Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
from the historic parsonage of 19th century gospel minister, George Norcross, in downtown
Carlisle, Pennsylvania. It's Iron Sharpens Iron, a radio platform on which pastors,
Christian scholars, and theologians address the burning issues facing the church and the world today.
Proverbs 27, verse 17 tells us, iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
Matthew Henry said that in this passage, quote, we are cautioned to take heed whom we converse with and directed to have in view in conversation to make one another wiser and better.
It is our hope that this goal will be accomplished over the next hour, and we hope to hear from you, the listener, with your own questions.
Now, here's our host, Chris Arnson. Good afternoon,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, and the rest of humanity who are living on the planet
Earth, listening via live streaming. This is Chris Arnson, your host of Iron Sharpens Iron, wishing you all a happy Wednesday on this 20th day of April 2016, and I'm delighted that we have returning to our program one of my favorite guests of all time,
Phil Johnson, the executive director of Grace TU, which is the radio,
TV, and publishing ministry of world -renowned evangelist, pastor, and author
John MacArthur. Today, Phil is going to be discussing Mormons.
Are they our brothers or a mission field? And this was largely spurred on by an article that recently came out by Richard Mu, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, who also wrote a book on this issue, who seems to have a much softer view on the orthodoxy of Mormonism than our guest does, and it's my honor and privilege to welcome you back to Iron Sharpens Iron, Phil Johnson.
Thank you, Chris, good to be here. And in studio with me is my friend and co -host, the
Reverend Buzz Taylor. Hello once again. And before we go into the discussion,
Phil, if you could, for those of our listeners, I mean, it's very unlikely that our listeners don't know who
John MacArthur is, but you never know, because we do have on occasion some new
Christians listening and we also have some non -Christians listening, even Muslims on occasion. So why don't you tell our listeners about Grace To You.
All right, John MacArthur is pastor of Grace Community Church of the Valley in Sun Valley, California.
That's in the Los Angeles area. And he has been on the radio, we've been putting his sermons on the radio since 1979.
And so Grace To You, the radio broadcast, has become one of the most popular daily
Bible teaching programs on Christian radio. Yeah, he is certainly one of my favorites and one of my favorite authors.
And he is just a breath of fresh air in this day and age of compromise and so on.
And you have written or co -written some books yourself.
I know the Law and Liberty book that came out not long ago was featuring one of your chapters.
Yeah, that's right. I don't write much of my own. And I've contributed chapters to a few of those symposium style books.
And I've actually had a couple of books published, one in Italy and a couple in India. But I don't write much because I'm actually a book editor.
My background is publishing and I devote most of my time editing material with John MacArthur.
I figure if I write a book and a handful of people read it and it goes out of print, that's great.
But the material that I'm working on with John MacArthur, I believe a lot of that will still be in print and being read by people long after I'm dead.
Well, it's always a pleasure to have you on the program. And you wanted to talk today about Mormonism because there seems to be voices within the evangelical community that are attempting to soften the severity with which evangelicals and fundamentalists and conservative
Christians have toward Mormons. Some of it may have to do with Mitt Romney having run for president in the last election and people trying to rally behind a voice that was comparatively conservative in the race at the time.
But this was really sparked, this discussion that you wanted to address today was sparked by an article by Richard Moo.
Why don't you tell our listeners something about him? I know that he's president of Florida Theological Seminary, but would he really be within the realm of evangelicalism?
Is he a full -blown liberal? Where would you place him? I'd put him somewhere between evangelical and liberalism, probably.
He's certainly more liberal than I would normally want to have anything to do with.
And of course, Fuller Seminary is renowned for their fairly rapid decline, starting maybe in the 1950s, maybe as early as that.
By the mid -1970s, they virtually embraced a kind of neo -Orthodox view of Scripture and denied the inerrancy of Scripture.
And these days, I think practically anything and everything can be taught and is being taught at Fuller Seminary.
So I wouldn't hesitate to label that school liberal. He's the president. He definitely has some clear liberal tendencies.
And I think a lot of that is reflected in this article that he's written. Yes, and Dr.
James R. White, who is no stranger to our Iron Sharpens Iron audience. He is a graduate of Fuller, but he was certainly one of the very few conservatives, perhaps even one of the very few regenerate people, born -again believers, there attending classes at Fuller.
And he would very often be a thorn in the side of his professors, but...
Yeah, you know, there aren't many evangelical students who escape Fuller unscathed.
He certainly did, though. Yeah, that's right. He definitely did. And he'd be a prime example of that.
I think also John Piper earned his doctorate at Fuller, and he's probably not as conservative as James White, but at least the two of them still would classify as evangelical.
Now, this article by Richard Moo that really sparked your interest in discussing this today,
I know that he's been talking about Mormonism very favorably for years, and even wrote a book about dialoguing with Mormons.
Was this a recent article that perhaps was more radical in his favoritism towards them?
Yeah, actually, it's dated May of 2016, so I gather that the print edition of the magazine that he wrote it for isn't out yet.
It was written for First Things, and First Things is an organization that was started by Richard John Newhouse, a
Roman Catholic convert who was close friends with Charles Colson, who was also pretty strongly ecumenical in his thrust.
And I said years ago, if you do what they wanted to do with the Roman Catholic Church, and basically break down the barriers between Catholicism and evangelicalism, let's ignore the doctrines that divide us and embrace one another as if we're all one.
If you could do that with Roman Catholicism, why couldn't you do it with Mormonism? And now there's a fairly aggressive campaign to do that very thing, and I think that's,
I think that Dr. Moo is going to become one of the chiefs, or already has really become one of the chief spokesmen for the movement to sort of do with Mormonism what evangelicals and Catholics together did for Roman Catholicism.
They want to eliminate the stigma that this is a cult or an alternative religion that preaches a different gospel.
Now that's interesting. To my knowledge, I don't even think the Liberal World Council of Churches includes
Mormons as a part of their umbrella churches, but I'm assuming
Richard Moo is not an idiot. He's the president of a seminary, and even liberals can be quite brilliant.
Is he overlooking some glaring differences that are known to people who even have a cursory knowledge of Mormonism?
I mean... Yeah, I don't think it's a question of ignorance. I think he's just deliberately sort of closed his eyes to some rather major differences.
He and lots of others, frankly, would like to sort of dispense with all of the distinctives that came out of the
Protestant Reformation, do away with all the Protestant confessions of faith, and take the church back to where the only standard of orthodoxy would be the
Apostles' Creed and perhaps the Nicene Creed or maybe a handful of early ecumenical creeds.
I don't know how Mormonism would pass those tests. I was gonna say, I still think we got a problem. Well, the fact is, and I made this comment yesterday, that if you want to do that, then we might as well open the doors to Jehovah's Witnesses as well, because they basically follow the same theology as Arius, the fourth -century heretic who denied the deity of Christ and defended himself by saying, look,
I can sign every statement in the Apostles' Creed. I agree with every single sentence of the
Apostles' Creed. How can you say I'm unorthodox just because I don't believe in the deity of Christ?
And that was one of the first early sort of trials among the church, how much heresy are we going to admit?
How specific should our creedal statements be? You know, where does essential truth begin and end so that if someone holds to a point of doctrine that is apparently unorthodox, how do you know?
Where do you draw the line between orthodoxy and absolute unbelief?
And Dr. Moo raises that very question in the article and then basically argues that it should be a totally minimalist standard that we shouldn't have rigorous doctrinal tests to determine whom we'll fellowship with and whom we won't.
And he refers to any concern about doctrines like justification by faith or precision in the gospel as people who just worry about dotting every theological
I and crossing every theological T as if these are minutia, the things that differentiate us between historic
Christianity and Mormon doctrine. Well, the fact of the matter is, as you know,
Mormon theology deviates from biblical Christianity even in far greater ways or more ways,
I should say, than just the gospel alone. They are not even monotheists.
Yeah, of course. But you see, that's the issue that Dr. Moo raises in this article.
He singles out one dogma of historic Mormonism and that is what's known as the
Lorenzo Snow couplet. It's a couplet that says, and you've heard this if you've ever listened to any critique of Mormon doctrine, you've heard this couplet, as man now is, not once was, as God now is, man may be.
That's a tenet that sort of distills the Mormon perspective of God and man into a little neat couplet.
And the last president and prophet of the
Church of Latter -day Saints did an interview with Time Magazine several years ago in which he seemed to waffle on the question of how important is that couplet?
Is that really a canonical Mormon truth? Do we believe it? And he said some sort of typically post -modern, ambiguous things about it.
He said, well, I don't know whether we really teach that or how much we emphasize it, or it was almost as if he was possessed by the spirit of Joel Osteen.
Literally, every other sentence in his statement he gave to Time Magazine was,
I don't know. Well, I don't know. I don't know if we really emphasize that. I don't know how prominent that is in our teaching, et cetera, et cetera.
And it made it sound like he's not really sure that's an important Mormon dogma.
And that's what Dr. Moo has seized on, those ambiguous statements given to a secular reporter.
And he basically says, you know, that shows that Mormonism may be moving towards a more orthodox view of God.
Well, the fact is that prophet ultimately had to go back and reassure the church that they shouldn't take seriously those comments he made to Time Magazine.
The prophet's name was Hinckley, by the way, and you can look this up by Googling it. He made a statement.
In fact, I'll read it to you. This was the statement he made to the church. He says, the media have been kind and generous to us.
He says, this past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage.
Notice, his focus is on the press coverage. There've been a few things we wish might have been different.
He says, I personally have been much quoted and in a few instances, misquoted and misunderstood.
And I think that's to be expected. None of you, he's speaking out to Mormon faithful, none of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported.
