—clearly is non-Chalcedonian. As a reminder, Chalcedon requires the belief that:
“ . . . the only begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united] and that without the distinction of nature’s being taken away by such a union, but rather the peculiar properties of each nature being preserved.”
But if the human nature is the recipient of divine attributes, how is the humanity preserved? How is the human nature kept distinct from the divine nature if it has the same powers as the divine nature?
Nor does the Lutheran view appear to be compatible with Constantinople 680-681 which has it that each nature does what properly pertains to it. How does being omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient properly pertain to being human? Most certainly, in my opinion the experiences and act through either nature should be predicated to the one Person who experiences and acts, but the qualities of one nature, the divinity, should not be attributed to the other nature. (pp. 70-72)
Elsewhere, on p. 58 of his The One Natured Jesus of Meandering Mormonism, Grover admits that Evangelicals disagree with respect to God’s immutability vis-à-vis Christ’s incarnation, and again, can only offer his “opinion”:
I will concede that evangelicals are not exactly in agreement regarding the extent of God’s immutability. His becomes apparent in defining what the Incarnation meant to Christ’s divine nature. Millard Erickson takes the position that the Incarnation puts limits on God the Son’s exercising of some divine attributes as omnipresence and omniscience; Christ’s humanity put restrictions on his deity! (2013:670). However, Reymond rejects Erickson’s views and instead insists that the use of the divine qualities cannot be separated from God’s essence (1998:615, 616). That is my opinion too.
Such only highlights the problematic nature of believing, a Grover does, in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Such will never result in an answer to such central issues (Christology is a pretty important topic; hardly talking about something lie the exclusive psalmody debate!)
On Latter-day Saint Christology and the biblical/theological evidence supporting such, see:
