Which Christianity? – Responding to Mr. Mark Driscoll: Forward

Cult or Christian? Who Bears the Burden?

In the foreword to Are Mormons Christian?, Pastor Mark Driscoll wastes no time applying the label “cult” to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He assures his readers that “biblical Christianity” is defined by the ancient creeds (committees), and that any group that deviates from those creeds is not Christian. By his definition, then, Latter-day Saints are outside the fold.

But let’s pause. The word cult carries heavy emotional weight. It conjures images of control, deception, and blind obedience. By using it at the outset, Driscoll creates suspicion before he has even made an argument. But where is the proof?

If we are going to speak honestly, we need to replace the burden of proof. Instead of assuming that Latter-day Saints must prove we are not a cult, Driscoll must demonstrate:

Where does the Bible itself define Christianity by adherence to the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds?
Who gave post-apostolic councils the authority to define once and for all the nature of God and the boundaries of faith?
Why should Christians today accept that the creeds are the sole test of orthodoxy, when the earliest followers of Jesus lived and died long before those creeds existed?

Until those questions are answered, the label cult is not an argument. It is name-calling.

The Problem with His Standard

Here is the irony. If Driscoll’s standard is correct—that “Christianity” is defined by belief in the Trinity as articulated at Nicaea (325 AD) and expanded at later councils—then the very first Christians would not qualify as Christians by his definition.

The apostles never used the language of “essence” (ousia), “substance,” or “consubstantial.”
The New Testament never speaks of God as “without body, parts, or passions.”
Paul, Peter, and John all spoke of the Father and the Son as distinct persons who act in unity, not as one undivided substance.

So if the apostles themselves would fail Driscoll’s test, perhaps the test is flawed.

Christianity Before the Creeds

When we look at the earliest church, we do not see uniformity on these philosophical definitions. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, and others expressed widely different views on the relationship of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Some placed the Son beneath the Father. Some treated the Spirit as more of a power than a person. Only later, after centuries of debate, did the councils produce their formula.

That process may have been well-intentioned, but it proves the point: the doctrine changed. The creeds were a later development, not an unbroken apostolic inheritance.

So who actually shifted Christianity? Was it the Latter-day Saints in the 19th century, restoring the earliest biblical view of God? Or was it the philosophers and bishops of the 4th and 5th centuries, importing Greek metaphysics into the gospel and declaring eternal damnation for anyone who did not agree with their wording?

From the Foreword to the First Claim

With that groundwork laid, we can now move to Driscoll’s first “irreconcilable difference”: the nature of God. He claims that “biblical Christianity” has always affirmed the Trinity, while Latter-day Saints believe in “three gods.” But as we have just seen, the question is not whether Latter-day Saints measure up to his definition. The real question is: which Christianity more closely reflects the teachings of Jesus and His apostles?

And that brings us to the heart of the matter: Who changed God?