You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly.
And it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the church.
So he's saying, look, whatever you read in Time Magazine, it's clearly what he's referring to. Don't take that at face value.
I thoroughly understand that doctrine. Basically, he's assuring them that he stands behind what
Mormons have always taught. And given his focus on the press, I think it's fair for non -Mormons to look at that and say, this has all the earmarks of a massive public relations campaign.
The Mormon church has changed, but what's changed is not their doctrine, it's their strategy.
They used to say, look, we are the only true church. We are the restoration of the true church and nobody else has it right.
Now they've switched their strategy and what they want to say to evangelicals is, look, we're just like you, we're not that different.
We believe most of the same things and you should embrace us as one of you, or at least just a different alternative denomination and not reject us as non -Christians, but embrace us as brothers.
And they're desperately looking for evangelical acceptance because that gets them a better foot in the door when they literally come to your door and want to teach you privately what
Mormon doctrine really is. Yeah, well, as I said to you not long ago, just a couple of months ago, while strolling down the street here in my new home, when
I say new home, it's about three years now, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, I could tell from about 50 yards away that there were some young men who were
Mormons and I could tell by their white shirts, black ties and black pocket badges.
And haircuts. Yeah, so I yelled out to them, hey, are you Mormons? And they stopped in their tracks and said, yeah, we are.
So I said, hold on a minute. And I got up, when I caught up with them, I had a conversation with them and they had a completely different sales pitch, if you will, than I heard years earlier when
I invited Mormons into my living room to discuss theology and so on.
These young men were saying in a very stilted and robotic and rehearsed way, you have probably heard that we believe that we are the only true church, but that is not true at all.
We're Christians just like you are. And they started in with this very ecumenical routine and I told them, you do realize that this is a very, very new concept in your religion, don't you?
You do know that this is almost 180 degrees polar opposite to what your church used to teach up until fairly recently.
Yeah, yeah, I remember when I was a young person, this was back in the 1960s, and some
Mormon missionaries came to our house and because my father was friends when he was in the
Navy with a man who was Mormon and had a personal relationship with this guy, he let them in and let them go through the
Mormon spiel with us. And I remember they had, it was old fashioned stuff, a slide projector and little package stories that tell you the story of Mormonism and all of that.
And it is a completely different approach than they are taking today, but it's not, and I can't stress this too much, it is not a
Mormon doctrine that's changing. It is a strategy. And there's a reason for it. You more or less hinted at it.
It's definitely tied with politics in an era when we see our society melting down morally and culture embracing more and more secularism.
There's been a lot of pressure on all religions to sort of combine their cloud and get together and oppose things like abortion and homosexuality and some of the great moral issues that are being debated.
We stand together on these things, the argument goes. So let's set aside the areas where we differ and combine our cloud.
And it's a very seductive way of sort of getting around what the Bible says we ought to do when someone comes proclaiming a different Christ or preaching a different gospel.
Now I think it would probably be a good idea, not that we have to be exhaustive about this, but for people who are wondering why are they making such a fuss about Mormonism after all it is the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, isn't it? Well, let's go with the big one to start with.
I already mentioned that they're not even monotheists. Mormons believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that if they are faithful Mormons, they will become gods of their own planet after they die, correct?
Yeah, that is, I believe, what virtually all rank -and -file
Mormons are taught and believe. That is the point of the Lorenzo Snow couplet, the couplet that Dr.
Moo wants to dispute whether Mormons really believe it, but you can read any Mormon literature and pretty much all of it stresses this idea that as man now is,
God once was, there's a huge problem in that because it essentially denies the transcendence of God.
He's really no different ultimately, he's just more advanced than you and me, but really of the same species.
We are just a lower, less developed species of God and we will eventually, if we're faithful, the
Mormons say, become like him, which, of course, can't possibly be monotheistic in any sense.
Yeah, in fact, I'm going to give a plug to a new documentary that's available.
In fact, the Reverend Buzz Taylor and I were both invited to participate in this documentary doing voiceovers of famous Mormons.
That was a whole lot of fun. The Christ Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City where my friend
Jason Wallace is the pastor, he did an extremely professional documentary, really top -notch that should be broadcast on different television networks, but it is basically a documentary that exposes the contradictions and the deceptions and the deceit and the secrecy of Mormonism since its inception in the 19th century.
And going to what we were just talking about, the denial of monotheism, one of the quotes right from the mouth of Bruce McConkie, who was considered an apostle, he said that one of the greatest heresies that has ever existed is to teach that God, meaning
God the Father, did not have flesh and bone and blood just as we do.
And keep in mind, they're not talking about the incarnation of Jesus Christ, they're talking about God the
Father there. Right. And the thing that's very valuable about this video is that it's filled with direct quotes right from famous Mormons mouths,
Mormons who were apostles, prophets, presidents of their religion and so on.
That video can be found at lds .video, lds .video,
and it's a really fine job that Christ Orthodox Presbyterian Church has done.
One of the other things that is very dishonest that Mormons continually say in public that this video brings out is that they do not criticize other religions.
And you have the whole religion is founded on Joseph Smith declaring that all the other
Christian denominations were false. And you do still have missionaries going all over the world telling the story of how
Joseph Smith was allegedly divinely told this truth, quote, quote, that all of the other denominations that were in existence, including
Presbyterianism, which - Specifically Presbyterianism. Yeah, he came out of the Presbyterian denomination as a false religion.
But that is just another part of their PR campaign that they are the truly loving and friendly and ironic folks as opposed to we who are attacking them.
Right, yeah, and it's got a lot of mileage for them as well. I think one of the reasons
Mormonism grew so much in the past 40 years or so has been the fact that Mormons are typically clean -cut people with a high sense of morality and decency.
They're not, you know, they're not, you don't typically associate Mormons these days with any kind of, you know, riotous living or anything like that.
Of course, in the early days they were polygamists and that was one of the reasons that they were driven from New York across the
United States all the way to Utah. But Mormons these days have more or less learned that a clever public relations approach can more easily gain them a hearing and converts and they've done a good job with that.
And what's a shame now is to see non -Mormons sort of assisting in that campaign to make
Mormonism seem like it's mainstream when it really isn't at all. By the way, while you're recommending things, let me recommend something too.
For those especially who may have read Dr. Moo's article and thought, whoa, this is new and interesting and maybe compelling.
There's an answer to it by Rob Bowman online. You'll have to do a Google search for it, but Rob Bowman, B -O -W -M -A -N, responded with surprising speed and thoroughness to the
Moo article and if you do a Google search for his response to Richard Moo, M -O -U -W,
M -O -U -W -N. Robert Bowman, B -O -W -M -A -N. Do a Google search for that article by Rob Bowman and it's very helpful in answering the arguments set forth here by Richard Moo.
And I can't resist this joke, but I think that Richard Moo's article is utter nonsense.
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that. Oh, no. But now obviously, you've already touched on it, the whole concept of salvation and how one inherits eternal life, polar opposite, 180 degrees opposite to biblical
Christianity with Mormonism, isn't it? Yeah, in fact, I think this is one of the things that has provoked my passion on this issue.
There are some leading Mormon apologists who have linked arms with Richard Moo and a few other evangelical leaders to try to lead this campaign.
And they, in the early days, I haven't seen him do it too much anymore because I've tried to answer them every time
I've seen it. But they like to quote John MacArthur as if he's sympathetic to their point of view.
Oh, my. Oh, my. They deny the principle of sola fide. Talk about bad authorization.
Oh, my. The doctrine of justification by faith alone. And some of the early people who researched this, in fact, one of them was a local attorney who's a
Mormon guy who wrote a book called Biblical Mormonism. And the subtitle is
Responding to Evangelical Criticism of Latter -day Saints Theology. And he wrote this book and he had gone through,
I think, fairly superficially a lot of evangelical writers. He quotes, for example, from the
Schofield Study Bible and I think he quotes Charles Ryrie and whatever.
But some of these guys imagined that in John MacArthur's books on the lordship issue, they had found some support for their notion that justification is not by faith alone, that faith is not the only instrument of justification.
There must also be works for justification. Of course, what John MacArthur argued was that yes, we are justified by faith alone, but those who are justified will be being sanctified.
So works are the fruit of the faith by which we lay hold of our justification.
And if works don't follow, then you have to examine your faith and ask, is it genuine faith?
They read it, as I said, rather superficially and tried to quote
John MacArthur or refer to his books on the lordship issue as if he was an evangelical who agrees with us that justification, that faith alone is not a sufficient instrument for justification.
Of course, that is not at all what John MacArthur said. Right, and that's, they misread
Dr. MacArthur just as those who reject lordship salvation misread
Dr. MacArthur, but for different reasons. They were - Exactly, yeah, they're at opposite ends of that debate, but nevertheless, they both twist and misread what he has to say.
In fact, a few of these guys actually came out and had a meeting with John MacArthur in the early 90s before it was really crystal clear what the goal was and used the fact that John had agreed to actually meet with him and have a conversation with him to imply in comments that were posted all over the internet that somehow
John MacArthur was supportive of and encouraging about this detente between Mormonism and evangelicals.
And of course, John had then to issue a statement saying that that is not at all what this meeting was about.
And so - We're going to our first break here. If you'd like to join us on the air with a question, our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com,
C -H -R -I -S -A -R -N -Z -E -N at gmail .com. If you could please include your first name, your city and state, and your country of residence, we would appreciate that.
Of course, if it makes you feel more comfortable to remain anonymous, we will welcome your question nonetheless, so we look forward to hearing from you and your questions after these messages, so don't go away.
I'm James White of Alpha Omega Ministries. The New American Standard Bible is perfect for daily reading or in -depth study.
