A Different Jesus?, pt. 5

Chapter 3: Why a Restoration?, continued

Well, it's been awhile (long while, actually) since I blogged on this book, so if you want to review where we've been:

• A Different Jesus?, pt. 1
• A Different Jesus?, pt. 2
• A Different Jesus?, pt. 3
• A Different Jesus?, pt. 4

Should also remind everyone that this isn't a formal review, D.V., that's to come, this is just what occurs to me as I read through this...thing.

So we're working through Chapter 3, and he's detailing the apostasy that happened following the death of the apostles, the "loss or corruption of divine authority and true doctrine."

Millet recounts this "interfaith dialogue" that he was involved in, during which he kept hearing the phrase "traditional Christianity." This was describing Protestant and Catholic beliefs in contrast to LDS beliefs. As the thought about that phrase, he began to think that the theological differences over which Evangelicals debate in-house are pretty similar in importance to the differences between LDS and Evangelicals. Amongst these "not exactly insignificant issues" that can be found "under the evangelical umbrella" are: Open Theism; Arminianism vs. Calvinism (shows up on his list under various forms several times); Days of Creation; Eschatology; Charismatic Gifts; Gender Roles in the Church; Annhilationism vs. Hell; that sort of thing. First of all, not sure that all of those really are in-house debates (e.g., Open Theism). Secondly, many of these really are secondary issues that don't even come close to the level of importance as the issue that is the core difference between Christianity and LDS belief: Who is Jesus?

He does offer this great quotation, which seems to stab at the heart of this whole "we're all Christians, after all" idea that this book seems to be driving at. From Ensign magazine:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a remodeled version of another church. It is not an adjustment or a correction or a protest against any other church.

Thaaat's right, Millet. It's not the same church. It's either the Church which "has been from the beginning of the world, and will be to the end thereof...and this holy Church is preserved or supported by God against the rage of the whole world; though it sometimes for a while appears very small, and in the eyes of men to be reduced to nothing" (Belgic Confession XXVII) or it's the Church that Christ couldn't preserve following the deaths of the apostles which had to be started again from scratch--like an Etch-a-Sketch drawing.

Okay, that's all for this time. In the next installment (not going to say "tomorrow"--obviously can't necessarily keep that promise), we'll get into his definition of the idea that the LDS church is "the only true and living church."