Tuesday, March 29, 2016

References to Jesus in Pagan Literature

One criticism forwarded against the historicity of Jesus by "Christ Mythicisits" is why Jesus is rarely referenced by Pagan/Classical authors? Greek NT scholar, Murray Harris (author of Jesus as God) provided the following answer which is pretty much spot-on:

[W]hy is the pagan testimony to Jesus to scanty?


It should be noted, in the first place, that our knowledge of any aspect of first-century history is dependent on comparatively few witnesses, witnesses that themselves are fragmentary. Secondly, Roman writers could hardly be expected to have foreseen the subsequent influence of Christianity on the Roman Empire and so to have carefully documented the beginnings of this new religion in the appearance of a Nazarene prophet . . . Thirdly, for all its political turbulence, Judaea was in a remote corner of the Empire of little intrinsic importance to the imperial capital. The summary execution of a messianic agitator in Judaea would have been no exceptional occurrence. Josephus tells us that ‘about two thousand’ Jewish insurgents were crucified by the legate of Syria, Quintilius Varus, following the widespread disturbances after the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C. (War 2.75) (Murray J. Harris, “References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors,” in DavidWenham, ed. Gospel Perspectives, vol. 5: The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospel [JSOT Press, 1984], pp. 343-68, here p. 358)

Monday, March 28, 2016

Dale Tuggy, 10 Apologists' Mistakes About the Trinity

Over on his Trinities blog, Dr. Dale Tuggy has a two-part podcast series that I highly recommend, 10 Apologists' Mistakes About the Trinity, wherein he exposes the more common fallacious arguments in favour of classical Trinitarianism:

10. The Trinity doctrine is not obviously contradictory, so problem solved!
9. There has always, or at least since the fourth century, been a single, dominant doctrine of the Trinity.
8. Trinitarian theology is obviously implied by scripture.
7. “The” Trinity doctrine is “the Christian view” about God.
6. Trite, new-fangled summaries of “the” doctrine.
5. New-fangled slogans and grandiose claims.
4. Dubious “proofs” of the Trinity from reason.
3. Flights of speculation about the atonement.
2. Confusing the Trinity with the “deity of Christ.”
1. Linguistic sophistry: “Let us make,” “elohim,” “echad.”

Part 1 (arguments 10-6)

Part 2 (arguments 5-1)

Exodus 17:15, Divine Identity and Divine Agency

And Moses built an altar and called it, the Lord is my banner. (Exo 17:15 NRSV)

The new-wave of Trinitarian apologists, spearheaded by the likes of Richard Bauckham and his nonsense about “divine identity” would have one believe that if a person possesses the divine name, they share said “divine identity” with Yahweh, and are therefore numerically identical to the one true God (see Dale Tuggy’s refutation of Bauckham here). Using such “logic,” the altar Moses erected is numerically identical to the one God of Israel, as it possesses the divine name ( יְהוָה נִסִּי[Yahweh is my banner]). One should also compare this verse with the following:

You need make for me only an altar of earth and sacrifice on it your burn offerings and your offerings of well-being, your sheep and your oxen; in every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you. (Exo 20:24 NRSV [here, Yahweh and His name is remembered at an altar])

Be attentive to him [the angel of Yahweh] and listen to his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. (Exo 23:21 NRSV [here, the "name" of Yahweh is "in" [בְּ] the angel of Yahweh])

In an excellent blog post, "Markan Christology and the Messenger of YHWH," Daniel McClellan (PhD cand.) writes the following on the angel of Yahweh which is rather á propos:

In addition to the facts that the “person/being” distinction is utterly irrelevant to these texts and that the second concern is a difference of degrees, not kind, the passages Bird cites in the earlier quote are cases of interpolation (see here). They didn’t originally refer to the messenger as God. While it’s true the interpolated texts were later incorporated into a broader theology of presencing, this fact rather undermines Bird’s attempt to distance the conceptualization of the messenger of YHWH from the conceptualization of Jesus. The messenger became identified with God and God’s presence and authority in virtue of possessing God’s name, as we see in Exod 23:20–21:

Look, I’m sending a messenger before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to his voice. Do not rebel against him, because he will not pardon your transgressions, for my name is in him.