Used by pastors, scholars, and everyday readers, the NASB is widely embraced and trusted as a literal and readable
Bible translation. The NASB offers clarity and readability while maintaining high accuracy to the original languages which the
NASB is known for. The NASB is available in many editions like a topical reference Bible. Researched and prepared by biblical scholars devoted to accuracy, the new topical reference
Bible includes contemporary topics relevant to today's issues. From compact to giant print
Bibles, find an NASB that fits your needs very affordably at nasbible .com.
Trust, discover, and enjoy the NASB for yourself today. Go to nasbible .com, that's nasbible .com.
Tired of box store Christianity, of doing church in a warehouse with all the trappings of a rock concert?
Do you long for a more traditional and reverent style of worship? And how about the preaching? Perhaps you've begun to think that in -depth biblical exposition has vanished from Long Island.
Well, there's good news. Wedding River Baptist Church exists to provide believers with a meaningful and reverent worship experience featuring the systematic exposition of God's word.
And this loving congregation looks forward to meeting you. Call them at 631 -929 -3512 for service times.
631 -929 -3512. Or check out their website at wrbc .us.
That's wrbc .us. Welcome back, this is
Chris Zarnes. And if you just tuned us in, our guest today is Phil Johnson, the executive director of Grace to You, the radio,
TV, and publishing ministry of Dr. John MacArthur. We're talking about the theme Mormons, Our Brothers or a
Mission Field. And this was spurred on largely by a recent article by Richard Mu, who is president of Fuller Theological Seminary, who is trying to blur the line of division between Christians and Mormons.
If you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is chrisarnsen at gmail .com. chrisarnsen at gmail .com.
And we do have a listener in Mastic Beach, Long Island, New York, Tyler, who says, with Mormonism, the problem obviously is a false
Christology. Would you say denying the inerrancy of scripture leads to all heresy?
Well, denying the authority of scripture definitely leads to all heresy. I think there are heretics who actually would give some kind of verbal lip service to the inerrancy of scripture.
And also, once you've denied the inerrancy of scripture, you have denied the authority of scripture, too.
But I think the real issue here is the authority of scripture. Is scripture authoritative, and is it a sufficient authority?
The problems with Mormonism begin with the fact that they have this extra -biblical revelation, the
Book of Mormon and whatever, that whenever you have extra -biblical revelation like that, that becomes the lens through which you interpret scripture.
So the scripture ultimately really isn't allowed to speak for itself. It doesn't have authority over this extra -biblical body that you're claiming is inspired as well.
And since it's fresher, newer material, you have to read the Bible through the lens of the
Book of Mormon, and that will create all kinds of problems for you because the Book of Mormon itself does not correctly interpret scripture.
Right, in fact, they will say very openly that the Bible can only be trusted as far as it has been accurately translated, and they don't believe that any
English translation has been thoroughly, accurately translated. And they believe that the
Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Grace, Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants all supersede the
Bible. By the way, obviously a no -brainer that everybody listening should look up and purchase and read is
James White's book, Is the Mormon My Brother, because that's actually right on the subject we're speaking about,
Is the Mormon My Brother, which you can order through Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service, who sponsor
Iron Sharpens Iron, that's cvbbs .com, Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service, cvbbs .com.
And you could obviously also go to James White's website, aomin .org,
that stands for Alpha and Omega Ministries, aomin .org.
One thing that was interesting in my encounter with a young Mormon elder slash missionary years ago in my living room, he agreed with everything that I had said about Mormonism, much to the embarrassment of his colleague that accompanied him.
There was an older Mormon man that I thought was gonna be the brains of the two, but it turned out that the young man knew a lot more than the older man, and the older man kept sticking his foot in his mouth saying that Mormons don't believe that, and the younger man was affirming that, oh, yeah, we do, we do believe that.
But one thing that he dug his heels in about is he said, he just totally got outraged when
I said that Brigham Young taught as dogma that God the
Father actually tabernacled in flesh or came to earth in human form and had intercourse with Mary, the mother of Jesus, in order to impregnate her, and that this is their teaching, that Christ was not conceived by miraculous work of the
Holy Spirit at all. It was an act that took place just like any other human is conceived by parents.
And that's when he said, oh, wait a minute, you're out of your mind with that one, and he started gathering up his belongings, and I challenged him to verify that when he left, and that is irrefutable teaching that can be easily proven and documented through Mormon, through a little bit of cursory
Mormon research. Yeah, one of the difficulties in critiquing Mormonism is that Mormonism hasn't really produced a great array of definitive systematic theologies, and of course, they have living prophets.
So it seems to me that Mormon dogma is a bit fluid in the sense that it is common to be speaking with a
Mormon and say, well, this is what Brigham Young taught, and yeah, but we don't all believe that, you know?
So it's pretty hard to really nail down any
Mormon teaching and insist that this is, that's exactly what
Dr. Moo is doing with this article. He's saying, sure, you can find lots of Mormon sources that quote the
Lorenzo Snow couplet, but that doesn't mean all Mormons believe it, or that that's what the church officially teaches.
And it's not like even Roman Catholicism, where you can always go to the official catechism and say, right here it is in your catechism.
It's much harder to pin down Mormon beliefs. You can find all kinds of nonsense in the writings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and some of the early fathers and some of the even recent prophets.
But trying to make any Mormon accept accountability for what
Mormons have taught is a much more difficult process because each individual
Mormon has his own idea of what the church actually teaches. Yeah, one of the things that they really have a hard time getting around is the
Mormon teaching prior to the 1970s that blacks could not enter into the
Mormon priesthood. They could not be members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
In fact, it was taught that Mormons would at the very best, their very highest hope for blacks was that they would be the servants of whites in the
Celestial Kingdom. But they conveniently had to abandon that teaching or lose their tax -exempt status, so much in the same way that they abandoned polygamy because the government was threatening to seize their property and arrest them.
They conveniently changed their teachings. It's absolutely a pattern with Mormonism.
And that's why you have a lot of offshoot Mormon cults who, some of them still practice polygamy and have various other ideas.
And each of the small sub -cults insists that they're the true Mormonism. And it's a surprisingly diverse agglomeration of early
Mormon ideas split into different little sub -cults. And you can find sources for what they all say in various Mormon statements and sermons and prophecies and writings and all of that.
It's a very confusing religion, even for someone who buys into it.
And as you said, there's a pattern of shifting for pragmatic reasons. They abandoned polygamy.
That was actually a condition of statehood for Utah. Utah had to pass a law prohibiting polygamy before the rest of the states would let them join the union.
And so they did. And official Mormonism, the central church of the
Latter -day Saints then condemned polygamy, even though their founders had practiced it.
And the same thing with the view of blacks. Suddenly something that was originally treated as canonical law now is done away with and let's pretend we never taught this.
Right, that's the thing about let's pretend we never taught it. Yeah, and of course we, all of us involved in today's program, we would abhor the segregationist and racist teaching of the
Mormon past. So it's not like we're disappointed that they reversed their opinion.
We just are trying to point out that their prophets must have failed in their divine -
My disappointment, yeah, that's exactly. My disappointment lies in the fact that they won't own the reality that that is proof that this wasn't inspired prophecy, that their founders were not infallible, that there were some sort of beastly ideas built into what they teach.
Yeah, this Mormon young man in my living room when I was having this little discussion with him back in the 90s,
I guess it was, when I brought that up, the racist teachings of Mormonism's past, he said, oh, who are you to talk?
You're a Baptist, and there are Baptists in the Ku Klux Klan. Well, I said to him very quickly, yeah, and there'll be
Baptists in hell. Is Joseph Smith or Brigham Young who taught these racist things as divinely inspired truth?
Are they going to be in hell? And he had no answer for that. Obviously, there's a huge difference between professing
Christians and even genuinely Christian people who act sinfully or act in contradiction to the scriptures.
There's a big difference between that and something that is claimed to have been divine prophecy, infallible, inerrant prophecy.
Right. And in fact, my co -host, Buzz Taylor, was a student at Bob Jones University that doesn't have the greatest reputation in its past in regard to race relations.
That was all happening when I was there. You mean they had the segregationist policy when you were there?
They lost their tax -exempt status while I was there. That was when they were in the heat of the battle. They forbid interracial dating.
Right, interracial dating. And is there anything else that we should address before maybe even moving on to the larger picture of why this
Richard Moo article is disturbing? Is there any specific tenets of Mormonism that we need to go to before we move on?
Because I think that there's a larger problem here about what Christians are supposed to embrace as things that are, or should
I say, what things that Christians are to view as nominal, minimal, and trivial, unimportant for the sake of, quote, quote, brotherly love and kindness and friendliness and so on.
That's basically, it seems to be at the heart of what's going on here. Yeah, that is the big issue. If anyone wants more help with Mormonism, actually
James White is a better source of that even than I am. And you recommended his book already.
Yeah, I would just say go to the aomin .org website and look for the resources there if you're still looking for help on how to answer
Mormonism. Yeah, Dr. White's ministry actually began primarily as a ministry whose efforts were focused on refuting
Mormonism because he lives in Arizona where Mormonism is just as prevalent as Catholicism would be in other parts of the country.
Mormonism is probably the primary cult that people in that area, the Southwest area, would be a fan of.
I think the biggest problem, really, that I'm hearing today, though, is the problem of the lack of discernment on Christians' part.
I can just hear John MacArthur talking about that, you know, the lack of discernment that we're experiencing here.
Yeah, yeah, and the tremendous pressure that there is to set aside as many doctrines as possible and have just a minimal core of just a few truths that we all affirm together, and then let's just embrace one another as brothers and sisters in Christ and set aside our differences.
