I “Beck” to Differ

For Starters

Let me be very honest about several things.

  • As a radio and television personality, I really like the politically conservative Glenn Beck.
    • I would jump at the opportunity to have lunch with him.
    • His love for America and our Christian heritage is admirable.
    • I consider him a great guy, and have no hate whatsoever towards him.
    • I’d rather have him (or Mitt Romney) as president than Obama any day.
  • I believe Liberty University has a lot to offer on many levels.
    • Liberty is a large, influential Christian university.
    • Liberty has a strong heritage of proclaiming the faith.
    • I’m sure the folks at Liberty want nothing less than the best for their students.
    • I almost attended college there, myself.

Let me be very clear about some other things, too.

  1. Although a great American, Glenn Beck is a Mormon, NOT a Christian.
  2. Liberty University is supposed to be a Christian University, not a political party university.
  3. Mormons might be outstanding moral people, but Mormonism is NOT just another Christian denomination; it is a totally different religion based on the teachings of Joseph Smith, not the Bible.
  4. Those who object to a Mormon missionary giving the convocation at Liberty University are not “haters,” but lovers of the Christian faith who want nothing more than to “take heed” to our doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16) and protect it from error (Titus 1:9).

Responses

Glen Beck’s Response

In response to the criticism still being leveled at Liberty University for allowing the likes of Mitt Romney and himself speak to the students during graduation convocations, Mr. Beck said the following on his program (as reported in the Christian Post):

(Credit: Reuters)

(Credit: Reuters)

“There is no difference between you and the people who are trying to run other people out of the square. See this is the reason why progressives are so frightening. This is why you lose a lot of people. This is why your churches are dwindling. You think you’re standing for something when instead you’re standing for hate and bigotry and I think Jesus was hanging out with prostitutes and sinners wasn’t he?”

My Response to Mr. Beck’s Response

In response to the above quote, I would first like to say I’m sorry, but hanging out with “prostitutes and sinners” in order to love them and show them a better way, THE Way to life eternal, is not the same as asking the “prostitutes and sinners” to promote their erroneous philosophies of life to young and impressionable graduates!

Also, it is no more “hate and bigotry” to seek to protect the gospel of Jesus Christ from those who would pollute it with poisonous error than it is “hate and bigotry” to protect a life-saving vaccine from those who would want to add a little arsenic in the name of “diversity.”

Lastly, I would rather see the Church lose “a lot of people” than have the Church be made up of people who are deceived into thinking they are actually a part. In order to be an orthodox Christian, one must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the one-and-only Son of the Eternal Father, not one of many celestial children born to one of a countless number of humans elevated to godhood.

Had Glenn Beck been around during the time described in John chapter 6, I wonder if he would have labeled Jesus a “hater,” or a “bigot?” I wonder if he would have ran after those who walked away and said, “Wait, don’t leave the square! Jesus didn’t know any better! He was just trying to stand for something!

 Hey, Glenn! I’m still available for lunch!

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under America, Apologetics, Christian Unity, cults, current events, God, politics, Theology

7 responses to “I “Beck” to Differ

  1. Thank you Anthony and yes very True, if we don’t stand for something we will fall for everything , we are to stand firm on God’s Truth and not water it down or accept when others do this.

    Jesus said to the Prostitute that He did not condemn her as the others had done but He than said to her, “go and sin no more!”

    I don’t accept Mormonism or anything else that substitutes God’s Truth for fleshy man’s understanding, regardless of how appealing it sounds, it just leads to a dead end and not Eternal Hope.

    Christian Love from us both – Anne.

  2. The LDS are not Christian, only if you keep redefining the term so as to exclude anyone you don’t want to associate with.
    The definition of Christian, which has been used since the early church, is one who has accepted Christ as their savior. That is it, and nothing else matters when applying the term.
    I notice that later you qualify the term by adding “Orthodox” to it. No, we are not what is considered Orthodox Christians, and I have no problem with that. But we are Christian.

