Comments on: A Response from Richard Mouw http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw Helping plans come together, one post at a time Sun, 03 May 2015 14:00:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.9 By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-197 Fri, 13 May 2005 05:56:41 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-197 Hi Roger,
I am proud of you. You have said exactly what I would say about this issue. Jn. 8:24 should put an end to this discussion. But I'd also throw out 1 Cor. 6:9. Mouw said that what Millet believes is “the sin of idolatry”. If so, then what is entailed by Scripture? Millet can't inherit the kingdom of heaven. He's still got a “false Christ” that the true Christ told us to beware of (Mt. 24:24). Mouw on the other hand thinks that Millet still has the Jesus of the Bible, and thus, has life.
It should be obvious that the Spirit of God isn't in Millet's life… at least not yet, since he's denying what Christ taught about Himself. Millet is still devaluing Christ by having no other nature for Him other than His human nature. This is a blasphemous Christ, and certainly not the

]]> By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-196 Sat, 07 May 2005 15:55:28 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-196 Writing further about the Mormon Jesus, what is the Mormon Jesus? It is not a seperate or real entity. There is no other Jesus. Theirs is a heretical misformation of the real Jesus. How does one correct the error to arrive at the real true Jesus? By changing the erroneos content of the belief. As I think you suggested before, Amy, the content of this writer's faith may be closer to our understanding of an orthodox faith than a previous Mormon christology. In that area, I am uninformed. It seems from Mouw's comments that while it is difficult to draw the line as to when the content of that faith is orthodox enough, his 'sense' is that Millet's faith in Jesus Christ is across that line and potentially salvific.
Someone earlier described this as a postmodern approach. I don't see that to be true at all, at least if it is I fail to see in what regard it is postmodern. This is not a callous disregard for the truth. Mouw is a product of the Reformed Church and Reformed theology. I find this more consistent with his Reformed roots than anything particularly postmodern. Where Mouw is unique among his tradition is the belief that through respectful mutual dialogue – somewhat but not so unlike the kind that you described with the missionaries Amy – we can bring people to a true faith. I think I mentioned before that it was this approach that brought the entire World Wide Church of God which is based in Pasadena, into an orthodox faith. The professors at Fuller met in extended dialogue with the leaders of the WWCoG. In Tokyo, I met one of the members of that church who had since come with the whole church into an orthodox faith.

]]> By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-195 Sat, 07 May 2005 15:32:22 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-195 Amy, A particular Mormon can have savlific faith in a similar way that fundamentalists used to say particular catholics could have a salvific faith over and against the Catholic church which was going to hell, by trusting in Jesus, rather than the church, for salvation. Now as to how we define the content of that trust, I am more open than Roger about the content of that belief, as we wrote before, i am willing to accept one as a Christian who believes Jesus is a true path for them and does not yet believe that Jesus is the only true path.
If Mouw, having related to this writer believes his faith in Jesus Christ may be salvific, then I expect that this writer has communicated to Mouw what appears to be sufficient content of that belief for it to be salvific.
To suggest that Mouw is not familiar with Mormon Christology is proposterous, since he has been in diaolgue with them on exactly this level for more than a decade.
If your description of the quote is accurate then I am even more certain that Mouw has drawn this particular writer within the bounds of a saving faith and very much not drawn the LDS church and it's Christology within those bounds.

]]> By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-194 Sat, 07 May 2005 04:05:13 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-194 Bill, you said, “I would have expected Mouw to endorse a particular Mormon as having a saving faith in Jesus Christ, not any Mormon Christology as salvific.”
I think that's what he's trying to do (see my last comment). But I'm not sure you can separate the two. If Mormon Christology is not salvific (that is, the Mormon Jesus is not able to save because he is not the true Jesus), then in what sense could a person who believes in the Mormon Jesus have a saving faith in the real Jesus?

]]> By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-193 Sat, 07 May 2005 01:36:56 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-193 When I was in Seminary, I would have expected Mouw to endorse a particular Mormon as having a saving faith in Jesus Christ, not any Mormon Christology as salvific. Therefore, I would expect him to be referring to the views of the writer in particular rather than the position of the LDS. Having said that, I don't know the book. I don't know the conversation. I am operating from my expectations of what I knew of Mouw.

]]> By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-192 Sat, 07 May 2005 00:13:53 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-192 I think the labels aren't helpful here, for my two cents, I'm also to the left of Talbot and to the right of PTS (and, in fairness of Bill too), but I think Mouw's position is misguided.
The “fundamentalist” label is so charged, particularly when opposed to “mainstream evangelical” that I think it distracts from parsing out where the differences are here. On a positive note, for what it's worth I do think everyone has been charitable in assuming good faith in others despite positions that diverge.

]]> By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-191 Sat, 07 May 2005 00:10:09 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-191 First of all, the excerpt from Dr. Mouw's e-mail that Roger posted here is part of Mouw's afterword to the book. The two paragraphs which precede that “At the heart…” section posted here are posted below:

[T]here is still what Millet rightly sets forth as the “more” of Mormonism. Baptism for the dead. The importance of temple rites. Multiple heavenly realms. The restoration of the ancient offices of prophet and apostle. Golden plates. New Revelations.
This is not the place to rehearse the standard

]]> By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-190 Fri, 06 May 2005 23:11:19 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-190 Bill, what's your take on the comment, “There is a real danger for all of us that we will define Jesus in such a way that we cannot adequately claim the full salvation that he alone can provide.

]]> By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-189 Fri, 06 May 2005 22:35:44 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-189 I have difficulty understanding how Mouw could possibly be putting “a stamp of approval on the LDS view of Jesus.” Again, I have not read this book. To conclude that he has is the danger I am referring to. I would be astounded to hear that Mouw had asctually done what you suggest. Again, I don't expect you to agree with me. I believe you are calling it as you see it. As I see it, you are wrongly impugning a very significant servant of Christ.
I am not trying to be sensational, Dustin. I appreciate your desire to stand up for the truth, Dustin, but my grasp of what is true is closer to mainstream evangelical and farther from fundamentalist than yours.

]]> By: Anonymous http://afcmin.org/ateam/87/a-response-from-richard-mouw/comment-page-1#comment-186 Fri, 06 May 2005 19:16:01 +0000 http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=87#comment-186 Bill, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Even as high an authority as Dr. Mouw can be wrong. Are you saying it's dangerous to question him? Or are you saying something else is dangerous? Did you read the previous post this is regarding?
I've been very involved in dialogue with Mormons, and I encourage it–nobody here is arguing against that. I've been to Mormon apologetics conferences (by Mormons, for Mormons), and I met with missionaries for a year and a half in order to clarify the differences between us. I am very grateful for the discussions that people like Hazen and Mouw are having with Millet (whose books I have read), and I've followed the progress of these discussions and talked to Hazen about them. I think Millet has moved in an orthodox Christian direction in the area of grace.
I am not against the discussions, I am against the temptation to say people are following Christ at the expense of truth. If we're telling Mormons they're saved when they aren't, this is only going to hurt the Mormons in the end. They may be pleased for now, but it's not loving to not be clear about the truth.
I'm not sure what you're objecting to, but you may not be totally familiar with the situation as a whole and the questionable incidents that have happened in the past (specifically regarding previous comments by Dr. Mouw). I think you have been a bit hasty in judging here.

]]>