It's that position, just to take that position, is to repudiate the
Protestant Reformation. Because if that's true, if that's really what we ought to do as believers is just have a minimal sort of confession of faith with just the barest essentials about theology proper and, you know, maybe even,
I don't know, theology proper, is pretty much what Dr. Moo seems to wanna boil it down to.
And then everything else we can set aside and regard as non -essential.
To say that is to go back to the medieval view, or even earlier, and say, you know, the
Protestant Reformation was itself a sinful act of division.
Of course, a lot of Roman Catholics, that's what they believe, that's what they say. That is officially the
Catholic position. I'm not prepared to repudiate the Protestant Reformation. Yeah, it seems that the climate that increasingly gets more dominant in our culture as each year passes is that to be critical and to use proper judgment is all judgmentalism.
It's arrogance, it's pride, it's sectarianism. And it's, we are the ones that are viewed as being out of step with the character of Christ as opposed to people who have their arms stretched wide open willing to embrace all who claim the name of Christ.
Well, and of course, that goes far beyond religious issues, even. That's the drift of thinking in the world today.
It's the whole idea behind what we call postmodernism, the notion that nothing is really certain, so we shouldn't be dogmatic about anything.
It's okay to believe whatever makes you feel good, but don't say that anybody else is wrong about anything.
And that's why we're at a point where somebody can say, yeah, I believe I'm a dog born in a man's body.
And you're supposed to respect that and go with it and pretend that you believe it too for the sake of not injuring this man who self -identifies as a puppy.
And this is the thing that escapes people or that they just deliberately refuse to realize is plainly there in scripture, is that Christ and his apostles and the authors of scripture, the men that were divinely inspired by the
Holy Spirit, they all were very serious about doctrinal aberrancies and people who drifted from what the apostles' doctrine was.
This was not a trivial matter, and kindness and gentleness and ironic character did not trump teaching at any point.
In fact, that is the central theme of one of the shortest but most important New Testament epistles, 2
John. And John is writing, of course, John was the one apostle who lived into old age.
All the others were martyred for what they believed. So we know that they were all willing to take stands that were unpopular, to say the least.
They died for their faith. John is often known as the apostle of love because he's a loving character.
He writes a lot about love, the first and second great commandment, and he calls it the new commandment because that's what
Jesus called it, love one another. And there's stress throughout the gospel of John and all three epistles of John on love.
And yet, and he's writing 2 John to a woman who was apparently known for her hospitality, and she would, it seems, house and give room and board to itinerant preachers,
Christians coming through, men who spoke in the name of Christ and planted churches,
I suppose, of missionary types. And she, it seems, had written to John and asked, well, what do
I do when someone comes in the name of Christ, but he teaches a different doctrine?
And here's how John answered her. This is from 2 John verses 10 and 11.
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
So he's saying to her, look, if you house and encourage and even greet, he's talking there about a ceremonial greeting that honors this person.
If you honor them or encourage them in any way, then you actually become a partaker in their wickedness.
And there is no worse wickedness than teaching false religion.
People tend to think, you know, religion is the highest of all human pursuits, that religion represents the best of humanity.
We study world religions and we think how wonderful these religious types are and all that.
Scripture doesn't portray it that way at all. False religion is the worst of all evils. Right, yeah.
Yeah, that's why I'm very hesitant when I hear people like Bill Maher blaming religion for the ills that plague the world and many
Christians and conservatives will say, oh no, you're wrong, Mr. Maher. I'm not too quick to join with those
Christian and conservative voices opposing what he's saying. The problem is that Bill Maher would include
Christianity, true biblical Christianity in that group, but he's very right when he says that religion is probably one of the major things that has caused evil in this planet.
Yeah, he's right, he's exactly right. In fact, the only thing worse than, the only thing that's been more detrimental to our culture than false religion has been secularism.
So he's wrong in the direction he wants to go with it, but he's absolutely right in what he says.
And you can look around and you can see that. And of course, there are things that are religions that are not identified as religions.
I mean, even - You mean like secularism? Secular humanism and - Yeah, secularism is one.
Climate, climate - Yeah, all right, yeah. Yeah, doctrines of demons.
Well, let's move to a even more controversial issue when it comes to this whole area, is what is the evangelical
Christian to do with our dear friend, Billy Graham?
You will be quickly vilified and ostracized and viewed as a nut or a cultic
Pharisee if you criticize Billy Graham in any way in the wrong circles or in the wrong company.
I remember years ago, I was at a Christian function and dared to criticize the
Billy Graham Association primarily because of the rampant ecumenism that was taking place where Roman Catholics and liberal
Protestants and so on were being invited to participate in the Crusades, not to be in the audience at the
Crusades, but to be on the platform of the Crusades. How are we to view this?
Because it's more than just a man, it's a phenomenon because of the fact that he has, in many respects, demonstrated many
Christ -like characters and has, as far as anyone knows, been totally free from scandal in regard to sexuality and finances and so on.
So there's many things to admire about this man. But what can you say about this really dangerous ecumenism that has become a blueprint for evangelicalism?
Yeah, and to be clear, you do have to appreciate Billy Graham for his reputation as someone who is free from any kind of scandal or the sort of gross hypocrisy that you see nightly on Christian television.
He was never the sort of charlatan, overt charlatan that dominates the television airwaves these days.
And when he preached the gospel, at least he did preach the gospel.
It was a simple version of the gospel and his preaching wasn't sophisticated and it wasn't the sort of thorough biblical exposition that I think you and I favor.
But you know, you give him credit for those things, but I think you have to say when you look at the effect of his work overall, there were no doubt lots of people who came to Christ because of his evangelistic work.
But when you look at the effect, the long -term effect of his ministry overall, I think it's indisputable that he weakened the stance of evangelicalism rather than strengthening it completely and almost totally because of his stance on ecumenism and ecumenical evangelism, this notion that let's bring the
Roman Catholics in and have them be participants, like you said, on the platform, give them the authority and approval.
And when people came forward to show an interest in the gospel or conversion, they were handed over to Roman Catholic counselors where Billy Graham, of all people, should have known that they're not gonna hear the gospel there.
So Graham was, I think, one of the early influences towards this idea that we really ought to minimize the need for precision in our teaching and our theology and try to make the evangelical movement seem as broad as possible.
You see that reflected in Christianity Today magazine and their drift towards liberalism and neo -orthodoxy.
And he was one of their founders. So Billy Graham was an influence in all of that. He was,
I think, one of the guys who got the ball rolling in the wrong direction at Fuller Seminary.
So I'm not a huge fan of his philosophy of ministry. In fact, I'm inclined to be very critical of it.
And I think a lot of what is wrong with the evangelical movement today started with changes he made, combined with the fact that it became very early on, as you said, almost the most politically incorrect thing you could do would be to disagree publicly with something
Billy Graham had done or said. Well, let me just ask, you're saying you believe it started with Billy Graham, yet many
I've talked to, including myself, would take it back even further and say that it was more like Charles Finney who started it.
Yeah, I mean, you're right about that. No question about it. And you could also say that D .L. Moody was a contributor to the trend.
But Graham was the first one whose pragmatism reached the point where he was willing to include
Roman Catholics into the mix and preach a version of the gospel that managed to go by the leading
Roman Catholic ears without in any way challenging what they taught or believed. Right, yeah, I see what you're saying, yeah.
Now, in what sense were you speaking of Finney? I know that he had a false gospel and was -
Yeah, Finney was in some ways worse because he didn't get the gospel right. He was a
Pelagian. You couldn't say that about Billy Graham. He wasn't a Pelagian. I think he truly understood the gospel and all that.
And I mentioned Moody, I should explain that as well. He had a sort of ecumenical tendency, very similar to Billy Graham's, but not as far -reaching.
Moody founded two schools, one in Chicago, Moody Bible Institute, which is my alma mater.
So I'm indebted to Moody and his legacy. And I don't wanna be too critical on it.
But the other schools he founded were there on the East Coast in Massachusetts. It was a girls' prep school, boys' prep school.
They went liberal very quickly. And I think what saved Moody Bible Institute really was the influence of R .A.
Torrey, who was more conservative and cautious than Moody about Moody's ecumenical tendencies.
But Billy Graham, I think, looked at all of that and said, you know, let's just take the barriers off and go full bore ecumenical.
We can get bigger audiences that way. We'll reach a bigger constituency that way. It'll give us more influence and more hearing.
And it doesn't matter if we compromise a little bit, if it means more people are gonna hear the gospel.
I mean, I think his motives were not utterly sinister. I think he wanted more people to hear the gospel.
And his pragmatic sense of what works told him that would be a good thing to do. But the effect of it has been steadily over the years.
And it's not that many years. You know, I think he started ecumenical evangelism, including Catholics, sometime in the 1950s.
We're talking less than 70 years ago. And now look at where we are, where the president of Fuller Seminary is saying, you know, if your theology proper isn't just overtly polytheistic, or even if there's a question about whether it's polytheistic or monotheistic, then we're willing to see you as moving towards orthodoxy and embrace you as brothers rather than, you know, looking at you as a cult.
It's deplorable that things could get that far gone in so little time.
And as I said, we're back to where we were really before the Protestant Reformation. So that the mainstream of the evangelical movement today is as theologically corrupt as medieval
Roman Catholicism was. Yes. Yeah, and we'll be picking up right where we left off when we return after this station break.
If you'd like to join us on the air with a question, our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com,
chrisarnson at gmail .com. We do have a couple of people who have already written questions, and we'll get to you as soon as possible.
