Kent:

You asked, “Here’s my take on the Bauder article on his In the Nick of Time. First, why write about it in a way to defend Mohler? Why? Why do we need to defend Mohler? Shouldn’t he just leave it completely alone? Second, by defending Mohler, he’s going after the article on FBFI (by you). Why go after you?”

Because that is what Kevin Bauder does, it is an established pattern for him. Defending Mohler for several years now such as he did over Mohler signing the Manhattan Declaration. To ignoring some of the worst like sitting as chair for Billy Graham’s 2001 crusade and the recent convergence Mohler had with Rick Warren.

LM

Hi, Larry.

Your reply to my #2.
A) There is a difference between Jews in the synagogue who have not heard the Gospel yet and Mormons who have rejected it.

B) Mars Hill is not remotely relevant. There was no claim to being Christian. I Corinthians 5 makes clear that there is a difference between how we treat pagans and those who claim to be Christians. Mormons claim to be Christians. That is the difference that brings II John into play (in principle) here.

This is not the University of Louisville, not just some university, or like Mars Hill. Mohler’s own words: “I come knowing who you are—to an institution that stands as the most powerful intellectual center of the Latter-Day Saints….”

Your reply to my #3.
Either I’m obtuse, or you didn’t answer it. In none of the examples did Christ, the apostles, or prophets say, “Well, we disagree on the vital things, but I’m here to talk about all the things where we are in agreement.” Any discussion of agreement in those places was a prelude to highlighting the differences. In this case, the acknowledgement of the differences was a prelude to highlighting the agreements.

Also, you said this: “The NT’s concern is with the church, not with individuals per se.” That seems very naive. Mohler was not invited because he is an individual who has some good ideas. He was invited because he is perceived as a spokesperson of the universal church.

Your answer to my #5 & 6.
Mohler said this: ” We stand together for the natural family, for natural marriage, for the integrity of sexuality within marriage alone, and for the hope of human flourishing.” And this: “We share love for the family, love for marriage, love for the gift of children, love of liberty, and love of human society.”

Not having made any distinction at all between their doctrine of marriage and his, that is effectively an endorsement. I am sorry, but if the Mormons have love for marriage then “love” has been redefined.

Your answer to my #7.
You’ve not supplied any Scripture supporting Christian schools, etc, practicing separation. All you’ve said is it is complicated. You don’t think the Scripture forbids them associating with false teachers, but you want them to be separated anyway? I think I’ve not followed you here.

Your questions.

1. U of Louisville. Answered above. There is a clear distinction between our interactions with pagans and with professing Christians. Relevant to that, from the article Kent linked above (which should make any believer uncomfortable): ““It’s not just the fact that evangelicals are being more curious about Mormons and being more willing to listen to them and learn from them, but it’s also a matter of the Mormon leadership itself wanting to be part of the American Christian mainstream,” he said.”

2. Wwrong questions. We should not be asking, “Where does Scripture forbid something?” We should be asking, “If you start from Scripture and seek to apply it faithfully, would you really do that?” There are many things not specifically forbidden in Scripture which aren’t all that compatible with the general principles of Scripture. I’m probably called by many a “legalist” for thinking Mohler shouldn’t have done this, but your question is the legalistic one. If we love God, do we want to cozy up to those who lie about Him, even if they are right on some things?

3. I would not do the lecture you suggest, because I would only be invited because I am a pastor, and would be introduced as a Christian leader. But it is not as egregious as doing it with the Mormons because Muslims are not claiming to be Christians.

4. I agree with Don that it is not the same thing for the reasons Don gave above. Those speakers are not seeking validation of their religious views in the eyes of Christians, as the Mormons are. However, I do not endorse BJU doing it. I believe it is unwise and risks providing some measure of validation.

I am glad Mormons oppose some of the same things we oppose. I’m not against saying so. But I won’t sacrifice the clarity and integrity of the Gospel message in the eyes of others by helping false teachers mainstream themselves, merely for political gain. (If, indeed, any political gain was made, which seems dubious.)

