Ask an evangelical and a Mormon what the other believes, and you may get many opinions, not all of them accurate. Ask professors Gerald McDermott and Robert Millet to discuss their beliefs, and you get a frank, informative comparison of both. Though sometimes on opposite poles, these scholars and close friends are determined to model love and respect despite serious theological differences. In a debate format, the authors focus on the person and role of Jesus while exploring such issues as authority for faith and practice, whether Mormons are Christians, the elements of salvation, and the church and its sacraments. Used for a class series, small group resource, or devotional reflection, this volume will give thoughtful readers of all persuasions a greater understanding of two significant outlooks on faith.
| |||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Ten years ago, professors Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg pioneered the Mormon-evangelical dialogue book with How Wide the Divide?, in which they addressed the differences between Mormonism and evangelicalism on issues of Scripture, salvation, the nature of God and the role of Christ. Now, Millet (a professor of religious education at BYU, the flagship Mormon university) and McDermott (a Lutheran pastor and college professor) take up that gauntlet, calling upon years of friendship and conversation to present a more focused, specialized exchange between an evangelical and a Mormon. By concentrating solely on how both faiths address the identity and meaning of Jesus Christ (a topic Millet has previously discussed in A Different Jesus?), this dialogue delves deeply into issues Robinson and Blomberg could only skim. It also means that this more scholarly and heavily footnoted book will be a challenging read for the average evangelical or Mormon who simply wants an overview of both religions' theology. The authors assume a familiarity with theological terms, Christian history and soteriological debates, and some of their explanations are highly technical. For the serious student, however, this in-depth doctrinal comparison of Mormonism and evangelical Christianity, written in a spirit of mutual respect, will be a treasure trove of information. (Nov.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From the Back Cover
"Theological dialogue between some Mormons and some evangelicals has reached a high and serious point. This frank, informative, and charitable volume enhances that dialogue significantly. It is not the last word on this vitally important subject, but for both Mormons and evangelicals, it is a most helpful (and hopeful) word." --Mark Noll, author of A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada
"The challenge of interdenominational dialogue--like any genuine dialogue--is not to resolve disagreement, but to capture it and represent it accurately and in good faith. McDermott and Millet do just that in a conversation that models for all of us how to move beyond the chimeras and to value the truth more than our cherished--and often faulty--perceptions. An illuminating work in the best sense." --Teryl Givens, professor of English, University of Richmond
"Even the most well-intentioned, knowledgeable, and careful writers can find it difficult to represent in detail perspectives with which they significantly disagree. When the two spokespersons are friends and write courteously, highlighting agreements as well as disagreements, but without pulling any punches, readers are immeasurably blessed. Millet and McDermott undertake this discussion admirably as mainstream, articulate, compassionate, and informed advocates of twenty-first century Mormonism and evangelicalism, respectively. A must read for anyone interested in the topic!" --Craig Blomberg, coauthor of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation
"It is difficult to imagine two scholars from the mainstream of Mormonism and the mainstream of orthodox Christianity better suited to engage in such a frank and fair debate over the person of Jesus, the heart of each faith. This book is deeply valuable for the ways in which it will advance the emerging dialogue--rather than the traditional mutual recrimination--between members of these two groups. It is also significant as a model of constructive and critical dialogue among members of different faiths at a time in our society when such dialogue can be drowned out by simplistic screamers on all sides." --John G. Stackhouse Jr., author of No Other Gods before Me? Evangelicals and the Challenge of World Religions
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 10 people found the following review helpful
By J. E. Decker
Format:Paperback
The book is a sham... the dialogue is a sham..
Simply out, the game is in the names.. Jesus, Heavenly Father, God, The Lord, Baptism, Salvation [one or two] Blood of Christ, Redemption, The Cross, The Gospel.. all common enough words..but they have completely separate meanings to the Mormon and the Evangelical..
Smiles and gentle hearts abound, but the meanings separate the two sides across a thick wall of deceit. The author knows full well that he is playing the name game and loving it...
Simply out, the game is in the names.. Jesus, Heavenly Father, God, The Lord, Baptism, Salvation [one or two] Blood of Christ, Redemption, The Cross, The Gospel.. all common enough words..but they have completely separate meanings to the Mormon and the Evangelical..