So don't go away. We'll be right back after these messages. Paul wrote to the church at Galatia, for am
I now seeking the approval of man or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man,
I would not be a servant of Christ. Hi, I'm Mark Lukens, pastor of Providence Baptist Church. We are a reformed
Baptist church, and we hold to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. We are in Norfolk, Massachusetts.
We strive to reflect Paul's mindset to be much more concerned with how God views what we say and what we do, than how men view these things.
That's not the best recipe for popularity, but since that wasn't the apostles priority, it must not be ours either.
We believe by God's grace that we are called to demonstrate love and compassion to our fellow man, and to be vessels of Christ's mercy to a lost and hurting community around us, and to build up the body of Christ in truth and love.
If you live near Norfolk, Massachusetts, or plan to visit our area, please come and join us for worship and fellowship.
You can call us at 508 -528 -5750, that's 508 -528 -5750, or go to our website to email us, listen to past sermons, worship songs, or watch our
TV program entitled Resting in Grace. You can find us at providencebaptistchurchma .org,
that's providencebaptistchurchma .org, or even on sermonaudio .com. Providence Baptist Church is delighted to sponsor
Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. Are you a Christian looking to align your faith in finances? Then you'll wanna check out
Thriving Financial. We're not your typical financial services provider. We're a not -for -profit
Fortune 500 organization that helps our nearly 2 .4 million members be wise with money.
We provide guidance that reflects your values so you can protect what matters most. We help members live generously and strengthen the communities where they live, work, and worship.
Learn more about the Thriving story by contacting me, Mike Gallagher, financial consultant, at 717 -254 -6433.
Again, 717 -254 -6433. ♪ Oh, we know we were made for so much more ♪ ♪
Than ordinary life ♪ Lending faith, finances, and generosity.
That's the Thriving story. ♪ To survive ♪ ♪ We were made to thrive ♪
Charles Hedgens Spurgeon once said, Give yourself unto reading. The man who never reads will never be read.
He who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves that he has no brains of his own.
You need to read. Solid Ground Christian Books is a publisher and book distributor who takes these words of the
Prince of Preachers to heart. The mission of Solid Ground Christian Books is to bring back treasures of the past to minister to Christians in the present and future, and to publish new titles that address burning issues in the church and the world.
Since its beginning in 2001, Solid Ground has been committed to publish God -centered,
Christ -exalting books for all ages. We invite you to go treasure hunting at solid -ground -books .com.
That's solid -ground -books .com, and see what priceless literary gems from the past to present you can unearth from Solid Ground.
Solid Ground Christian Books is honored to be a weekly sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. Welcome back, this is
Chris Zarnes, and if you've just tuned us in for the last hour and the next hour to come, our guest today is
Phil Johnson, Executive Director of Grace to You, which is the radio, television, and publishing ministry of Dr.
John MacArthur. Today we have been discussing a theme, Mormons are brothers or a mission field, and it's actually a much larger issue than that.
It has to do with why evangelicals are becoming more and more aggressively ecumenical, even with those that deny the very gospel, or even deny monotheism.
If you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is chrisarnsen at gmail .com, chrisarnsen at gmail .com.
Before I go to a couple of our listeners who've already written in questions, I just wanna remind you that our friends at PNR Publishing, also known as Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, who are the newest sponsors of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, they wanted me to let you know that their pastor's retreat, that they are holding in cooperation with the
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, is taking place May 9th through 11th in Harvey Cedars Conference Center on the
Jersey Shore in New Jersey. Dan Doriani and David Powelson are two of the speakers at this pastor's retreat.
Both men have been guests on Iron Sharpens Iron, and if you want more details on attending this pastor's retreat, titled
The Faithful Shepherd, go to alliancenet .org, alliancenet .org,
and click on Events at the top of the page, and that will list, you'll be taken to a list of a whole bunch of events, but scroll down to The Faithful Shepherd Conference or Pastor's Retreat, May 9th through 11th.
I also want to remind you that the Iron Sharpens Iron Pastor's Luncheon is being held a week from tomorrow, that's
Thursday, April 28th, at the beautiful and recently renovated Thornwald Mansion, quite a historic building here in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, dating back to 1909,
I believe. It was once a mansion that was the site of lavish entertainment of national politicians, celebrities, and society's elite, and we are, as far as we know, according to the current owner we are the first Christian group to have a meeting in there, at least for the purpose of spreading the gospel and of enlightening and educating pastors and entreating pastors to a wonderful time of fellowship, relaxation, and edification, and this is all free of charge, you'll get free lunch, you'll get not only a message by David Wood, who is an expert on Islam, David has debated
Muslims all over the world and is probably one of the most thoroughly knowledgeable apologists in the area of Islam today, a convert from atheism to Christianity, but you'll also be hearing a word from Pennsylvania State Representative Stephen Bloom who is a very strong Bible -believing
Christian, unashamed of the gospel, has an unwavering commitment to his Christian faith that he does not hide in public, which is a refreshing thing to see and hear, he's been a guest on my program a couple of times, and so also every pastor that attends there is going to be leaving with a heavy sack of books that have been donated by publishers from all over the
United States and the United Kingdom, in fact, our guest today, Phil Johnson, made sure that our pastors in attendance are getting a book, can you tell us about that book,
Phil? It's John MacArthur's latest major book called Parables, it's a study of some of Christ's most important parables, published by Thomas Nelson, it's a hardcover book, and I know you'll enjoy it, but boy, that sounds like a great conference,
I'm tempted to get on an airplane and come out to it. Yeah, I wish you would, in fact, I would love to have you as the speaker at one of our future.
You know, if I didn't have a looming deadline, I'd be there, but I'm trying to finish editing a book that's coming due and I'm not gonna be able to go anywhere for a while.
Well, I can tell you it's worth it for the books and the meal alone. Yeah, it sounds like it, and not only that, but the messages, so.
Yes, and if you want more information on that, email me at chrisarnson at gmail .com,
chrisarnson at gmail .com. If you are a pastor or a man in ministry leadership, and I'm including deacons,
I'm including people who are running a parachurch organizations and so on, email me at chrisarnson at gmail .com.
You have to RSVP by this Saturday, and if you know anybody that either is in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, or is willing to travel there, who can be identified as a man in leadership, send them over to me at chrisarnson at gmail .com,
chrisarnson at gmail .com, and have them register for the luncheon. So we hope to see you there, we're looking forward to it.
We have Jeff in Clinton Township, Michigan.
He says, what are your thoughts on co -belligerence, such as evangelical leaders signing the
ECT document? Well, I wonder if Jeff really knew the answer to that question before he answered it.
But in fact, Dr. MacArthur and the late D. James Kennedy and R .C. Sproul did a wonderful presentation opposing the
ECT document back to when it first came out.
On the John Ankerberg program, I believe that was. Yeah, you know, the concept of co -belligerence sounds good and benign.
The idea is, look, we agree with Mormons and Catholics on the great moral debates that are taking place today.
We, they would agree with our position that homosexuality is immoral and shouldn't be legitimized that abortion is tantamount to murder and therefore shouldn't be legal.
So why not become co -belligerents with these people? We link up on the issues we agree with and combine our political clout and our voices in order to make ourselves heard.
We don't have to agree on other doctrinal issues in order to combine our efforts to oppose abortion.
And in effect, that's what evangelicals have been doing for 30 or 40 years now. And I was wary of it from the start.
I'm more opposed to the idea than ever because what invariably happens is you have these coalitions between evangelicals,
Catholics, Mormons, and whatnot to deal with these political issues. And in order to hold the coalition together, you have to downplay or silence your convictions on the central issues of scripture, the gospel.
Because if you wanna make the gospel clear and plain, you're going to have to stress the principle of sola fide, both the
Catholics and the Mormons who you're partnering with are going to be offended by that or disagree with it.
So you put the coalition in a dangerous position. My argument has always been that there's nothing more important than our convictions about who
Christ is and what the gospel is. And if we can't agree on those things, then it's actually counterproductive and confusing to unite on lesser matters just for the sake of political clout.
And if you look back over the past 30 years efforts, you have to say that all of the combined clout of Catholics, Mormons, evangelicals,
Jewish people, all of us who oppose abortion, hasn't really so far gotten us any traction in overturning abortion laws, you know?
So we're not winning the political battle with our co -belligerents, but what clearly has happened, and you can see it easily if you're honest and take a look at it, what has happened is the weakening of the evangelical movement's theological stance in a significant, significant way.
When I first became a Christian in the 70s, and as I said, I studied at Moody Bible Institute, there just wasn't the sort of willingness to ignore great issues like justification by faith or even the deity of Christ, to downplay those things and treat them as if those things are of secondary importance.
But the whole evangelical attitude has changed. And not only that, but what the world thinks we're saying is grossly confused.
If you ask the typical secular listener, person who's observed the drift and the message that comes out of the evangelical mainstream for the past couple of decades, what is evangelicalism?
What does it mean to be an evangelical? They're gonna describe it to you in political terms. They see us primarily as a political bloc.
They don't hear our theological message because we've been downplaying it.
Yeah, I can even remember being on a train and recognizing that the local
United Methodist pastor in my town was on the seat right across the aisle from me.
And I introduced myself to him. I told him that I knew and was friends with a evangelical
United Methodist pastor in a neighboring town, was wondering if he knew this pastor.
And his response was, well, there's a divide amongst
United Methodists. There are some that are more of the Bill Clinton type.
And there are some that are more of the Jerry Falwell, or actually he said more of the
George Bush type. That's what he said. Some who are more of the Bill Clinton type and some that are more of the
George Bush type. I would be more of the Bill Clinton type. I mean, he wasn't even using
Christian terminology or biblical terminology. Yeah, it's all about politics.