Christ’s possession of God’s name, in his own theophoric name as well as his repeated associated with “I am,” is conceptually identical. He has God’s name, therefore he presences God (reifies his presence) and exercises his authority. This notion of the “indwelling” of the name is found also in the Apocalypse of Abraham, where Yahoel is a name given to God, but also to an angel who meets with Abraham. The angel insists he exercises God’s power “in virtue of the ineffable name that is dwelling in me” (think also of the “place where my name will dwell”).

Interestingly enough, the Exodus 23 passage undermines one of the most common assertions that is made about Christ’s unique relationship with God in Mark. When Jesus forgives the man in Mark 2, the rhetorical bad guys wonder, “who can forgive sins but God only?” This is taken by some to be an accurate assertion of theological fact that means Jesus’ forgiveness of the man’s sins proves he is God, but a far more parsimonious reading has Jesus correct their misunderstanding by showing that he exercises that very power despite not being God. The objection that is usually lodged here is that there are no other examples anywhere of someone other than God having the prerogative to forgive sins. While this objection is an argument from silence, it’s also wrong. The messenger in Exodus 23, whose presencing of God is likely a reflection of those earlier interpolated texts, exercises precisely that prerogative in virtue of having God’s name in him.

The conceptualization of the messenger of YHWH in those Hebrew Bible passages where its identity is confused with that of God provide an exactly parallel conceptualization of the messenger as a figure that, in virtue of being endowed with God’s very name, presences God and exercises God’s authority. This is not to say that Jesus was originally an angel (which is what critics—including Bird—always seem to think angelomorphic christology means), but just that the messenger’s literary form and function as a representative of the deity offered a conceptual template for those nurturing and developing the Christ tradition. The cognitive architecture that predisposes us to conceptualize of agency and even identity as rather fluid and even communicable[.]


Considerations like this show how exegetically weak the “arguments” forwarded by Bauckham and other Trinitarians really are. It is divine agency, not “divine identity,” that is part-and-parcel of the theology of the Old Testament and the Christology of the New Testament.

The Cost of Creation

I just encountered an interesting paper interacting with, and refuting the common charge made by atheists and others about the love of God and natural disasters, "The Cost of Creation"; here is the opening paragraph:

Many people wonder how a loving God could have created a world in which natural disasters occur. What most people do not realize is that such disasters are typically the product of natural systems which most of the time operate for our benefit.

To put it one way, natural disasters are the ‘cost’ we ‘pay’ for systems which promote, protect life, and maintain. They should not be interpreted simplistically as a punishment for sin. Disasters happen to everyone, and God provides environmental benefits to both the just and the unjust.

As this is a common charge, I think this article (and the sources it quotes from) should add some food for thought

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Easter is not named after Ishtar

Over at the Belle Jar blog, there is an excellent article just in time for Easter refuting the long-standing (and false) claim that "Easter" is derived from "Ishtar," a pagan goddess:

Easter Is Not Named After Ishtar, And Other Truths I Have To Tell You

While it is (sadly) not too surprising that Richard Dawkins et al. would repeat this claim, I did find Carlos Xavier, the son-in-law of Anthony Buzzard, make this ludicrous claim just today (though this is hardly the first time he has put his foot in his mouth; example 1 example 2)

It is time for this stupid claim to die the death it deserves.

Friday, March 25, 2016

Joseph Smith, John Thomas, and the charge of Plagiarism

A long-standing claim by critics of the LDS Church is that Joseph Smith plagiarised from other writings to produce the Book of Mormon and other texts; for a good refutation of this charge, see Jeff Lindsay's LDSFAQ page on this issue (as well as his satirical exposé of the parallelomania critics often engage in). Also, see Ted Jones' MA dissertation on the writings of Joseph Smith and Thomas Dick (refuting Fawn Brodie and others).

To compare and contrast Joseph Smith's purported plagiarism with that of another religious leader who was a contemporary of Joseph Smith, see this paper by S. Young on John Thomas (1805-1871) and his (rather obvious) plagiarism from previous authors in the composition of Elpis Israel (1849) and other works:

S. Young, "The Truth: Plagiarism and the Christadelphian founder"

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Quick personal reflections on the importance of the Book of Mormon

Tomorrow marks the 11th anniversary of my baptism into Christ and as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, it will be the 186th anniversary of the publication of the Book of Mormon, so it seems rather á propos that one engages in some personal reflections on that great text, including its importance in my life.

I won’t repeat my conversion story (abbreviated version here), but I was a nerdy 14- year old, and when I first came across the Church, I was intrigued by the Book of Mormon. Granted, I thought the idea of angelic visitations to be utter nonsense (I was strongly agnostic at the time), but the very fact that Joseph Smith produced something tangible like the Book of Mormon did interest me, so I decided to hunt down a copy (a 1920 printing which I purchased for 10 which I still have and treasure).