Smiles and gentle hearts abound, but the meanings separate the two sides across a thick wall of deceit. The author knows full well that he is playing the name game and loving it...
11 of 27 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Mcdermott concedes that MC has been falsely persecuting the LDS for over a century. The three points he continues to dispute however are the nature of God, creation out of nothing, and modern authorized revelation.
First Mcdermott uses Old testament scripture to support the hellenized Nicence God. What he misunderstands about these scriptures is that nations surrounding Israel at the time worshiped various Gods but they were not the true God. Thus Moses, along with other prophets, would teach and warn there is but one God and no others beside him.
Mcdremott disregards numerous biblical verses that testify that God and Jesus are distinct beings with bodies. Jesus claimed that the father is greater the he, Stephen saw Christ on the right hand of God, God proclaiming that he is well pleased with his son, The great intercesssory pray, Jesus ascending to heaven in front of the disciples and the angels proclamation he will return in like manner, the significance of the resurrection, legion desiring bodies of swine to no body. etc. McDermott calls these plain and simple statments divine mysteries. But if such simple and plain language is a mystery, then what is to stop the whole bible from being viewed in this light. This reminds one of the broad way Christ warned of. That MC represents an anything goes as long as Christ is mentioned form of worship is easily dicernable. The danger is that MC worships a false God fashioned by Greek philosophers which keeps man in the dark. It refuses him lasting peace in this world and the obtaining of eternal life in the next.
Light (truth) is shining in darkness and the darkness rejects the light because its works are dark. These works are adhereing to false traditions, and the preaching for fame and fortune. It is the same obstacle Christ and his followers had to confront. Modern and ancient parallels are strikingly similar.
MC rejects the need for modern apostles and prophets (revelation) but the early church was built and maintained upon the rock of revelation. New apostles were ordained when a vacancy arose. If divine revelation ceases to flow through ordained individuals, Christ's church cannot exist. What amazes is that with the abundant evidence provided, MC continues to prefer darkness and keep souls from the light. The LDS church is a warning to MC and the world that it needs to repent and prepare for the return of Christ. The LDS church is going forth in the spirit and power of Elias. Elias has returned and restored these keys. Like Moses pleading with Israel to look upon the serpent and live, the LDS plead with the world to look and partake of the restoration and live.
First Mcdermott uses Old testament scripture to support the hellenized Nicence God. What he misunderstands about these scriptures is that nations surrounding Israel at the time worshiped various Gods but they were not the true God. Thus Moses, along with other prophets, would teach and warn there is but one God and no others beside him.
Mcdremott disregards numerous biblical verses that testify that God and Jesus are distinct beings with bodies. Jesus claimed that the father is greater the he, Stephen saw Christ on the right hand of God, God proclaiming that he is well pleased with his son, The great intercesssory pray, Jesus ascending to heaven in front of the disciples and the angels proclamation he will return in like manner, the significance of the resurrection, legion desiring bodies of swine to no body. etc. McDermott calls these plain and simple statments divine mysteries. But if such simple and plain language is a mystery, then what is to stop the whole bible from being viewed in this light. This reminds one of the broad way Christ warned of. That MC represents an anything goes as long as Christ is mentioned form of worship is easily dicernable. The danger is that MC worships a false God fashioned by Greek philosophers which keeps man in the dark. It refuses him lasting peace in this world and the obtaining of eternal life in the next.
Light (truth) is shining in darkness and the darkness rejects the light because its works are dark. These works are adhereing to false traditions, and the preaching for fame and fortune. It is the same obstacle Christ and his followers had to confront. Modern and ancient parallels are strikingly similar.
MC rejects the need for modern apostles and prophets (revelation) but the early church was built and maintained upon the rock of revelation. New apostles were ordained when a vacancy arose. If divine revelation ceases to flow through ordained individuals, Christ's church cannot exist. What amazes is that with the abundant evidence provided, MC continues to prefer darkness and keep souls from the light. The LDS church is a warning to MC and the world that it needs to repent and prepare for the return of Christ. The LDS church is going forth in the spirit and power of Elias. Elias has returned and restored these keys. Like Moses pleading with Israel to look upon the serpent and live, the LDS plead with the world to look and partake of the restoration and live.
