Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate [Paperback]

Robert L. Millet (Author), Gerald R. McDermott (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: November 1, 2007

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.

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.

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

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 240 pages
• Publisher: Brazos Press (November 1, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1587432099
• ISBN-13: 978-1587432095
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #364,401 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The Continuing Saga of Inter-faith Dialogue, November 2, 2009

By 

John Smythe (USA) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate (Paperback)

This book is the best volume on the subject (inter-faith debate between Evangelical and LDS positions) since _How Wide the Divide?_ and it is double-duce the book that _Bridging the Divide_ is (see my other review of that text). I tend to buy books in doublets and triplets when I have decided it is time to tackle a subject and have done that here - though I am a little slow in getting this review out. If one or more of my critiques bore you simply skip down - each new point is generally prefaced with a reference to the page in the book I am about to discuss.

On Dr. McDermott's comparison of the term "Evangelical" and "Fundamentalist" (see page 10) I have a bit of a problem. There is so much overlap between these two groups that splitting them out is not especially useful and the manner in which it is done by Dr. McDermott is even less helpful. Certainly back in the day (and yes, I know that day was all too recent) Bob Jones College forbade "interracial" dating - as if there were more than one race of humans - and you can still find people like that. However, all of the "Fundamentalists" I know (and I know quite a few) are as non-racist a group as you could name. I think a better distinction between "Evangelical" and "Fundamentalist" is to say that a "Fundamentalist" does not mind being labeled so; whereas an "Evangelical" is often quick to point out how he's not a "Fundamentalist" - as we see Dr. McDermott do straightaway in this book in good "Evangelical" fashion.

In contrast there are moments of sublime charity as when Dr. McDermott says (pages 65-66); "For theologians such as Jonathan Edwards, the moral life is not something we try hard to do "down here" in order to be worthy of our calling. No, it is different by a quantum leap: it is actually participation in the mystical communion among the three persons of the Trinity. This means that all human love is a refraction of the love among the three divine persons. When a Christian loves her neighbor, she not only imitates God's love in Christ but participates in the mutual love between the Father and the Son. To love the neighbor, then, is not simply to be like God but to *have* God" (emphasis in the original). Nothing Dr. Millet said in this book, in his own words, even begins to compare with that.

Dr. Millet shows considerable difficulty in dealing with the nature of the LDS conception of the Godhead. While he decries the orthodox view, ["Three persons cannot be one person, nor can I conceive how three persons can be one being", p. 80], he says of the LDS; "Wise Latter-day Saints do not worry about which aspects of God's nature we participate in when we worship; that is, when I say I feel the Spirit of the Lord in my life, I do not stop and ask, Is this the Spirit of the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit? Frankly, to me it doesn't matter. . ." Taking that last statement at face value: It apparently matters great deal to God because so much of the New Testament and the Book of Mormon (for that matter) talk on this very issue. So, Dr. Millet; Why doesn't it matter to you? Apparently God thinks it should.

Like _How Wide the Divide?_ there are a number of places in this book where the LDS proponent flubs his understanding of the biblical text. On page 80 Dr. Millet has a question he apparently thinks is a tough one for non-LDS; "Why is it the Christian Church should fight and struggle for centuries and even millennia to maintain Jewish monotheism?" As it happens, Dr. McDermott provides a quick and clear answer on page 89; "Jesus himself quotes Torah, "The Lord our God is one Lord" ([Mark] 12:28 - 29), thus affirming Torah's insistence on monotheism".

Another is found on pages 98-99. Here Dr. Millet is discussing the atonement of Christ - which for Mormons actually begins in the garden of Gethsemane - and says, "Mormons believe and teach that one of the consequences of sin is the withdrawal of a portion of God's Spirit (see Alma 34:35; D&C 19:20), and that what we feel as emptiness, alienation, disappointment, disapproval - these are but manifestations of the loss of the Spirit. . . as Brigham Young pointed out, it was the withdrawal of the Father's Spirit that caused [Jesus] to suffer; to agonize..." etc. at Gethsemane.

Yet we read in the Bible that *effective* prayer is aided by the Spirit of God (Romans 8:26-27). We read there that Jesus prayed while under duress and, even though the cup could not be taken from Him, God *heard* and *approved* those prayers by sending an angel to comfort Jesus at Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36-42, Mark 14:32-42, Luke 22:40-46 & Hebrews 5:7).