    • Thank you for taking the time to respond, my friend. I am glad you took the time to clarify your position.

      Unfortunately, I don’t believe we are going to see eye-to-eye on who should be considered a Christian, however. Even though you are essentially correct in defining a Christian as one who accepts Christ as Savior, the truth, however simple, cannot exist without context. The major reason why the majority of “orthodox” Christendom refuses to accept Mormonism under the label of Christian is because of the historical/biblical contexts associated with Who Jesus actually is. On those points, your faith and traditional Christianity (my faith) are completely at odds.

      For example, it would be easy for me to call my self a rose-worshiper (were there such a thing). Yet, if every flower before which I bowed was a tulip, not a rose, the real rose-worshipers would have every reason to be skeptical. The Bible (our only authority) leaves no room for the Jesus Christ of Mormonism. Your Jesus may have walked the shores of Galilee and climbed the hill of Calvary, but before that He was the eternally existent Word of God (John 1:1), co-equal with the Father, and never, under any circumstance, a brother of Lucifer/Satan, or whatever.

      In contrast, Christians know this about God: there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6-8), He always has existed and always will exist (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17), and He was not created but is the Creator (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16). He is perfect, and no one else is equal to Him (Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25). God the Father is not a man, nor was He ever (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9). He is Spirit (John 4:24), and Spirit is not made of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

      Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons.html#ixzz33PQPREUb

      • I am not sure you really want me to reply to this.

        The Bible leaves plenty of room. It is is merely your interpretation of it that doesn’t leave such room.
        Take for instance Isaiah 44: 6
        “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
        Notice that there are two distinct beings speaking in this verse. There is the “Lord the King of Israel” and then their the “Lord of Hosts.” Clearly two are speaking, and thus clearly there are two that are God.

        Actually, on many of these points we would agree. God has always existed and always will exist. He was not created, and He is the creator of this Earth. He is perfect, and no one is equal to Him (at least not in authority as concerns this Earth).
        However, as I pointed out, we also see many things different, including what the Bible teaches. As I said, Isaiah clearly shows two distinct beings as God.
        Also, we see Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; and Hosea 11:9 as declaring, and quite rightly, that He is not Mortal, or not in the imperfect state that we are in now. Man, as used in the scriptures, generally refers to those in mortality. God is sometimes described as an exalted man, referring to the fact that he was once a man, but has progressed beyond mortality. Joseph Smith actually stated that God is in the form of Man, (meaning He has a body, arms, legs, etc) but never said He is a man.
        As to him ever having been a man, since Christ was most definitely a man, subject to all the trials of mortality, then either you have to deny this or you would have to amend your statement.
        As to being spirit, God has a spirit, just like all living things do. He also has a physical body, as Christ so clearly pointed out in Luke 24: 39. This is also true of us, as it says in Genesis that only after God had given the breath of life (spirit) did Adam become a living soul.

        As I said, I have no problem with people saying that we do not subscribe to their particular brand of Christianity, nor do I have a problem with people saying we interpret the Bible differently. However, to try and redefine the term Christian in order to prevent us from using it is annoying, as is the claim that we don’t believe in the Bible. By any actual definition of the word we are Christian, and we most certainly believe in the Bible, though we do interpret it differently.

      • What!? You not respond? For heaven’s sake, of course I would want you to respond! That’s called dialogue 🙂

        For the sake of time, I am only going to cover a couple of things, then I must go. First, “your interpretation” is a phrase that get’s a lot of people into trouble when it comes to interpreting Scripture. We must be very clear on one thing before anything else: the Bible is true, and truth is not relative.

        “Leaving room” in one’s interpretation must not be the same as saying that there can be more than one truth. However, humans can incorrectly interpret certain passages and make inappropriate applications based on a faulty hermeneutics. Your example of Isaiah 44:6 is a good example: the place where your interpretation of Isaiah 44:6 fails is in your interpretation of the use of “his”. “His” is a pronoun that refers back to Israel, not the beginning of a phrase referring to another distinct God. A parallel passage is Isaiah 44:24: “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things…” It’s the same Person.