Finally, I’ll say this. It seems strange to me how many people will defend this action even though instinctively they know it was a bad idea, and wouldn’t do it themselves.

[Note from Don: edited for formatting only.]

Thanks, Don. Let me try to finish out (again) with this limited response.

First, I doubt Mohler speaking at U of L is “entirely” different than BYU. U of L is engaged in a far greater false teaching in some regards because it is more foundational and it a more mainstream. But that’s a side issue. I was just curious what distinction you would make. I am not sure why you are saying that BYU is using Mohler to “puff their own Christian legitimacy.” I haven’t seen anyone say that other than you. I doubt that would help them much, if that’s what they wanted.

I agree that we must make decisions based on principles from passages, but those passages have to be rightly used (which I imagine you agree with). And sometimes, the understanding and application of such principles are wisdom decisions about which men of good conscience and equal commitments can differ (Kent notwithstanding). That doesn’t mean both are right of course. But in this light, I am not following how we legitimately get from Israel’s abandonment of God in a political-religious alliance to Mohler speaking at BYU in defense of traditional marriage where no alliance is established (to my knowledge) aside from sharing a common view. That’s a pretty big jump given the vast differences in the two contexts.

Regarding Catholics at BJU, I was actually thinking of Cal Thomas, who is not a Catholic but an evangelical. Hardly a separatist in any case. Probably less of a fundamentalist than Mohler. Alan Keyes is a Catholic who was seeking votes, but went out of his way to make it about religion. But I am not sure the difference in any case. Mohler was at BYU speaking as a cultural commentator on an issue about which he holds some expertise; so was Cal Thomas.

Wasn’t Mohler was there for political purposes, to address the national political debate concerning marriage, and the potential loss of religious freedom? How different is that from making political speeches about these things? More specifically, given your allowances, if Mohler had been running for office, and said the exact same thing, you would say it was okay, right? But because he isn’t running, it is wrong? I don’t follow that.

If you don’t think marriage is spiritual then I don’t think we can have a discussion at all.

That’s not actually what I said. I said “standing against same-sex marriage is not the achievement of a spiritual end, but the pursuit of a cultural and social objective, namely protecting and honoring the fabric of a civil society.” In other words, if we completely banned same-sex marriage, there is no spiritual end gained. That is not the same as saying that marriage isn’t spiritual. But the verse you cite (1 Cor 6:16), is probably more about sex than marriage since it is a prostitute in view, not a wife.

No, this is mere sophistry.

Calling it “mere sophistry” is no more helpful than calling it “preposterous.” Neither does anything to answer the questions or address the issues involved, and that’s what I am actually interested in.

There is no doubt that the OT has an exemplary use, and we can and should learn lessons from them, though it is inaccurate to say its only use is exemplar. Paul makes clear in 2 Tim that it also leads to salvation through faith in Christ. But that’s a side issue.

It seems to me that if the actions of Israel are going to inform us (and I think they should), then the actions of Israel should be similar or parallel. It is hard for me to see the parallels. For Israel to make a political alliance, they had to abandon their religion. For a Christian to make a political alliance, they do not have to abandon their religion. That means these things are substantively different. That of course doesn’t mean that Mohler was right to do what he did. It simply means that we shouldn’t misuse a text, even if the point is right. Ironically, that’s in line with how Pete Enns argues for his position on the NT use of the OT, that it really doesn’t matter if that’s what the text said; it was a common hermeneutic of the day. I reject it there as well.

In the end, I don’t see how a dispensationalist can make the argument you are making, but I want to understand given my current focus of study. So if you wouldn’t mind, I really would appreciate an answer to my questions. (Feel free to ignore the rest; it probably isn’t profitable for much.) As a dispensationalist in the midst of writing on this topic, I would like to know how people who do not share my dispensationalism would answer the questions. It would be of great benefit to me to anticipate responses I might get from others.

Thanks again, Don.

Hi Larry

Ok, now I have a bit of time for a more thorough reply. First, from your response to Jon

Let me ask you this: What if Mohler had been invited to go to the University of Louisville to speak on creation (as a six-day young earther? Would you have the same objection? Why or why not? (Don, please answer as well if you can.)