The Bible teaches that the "bitter cup" which Jesus had to "drink" was suffering for our sin upon the cross (John 18:11). We see that Jesus' words on the cross, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46), are consistent with this understanding (as well as the rest of the Bible) for Jesus was made to suffer the loss of the Holy Spirit when our sin was imputed to Him at Golgotha. These accounts (LDS and biblical) are in conflict in that they teach a different and irreconcilable understanding of the same historical sequence - Gethsemane to Golgotha.

Overall I find Dr. Millet's teaching about Christ's atonement to be inconsistent and how could it be otherwise since he holds, in equal regard, conflicting testimonies.

Here is another difficulty I noticed - President Snow's dictum;
"As man is, God once was;
As God is, man may become"
The main problem for this LDS doctrine is, in essence, that it means God was once a sinner. In order to get around this clear implication Dr. Millet must change this unambiguous teaching of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the LDS Church into;
"As man is, Christ once was;
As Christ is, man may become" (p. 85)
And this goes right to the heart of this issue - even Dr. Millet, after 30+ years learning and teaching in an official capacity of the LDS Church, cannot accept several of the teachings of his Church - of which this is but one.

On page 122 a reference is made to a BoM passage (3 Nephi 28:20-22) wherein Jesus tells three of the apostles in the Americas, circa 34-35 AD, that they will remain living on earth until the Second Coming - and nothing that might befall them here on earth will cause them harm. Three apostles is all it takes to maintain the power and authority of the one-true-church. Fot it is taught by the LDS that between these three they posses all the keys of the Kingdom of Christ. So then I ask; why does the LDS Church teach of a complete apostasy of power and authority?

On page 129 there is a rhetorical question asked by Dr. Millet that is supposed to help convince the reader that Joseph Smith Jr did not simply make up (most of) the Standard Works of the LDS Church. That, in particular, there is no contradiction of Mr. Smith's earlier revelations with those that came later in regards to the nature of God. Dr. Millet says, "To begin with there is a very practical question to be raised: if in fact Joseph Smith made all of this up, if he simply had a fertile imagination, if he was enough of a religious genius to produce thousands of pages of scriptures and teachings and set in motion the most successful indigenous American religion, wasn't he bright enough to recognize those seeming contradictions"?

This bit of rhetoric just quoted has many fallacies attached to it. The most striking one is that of ignoratio elenchi (a.k.a. - Red Herring). The best way to elucidate my point is simply to make the following argument:
Islam is the religion everyone should convert to. It is obviously the most true because the Prophet Muhammad was entirely uneducated and illiterate yet his teachings are the direct basis of the most successful world religion to date. The success of the LDS Church pales in comparison to that of Islam. So any contradictions you might find in Islamic scripture are your own stubborn fault.

Dr. Millet is also attempting to appeal to the LDS faithful by leaning on the popular sentiment, among members of his church, that Joseph Smith, though not highly educated, was certainly no fool (aka - an appeal to loyalty).

Dr. Millet also ignores, as does my appeal to Islam, the fact that Joseph Smith did not bring his religious views into a vacuum but into an environment of a very well established and widely taught Christian religious system. A system Joseph Smith was steeped in from his earliest youth. Furthermore, the point Dr. McDermott makes (the Book of Mormon has many unambiguous passages that are specifically Trinitarian in teaching - see page 123 and also, e.g., BoM - 3 Nephi 11:27,36; Mormon 7:7) is the very point Dr. Millet is trying to counter here on page 129, which can be seen to be a likely outcome of Joseph Smith's upbringing. That is, it took Joseph Smith some years to throw off the Trinitarian teaching of the first twenty years of his life and as a consequence his early revelations follow along the lines of his youthful indoctrination. Not the result one would expect given the nature of Joseph Smith's purported revelations nor the harshness with which God apparently views these heretical ideas (see JSH 1:19).

On page 130 Dr. Millet counters this last criticism directly by stating flatly that; "The references from the Book of Mormon that Professor McDermott cites do not mean what he thinks they mean, at least as far as mainline and mainstream Latter-day Saints are concerned. Again, such passages (e.g. 2 Nephi 31:20 {should be 2 Nephi 31:21}; Mosiah 15:5; Alma 11:44; 3 Nephi 11:27, 36; Mormon 7:7) speak of the Godhead as "one God," but very few Mormons would consider this to refer to anything other than one... Read more ›

0 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars The Name Game, November 4, 2011

By 

J. E. Decker "Saints Alive" (Issaquah, WA USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate (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...

10 of 24 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars light shining through, January 17, 2008

By 

Robert Decell (texas) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate (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.