Biblical Monotheism Contra Mormon Polytheism

Mormons are often accused of being polytheists. And it is true that they believe that there are gods other than the God of the Bible. In their defense of their religion, they refer to, for example, Deuteronomy 29:26: "They went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods whom they had not known and whom He had not allotted to them." They claim that the reference to "gods' acknowledges that there are other gods, but forbids Christians to worship them, a concept known as "henotheism." Mormons deny that this is just another word for polytheism, even though explicit pagans, such as Hindus, have the same practice, devotion to one deity while acknowledging the existence of others. 

However, Mormons cherry-pick which references to "gods" make their case. They ignore explicit references to the contrary, such as Deuteronomy 32:21: "They have made Me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are no people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation." That is, the supposed gods of idolaters are actually not gods. To what are idolaters actually offering their prayers and sacrifices? "They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded." (Deuteronomy 32:17).

They also misrepresent biblical references to "gods." That word does not indicate that there are real gods. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that men create other gods. The Bible then tells us that those gods are mere idols, without power: "They know not, nor do they discern, for He has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand. No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, 'Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?' He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say, 'Is there not a lie in my right hand?'" (Isaiah 44:18-20). People think that a wooden idol is a real god because the one and only living God has blinded their eyes to their own irrationality.

Through the same prophet, the biblical God gives a message to Cyrus the Mede, who, about two centuries later, would rescue the people of God from their Babylonian captivity: "I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides Me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know Me, that people may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides Me; I am the Lord, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:5-6). The significance of this is that Cyrus was a pagan, the worshiper of a pantheon of gods. There is no indication here that Jehovah was telling Cyrus to be a henotheist, to put Him on the front of his shelf of idols. He explicitly states that "there is no other." 

Therefore, when the God of the Bible tells us, "You are My witnesses, declares the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me. I, I am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior" (Isaiah 43:10-11), it is not telling us that He is the foremost of an innumerable crowd of gods. Rather, He is declaring, just as the words indicate, that He is the only God in existence. 

The Whole World Under the Law

I often hear people claim that the moral law of the Old Testament was only for Israel. Now, if we were talking about the ceremonial law, I could see it. But when it is said of the moral law, then the person is saying that it was alright for non-Israelites to steal, to murder, or to commit adultery. I cannot accept that. Furthermore, it would mean that non-Israelites were not sinners, because sin is defined as the breaking of the Law (I John 3:4).

There are two errors that lead people to make this conclusion.

The first is dispensationalism, which teaches a rigid discontinuity between grace and law, such that they cannot coexist. Law was for pre-Christian Israel (or even continues to be for Israel), while grace is for Christians. This is a wrongful use of Romans 6:14, "You are not under Law, but under grace." However, that verse is about the power to resist sin, not to define sin.

The second is really a logical problem, because it involves confusing the written Law with the Law itself. It is true that the Gentiles did not have the written law. However, it is a fallacious leap of logic to take that to mean that they didn't have the Law at all. On the contrary, Paul also tells us, "They [i. e., the Gentiles] show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:15). The experience of conscience by a person without knowledge of the written Law is due to that same moral Law written in his heart. The conscience can be suppressed, of course, but that only shows that the written Law is advantageous, Paul's exact point (Romans 3:2). 

The problem is that both of the groups described above cherry-pick the verses that they apply to this topic. The crucial one that they both ignore is Romans 3:19: "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." The first half of the sentence talks about those under the Law, and the second half tells us that it is "the whole world." And it is on that basis that every human being, not just Israel, is a lawbreaker under the judgment of God, and thus needing redemption in Jesus Christ.

Infant Rebellion, Sin, and the Judgment of God

I continually run into folks who deny that children are sinners, or that they are accountable for their sins. Most of those people claim that there is an "age of accountability," below which there is no judgment for sin. Yet, when I challenge them to show where the Scriptures say any such thing, the response generally boils down to, "Well, I just know it!"

The amazing thing is that these people will hold on to their assertions, even when confronted with the biblical evidence to the contrary, such as Psalm 51:5 or Psalm 58:3. See here and here. Yet, I will continue my fight with yet one more Bible verse.

"I knew that you would surely deal treacherously, and that from before birth you were called a rebel. [Yet] for My name’s sake I [God] defer My anger; for the sake of My praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off" (Isaiah 48:8-9).

This passage is God's speaking to Israel, represented as a collective person. That person, God says, was a rebel from birth. Furthermore, that rebellion, He says, was properly subject to His wrath, though He has chosen to defer it. This deferment is an act of grace, for the sake of His covenantal reputation.

Some will say that, since God is speaking to the whole nation of Israel, this passage doesn't apply to the matter at hand. However, since He is speaking to the nation by analogy to a single person, does not logic require that His analogy also means that what He says would apply to a single person? There could be no analogy if the application didn't go both ways.

This would seem to completely obliterate any case for an age of accountability, because it both calls a newborn a rebel, a form of sin (I Samuel 15:23), and says that the rebellious newborn is properly subject to His wrath. Thus, both assertions of the supporters of infant innocence and the age of accountability are refuted.

The Example of Jesus for Our Apologetic

My objection to classical apologetics is that its proponents believe in finding a common ground with their anti-Christian opponents. Part of that is that they do not use Scripture as their evidence, because the unbeliever doesn't consider the Scriptures to be authoritative. Therefore, the apologist claims, he must appeal to the unbeliever on the basis of something that unbeliever considers authoritative. 