I would say that is an entirely different scenario. As a secular institution, the U of Louisville wouldn’t be attempting to use Mohler’s creds to puff their own Christian legitimacy. They would be more likely to be sincerely interested in the exchange of ideas.

2. Where does the NT require believers to avoid civil and cultural engagement with those who teach falsely on religious matters? Where does it forbid us from working towards the same goal, and encouraging unbelievers to work towards a goal alongside of us?

The NT doesn’t know anything about democratic government or activism, being entirely written under the dictatorship of the Roman Empire. It could hardly be expected to give explicit instructions either for or against any of these practices. Consequently, we must make our decisions based on principles derived from tangential passages.

4. Why does our alma mater get a pass on inviting someone (the very issue in 2 John if you want to be precise) whereas Mohler gets attacked (don’t read too much into that) for doing something that 2 John doesn’t even address?

As far as I can recall, no one was asked to speak at BJU as a Catholic to promote “shared values”. Any Catholic speakers I can recall were political people seeking votes. As I have said repeatedly, I don’t have a problem with that.

Now from a couple of your comments to me:

First, standing against same-sex marriage is not the achievement of a spiritual end, but the pursuit of a cultural and social objective, namely protecting and honoring the fabric of a civil society.

If you don’t think marriage is spiritual then I don’t think we can have a discussion at all.

1 Corinthians 6:16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

These matters are spiritual matters.

Isn’t a key dispensational argument that part of the fundamental dichotomy between Israel and the church is tied to exactly what I said … that Israel was a socio-political theocracy and the church is not? Was not Israel’s turning to other nations in political alliances a turning away from her religious commitment bound up in the covenant? Is it not impossible for Christians who are not a nation with a socio-political theocratic structure to do the same thing?

No, this is mere sophistry. 1 Corinthians 10:6 Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved. If the Old Testament has any use for us at all, it has a use as an exemplar. When God rebukes Israel for her sin and compromise, we can learn lessons for our own use as well. It doesn’t matter that we are distinct from Israel and to use the OT scriptures to inform us about our actions as NT believers is completely legitimate and is indeed what the apostles themselves did all the time.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Well, that’s one way to address it, Don.

But if you are interested, I have spent the better part of the last three months, and a large part of the last year working on a section of my doctoral project on why and how a dispensationalist should preach the OT. In fact, I just put down Longenecker’s article on reproducing the exegesis of the NT which I working through for the third or fourth time trying to answer a few questions on the debate concerning apostolic hermeneutics.

In addition, yesterday I preached my 26th message from the book of Exodus which was on Exodus 20:1-4.

So, it seems you misunderstand my logic if you think it leads to never preaching out of the OT. I am not saying I always do it right, but I do it, and I see no logical issue with what I said above and preaching the OT. I regularly preach the OT. I would imagine that over the last few years, my preaching is probably close to 50% from each testament. The NT has been primarily Mark and Galatians, and the OT has been Exodus and 2 and 2 Samuel.

I would actually like to see how you respond to the arguments I made. It might indeed serve to clarify my thinking. I can stand all the help I can get since I will be defending my project in front of people who have already told me they don’t understand how a dispensationalist can preach the OT.

Isn’t a key dispensational argument that part of the fundamental dichotomy between Israel and the church is tied to exactly what I said … that Israel was a socio-political theocracy and the church is not? Was not Israel’s turning to other nations in political alliances a turning away from her religious commitment bound up in the covenant? Is it not impossible for Christians who are not a nation with a socio-political theocratic structure to do the same thing?

Larry, your reasoning is preposterous. To follow your logic, one should never preach out of the Old Testament at all.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

1. If you aren’t a local church only guy, why do you believe II John has no application for how the universal church should behave?

Not sure why you think I don’t believe John has no application for the universal church. I do. But I think it applies to the church (whether local or universal). I am not convinced it applies (necessarily) to other situations, though the principles of it might inform our wisdom.

2. If the Scriptures are sufficient, surely they must provide some guidance in principle, at least, for this type of situation. Where is that guidance? How do you know II John is not providing a specific application (in the church) of a general principle (absolute non-endorsement of/withdrawal from false teachers) with broad application?