For the space of two years, and after having read a lot of literature on the Church, mainly on the issue of Book of Mormon historicity and related issues, I decided to seriously read the text as I wanted to know for sure if it was true or not; I still remember to this day the power of the Holy Ghost that overwhelmed me, on both and intellectual and spiritual level, that confirmed to me the truthfulness of the mission of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon as the Word of God. I remember waking up the next day feeling like a new person, and knowing deep in my heart and mind that something had changed in me and my perspectives as I knew “Mormonism” to be true and all that entails (Joseph Smith to be a prophet; the existence of the supernatural; historicity of the Book of Mormon; etc).

Over the past 12 ½ years since that faithful night in October 2003, my testimony of the Book of Mormon has grown, and I have read it many times since (over 50+ times cover-to-cover), as has my testimony of the theology of the Restored Gospel and Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (including studying for 5 years in a Catholic institution theology and related fields such as biblical languages and scholarship). I am grateful for the Book of Mormon for getting me to take the claims of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the LDS Church seriously, and being a key part of my spiritual conversion to the Gospel.

I often share a version of this story as it helps explain how someone like me (who is strongly introverted and nerdy, and prefers having their face behind a book than give talks/presentations) do that I do--it is because I truly believe and know it to be true, both in my heart and in my mind, and I have a desire to help teach and defend the Restored Gospel, which also shows the transformative nature of the Restored Gospel.

I would urge anyone reading this post to take up Moroni’s challenge (Moroni 10:3-5) to find out for themselves the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon.


In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The LDS view of Joseph Smith and the Catholic view of Mary

In a lengthy blog post, I addressed and refuted the claim that the respect given to the Prophet Joseph Smith is unhealthy and actually detracts from the salutary efficacy of Christ and His atonement. In reality, a better evaluation would be comparing Roman Catholic Mariology with the Latter-day Saint view of Joseph Smith, especially as the former really does detract from the glory of Jesus Christ.

Unlike Latter-day Saints, no hymn is directed to Joseph Smith; in RC piety, there are numerous hymns directed to Mary (not just “about” them), such as “Immaculate Mary” (the Lourdes Hymn), which includes lyrics such as:

In Heaven the blessed your glory proclaim;
On earth we your children invoke your sweet name.

In RC theology, Mary is prayed to, and such piety is deemed by the Magisterium as intrinsic to the gospel.

In paragraph 971 of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, endorsed by John Paul II, we read:

The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship. The Church rightly honors the Blessed virgin with special devotion . . . The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel"

As an example of a prayer to Mary, note the following which shows the unhealthy veneration of Mary which detracts from the uniqueness of Christ (this prayer is said at the end of a rosary):

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope!
To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To thee do we send up our sighs mourning and weeping in this valley of tears!
Turn then, O most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
O clement, o loving, o sweet virgin Mary.

Contrast this with the Latter-day Saint view of Joseph Smith—not only is there no prayer given to Joseph Smith, one would be excommunicated for advocating such a heretical practice!

One final example would be the doctrine (not yet defined as a dogma, but there is a huge push for such) in Catholicism that Mary is a co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix. Note the following from Catholic systematic theologian, Ludwig Ott:

1. Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her co-operation in the Incarnation (Mediatio in universali)
Mary freely and deliberately co-operated in giving the Redeemer to the world. Instructed by the angel as to the person and the task of Her Son she freely assented to be Mother of God. Luke 1:38: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done unto me according to thy word.” The Incarnation of the Son of God, and the Redemption of mankind by the vicarious atonement of Christ were dependent on her assent. In this significant moment in the history of Salvation Mary represented humanity. St. Thomas says: “At the Annunciation the concurrence of the maiden was awaited as a representative of all human nature (loco totius humanae naturae)” (S. th. III 30, 1). In regard to these words, Pope Leo XIII remarks: “To a certain extent she (Mary) represented the whole human race” (quae ipsius generis humani personam quodammodo agebat). D 1940 a.
The Fathers contrast Mary’s obedience at the Annunciation with Eve’s disobedience. Mary by her obedience became the cause of the Salvation, while Eve by her disobedience became the cause of death. St. Irenaeus teaches: “As she (Eve) who had Adam as her husband, but was nevertheless a virgin, was disobedient, and thereby became the cause of death to herself and to the whole of mankind, so also Mary, who had a pre-ordained husband, and was still a virgin, by her obedience became a cause of her own salvation and the salvation of the whole human race” (et sibi et universo generi humano causa facta est salutis: Adv. haer. III 22, 4; cf. V 19, 1). St. Jerome says: “By a woman the whole world was saved” (per mulierem totus mundus salvatus est; Tract. de Ps. 96). Cf. Tertullian, De carne Christi 17.
Mary’s co-operation in the Redemption
The title Corredemptrix = Coredemptress, which has been current since the fifteenth century, and which also appears in some official Church documents under Pius X (cf. D 1978 a), must not be conceived in the sense of an equation of the efficacy of Mary with the redemptive activity of Christ, the sole Redeemer of humanity (1 Tim. 2:5). As she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by Christ, she could not of herself merit the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem merito. (The author of an act of merit cannot be a recipient of the same act of merit.) Her co-operation in the objective redemption is an indirect, remote co-operation, and derives from this that she voluntarily devoted her whole life to the service of the Redeemer, and, under the Cross, suffered and sacrificed with Him. As Pope Pius XII says in the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis” (1943), she “offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father together with the holocaust of her maternal rights and her motherly love like a new Eve for all children of Adam” (D 2291). As “The New Eve” she is, as the same Pope declares, in the Apostolic Constitution “Munificentissimus Deus” (1950) “the sublime associate of our Redeemer” (alma Redemptoris nostri socia [cf. Gn. 3:12]). Cf. D. 3031: generoso Divini Redemptoris socia.
Christ alone truly offered the sacrifice of atonement on the Cross; Mary merely gave Him moral support in this action. Thus Mary is not entitled to the title “Priest” (sacerdos). Indeed this is expressly laid down by the Holy Office (1916, 1927). Christ, as the Church teaches, “conquered the enemy of the human race alone (solus)” (D 711); in the same way, He alone acquired the grace of Redemption for the whole human race, including Mary. The words of Luke 1:38: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord,” imply Mary’s mediate, remote co-operation in the Redemption. St. Ambrose expressly teaches: “Christ’s Passion did not require any support” (De inst. virg. 7). In the power of the grace of Redemption merited by Christ, Mary, by her spiritual entering into the sacrifice of her Divine Son for men, made atonement for the sins of men, and (de congruo) merited the application of the redemptive grace of Christ. In this manner she co-operates in the subjective redemption of mankind.
The statement of Pope Pius X in the Encyclical “Ad diem illum” (1904): (Beata Virgo) de congruo, ut aiunt, promeret nobis, quae Christus de condigno promeruit (D 1978 a) (The Blessed Virgin merits for us de congruo what Christ merited de condigno) is, as the present tense “promeret” shows, not indeed to be taken as referring to the historical objective Redemption, which occurred once and for all, but to her ever-present, intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption.
2. Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces by her intercession in Heaven (Mediatio in speciali.)
Since her assumption into Heaven, Mary co-operates in the application of the grace of Redemption to man. She participates in the distribution of grace by her maternal intercession which is far inferior in efficacy to that of the intercessory prayer of Christ, the High Priest, but surpasses far the intercessory prayer of all the other saints.
According to the view of the older, and of many of the modern, theologians Mary’s intercessory co-operation extends to all graces, which are conferred on mankind, so that no grace accrues to men, without the intercession of Mary. The implication of this is not that we are obliged to beg for all graces through Mary, nor that Mary’s intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of the grace, but that, according to God’s positive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary.