Do you see a problem with that principle? To the Christian, God and His word are authoritative. Of course the unbeliever rejects that authority, because he is an unbeliever! Therefore, when the Christian seeks an authority that the unbeliever accepts, he is accepting the very premise of unbelief, that God is not the ultimate authority (Genesis 3:5). In order to defend Christianity, therefore, the classical apologist starts by accepting the worldview of the unbeliever. That is to surrender before joining battle!

We must, in contrast, use the Bible exactly because it is the highest standard, the word of God Himself. If we turned to another standard, then we would be adopting the worldview of the atheist. It is illegitimate for the atheist to expect us to adopt HIS worldview in order to discuss worldviews. In fact, THAT would be circular reasoning. It is legitimate, however, for us to argue from our own worldview. Would an atheist allow us to forbid him to argue from a secular source? Obviously not. So, his assertion would be the application of a double standard, and should be labeled as such. 

Ask this question: When confronted by unbelief, what apologetical standard did Jesus apply? Look at His confrontation with Satan, the highest standard of unbelief, in Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, and Luke 4:1-13. In the face of each challenge, His response was, "It is written..." If Jesus, God incarnate, depended on Scripture for His apologetic, how can men do less? And let us not forget that it is only His word that God promises to empower: "So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11). 

Abortion: The Abomination of Shedding Innocent Blood

There are topics over which Christians disagree, whether God approves or disapproves of something. The use of alcoholic beverages comes to mind. However, when God says that He hates something, there is no room for disagreement.

"There are six things that the Lord hates,
     seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
     and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
     feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies, 
      and one who sows discord among brothers." 
- Proverbs 6:16-19

So here the Holy Spirit gives us a list of things which God not only hates, but which are abominations to Him. That is the strongest term used in Scripture for something which God opposes. Some of them might surprise us, such as lying. However, the part I want to emphasize is "hands that shed innocent blood." And it is key to notice that it is innocent blood, so we aren't talking about self-defense, or enemies killed in war, or the perpetrators of crimes deserving capital punishment. Rather, it is about murder, the killing of an innocent party.

Can there be anyone more innocent than an infant in the womb? Yet, we in America kill three thousand preborn infants every day. In God's eyes, that makes us guilty of innocent blood, and, therefore, abominations in His sight, apart from forgiveness by faith in Jesus Christ. This guilt applies to the mothers, the fathers, the doctors and nurses, and to the political leaders who stand by while the genocide continues.

The Polytheism and Self-Deception of Mormons

I interact often with Mormons on the question of whether they are polytheists. They deny it, though they willingly say that they believe that there is an unknown number of gods in addition to their god. However, they say that doesn't make them polytheists because they only worship one god. In support of their profession, they refer to the frequent biblical references to the gods of the nations, and even of pagan gods worshiped by Israel.

Of course, they ignore such sceptical references to gods as Deuteronomy 32:21: "They have made me jealous with what is no god; they have provoked me to anger with their idols." And I Corinthians 8:5: "Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth..." In other words, biblical references to "gods" don't refer to actual deities, but rather to the idols of the pagans. It is a form of sarcasm.

And what does the Bible say about those idols? "[They] have cast their gods into the fire, for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone" (Isaiah 37:19). The idols of the pagans have no divine power, but are only the artifacts of men's hands, empty wood and stone. The one real God ridicules such foolishness: "They know not, nor do they discern, for He has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand. No one considers, nor is there knowledge or discernment to say, 'Half of it I burned in the fire; I also baked bread on its coals; I roasted meat and have eaten. And shall I make the rest of it an abomination? Shall I fall down before a block of wood?' He feeds on ashes; a deluded heart has led him astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say, 'Is there not a lie in my right hand?'" (Isaiah 44:18-20).

The point of the biblical references to "gods" is not because there are actually other gods, but because there aren't. The belief in other gods is presented as foolishness and self-deception. Yet these are the very references that the Mormons use to maintain their claims. 

Further Biblical Testimony Against "Soul Sleep"

I have covered the issue of soul sleep before. One version is held by Seventh-Day Adventists and teaches exactly that, that the spirit of the dead is asleep in the grave, waiting to be revived at the Second Coming. The Jehovah's Witnesses hold a different version, according to which the spirit of the dead disintegrates, and is recreated at the Second Coming.  Either way, the doctrine is unbiblical.

First, consider Acts 7:59: "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'" The context is the account of the martyrdom of Stephen. Just as he is about to die, he proclaims the words recorded here. The verb "receive" is a present tense imperative. Present tense, not future tense. He expects to pass in the coming seconds from his current circumstances into the waiting arms of Jesus. He expected no intervening period of two-thousand years - so far - before that meeting. Unlike the members of the Watchtower, he expected that blessing now! 

Next, look at Hebrews 12:23: "[You have come] to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect." Here the author describes the Heavenly Jerusalem, the glorified church, sometimes called the Church Triumphant, which consists of "spirits made perfect." Notice again the present tense. These spirits are the saints already in Heaven, in their glorified state. They are not spirits in the author's far future, as the Watchtower and SDA's claim. 

On top of the proofs I have given in the past (use the "soul sleep" tag at the bottom), these verses easily demonstrate that the soul sleep doctrine, whether of the Seventh-Day Adventist version or of the Jehovah's Witness version, is a manmade doctrine, invented in spite of the biblical testimony, not derived from it.