Dr. Blomberg, a professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, and Dr. Robinson, a professor of ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University, each address four key themes of the Bible, interacting closely with each other. At the end of each chapter and at the end of the book, a joint statement of conclusions is presented.

Despite its worthwhile goals, we believe in several respects this book misses the target. While points of agreement certainly exist between Mormons and Evangelicals, the book comes too close to suggesting that Mormonism is “Christian” or perhaps a heterodox version of Christianity. In an interview with Cornerstone, Dr. Blomberg explained that he does not believe Mormonism is Christian and that, in the final analysis, Mormonism teaches a “different Jesus” in the sense used in 2 Corinthians 11:4. However, this clarity in personal conversation is not so apparent to the casual reader, and we are especially concerned that the book does not adequately convey Blomberg’s private convictions.

HWTD? recognizes that Mormons and Evangelicals have both been trying to “win” each other for many years and makes no attempt to quell this mutual evangelism. However, the authors assert that Evangelicals have often misunderstood Mormon beliefs, just as Mormons have often misunderstood the evangelical position.

Mormons often find that the debate is over what they believe rather than whether their beliefs are valid or biblical. Many times throughout the book, Professor Robinson laments that Mormons are accused of things they do not believe, and he wishes his statements regarding his own beliefs were accepted at face value. “For example,” Robinson writes, “when I say that I believe in Jesus Christ or in justification by faith in Christ, I often hear in return, ‘Oh, no you don’t, and I can prove it,’ accompanied by a flurry of prooftexts culled from sources supposedly more reliable than I am on the subject of what I believe” (p. 162).

Dr. Blomberg didn’t address this concern in his response, so I will respond briefly. Professor Robinson’s compatriots do not usually show up in my living room to persuade me to join the church that they founded, but to join the church that Joseph Smith founded, supposedly under divine direction.

Robinson has every right to the inviolability of his own beliefs. But if the act of bearing testimony to the Book of Mormon and the benefits of the Latter-day Saints (LDS) Melchizedek priesthood has an object in mind (namely, my conversion), then it seems perfectly proper for me to introduce the doctrines of LDS General Authorities who hold a higher church office than either Dr. Robinson or the Mormon missionaries.

We believe HWTD? is a good example of how dialogue might be conducted in conversation. But it is not a good example of how dialogue should be conducted in print. Why? In a live conversation about a matter of controversy, it is normal to let a dubious statement “slide” past in order to arrive at a more important point—if either party decides to debate every little misstatement, the conversation will go nowhere. But in printed text, authors have time for fact-checking, redrafting, and precise argumentation. In writing, space limitations may force you to omit things you’d like to say (believe me, I feel it now!), but you have the opportunity to make sure every word counts. Moreover, since the written word is more permanent and liable to vast distribution, we have a greater obligation not to let errors creep into our own presentation nor to silently overlook misstatements or errors by our respondent.

Another difficulty we have with HWTD? occurs with Dr. Robinson as the representative of Mormonism. Though Dr. Robinson is certainly in good standing with the LDS Church, we believe he is much closer to the evangelical position than the average Latter-day Saint. As a result, evangelical readers may presume that the typical Mormon shares Dr. Robinson’s beliefs on grace, monotheism, exaltation, and so forth.

Finally, though Dr. Blomberg is well-suited for his defense of the New Testament and the Christian gospel, he is not a specialist in Mormon history and theology. Some half-truths about Mormon beliefs made by Professor Robinson fairly begged for a response, yet none was forthcoming. It is possible that this was due to Dr. Blomberg’s “laid-back” approach, but it is also possible that Blomberg was at a disadvantage in this regard. (Having a copy of the Infobases LDS Collectors Library CD would have certainly helped him.) While Dr. Blomberg’s familiarity with LDS theology is appreciable, some details of Mormon thought appear to have been overlooked.

In the chapter on Scripture, Dr. Blomberg introduces the reader to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, a widely accepted treatise of how Evangelicals define inerrancy. He shows the high degree of confidence we have that the present biblical texts represent the original manuscripts of Scripture. He contrasts this with the Book of Mormon’s claim that “many plain and precious things” have been removed from the Bible (1 Nephi 13:28), and briefly discusses canonicity. (The Mormon canon of Scripture includes the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.)

Blomberg makes a telling critique of the Book of Mormon being a product of the nineteenth century rather than an ancient document. He also describes the “Joseph Smith Translation” (JST)—a significant revision of the KJV text by Joseph Smith, ostensibly to remedy an alleged mutilation of the Bible. (By the way, the JST “restores” such things as Adam being baptized by immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the mark of Cain being black skin.[1])

Do Mormons believe the Bible is inerrant? Amazingly, Dr. Robinson affirms that Latter-day Saints would accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy where it pertains to the Bible (57, 63, 75, 89, 195)! I am skeptical of this for several reasons:

Robinson writes, “I would point out that John thought Jesus was crucified the afternoon before Passover . . . while Matthew, Mark and Luke say Jesus ate the Passover with the disciples and was crucified the morning after” (136). Robinson never suggests that the contradiction might result from a reading error on our part. In Robinson’s view, it seems one of the Gospel writers presented false information.