Right, and so I thought that was quite. It's the wrong message to be sending the world, frankly.
And now in this election year in particular, when you've got the perception is that the evangelical movement is pretty solidly behind Donald Trump, who is, you know, a more.
What can I say this? I mean, you're broadcasting to people with New York values. Yes. But I mean, morally speaking, he is as odious as any of the
Democratic candidates. I mean, just politics aside, regardless of what his political views are.
Yes. On a personal level, here's a man who boasts about his adulteries, who acts like a six -year -old in his interactions with people he disagrees with.
There's nothing about him that a Christian ought to look at and admire and say, this is who
I want to be our leader. And yet the message the world gets from evangelicals is that we think he might possibly be the answer our culture needs.
It's shameful, it's shameful. Yeah, and I have never been attacked, of course, in writing,
I'm speaking about, I've never been attacked more viciously in my Christian life since becoming a born -again believer in the 80s by other
Christians, like I have been after posting anything negative on the internet about Donald Trump.
And I've been utterly amazed and taken aback by even theologically -reformed people.
Yeah, I had the same experience. I don't normally say anything about politics, and my comments about Donald Trump weren't political.
It's about his character, it's about how he acts, and particularly about his casual attitude towards his own adultery while he's saying,
I'm the greatest of all Christians, but he says, I've never had to ask forgiveness from God.
This is so anti -Christian, forget the politics of it. I don't care what his politics are.
And I commented on that, and just a blast of resistance from Christian people on the internet.
And I'm thinking, it's odd, I could say any number of theologically -controversial things and never get that sort of passionate response.
And so it shows you that evangelicals are very, very passionate about politics, but they really don't care about doctrine.
And that's why I say the Church today really is in a worse state than before the
Protestant Reformation. Now, I could be wrong, but I think Abraham Kuyper coined the phrase co -belligerence,
I may be wrong. He may have, you know, he was a Dutch -reformed guy who was, in my view, probably too involved in politics.
He became the prime minister of Holland. And he led a movement that, and those days it was called neo -Calvinism, that he was one of the neo -Calvinists,
Calvinists with the sort of worldview that you hear from theonomists today, that Christ is Lord of all culture, and so Christians should be involved in all culture.
So politics is a realm that we need to sort of take control of and assert ourselves.
He became the prime minister of Holland, did a lot of good things. In fact, I've got some of his books, and he was a great theologian as well.
But look at the state of Holland today, and then ask yourself, did all of that energy that the
Dutch -Calvinists put into politics a hundred years ago really do Holland any good?
Well, I guess according to those who love smoking pot, it did. But having said all that, aren't there areas where you believe that there should rightly be some kind of interaction and cooperation between true born -again
Bible -believing Christians and those who are outside of our theology, but have some kind of common goal in society?
Like for instance, if you vote, the likelihood is that you are very often voting for somebody who's not even a
Christian at all, even if they profess to be. And unless you become like an
Amish person or some other group that does not get involved in any way, shape, or form with the political arena, aren't you in some ways being involved with co -belligerence?
Well, yeah, except I don't like that term because I think there's an agenda with those who use it.
There's no question that we're, I think the Amish approach is wrong.
Paul says to the Corinthians, look, I'm not asking you to go out of the world. We're not supposed to absent ourselves from the world or the affairs of the world.
I'm not suggesting that there's anything sinful about voting or being involved in politics, and particularly if that's what
God has called you to as a vocation. But what I am saying is don't let political issues or political strategies become the priority message in your life over the gospel.
If anything you're doing in politics, it becomes an incentive for you to tone down the gospel or back away from mentioning
Christ, then you're doing it wrong. And that happens all the time. I mean, Christians in politics, even the best
Christians in politics, put them on the spot and ask them, why do you oppose homosexuality?
And they will try to give you a lot of humanistic arguments and philosophical arguments about this or that, or the issue of pornography just recently came up.
So now we oppose pornography because, for health reasons? Yeah. You know, but not moral reasons.
And see, as Christians, we have to say, no, the morality of this is important as well. We oppose homosexuality because it is contrary to the design for which
God made us. He is our creator and our Lord, and therefore we're accountable to him for our fundamental morality.
And, you know, that's why homosexuality, that's the first reason homosexuality is wrong. It's not the last reason.
And I think Christians get the message upside down, and actually we become ashamed of the gospel, which is what
Paul said he would never do. And we do have,
I'm not sure what our listener, Jeff in Clinton Township, means by this, because it's just two words, or three words.
It's Moller at BYU. Oh, yeah, I know what he means. I guess
Al Moller visited Brigham Young University. Yeah, he spoke there about, I guess, four years ago or so.
Yeah. Okay, and I know that Ravi Zacharias did as well. In fact, Richard Moo was the one that introduced
Ravi Zacharias at that event. Now, should a Christian, I didn't hear what
Al Moller said. Yeah, he gave them the gospel. I appreciate that about Al Moller. I don't know that I would have, you know, encouraged him to accept an invitation there, because I am wary, and seeing what they did with a single meeting in John MacArthur's office, trying to spin that into a
PR coup to imply that John MacArthur's having brotherly conversations with Mormons, it was predictable that on the
Mormon side, they would take Al Moller's appearance and try to spin it as if, you know, he's pursuing some kind of co -belligerency with them.
But I listened to that message, and he did give the gospel. In fact, I think it was in that message where he made a statement that I thought was kind of profound.
He says, look, you know, we do agree on the abortion issue and certain things in our culture that we're all being persecuted for.
And he says, we may go to jail together, but he says, I don't believe we're gonna go to heaven together. Wow, wow.
And then he gave them the gospel. So he was that clear about it, and I appreciate that about Moller and all, though, again, if you had asked me beforehand, do
I think it's a good thing for him to go there, I would have said, no, I wouldn't do it. So you're not in favor of accepting invitations like that, even if you could be bold like Moller was?
Well, I wouldn't make a general rule about it, no. It depends on the nature of the invitation, and what my concern there is,
I think the Mormon Church in recent years has a pretty clear track record of trying to spin events like that into public relations for themselves.
And I would, if I accepted that invitation, and under certain circumstances, I can envision where I might, if I could do something or say something or make some agreement with them ahead of time that would guarantee that they are not gonna cloud, they're not gonna use the fact that I spoke there to try to cloud my position with regard to the question of whether Mormonism is truly
Christian or not. And there's just no doubt about that with Al Moller, you can listen to the message he gave there, it's very clear that, and he was clear with them, that he does not regard
Mormonism as a legitimate expression of Christian faith.
So I've been critical of him for that, I wouldn't be, even though maybe I wouldn't have done the same thing that he did.
Well, what about Robbie Zacharias? Did you hear what he said there? You know, I didn't listen to his whole message, I read some critiques of it, and it did sound to me like he was a little bit waffly, he wasn't as bold as Al Moller was in making it clear to the people in attendance that he did not regard them as fellow believers.
But I don't know, I didn't listen to the message, that's what the critics of it said. We do have
Arnie in Perry County, Pennsylvania, who says,
I have heard that Franklin Graham is much more biblically faithful and consistent than his father, is this true?
The only thing that I can say is that I know that Franklin Graham at least highlighted the fact that Muslims were involved in the terrorist attacks at 9 -11, on 9 -11, and was much more aggressive at speaking out against that specifically as a
Muslim terrorist attack, but I've been very disappointed by his accolades being lifted up before popes and him saying publicly that Pope John Paul II is certainly in heaven and that he was one of the greatest
Christian heroes of the 20th century and so on, what do you have to say about that? You know, I haven't listened that closely to Franklin Graham to really be able to speak intelligently on it.
It has been my impression that he is perhaps something less of an ecumenist and less of a diplomat than his father.
And there have been times when I've read things he said and heard things he said that I thought were surprisingly candid and good.
So, you know, but as you said, then there are other times when I think, why in the world would he say that?
So again, I'm not an expert on Franklin Graham. I wouldn't wanna criticize him unnecessarily or endorse him.
Yeah, I could just say that I heard him out of his own mouth after John Paul II died, saying that he knew with certainty that he was in heaven and that he was one of the greatest heroes of Christianity in the 20th century.
So obviously that's very disappointing to say the least. And it is,
I think you have to say that kind of thing is the fruit of his father's ecumenism.
I think you'd probably discover if you could pull, people who are faithful in their attendance at evangelical churches,
I'm not talking about peripheral evangelicals like usually come up in the polls. If you took the core of the evangelical movement, the most faithful churchgoers and polled them,
I fear you'd find the majority of them would share that perspective that, you know,
Catholics, they're believers just like we are. They may have a different denomination. And see, all that has shifted dramatically.
I remember vividly when I first, Grace, you had a partnership for years with the
Martin Lloyd -Jones Recordings Trust in England. And when I first began to talk to the
Lloyd -Jones, the leadership of the trust over there, one of the questions they asked me was, you know, where we stood on ecumenism and the drift of the ecumenical movement, and particularly partnerships with Roman Catholicism.
And I told them at the time, this was like 1980, in the 1980s, it was probably around 88 or 89.
And I told them at the time, I didn't know of any leading evangelicals who, other than Chuck Colson, who were in favor of Catholic evangelical detente.
And I think back on that and think either things have dramatically shifted since the late 90s, the late 80s, or I was totally naive at the time.
And I think probably both things are true, that I was a little naive, that I assumed most
American evangelicals were as wary of ecumenism as I was.
But you could not hold that fantasy anymore because it seems to me that today's evangelicals are maybe even more enthusiastic about ecumenical alliances than the liberals were in the late 1960s.
When did you come to Christ? 1971. Okay, see, I came to Christ in 74.