        Now, again, one place where we fundamentally disagree is on where we find our authority. You quote Joseph Smith as prophet whose words stand on the same ground as the Bible. For that matter, correct me if I am wrong, but the Bible is only as good as far as Joseph Smith would agree with it. Therefore, to you the Bible is flawed; to me it is the sole authority on which Christianity is based.

        There are many other areas in which your faith differs dramatically from biblical (as opposed to the book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, etc.) Christianity. For that matter, much of what makes you different comes from the writings of your extra-biblical prophets, along with their “interpretations” of Bible passages. For example, there is nothing in the Bible that hints at God ever being anything, EVER, than God. Even Jesus, the Word (John 1:1) made flesh, was eternally existent, un-created, with the Father (Who, incidentally, is never said to “have” a spirit, but “is a spirit” (John 4:24).

        Oh, I have taken way to much time for the moment – I am going to be late for church (and I’m the pastor!). Here’s the thing, though. The Bible teaches us about Jesus, the promised Messiah. That Messiah, then, should be understood in the historical context of the people to whom He came and revealed Himself. He was the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies, God made flesh, the second member of the Trinity, the Lamb of God slain from before the foundations of the world, come to take away the sin of man, that is, those who will put their faith in Him (not of works, lest any many should boast). Your god is not the only God. Your Jesus, although based on a historical model, is not the one and only Son of God (John 3:16), but a spirit child. Your god is not outside of creation, but a literal part of it, for he was once a man. Your faith is essentially polytheistic, which is against everything the Bible (not the book of Mormon) teaches. That, my friend is why not only me, but all other Christian denominations cannot accept your definition of “Christian.”

        I am not perfect. I am not a scholar. I don’t have all the answers to every question. However, I hope you will continue to dialogue with me. It is not my intention to insult you or make you angry.

  3. First, it is not my definition of Christian; it is the definition contained in any reputable dictionary of the English language.

    Second, I never once said that truth is relative. What I said is that language is relative, which is very true. The connotations and meanings that we give to words are going to be different regardless of what the literal definition is. For example, I do not use the term yell to simply describe an elevated voice, because to me it carries the connotation of hostility. This is not the case with others.
    So, while the Bible is an effort to convey truth to men, it does so through language, which is a relative medium. Not only that, but we have it primarily through language translation, which makes it even more relative. As such what an individual believes it to say is going to be relative to the perspective and understanding of the person reading it.
    A prime example is Isaiah 44: 6. The grammar of this verse clearly relates the ‘his’ back to the primary subject of the sentence, which is the Lord King of Israel. Yet you bring to it your perspective and connotations and declare that it is referring rather to Israel itself.

    “the Bible is only as good as far as Joseph Smith would agree with it.”
    This is wrong. The Bible is only as good as far as God agrees with it. Joseph Smith is a man, and though called as a prophet he has no power or authority in himself; anymore than Moses or Isaiah, or Peter did. Yes we hold must of what Joseph Smith taught as being equal with the Bible, but that is because we believe those things to be revealed by god just as surely as words of the Bible were originally revealed to ancient prophets.

    “to me it is the sole authority on which Christianity is based.”
    This is another great difference. We do not hold any of the scriptures as the authority on which our church is based. That authority is Christ, and the scriptures only have authority because they came from him.

    “There are many other areas in which your faith differs dramatically from biblical Christianity.”
    Again, I have read the Bible many times and find nothing it is that contradicts any of the doctrine of the LDS church. It is not the Bible that differs, but the way in which you understand the Bible. I agree that people can misunderstand and misinterpret the Bible, but I think it is you who are doing so.

    • Well, I thank you for taking the time to converse (and not yell). As long as we can continue to keep things civil, which would be nice, it would be interesting to delve into our differences. At least if we do disagree, it would ultimately be beneficial to determine where. I don’t doubt you’re sincerity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s