The guidance for this type of situation comes from the Bible’s instruction on how Christians are to live and interact in society. The reason I don’t see the principle of absolute non-endorsement of/withdrawal from false teachers is because it is not the pattern of the NT or of church history. There are illustrations in the NT of believers engaging false teachers on their turf, such as Jesus or Paul teaching in the synagogue and with the Pharisees who were clearly false teachers, Peter using the platform of Solomon’s Colonnade to challenge and rebuke the false teachers at Pentecost and thereafter (admittedly a public gathering place, which is much like a university today in some ways); Paul on Mars’ Hill using their platform and their invitation to critique their belief. I don’t think the Pharisees doctrine of Jesus or the Greek philosophers doctrine of Jesus was any more acceptable than the Mormons.

Now, you would say these aren’t exact parallels, as would I. And that’s my point. 2 John is not an exactly parallel, and yet you want to invoke that. But you don’t want to invoke other non-exact parallels. Like Kent and the “love” issue, you want to invoke something when it helps you, but ignore it when it doesn’t. I find that less than convincing.

I find it hard to accept that John is prohibiting something that is (1) outside of his topic, and (2) not in line with the (short) historic practice of the church up to his time. Would anyone have read 2 John and said, “We must not go to an educational institution and speak to them about civil matters”? I doubt it.

Let me ask you this: What if Mohler had been invited to go to the University of Louisville to speak on creation (as a six-day young earther? Would you have the same objection? Why or why not? (Don, please answer as well if you can.)

3. Where in Scripture do we see any apostle or prophet engaging in or approving this kind of extra-church cuddling up to false teachers, even when they get some things right? Is not the entire tone of Scripture (and many direct commands) in regard to false teachers to beware of them (Philippians 3:2) to warn against them, to have nothing to do with them? What in Scripture says this kind of thing is a good idea?

Answered above. The commands against false teachers in Scripture seem to relate to their false teaching and ministry cooperation with them. It doesn’t seem to call on a believer to withdraw from the public square. Living in a political and civil culture unanticipated by the NT has complicated some things. To ask the opposite question, where does the NT require believers to avoid civil and cultural engagement with those who teach falsely on religious matters? Where does it forbid us from working towards the same goal, and encouraging unbelievers to work towards a goal alongside of us? I know of no place that does that. The NT’s concern is with the church, not with individuals per se.

4. Specifically about II John, bidding one “Godspeed” has no impact on how God views the false teacher, obviously. It goes beyond a restriction on providing practical help. The clear point is that you don’t do anything that endorses false teachers in any way that gives approval of their doctrine or “ministry” (in the eyes of man). Do you believe it is ok outside the local church to in any way give approval to the doctrine or “ministry” of false teachers (in the eyes of man)?

But bidding them “godspeed” (a rather awkward and misleading translation; it actually means to greet, not to send out with blessing), is in the context of the church … Welcoming (kairo) someone with approval of their teaching. We must not do that. I am not sure who disputes that, but it would be helpful to see their argument. In this case, Al Mohler did not invite them to his church (or even school) and he did not greet them with a blessing, and he specifically addressed their teaching and stated that he was not welcoming them on a religious basis. So it seems to me that he dealt with the issues that John was talking about.

I think when someone is pursuing civic good, it might be acceptable to praise them for it (though it might be unwise, as I have said about this). To ask it another way, should we praise Muslim Imams who discourage their people from violence? I would say, “Yes,” and I would hope you would. That doesn’t mean we approve anything they say. But would it be acceptable to lecture to a group of Muslims on the ideals of a peaceful and civil society in which separation of church and state means we have religious freedom to peacefully co-exist, even though we disagree on some very fundamental things?

5. In this specific case, do you believe that Mohler gave approval to the “ministry” of Mormons in any way, or to any of their doctrine, such as their doctrine of marriage, in the eyes of man?