So we're about the same age, relatively speaking. And it seems to me overall that even back then, even though the problems existed, and of course,
I admit, I was one of the most naive people then, I had no religious background hardly before that.
But the understanding of the gospel has really diminished since then also.
Back then, when I came to Christ, there was a lot of easy believism and stuff, but at least people knew that Jesus died for sinners because we all sinned and we were culprits.
But in today's evangelicalism, we're the victims.
And well, man's really not, I don't know if people really believe that men are basically sinful anymore, even in the churches.
So there's so much that has changed. That you would expect our associations to change with it because those things aren't as important anymore as they used to be.
Yeah, yeah, it's just the speed with which it's changed has absolutely astonished me.
Back to this article by Richard Moore, one of the things he implies is that just singing a song in praise of Christ is a sufficient expression of faith in order for somebody to be saved.
A new sacrament, wow. Yeah, so I think he'd be happy to hear, and see,
I don't take that perspective at all. If I walked into a church where I knew heresy was taught and the gospel was denied, and heard them borrowing one of the great hymns of the faith and singing it, it would irritate me, it wouldn't encourage me to think that here's a bunch of people who deny the gospel and yet they're hypocritically mouthing words that you know they don't believe.
I'm not the least bit encouraged by that, but I think Richard Moore's perspective would be, you know, hey, that's good, at least they're singing songs that honor
Christ, so they can't be all bad. Yeah, I remember years ago attending my nephew's confirmation ceremony at his
Catholic church. I was not even a believer then, but I can remember them singing
Amazing Grace at this Roman Catholic church. Oh my. Yeah, I recently attended an unbeliever's funeral, and it was the same thing.
This guy was into all sorts of New Age stuff and everything, and no indication ever that he was a believer, and they sang
Amazing Grace, and I thought it's a shame that in his lifetime he didn't embrace the meaning of that song.
But you can't be encouraged by that. I mean, one of the most sort of passionate condemnations from God in the
Old Testament is, these people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
And we have to have that, we have to keep that perspective that God hates lip service religion, you know?
And to be encouraged because people who deny the gospel are singing hymns that have sound doctrine in them is backward thinking, utterly backward thinking.
Maybe I'm passionate about that, because I actually grew up going to Sunday school in a liberal church where, it was a
Methodist church, where in Sunday school we were taught, basically, don't take the Bible too seriously. These are myths and moral tales that we can learn the morality from, but don't believe this stuff.
And yet, then we'd sing some of the great hymns of the faith, and I would mouth the words as well, and until I became a believer,
I had no clue what I was singing. I think the most graphic example of that that really illustrated it was the fact that they played
Amazing Grace on the bagpipes at Mr. Spock's funeral. I mean, what did they know about that song, really?
Yeah, we all know that Spock was Pelagian. But anyway, we gotta go to our final break right now.
If you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is chrisarnson at gmail .com, chrisarnson at gmail .com.
If you'd like to join us with a question, send your email now, because we're running out of time. chrisarnson at gmail .com.
We'll be right back after these messages, so don't go away. Lindbrook Baptist Church on 225 Earl Avenue in Lindbrook, Long Island is teaching
God's timeless truths in the 21st century. Our church is far more than a Sunday worship service.
It's a place of learning where the scriptures are studied and the preaching of the gospel is clear and relevant. It's like a gym where one can exercise their faith through community involvement.
It's like a hospital for wounded souls where one can find compassionate people and healing. We're a diverse family of all ages.
Enthusiastically serving our Lord Jesus Christ. In fellowship, play, and together. Hi, I'm Pastor Bob Walderman, and I invite you to come and join us here at Lindbrook Baptist Church and see all that a church can be.
Call Lindbrook Baptist at 516 -599 -9402. That's 516 -599 -9402.
Or visit Lindbrookbaptist .org. That's Lindbrookbaptist .org. Attention coin collectors and investors.
Long Island Galleries of Wading River, New York has brilliant uncirculated 19th century
Morgan silver dollars for only $54 per coin with free shipping and handling for a limited time.
There's a 40 coin limit, so order now while supplies last. Call 888 -260 -8111.
888 -260 -8111. Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express welcome.
Price is subject to change, so call now at 888 -260 -8111. 888 -260 -8111.
If you prefer ordering your brilliant uncirculated 19th century Morgan silver dollars by check, mail it today to Long Island Galleries, 9
Susan Drive, Wading River, New York, 11792. That's Long Island Galleries, 9
Susan Drive, Wading River, New York, 11792. Remember, they're only $54 per coin with free shipping and handling and a 40 coin limit.
New York State residents must add sales tax. Long Island Galleries is honored to sponsor
Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. See the Long Island Galleries display ad at ironsharpensironradio .com.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said, give yourself unto reading. The man who never reads will never be read.
He who never quotes will never be quoted. He will not use the thoughts of other men's brains, proves he has no brains of his own.
Prince of Preachers to heart. The mission of Solid Ground Christian Books is to bring back treasures of the past to minister to Christians in the present and future and to publish new titles that address burning issues in the church and the world.
Since its beginning in 2001, Solid Ground has been committed to publish God -centered, Christ -exalting books for all ages.
We invite you to go treasure hunting at solid -ground -books .com.
That's solid -ground -books .com and see what priceless literary gems from the past to present you can unearth from Solid Ground.
Solid Ground Christian Books is honored to be a weekly sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. Welcome back.
This is Chris Zarnes, and if you just tuned us in for the last 90 minutes, our guest has been Phil Johnson, the executive director of Grace to You, which is the radio, television, and publishing ministry of Dr.
John MacArthur, and we are discussing basically ecumenism gone wild is really the broader theme of what we're talking about.
It started out as a discussion on Mormons, brothers, or mission field. If you'd like to join us on the air, our email address is chrisarnsen at gmail .com,
chrisarnsen at gmail .com. We have a listener. We have
CJ in Lindenhurst, Long Island, New York, who says, in regard to Billy Graham, is it more that what he does after he preaches the gospel to undermine it is more of the problem with him, or is it an actual doctrinal aberrancy that he believes?
Yeah, that's a good question, and I think so. I don't know that I have ever heard him preaching, say anything that was heretical, or, you know, and I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of Billy Graham's preaching, but I've never heard him, while he's preaching, say anything
I would disagree with. It's just stuff between, you know, the famous interview that he did with Robert Shuler, when he seemed to be encouraging
Shuler's universalism, or at least radical inclusivism, and it's not the only time he's said those things when giving interviews to women's magazines and things like that, and I think that obviously undermines the gospel that he preaches, and what he does preach is simple enough.
I don't want to say simplistic, because I think if you listen to Billy Graham, normally in an evangelistic message, you are going to hear the gospel, and he doesn't shy away from dealing with issues like sin and things like that, so it's not like he's watering it down, but it's a very simple message in which he wouldn't necessarily touch on the issue of the exclusivity of Christ, and that would be my big question for him.
Does he really believe that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation?
Is Christ the only way to heaven, or does he believe, as he has said, it seems to me in multiple contexts, does he believe it's possible to get to heaven without having any faith in Christ?
Those things leave people in a state of confusion and undermine what he does preach, and I think it's a deliberate sort of ambiguity from him, which is what
I think concerns me the most about it. Yeah, he seemed to be very clear in that interview with Schuller that he believes in the pluralistic understanding that Christ is necessary for salvation, but faith in him on this earth is not.
Right. That seemed to be clearly what he was saying, because he was talking about people almost unconsciously having faith in Christ who were adherents to other religions, non -Christian religions.
Right, and there are people who that's exactly what they teach, and he seemed to be affirming that, that, you know, saying, well, whether the
Islamic guy knows it or not, the one he has faith in is
Christ, you know, and so therefore that's good enough. That's so far from how
Christ taught and what the Bible says that it boggles the mind.
It boggles the mind, and it is a matter of deep concern. It is unfortunate, you know, back to what we said earlier, that for a few decades there in the 20th century, you just could not raise questions about Billy Graham or his teaching or practices.
He was an evangelical icon and not to be touched, but I think because he's said so many of these things, you know, in various interviews in recent years, it's a little easier to be open and honest about the concerns we have with Billy Graham.
Yeah, and in fact, when Larry King specifically, and Larry King, for those of our listeners who don't know, he is married to a
Mormon woman, but he asked Billy Graham specifically, how do you feel about the
Mormons? And his answer was, I have no problem with those people. Now, obviously, and people did put a spin on that, trying to defend him.
Well, I don't have a problem with Mormon people. It's the theology. You know, I mean, come on, give me a break.
Everybody knew what that was supposed to imply. He was putting a seal of approval on Mormonism.
Yeah, but like I said, I think it's a deliberate ambiguity. I'm not sure. I would find it hard to believe that Billy Graham really thinks that it's fine and dandy if you're a
Mormon. And that's close enough to the Christian faith that you should be okay. And he may believe that,
I don't know. But that's definitely the impression he left. And the fact that he didn't make it clear had to be intentional.
He's not an ignorant man. Right, well, one of the ways that I think that what
Billy Graham has said that undermines the truth that he has proclaimed is perfectly found in his message at the
National Cathedral after 9 -11. He gave a gospel presentation to a mixed group of people representing many different religions.
But he completely diffused the power of his proclamation of that gospel, because just by a simple phrase that he said before he gave the gospel.
He said, now I'm going to speak to the Christians here in the audience. This is for the
Christians, which completely diffused the power of that message to the
Muslims, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Wiccans, and all these other people that were there.
And that's why they gave him a standing ovation. If he had told them they needed Christ and that they needed to put their trust in his death and resurrection, that would have, the reaction would have been entirely different,
I'm convinced. I don't think that they would have given him a standing ovation as he left the podium that day if he had purposely and obviously given the gospel to those of other religions.