Robinson says that though the biblical texts are “essentially correct in their present form” (63), “changes were made in the present text . . . between A.D. 55 and 200” and “it is the LDS contention that [even] the evidence [for these changes] was deleted” (206 n17).

He claims the JST revisions do not “necessarily” restore “the original texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John” (65) and may even contain “clarification and corrections of the originals as well as corrections to the original” (64). In other words, the JST sometimes restores material deleted in the second century, sometimes adds additional material needed for our day, and sometimes corrects mistakes in the original texts.

It is therefore difficult to resist the impression that Dr. Robinson is merely using the Chicago Statement to gain the confidence of Evangelicals, and that he himself is either ignorant of its contents or somehow believes that errors and false statements in the autographs do not affect inerrancy.

Finally, though Dr. Robinson says he believes “every book, every chapter, every verse” of the Bible (17, 20, 72), neither he nor Dr. Blomberg inform us that, according to the JST, “The Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.”[2] Since Mormons believe the JST is “inspired” (64), does Robinson reject the Song of Solomon as well?

Chapter 2 begins with Dr. Robinson’s presentation of the Mormon doctrine of God. He avers that “in the LDS view God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite, eternal and unchangeable” (77). Yet He also “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (78) and was once a human being (87). Ages ago, this Being advanced to Godhood and from then on has been unchangeable.

Furthermore, Robinson asserts that God intends to deify His redeemed children, exalting some of them to godhood, giving them not only His moral perfections but His essential attributes such as omnipotence (82). He mistakenly claims “only three passages in LDS Scripture” deal directly with deification (83), omitting Abraham 4:1-5:20. He admits that quasi-canonical status has been granted to Joseph Smith’s statement that “God is an exalted man” and to the popular Law of Eternal Progression: “As man is, God once was; as God now is, man may become” (85, 209 n12). Apart from these two aphorisms, Robinson pleads with Evangelicals to ignore the “speculations” of “nineteenth-century writers” (73, 85, 93), and focus on the more limited (and ambiguous) statements in LDS canonical scripture.

Just how does Dr. Robinson justify the Mormon belief that men can become Gods, and that a prior God existed who bestowed deity on God the Father? Robinson says these questions “are not the subjects of biblical information,” and the additional revelations from Joseph Smith are “not contradicting the Bible but filling in its theological gaps” (86).

When Dr. Blomberg presents the evangelical position, he does not inform the readers of the LDS belief in one or more Heavenly Mothers, something surely relevant to this topic. I also believe Isaiah 43:10 would have been relevant here: “Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.” This passage shuts the door on antecedent Gods (necessary to raise God the Father from mortality to divinity) and on the creation of subsequent Gods through deification. Other passages such as Isaiah 45:5 (“there is no God besides Me”) and Isaiah 46:9 (“I am God, and there is none like Me”) are also pertinent, since Mormonism teaches that the Heavenly Mother is a partner like and with the Heavenly Father in a sacred, covenantal relationship.

While discussing his misgivings about the LDS position, Dr. Blomberg repeats the claim of Dr. Robinson that only “unofficial Mormonism developed its notion of the Creator God as merely one among the other gods, who was created by them” (105).

The supposedly unofficial “notion” of a God who was Himself created came from none other than Joseph Smith, in the same sermon which gives Mormons the normative statement that God is an exalted man. Smith claimed that previous Gods exalted our God to deity. When Professor Robinson asks us to ignore the “speculations” of nineteenth-century writers, he is really referring to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the early prophets of the LDS Church.

Dr. Blomberg opens by presenting the evangelical view of the two natures of Christ, showing that Christ could be functionally subordinate to the Father (below Him in position or operation), and also ontologically equal to the Father (equal in essence or being). These two concepts are not contradictory, just as an earthly parent and child possess different functions but equal natures. Blomberg explains why Evangelicals believe in one God in three Persons, but Robinson writes that though “Mormons can accept the formula” (129), they prefer to conceive of God as consisting of three “separate and distinct divine beings” (131). (Current editions of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and Mormon Doctrine refer to the Godhead as “three Gods,” but Professor Robinson doesn’t tell us that.)

Blomberg observes that numerous verses from the Book of Mormon show a fierce monotheism (almost to the point of modalism), but that Smith’s later revelations regarding plural Gods can better be explained as a developing (I would say contradictory) theology (125). A little earlier, he says we get the impression “that Mormons see Christ as a created being, even if he is the first and highest of all creation” (121). In response, Robinson quotes John 1:1, defending Jesus “in his preexistent state as God” (136). It should be noted that Joseph Smith revised John 1:1, removing the deity of Christ from this verse (though His deity is preserved in other parts of LDS Scripture).