I honestly don’t know. This is why I say I think it was perhaps unwise. I haven’t seen any comments other than from the fundamentalist side, so I don’t really know what it did. I think it had the potential to because people don’t read what was actually said. But I tend to think most probably would never suspect that Mohler agreed with the anyway. Even though people might not know what Baptists and Mormons believe, they know enough to believe it’s not the same thing. And remember, it may have been clarifying for some since Mohler clearly called them non-Christian and clearly said they were not going to heaven. So for those interested, Mohler made it clear that they are not Christians, in spite of what they claim.

Remember, we are back to the 2000 campaign when people blasted Bush for going to BJU and not condemning their interracial and “anti-Catholic” policies, even though no one had for years, and even though other candidates did similar things. It was a faux charge. No one suspected that Bush, by going to BJU, was endorsing everything BJU believed. And it is doubtful that anyone viewed Mohler as endorsing everything Mormons believe. And I imagine you and Don and Kent agree with that. You don’t think Mohler endorses or agrees with them. But you probably think other people aren’t as discerning and wise as you are. But why would you think that, particularly when Mohler was explicit about the differences and said they weren’t going to heaven because they didn’t believe the gospel?

6. Do you believe the Mormon doctrine of marriage is an unfruitful work of darkness? If not, why not? And if so, why is Ephesians 5:11 not relevant?

Yes. But remember, Mohler was not there affirming their doctrine of marriage. He was there speaking about a very narrow issue—traditional marriage and same-sex marriage and its threat to culture and religious freedom. And for the Mormons, they are in favor of the very same things we are: traditional marriage and religious freedom.

7. Do you care if Christian schools maintain separation, and if so, why? What Scripture tells Christian schools (or mission boards, etc) not to associate with false teachers?

Yes, to be short. In full, I think academic contexts have different sorts of applications. I don’t think there are any Scriptures that tell Christian schools not to associate with false teachers, mostly because there are not Scripture that speak to the issue of Christian schools per se. Here is where I think “ecclesiastical” matters. And for all our talk about the local church and the ekklesia, I think we get pretty loose with it.

But I note again that when our alma mater (Don’s and mine) had a Catholic to speak, nothing showed up on Don’s blog about it. When I asked him about it, he didn’t even respond to it, as I recall. Why? Why does our alma mater get a pass on inviting someone (the very issue in 2 John if you want to be precise) whereas Mohler gets attacked (don’t read too much into that) for doing something that 2 John doesn’t even address? (BTW, I wasn’t particularly troubled by this, either the invitation/event or Don’s not addressing it.)

To close, let me hit a couple of questions for specifics if you have time for a brief response to help me more understand:

1. What if Mohler had been invited to go to the University of Louisville to speak on creation (as a six-day young earther? Would you have the same objection? Why or why not? (Don, please answer as well if you can.)

2. Where does the NT require believers to avoid civil and cultural engagement with those who teach falsely on religious matters? Where does it forbid us from working towards the same goal, and encouraging unbelievers to work towards a goal alongside of us?

3. Should we praise Muslim Imams who discourage their people from violence? Would it be acceptable to lecture to a group of Muslims on the ideals of a peaceful and civil society in which separation of church and state means we have religious freedom to peacefully co-exist, even though we disagree on some very fundamental things?

4. Why does our alma mater get a pass on inviting someone (the very issue in 2 John if you want to be precise) whereas Mohler gets attacked (don’t read too much into that) for doing something that 2 John doesn’t even address?

I hope you have a blessed Sunday tomorrow.

Good grief – the parallel is so striking that I can’t believe you are so dismissive of it.

First, standing against same-sex marriage is not the achievement of a spiritual end, but the pursuit of a cultural and social objective, namely protecting and honoring the fabric of a civil society. We should not make the mistake of thinking that preventing same-sex marriage will somehow achieve a spiritual end. I think you have redefined the issue.