Yep, yep. We do have, let's see here. We have, where was it,
I lost it here. Oh, okay, we have B .B. in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who is asking, are you saying that Roman Catholics and Mormons are all going to hell?
Do you want to answer that, Phil? Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say it like that because I don't know,
I mean, obviously, Jesus said faith as much as a mustard seed will save you.
And I think there are a lot of people who are in the Catholic system who maybe have a basic, fundamental grasp of the gospel who maybe identify themselves as Catholics, but because of their ignorance of what the
Catholic church teaches and the fact that they've actually read scripture, it's possible, conceivable to me that someone in the
Catholic church who's a member of the Catholic church might actually believe enough of the gospel that, you know, to be redeemed.
But I will say this, if they understand Catholic teaching and that's what they believe, if they're good
Catholics, then they've rejected the gospel because the official stance of the
Roman Catholic church, their clear declaration is that if you believe that the righteousness of Christ is sufficient covering for your sin, that you can be justified before God solely on the grounds of Christ's righteousness, then the
Catholic church says you're anathema. So you're not permitted to trust in Christ alone and believe that salvation is by grace through faith alone.
At the Catholic church, you have to add your own works in the form of observing the sacraments and, you know, good works of all kinds.
And there's a treasury of merit from Mary and all the saints. Right, and all that merit from yourself and from Mary and the saints has to supplement the righteousness of Christ if you're going to be redeemed.
And so for them, justification is a long process that's really never complete until you finally get out of purgatory.
And that's why they have to have purgatory because they don't believe that you need a perfect righteousness to get into heaven.
Jesus was very clear about that. And the Catholic church doesn't believe that you can acquire a perfect righteousness by imputation.
And so you have to supplement the righteousness of Christ either here on earth or in purgatory and finally complete the righteousness that's required before you get to heaven.
That's a rejection of the gospel, which teaches us that those who are in Christ Jesus are justified and shall not come into condemnation.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. And you can't really believe that in the sense that scripture teaches it if you also buy into Roman Catholic doctrine.
So what I'm saying is not a comment about every single person who identifies himself as a Catholic. What I'm saying is about Catholic dogma in its pure form.
What the Catholic church teaches is antithetical to the gospel. And therefore, if you believe that, you've rejected the gospel.
Right, one humorous anecdote
I have to say about that whole issue is when Dr. James R.
White was debating Father Mitch Pacwa. And during the cross -examination period,
Father Pacwa asked James White, do you consider me your brother in Christ?
And James just simply put, well, if you are trusting in the gospel as Trent defines it,
I cannot embrace you as my brother because there's no hope in that gospel. And the
Council of Trent clearly anathematizes those who embrace the gospel as I believe it to be true from the scriptures.
Right, they not only anathematize those who believe in justification by faith, they anathematize anybody who believes settled assurance is possible in this life.
If you have assurance of your salvation, if you really believe you are going to heaven, then in the
Catholic church, you're anathematized. Right, and then when James White said that the
Apostle Paul, when he used that term, was clearly speaking about those being condemned to hell, and Father Pacwa said, yes, but how does the
Roman Catholic Church define that term? And James said, well, if you have a different definition than the
Apostle Paul, you've got a real problem there. So obviously, he didn't really answer, but.
Catholicism also encourages what they call implicit faith. It's an ignorant kind of faith where basically you don't need to know what the church believes, you just have to believe that the church is right.
Right. And so they're actually encouraging people to have this implicit faith in what they don't understand.
In a way, that's why I think the Catholic church is probably loaded with people who have a minimal understanding of Catholic doctrine, because you don't have to understand what the church teaches, you just have to affirm it.
And in the grace of God, if some of those people trust Christ alone for their salvation because they're ignorant of what their church teaches, then
I don't doubt that I'll see those people in heaven. Yeah, I like to remind my
Catholic friends who will accuse me of being an anti -Catholic bigot when these conversations arise,
I remind them that long before I was born, the Council of Trent condemned me for what
I believe the gospel to be. So you guys started this argument here, and therefore, and another thing that is just confusing to the mix is that you have a pope who is the most liberal pope that they've ever had, but even popes before him muddied the waters and so did
Vatican II. But the difference is that an opinion of a pope is not binding, dogma is, and the
Council of Trent is Catholic dogma. Right. And that cannot change. In fact, as liberal as the current pope is, he has never renounced the
Council of Trent, nor can he without toppling the whole doctrine of papal infallibility. Going back to that same question when are
Mormons all going to hell? Well, I can even remember an anecdote that James White told about a lady who was
Mormon and James was bringing to her attention their beliefs of Mormons becoming gods and many other things, and she was shocked by these things.
It turns out that the lady was a Baptist convert to Mormonism, and she converted without knowing what they actually taught as far as those really outlandish and extremely heretical and blasphemous teachings.
So I'm assuming. The willingness of people to nurture their own ignorance absolutely astonishes me, particularly when it gets to spiritual matters, which really are the most important things we believe and know, why would you want to exist in ignorance?
But a lot of people do, and so I wouldn't say that every
Roman Catholic I meet, I'm certain they're going to hell, but I will say that every Roman Catholic I meet, I'm certain they don't understand the gospel because if they did, if they really thoroughly understood it, they wouldn't stay in the
Roman Catholic Church. Well, how do you view the excuse that I remain in the
Catholic Church to be a witness to them? And even I know a person who is a convert to evangelical
Christianity from Mormonism who remained in the LDS cult for 20 years, and he said that he remained there much for the same reason and also because he was fearful of losing his wife and children.
He admits now that that was wrong, but how do you buy that argument that I'm there to be a voice of the truth, so that's why
I remain there? Yeah, I mean, you hear that all the time. I was, as I said, I sort of grew up in a liberal denomination in the
United Methodist Church, and there are lots of people in that denomination who say they are evangelicals, and no reason to doubt that, but they stay in for that reason.
They think they can reach people or maybe turn the denomination around, and all I can say is in the history of the church,
I can't think of one example where that's ever happened, where a denomination that became apostate was recovered for good.
It just doesn't happen, and it's naive to think that it will, and it's also disobedient.
I also know that when somebody says something like that, he's not a real student of the Old Testament because I can't imagine someone trying to give the excuse to God that he hangs around the
Baal Temple so that he can minister to Baal worshipers. That's a very good point.
Yeah, if Elijah didn't take that approach, then I'm not going to either. And you could even say in the
New Testament, well, I'm a Judaizer, not really, because I agree with the Judaizers.
Well, that's actually a very good example. I mean, in fact, J. Gresham Machen had a very good observation on that.
He says when you analyze the difference between Paul and the Judaizers, it's really a simple difference in the ordo salutis.
Do good works necessarily precede justification or follow it?
That's the whole gist of their disagreement on one point of the ordo salutis, and yet he anathematized them because that was an error that actually changed the whole meaning of the gospel and eliminated grace.
It's the very same error, frankly, that you have deeply embedded in the Roman Catholic system. So you can just imagine, can't you, that if Paul were ministering today, there would be hordes of evangelical leaders admonishing him not to be so hard on the
Judaizers. Look how much stuff they have right. Why can't you make common cause with them? Why can't you encourage what they have right instead of rebuking what they get wrong?
Because it's only this one little point that they get wrong. That would be the argument.
We do have an anonymous listener who says, aren't you turning the simplicity of the gospel into salvation by theological precision?
Yeah, that's a common argument. And no, because I think the gospel is very simple. But like I said, that was
Paul's argument as well. It depends on the gravity of the point that is gotten wrong.
And if you're attacking justification by faith, you're attacking the linchpin of gospel truth.
And the whole thing comes apart at that point. And so, yeah, you do have to make an assessment.
You can't anathematize everybody for every little disagreement. I mean, I have lots of Presbyterian friends and we disagree on the mode and meaning of baptism, but I wouldn't anathematize them because that isn't an issue that goes to the very heart of the gospel, like justification by faith.
So there has to be a hierarchy of truths. Going back to the original thing we talked about, there has to be a hierarchy of truths.
There has to be that some truths are essential and primary. And Paul speaks of that in 1
Corinthians 15, when he talks about the matters of first importance. And if those issues, the matters that are of first importance are attacked or compromised, then we have to draw the line at that point.
And scripture's very clear on what some of those things are. It can't be a different Christ.
It can't be a different gospel. Somebody who proclaims a different gospel or preaches a different Christ, you cannot have fellowship with.
You just can't. We're forbidden by scripture from doing that. It doesn't mean if you disagree with me on the mode of baptism or how often we ought to observe the
Lord's table, that we could disagree on things like that without anathematizing one another. And honestly, despite the fact that people love to point out that there are hundreds and maybe thousands of Protestant denominations, historic
Protestants, evangelical Protestants, who basically have been faithful to the classic
Protestant confessions, have, over the centuries, done a remarkable job of maintaining unity with one another despite their secondary differences.
We do agree on the gospel. We do worship the same Christ, and we embrace one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.
It's when you want to knock down the basic, the fundamental barriers that make us evangelical, that's when
I say you've reached the point where we can't celebrate the faith of one another because what you believe and what
I believe are so at odds with one another that we simply can't affirm one another.
And we're out of time, and I know that Grace TU's website is gty .org. And what's the website for the
Spurgeon Archive? It's spurgeon .org, but I've turned that over to Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, so they run it now.
Well, I want to thank you so much, Phil, for being on the program, and I look forward to your return. Thanks for having me. And I want everybody to always remember for the rest of your lives that Jesus Christ is a far, far greater savior than you are a sinner.