A Different Jesus?, pt. 3

Chapter 2: The Jesus of History, the Christ of Faith

Sorry this one took so long...Real Life^TM caught up with me Friday, putting me behind schedule. Let's see what Millet has for us today.

He starts off talking about the Jesus Seminar, much his response to it (and like thinking) is on the money. I'm a little annoyed by his "I add my voice to the growing through of tens of thousands of irritated Christians." Sure, he considers himself a Christian, and part of his plan is to get evangelicals to think the same (he keeps saying it like this and many of his readers will start doing it too). But surely this is a red flag that some editor along the way at Eerdmans should've caught.

He quotes Gordon B. Hinckley, back when he was a mere apostle (emphasis his):

Modern Theologians strip [Jesus\ of his divinity and then wonder why men do not worship him. These clever scholars have taken from Jesus the mantle of Godhood and have left only a man. They have tried to accommodate him to their own narrow thinking. They have robbed him of his divine Sonship and taken from the world its rightful King.

ummm, Kettle? Pot's on line 2, something about you being black. Do I absolutely agree with Hinckley as far as Liberal Theology goes? Yup. But what does LDS theology do to Christ's divinity? They strip Him of it! He's not divine, He's not fully God yet fully man. He's just like every other spirit-child of God, He just came first! Utter hogwash.

Along the lines of thinking "Faith is based on evidence, and the stronger the evidence the stronger the faith" he favorably quotes John Warwick Montgomery...heh. You'll never see him quote Greg Bahnsen. :) Who, incidentally, would make mincemeat out of this book. I do have to admit, I agree with the Montgomery quote regarding the impossibility of any kind of Christianity without the events of the Gospels being true. He follows it with a quote from Alma, which takes a little wind from my sales. He then goes into the whole C. S. Lewis--Liar, Lunatic or Lord thing and assorted arguments on that front.

Then we come to the conclusion. It's here that my hackles really get raised, he invites people to

"Come and see" (John 1:39). We believe the final great test in determining the living reality of Jesus Christ and the essential truthfulness of the New Testament record is the test of faith, the test of spirit, the test of individual revelation, with the assurance that all can know.

Sure, sounds a little Josh McDowell-ish. But that's not what the invitation of the Scriptures is. It's not "try out Jesus for 30 days, your money back if not completely satisfied." Not even sure what the test of spirit is...need to ask someone. Okay, I asked someone; it seems the test of faith=test of spirit=test of individual revelation=test of assurance. It's the point where you're talking to an LDS missionary and they tell you to pray whether it's true or not, and you'll get a "burning in the bosom" or "a feeling of certainty" inside that it's all true. Pretty sure this isn't what John had in mind when he told us to "test the spirits." It sure ain't the apologetic Paul used on Mars Hill.

He then talks about trusting the Bible:

While the Latter-day Saints do not subscribe to a postilion of scriptural inerrancy, they do have a firm conviction that the scriptures mean what they say and say what they mean. They are to be trusted.

You can trust the Scriptures, sure they might be wrong from time to time...and the Prophet can correct them anytime he wants...but trust 'em.

A final thought about Millet's use of C. S. Lewis and J. B. Phillips, etc. This chapter is filled with quotes by evangelical apologetic works (many I have on my shelf), and there's an impulse to not be bothered because of his target: Jesus Seminar-type people. You know, the whole enemy of my enemy thing. But I am bugged by it. He's quoting these guys for a reason: he wants to appear like he's just a part of a different "brand" of Christianity. And I don't think he's trying to be deceitful or anything by quoting orthodox types, but he's clothing himself in the clothes of sheep because he thinks he is one (at least on some level). But at the end of the day, he's just a deluded wolf.