Recent Popes have declared in favour of this doctrine. Leo XIII says in the Rosary Encyclical “Octobri mense” (1891): “From that great treasure of all graces, which the Lord has brought, nothing, according to the will of God, comes to us except through Mary, so that, as nobody can approach the Supreme Father except through the Son, similarly nobody can approach Christ except through the Mother” (1940 a). Pope Pius X calls Mary “the dispenser of all gifts, which Jesus has acquired for us by His death and His blood” (D 1978 a). Pope Benedict XV declared: “All gifts which the Author of all good has deigned to communicate to the unhappy posterity of Adam, are, according to the loving resolve of His Divine Providence, dispensed by the hands of the Most Holy Virgin” (AAS 9, 1917, 266). The same Pope calls Mary: “the mediatrix with God of all graces” (gratiarum omnium apud Deum sequestra: AAS 11 1919, 227).
Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical “Ingravescentibus malis” (1937) quotes with approval the words of Saint Bernard: “Thus it is His (God’s) will that we should have everything through Mary” (AAS 29, 1937, 373). Similarly Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical “Mediator Dei” (1947).
Express scriptural proofs are lacking. Theologians seek a biblical foundation in the words of Christ, John 19:26 et seq.: “Woman behold thy son, son behold thy mother.” According to the literal sense these words refer only to the persons addressed, Mary and John. The mystical interpretation, which became dominant in the West in the late Middle Ages (Dionysius the Carthusian), sees in John the representative of the whole human race. In him Mary was given as a mother to all the redeemed. Moreover, it corresponds to the position of Mary as the spiritual mother of the whole of redeemed humanity that she, by her powerful intercession, should procure for her children in need of help all graces by which they can attain eternal salvation.
The idea of the spiritual Motherhood of Mary is part of the Ancient Christian tradition, independently of the interpretation of John 19:26 et seq. According to Origen the perfect Christ had Mary as mother: “Every perfect person no longer lives (of himself) but Christ lives in him; and because Christ lives in him, it is said of him to Mary: Behold thy son Christ” (Com. in Ioan. 14, 23). St. Epiphanius derives Mary’s spiritual Motherhood from the Eve-Mary parallel: “She (Mary) is she of whom Eve is the prototype, who, as such received the appellation ‘mother of the living’ … as to externals the whole human race on earth stemmed from that Eve. Thus in truth, through Mary, the very life of the world was borne, so that she bore the Living One, and became the Mother of the Living. Thus in prototype Mary was called ‘Mother of the living’ ” (Haer. 78, 18). St. Augustine bases Mary’s spiritual Motherhood on the mystical unity of the faithful with Christ. As the bodily Mother of God, she is, in a spiritual fashion, also the mother of those who are articulated with Christ. Cf. De s. virginitate 6, 6.
Express testimonies, though few in number, to Mary’s position as mediatrix of grace are found since the eighth century. They became more numerous during the peak period of the Middle Ages. St. Germanus of Constantinople († 733) says: “Nobody can achieve salvation except through thee … O Most Holy One … nobody can receive a gift of grace except through thee … O Most Chaste One” (Or. 9, 5. Lesson of the Office of the Feast). St. Bernard of Clairvaux († 1153) says of Mary: “God wished that we have nothing, except by the hands of Mary” (In Vig. Nativit. Domini serm. 3, 10). Ps.-Albert the Great calls Mary: “The universal dispenser of all riches” (omnium bonitatum universaliter distributiva; Super Missus est q. 29). In modern times the doctrine that Mary is the Universal Mediatrix of Grace was advocated by St. Peter Canisius, Suarez, St. Alphonsus Liguori, Scheeben, and it is supported by the opinion of numerous theologians at the present day.
Speculatively the doctrine of Mary’s Universal Mediation is based on her co-operation in the Incarnation and the Redemption, as well as on her relationship to the Church:
a) Since Mary gave the source of all grace to men, it is to be expected that she would also co-operate in the distribution of all grace.
b) As Mary became the spiritual Mother of all the redeemed, it is fitting that she, by her constant motherly intercession should care for the supernatural life of all her children.
c) As Mary is “the prototype of the Church” (St. Ambrose, Expos. ev. sec. Luc. II 7), and as all grace of redemption is obtained by the Church, it is to be assumed that Mary, by her heavenly intercession, is the universal mediatrix of grace.
Definability
The doctrine of Mary’s Universal Mediation of Grace based on her co-operation in the Incarnation is so definitely manifest in the sources of the Faith, that nothing stands in the way of a dogmatic definition. Her position as Mediatrix of Grace in virtue of her intercession in Heaven is less definitely attested. Since however it is organically associated with Mary’s Spiritual Motherhood which in turn is based on Scripture and with her intimate participation in the work of her Divine Son, its definition does not seem impossible. (Fundamentals of Catholic dogma pp. 212–215)