Secondly, and more to the point here, the question, to me, comes down to whether or not we are actually dispensationalists. If we are, then we recognize that Israel was not just a religious institution, but also a political one. Which means that politics and religion mix. In the NT church, politics and religion are separate. Their commands against political involvement were actually commands against religious involvement. God had promised to protect them politically because of his religious commitment to them. By turning to another nation, they were in fact turning away from their allegiance to God and their belief in his promises, and turning to belief in another god. God has made no such promise to the church. We, as Baptist (at least me), believe in the separation of church and state, and as a dispensationalist, the fundamental dichotomy between Israel and the church. You appear not to. I am not sure if you claim dispensationalism (I don’t recall you ever discussing it), so perhaps I erred in the assumption, though I imagined you would be. I know dispensationalists can differ on certain issues of interpretation, so I am not trying to be pejorative with that. It just seems to me to miss the fundamental point of dispensationalism–the dichotomy between Israel and the church.

If you want to claim a parallel, then you have to see Israel as a nation making political alliances for national protection being parallel to the church as a nation making political alliances for national protection. But that falls apart here for a lot of reasons such as (1) Israel is a nation and the church is not; (2) Israel was a political/religious entity and the church is not; (3) that God’s commands and promises to the Israel are also his commands and promises to the church; (4) Al Mohler is an individual not the church, so any parallel now has to argue that a political/religious nation is equivalent to an individual acting as a believer in his political society. There are more, but I think these are sufficient to show the inadequacy of your argument.

Your argument works well for a non-dispensationalist, though they typically don’t make it. I don’t see how a dispensationalist can make it.

Excellent, Jon. I’m thinking that Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magis is instructive on this point as well.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Larry, we’ve had this discussion before. First, to hold your view strongly, you have to believe that II John is written to a church and not an individual. The evidence for this is hardly conclusive, and if you are wrong, this is a general principle for all of Christian life. But let’s assume you are correct. In that case, this is a strongly ecclesiastical injunction for the local church.

But then you have to answer some questions.
1. If you aren’t a local church only guy, why do you believe II John has no application for how the universal church should behave?
2. If the Scriptures are sufficient, surely they must provide some guidance in principle, at least, for this type of situation. Where is that guidance? How do you know II John is not providing a specific application (in the church) of a general principle (absolute non-endorsement of/withdrawal from false teachers) with broad application?
3. Where in Scripture do we see any apostle or prophet engaging in or approving this kind of extra-church cuddling up to false teachers, even when they get some things right? Is not the entire tone of Scripture (and many direct commands) in regard to false teachers to beware of them (Philippians 3:2) to warn against them, to have nothing to do with them? What in Scripture says this kind of thing is a good idea?
4. Specifically about II John, bidding one “Godspeed” has no impact on how God views the false teacher, obviously. It goes beyond a restriction on providing practical help. The clear point is that you don’t do anything that endorses false teachers in any way that gives approval of their doctrine or “ministry” (in the eyes of man). Do you believe it is ok outside the local church to in any way give approval to the doctrine or “ministry” of false teachers (in the eyes of man)?
5. In this specific case, do you believe that Mohler gave approval to the “ministry” of Mormons in any way, or to any of their doctrine, such as their doctrine of marriage, in the eyes of man?
6. Do you believe the Mormon doctrine of marriage is an unfruitful work of darkness? If not, why not? And if so, why is Ephesians 5:11 not relevant?
7. Do you care if Christian schools maintain separation, and if so, why? What Scripture tells Christian schools (or mission boards, etc) not to associate with false teachers?

For me, it is not ok outside the church to do or say things that give, in the eyes of man, approval of false teachers and especially their doctrine. For me, II John forbids that with a broader prohibition than merely within the local church. For me, Ephesians 5 says their doctrine of marriage should be reproved, not fellowshipped with. For me, the Scripture does not say to find the points where we agree with false teachers and emphasise them, it says to reprove, rebuke, to mark and avoid.

Fortunately, nobody answers to me. But if we’re going to discuss these things, we should at least find Scriptures to support what we are saying. I’ve cited Scripture that I believe guides these types of situations in principle. Where is A) the error I’m making and B) the Scriptures that indicate this was an appropriate thing for Mohler to do? If we’re going to be guided by Scripture, we not only need to avoid those things that Scripture specifically forbids, we also need to actively reflect the principles it gives in situations it doesn’t directly address.