Second, Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 93:21, 23 has Jesus saying, “I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn. . . . Ye were also in the beginning with the Father.” Mormons believe in the eternal preexistence of all spirits, not just the spirit of Jesus. The Heavenly Parents, through procreation, provided spirit bodies for them all, including Christ. According to Mormon Doctrine, “Christ is literally our Elder Brother. Since all men are the personal spirit children of the Father, and since Christ was the Firstborn spirit offspring, it follows that he is the Elder Brother of all men.”[3] However, Christ was generated first, and then as God He created the universe (D&C 38:1-3). Dr. Blomberg gets the “impression” from Mormons that Christ is a created being, but that idea is in fact standard teaching from LDS authorities.

Salvation by grace through faith is the watershed which separates Christianity from every other world religion. The Evangelical position is that we are saved solely by grace through faith in the risen Christ. Robinson writes that “Latter-day Saints find ‘salvation by grace alone’ to be unbiblical” (148) and seeks to identify with an Arminian position which requires obedience to the will of God and “enduring to the end” (149) to be finally saved, since (by Arminian and Wesleyan standards) a believer can lose his salvation.

In the LDS view, one’s “works” contribute to rewards or exaltation in the afterlife, and Robinson says “continued faithfulness is required in order not to fall from grace after we have been saved” (159). The issue of “Lordship salvation” is raised here (i.e., if Jesus is not truly Lord, is He truly Savior?), and Mormons, according to Robinson, also identify with this facet of Evangelicalism.

We believe Arminian and Mormon views of salvation should not be equated for four reasons. (1) Due to its concept of the “three degrees of glory,” Mormonism teaches that everyone will be “saved,” even liars, adulterers, sorcerers, and whoremongers who die in unbelief (D&C 76:82, 103). Thus, faith in this life is not essential for salvation, which can take place after death. (2) Mormonism teaches that for some sins, including murder, adultery, and covenant-breaking, the atonement of Christ is not sufficient to save them. According to a recent LDS president, “If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf.”[4] Though the LDS relate this to capital punishment, it also relates to forgiveness before the throne of God. (3) To Arminians, justification is a verdict of righteousness imputed to the sinner. In LDS theology, “Justification is available because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, but it becomes operative in the life of an individual only on conditions of personal righteousness.”[5] (4) In biblical theology, eternal life and justification occur simultaneously and are appropriated in a single act of faith. In LDS thinking, eternal life means exaltation to godhood.

In their joint conclusion, the authors affirm that Mormons and Evangelicals “both believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ, justification by faith in Christ, and salvation by grace” (187), although a footnote to this statement says “most Mormons would never use the term ‘salvation by grace,’ and they would probably deny believing in it if asked”! Robinson claims this is due to the Mormon custom of calling “salvation” what Evangelicals call “sanctification,” i.e., a personal growth that is measured by obedience to Christ. However, the problem lies far deeper. According to contemporary LDS authorities, justification is only provisional, requiring good works to “become operative,” and eternal life is not obtained when we trust Christ for salvation.

HWTD? leaves us with two areas of concern. The first is a joint statement of “foundational principles of the Christian gospel” on page 195. It uses terms like one eternal God, saved, gospel, and others which Mormons define differently than Evangelicals. This joint statement is followed by a list of eleven issues of disagreement immediately below it. This second list reveals the importance of definitions: whether God is three beings, whether God was once a man, whether we are justified by faith alone—all are matters needing additional discussion.

Inevitable comparisons will be drawn between this and the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT) document. Blomberg told us there is really no cause for such comparison. “We stated several times, in italics so no one would miss it, that these areas of agreement do not mean that evangelism or proselytizing of each other should stop [see pp. 20, 141, 191]. One of the weaknesses of the ECT document is that people who read it initially thought that was what they were saying, so the Evangelicals went back to produce a second text affirming that evangelism among Roman Catholics was a legitimate outreach. Our work never went that far, and we never implied that sort of unanimity.”

The second area of concern is in the authors’ inadequate treatment of salvation and atonement. Though correctly recognizing that salvation is the heart of the Christian message, many key terms— including gospel, justification, eternal life, and original sin-- were not defined from standard and contemporary LDS sources. By allowing Dr. Robinson to set the agenda by quoting mainly biblical and Book of Mormon references (which are fairly orthodox), as well as his own writings, Mormonism appears far more evangelical than it actually is.

We deeply appreciate the irenic and charitable attitude of the authors, but we do not believe that this presentation adequately portrays Mormonism for the uninformed reader.

1. Adam’s baptism: Moses 6:52, Gen. 6:53 (JST). Cain being black: Moses 7:22, Gen. 7:29 (JST). [return]

2. Joseph Smith Jr., The Holy Scriptures, Containing the Old and New Testaments: An Inspired Revision of the Authorized Version (Independence, Mo.: Herald Publishing House, 1944), 799. [return]

3. Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 214. [return]

4. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1 (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954), 135-136. [return]

5. McConkie, 408. [return]

First published in Cornerstone (ISSN 0275-2743), Vol. 26, Issue 112 (1997), p. 43-44, 46-47
© 1997 Cornerstone Communications, Inc.
Electronic version may contain minor changes and corrections from printed version.