5 of 18 people found the following review helpful
By John Divito
Format:Paperback
The Apostle Paul warns us against "he that cometh [and] preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached," or offers "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted" (2 Corinthians 11:4). Devious preachers may proclaim another Jesus, another spirit, or another gospel. With this in mind, how does one know which Jesus is the true Jesus? Do Mormons preach the true Jesus? Do evangelicals? Do Mormons and evangelicals believe in the same Jesus? These are the kinds of questions that Mormon scholar Robert Millet and evangelical scholar Gerald McDermott debate in Claiming Christ.
After providing background on their personal friendship, McDermott and Millet take turns interacting on various topics related to Christ. Starting with their sources of authority, the co-authors move on to a discussion of Christ before Bethlehem, the Trinity, Jesus' passion and atonement, the historical Jesus, the church and the sacraments, salvation in Christ, and the fate of the unevangelized. In each chapter, one writes the main article, the other follows with a response, and a final rebuttal concludes the section. This format allows the reader to grapple with both authors' views.
Unfortunately, McDermott's role as an evangelical contributor is compromised by his deficient view of the Bible. He denies biblical inerrancy, questions the sufficiency of Scripture, and rules out the principle of Sola Scriptura (i.e., that the Bible alone is our final authority in faith and practice). Thus, he says "'The real question, then, is not whether we will be influenced by tradition in our reading and interpreting, but which tradition?'" (20). Unfortunately, McDermott misses the point. Sola Scriptura does not mean that we can interpret Scripture apart from tradition; it means that the Bible is the Christian's ultimate standard of truth. We can (and must!) subject our traditions to what God has revealed in Scripture. The Word of God is the ultimate arbiter of truth.
Since McDermott denies these fundamental beliefs, he comes across as more interested in maintaining historic orthodoxy rather than in biblical faithfulness. A typical example would be his treatment of the gospel and the relationship between faith and works. Rather than expositing relevant biblical passages, McDermott gives the reader a comparative analysis of the views of Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards. In the following chapter on the destiny of the unevangelized, McDermott does not try to answer this difficult issue with Scripture; instead, he summarizes the positions of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, showing that Christians throughout history have been somewhat flexible. Often I was left asking: So what? How is one to know whether these Christians were right or wrong in their views? The Mormons, as it turns out, have an answer: An authoritative prophet tells us. McDermott never effectively counters the Mormon claim with the proper response--namely, that we have authoritative Scripture to enable us to discern truth from error. Orthodoxy is the result of biblical faithfulness. And while church history can assist us in understanding our faith, it must never be the basis upon which we establish our faith.
McDermott often fumbles when trying to point out similarities between Mormonism and historic Christianity. For example, he consistently maintains that Mormons believe Jesus is fully divine. He actually states: "Rejecting the Nicene definition of the Trinity but holding to the full deity of Jesus and salvific value of his cross and resurrection seems not as serious as denying the incarnation and the atonement" (221). But as I have written to him before:
". . . I do not know how you can maintain: 'On the LDS and Jesus, it is a fact that the Mormon view of Jesus is better than the Jehovah's Witness view, which is fully Arian. They do indeed believe Jesus is fully God.' While I have no problem insisting upon the defectiveness of the JW Jesus, the LDS Jesus is no less defective. The LDS do not believe that Jesus is fully God--if we are defining God consistently. The only way one could maintain that the Mormons believe that Jesus is fully God is by committing the fallacy of equivocation, for the God we refer to is nothing like the God of Mormon doctrine. The word 'God' is not some nebulous, abstract notion. God has revealed what divinity is to us.
"Essentially, the LDS church redefines 'God' when applying the term to Jesus. And in his case, it is no different from the Jehovah's Witnesses, because both refuse to accept Jesus as the eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient God. Both offer distortions f the one, true Trinitarian God. As you have stated, the LDS Jesus is not the Jesus of classic orthodoxy. He is a false Jesus--an imaginary Jesus who cannot save."