Again, needless to say, there is nothing like this in “Mormonism” with respect to the Latter-day Saint view of Joseph Smith--Joseph Smith is not seen as a co-mediator co-redeemer with Christ; he is not a heavenly intercessor; he is not prayed to, nor is he the "neck" of God's grace and God's grace only is granted upon his heavenly assent.

I think it would be obvious that the LDS view of Joseph Smith is nowhere as extreme as the Catholic view of the mother of Jesus.

Licona/Carrier debate on the historicity of the Resurrection

As tomorrow is Good Friday, I think it is á propos that we, as believers, reflect on the historical evidence for the reality of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The following is perhaps the best debate on youtube on the question of the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. It is between Richard Carrier (who, at the time, accepted the historicity of Jesus) and Mike Licona, who would later write one of the best books on this question, The Resurrection of Jesus:A New Historiographical Approach (IVP Academic, 2010). Enjoy!


Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Ed Pinegar on LDS Soteriology

I read a relatively new book today; the following section caught my eye as it shows (1) the necessity of grace and (2) the Christocentric nature of Latter-day Saint soteriology; furthermore, it refutes the charge that LDS soteriology is raw works righteousness (read: Pelagian). Keep in mind this is not an LDS author writing to an Evangelical audience in order to "dupe them" (something James White et al claim modern LDS scholars engage in), but an LDS author writing a book for an LDS audience:


Remember, we do not earn grace. We do not merit it. The fruits of us receiving the grace of God through Christ’s atoning sacrifice are expressed in our righteousness. We become, and thus we are what we are through Christ the Lord. [re. Eph 2:8-10:] These quintessential verses describe perfectly how grace operates and how our works follow when we receive grace into our lives . . . To work out salvation does not mean that we work it out or earn it, but rather it means we come to the Lord with all our hearts (we accept His infinite Atonement), and then we are empowered to work it out through our faithfulness (see Mormon 9:27). We are saved by the grace of God, and we are judged by our works and the desires of our hearts (see Alma 41:3; D&C 137:9). We are motivated by our love of and for God and by gratitude, for His goodness becomes our motivation. The commandments are not a check-off list of things to do, but rather they become the joy of our expression for the love of God and the empowerment of the Atonement in our lives. It simply is the right and natural thing to do. Not only have we obtained a hope in Christ, but Christ is also in and through us, empowering us to do good as all good comes from God. He becomes our strength, “for in his strength I can do all things” (Alma 26:12). He is our strength and our power. (Ed J. Pinegar, Gethsemane, Golgotha, and the Garden of the Tomb [Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort, Inc.: 2015], 95, 96-7; comment in square brackets added for clarification)

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Biblical versus Mormon Forgiveness?

I decided to reread some of a book I read over a year ago, Paul Derengowski, Biblical Forgiveness versus Mormon Forgiveness (Self-published, 2014). Here are some comments:

From the back page:

“How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,” wrote King David. Yet, in the Mormon belief system, is it even possible for God to forgive?

From the biblical perspective the author argues that if one should accept the dictates and mandates of Mormonism, that person will die in his sins, unforgiven by God, and destined to spend eternity in hell apart from him.

Not exactly a good start; the text the author quotes from (Psa 32:1 [cf. Rom 4:5-8]) actually refutes, not supports, the author’s Reformed soteriology, as I discussed here—in reality, David lost his justification and had to be rejustified, which is why his being forgiven in Psa 32:1 after being convicted by Nathan due to his murder of Uriah and adultery of Bathsheba.

In the preface, we read on p. iv-v:

I have studied . . . Mormonism . . . [and t]housands of hours have been spent reading and writing about the subject, as well as discussing Mormonism with former and current Mormons . . . a small fortunate [has been spent] on firsthand Mormon resources and working my way through them.

So, one should expect a work of careful scholarship with intellectual integrity and sound exegesis of the Bible and uniquely LDS texts.

However, reality is not the author’s friend. Some of my papers which refute a number of his arguments against “Mormonism” were sent to him, and he refused to read them:

Here is the author's "nuh-uh"-like response:

You're right, it won't [convince the author], because I'm not interested in some blog. Besides, cannot you articulate? (URL)

Remember, one is limited to 150 characters on twitter, so someone linking to an article is perfectly kosher. This is called a dodge.

On p. 8, the author writes the following:

Believing that forgiveness is not simply for the asking, Mormons insist that forgiveness is conditioned upon the cooperative efforts of the sinner combined with the gracious act of God to grant it Through such cooperative participation, not only does the Mormon make himself feel “worthy” of God’s pardon, in this way of paying God back for something he assumes is of equal value for the infraction he committed.

I am unaware of any tenet of LDS theology that states that the person pays back God equal to the infraction/sin one commits against God; it is only through the power of the atonement that one can even be forgiven. Note the following from the Book of Mormon:

And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith. (Moroni 6:4)

Additionally, that there are “conditions” for forgiveness is part-and-parcel of biblical soteriology.