McDermott's equivocations throughout this work all too often prevent one from properly understanding the distinct and opposite beliefs which separate Mormonism and evangelical Christianity.
A truly helpful debate between Robert Millet and an evangelical has yet to be published. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Mormons and evangelicals can engage in far better dialogues than this book presents, and I hope that a far more productive work will come out soon.
John Divito, Director
Africa Center for Apologetics Research
After providing background on their personal friendship, McDermott and Millet take turns interacting on various topics related to Christ. Starting with their sources of authority, the co-authors move on to a discussion of Christ before Bethlehem, the Trinity, Jesus' passion and atonement, the historical Jesus, the church and the sacraments, salvation in Christ, and the fate of the unevangelized. In each chapter, one writes the main article, the other follows with a response, and a final rebuttal concludes the section. This format allows the reader to grapple with both authors' views.
Unfortunately, McDermott's role as an evangelical contributor is compromised by his deficient view of the Bible. He denies biblical inerrancy, questions the sufficiency of Scripture, and rules out the principle of Sola Scriptura (i.e., that the Bible alone is our final authority in faith and practice). Thus, he says "'The real question, then, is not whether we will be influenced by tradition in our reading and interpreting, but which tradition?'" (20). Unfortunately, McDermott misses the point. Sola Scriptura does not mean that we can interpret Scripture apart from tradition; it means that the Bible is the Christian's ultimate standard of truth. We can (and must!) subject our traditions to what God has revealed in Scripture. The Word of God is the ultimate arbiter of truth.
Since McDermott denies these fundamental beliefs, he comes across as more interested in maintaining historic orthodoxy rather than in biblical faithfulness. A typical example would be his treatment of the gospel and the relationship between faith and works. Rather than expositing relevant biblical passages, McDermott gives the reader a comparative analysis of the views of Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards. In the following chapter on the destiny of the unevangelized, McDermott does not try to answer this difficult issue with Scripture; instead, he summarizes the positions of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, showing that Christians throughout history have been somewhat flexible. Often I was left asking: So what? How is one to know whether these Christians were right or wrong in their views? The Mormons, as it turns out, have an answer: An authoritative prophet tells us. McDermott never effectively counters the Mormon claim with the proper response--namely, that we have authoritative Scripture to enable us to discern truth from error. Orthodoxy is the result of biblical faithfulness. And while church history can assist us in understanding our faith, it must never be the basis upon which we establish our faith.
McDermott often fumbles when trying to point out similarities between Mormonism and historic Christianity. For example, he consistently maintains that Mormons believe Jesus is fully divine. He actually states: "Rejecting the Nicene definition of the Trinity but holding to the full deity of Jesus and salvific value of his cross and resurrection seems not as serious as denying the incarnation and the atonement" (221). But as I have written to him before:
". . . I do not know how you can maintain: 'On the LDS and Jesus, it is a fact that the Mormon view of Jesus is better than the Jehovah's Witness view, which is fully Arian. They do indeed believe Jesus is fully God.' While I have no problem insisting upon the defectiveness of the JW Jesus, the LDS Jesus is no less defective. The LDS do not believe that Jesus is fully God--if we are defining God consistently. The only way one could maintain that the Mormons believe that Jesus is fully God is by committing the fallacy of equivocation, for the God we refer to is nothing like the God of Mormon doctrine. The word 'God' is not some nebulous, abstract notion. God has revealed what divinity is to us.
"Essentially, the LDS church redefines 'God' when applying the term to Jesus. And in his case, it is no different from the Jehovah's Witnesses, because both refuse to accept Jesus as the eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient God. Both offer distortions f the one, true Trinitarian God. As you have stated, the LDS Jesus is not the Jesus of classic orthodoxy. He is a false Jesus--an imaginary Jesus who cannot save."
McDermott's equivocations throughout this work all too often prevent one from properly understanding the distinct and opposite beliefs which separate Mormonism and evangelical Christianity.
A truly helpful debate between Robert Millet and an evangelical has yet to be published. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Mormons and evangelicals can engage in far better dialogues than this book presents, and I hope that a far more productive work will come out soon.
John Divito, Director
Africa Center for Apologetics Research