In Matt 3:8, recording the words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees, the KJV reads:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.

The Greek of this text reads:

ποιήσατε οὖν καρπὸν ἄξιον τῆς μετανοίας.

Literally, John is commanding the people “to do” (ποιεω) works that are “worthy” of repentance. The Greek adjective translated as “worthy” is αξιος. In New Testament soteriological contexts, it is always used to describe the reality of someone or something; it is not a mere legal declaration; in other words, something is counted/considered worthy because they/it are intrinsically worthy. We can see this in the Gospel of Matthew itself:

Nor scrip for your journey, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy (αξιος) of his meat. And into whateoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who it is worthy (αξιος); and there abide till ye go thence . . .And if the house be worthy (αξιος), let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. (Matt 10:10-11, 13)

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy (αξιος) of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy (αξιος) of me. (Matt 10:37-38)

Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy (αξιος). (Matt 22:8)

We can also see this in the verb form of this adjective (αξιοω) and its usage in the New Testament. Speaking of Christ and his worthiness, we read the following:

For this man was counted worthy (αξιοω) of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. (Heb 3:3)

Not only are there important soteriological implications of this, but also anthropological, as it calls into question the Reformed/Calvinistic belief of Total depravity (the “T” of the TULIP).

Of course, some may pose the question, “What about all those texts that speak of us being ‘dead in sin’ such as Eph 2:1-5?” In addition, some Reformed apologists, such as James White, also bring up John 11 and the rising of Lazarus from the dead and Lazarus’ inability to respond to Jesus as biblical proof of the inability of man.

Calvinists are guilty of gross eisegesis in Eph 2:1-5 (and parallel texts in Rom 6:2 and Col 2:13) by investigating the various ways Scripture uses the metaphor of spiritual death. For example, the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 portrays an image of spiritual death precisely opposite the Reformed concept. The story’s main concern is to illustrate the initial spiritual salvation of an individual (as opposed to the physical resurrection in the story of Lazarus). Hence, we see a context in which the New Testament author’s meaning of spiritually “dead” can be gleaned much more appropriately. In the story of the Prodigal Son, the son leaves the father’s house with his share of the wealth. After squandering the wealth, the son finally comes to his senses and returns by his own free will to the father. The father, in turn, greets his son with compassion and invites him back into the home. This sequence of events becomes very significant in our present discussion on the meaning of the metaphor “dead” since the father describes the son’s return specifically in Luke 15:23 as, “For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.” Not without significance, verse 32 repeats verbatim the father’s description of his son’s return: “. . . for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” In light of the fact that the son himself came to his senses and subsequently made his way home, Jesus’ use of the metaphor “dead” to describe the father’s understanding of the son’s previous spiritual state connotes a state, not of “total depravity,” but rather of cooperation by the son with the father’s will. Moreover, since the story of the Prodigal Son is surrounded by other parables in Luke 15-16 which illustrate the nature of initial salvation (e.g., “The Lost Sheep” in Luke 15:1-7; “The Lost Coin” in Luke 15:8-10 and “The Shrewd Manager” in Luke 16:1-3), the medley of parables does far more to help us understand the extent and limitations of spiritual death in regard to conversion than does the story of the physical death of Lazarus.

Furthermore, trying to tie John 11 and the physical raising of Lazarus with man being spiritually raised by God is to engage in false comparisons, a common exegetical fallacy Calvinists and others engage in. That certain theologies are forced to go down that (eisegetical) route should be strong evidence of how exegetically bankrupt their theological system is.

In Jas 2:22 (see here and here refuting the Reformed view of Jas 2), we read:

Seest though how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Here, James teaches that Abraham's faith and works, cooperating with one another (Greek: συνεργεω, whence "synergy" in English) resulted in his faith being complete/perfected (τελειοω).

Also, one must ask why, if, as the author assumes, justification is once-for-all and results in a blanket forgiveness of sins (not just past and then-present, but future), why texts such as 1 John 2:1-2 and Heb 2:17 refute this concept. Ditto for the biblical teaching on baptismal regeneration (e.g., Acts 2:38).


Not sure if I will revisit the book, but I might flick through it and post if there is any interesting points to interact with. However, this should show that the book is laced with a number of fallacious arguments and assumptions.

Refutations of the wackier elements of Anti-Catholicism


While readers of this blog will know that I am strongly critical of Roman Catholic theology, I will be the very first to admit that there is a lot of stupidity out there critical of Catholicism (the works of Jack Chick is a prime example). Sadly, many Latter-day Saints accept hook, line, and sinker many of these more wacky "arguments" (probably due to the poorly researched works on the Apostasy, such as the dated and poorly-researched book by James Talmage, The Great Apostasy).

Here are links to refutations of some of the wackier elements out there against roman Catholicism:

'Hunt'-ing the Whore of Babylon by Jimmy Akin

Nimrod, Babylon, and the Black Pope by Dave Burke (a Christadelphian)

Phil Porvaznik's refutation of Dave Hunt's sensationalistic nonsense

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Does Genesis 50:20 Prove Compatibilism?

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (Gen 50:20, NASB)

This verse is perhaps the strongest verse used by Calvinists to support the concept of compatibilism. To quote a contemporary apologist for Calvinism who appeals to this text:

These are the words of one who has come to see the sovereign plan of God in his own life. Joseph well knew the motivations of his brothers when they sold him into slavery. But, in the very same event he saw the over-riding hand of God, guiding, directing, and ultimately meaning in the same action to bring about good. (James R. White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal to Norman Geisler’s Chosen but Free [2d ed.; Calvary Press, 2009], 48)

There are a couple of important considerations that cast doubt onto the popular Reformed reading of this verse.

Firstly, the Joseph narrative in Genesis clearly ascribes the responsibility for selling Joseph into Egypt onto his brothers, and there is no mention of this being part of the “secret decree” of God:

Then there passed by the Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt. (Gen 37:28)

And Joseph said unto his brethren, Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph, your brother, who ye sold into Egypt. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither for God did send me before you to preserve life. (Gen 45:4-5)

While some may appeal to the above text in Gen 45 as further evidence in favour compatibilism, Joseph tells his brothers that they committed evil in selling him and sinned against him (Gen 42:22). Only by presenting God as the author of sin can a Calvinist appeal to such an interpretation of this pericope.

Further, in suggesting what they intended for evil God intended for good, Joseph speaks to his brethren in a form of poetical parallelism, so should be understood as a rhetorical flourish, not the basis for systematic theology. The Hebrew reads:

וְאַתֶּם חֲשַׁבְתֶּם עָלַי רָעָה אֱלֹהִים חֲשָׁבָהּ לְטֹבָה לְמַעַן עֲשֹׂה כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה לְהַחֲיֹת עַם־רָב

The Hebrew is captured rather well in the 1985 JPS Tanakh:

Besides, although you intended me harm, God intended it for good, so as to bring about the present result--the survival of many people.

The Hebrew verb translated as "to intend" is חשׁב (to think/reckon/credit/assume). Commenting on this verse and the theology of the Joseph in Egypt narrative vis-à-vis human freedom and foreknowledge, John Sanders wrote:

How should Joseph’s remarks that God “sent” him to Egypt and made him ruler of Egypt (Gen 45:5, 7, 9) be understood? First, it should be remembered that Joseph has used language like this before. In Genesis 43:23 he says that God gave the money back to his brothers even though Joseph admits that he had the money put in their sacks (see Gen 42:25, 28). Furthermore, the remarks of Gen 45:5, 7, 9 occur at a tense moment in the dialogue. Joseph’s brothers are overwhelmed by anxiety, and they fear for their lives due to the ruse Joseph has played on them. Moreover, Joseph is brought to tears in the presence of his brothers, desiring reconciliation. Now is not the time for condemning words. He desires to vanquish his brother’s fears. Although he acknowledges that they sold him into Egypt, he suggests that everyone look on the bright side—what God has done through this. Their lives and those of the Egyptians have been spared the devastating effects of the famine.

Joseph plays down the human factor and elevates the divine factor in order to allay their fears. After reconciliation is assured, Joseph remarks that what they intended for evil, God intended for good, so that many people would live (Gen 50:20). It is the glory of God to be able to bring good out of evil human actions. But nothing in the text demands the interpretation that God actually desired the sinful acts. The text does not say that God determined the events. In fact, the text is remarkably silent regarding any divine activity until Joseph’s speeches. Until now, the events could have been narrated without reference to divine activity at all. In fact, unlike in the other patriarchal stories, here God is strangely absent. Joseph never invokes God! It is in retrospect that Joseph identifies God’s activity in his life, and his words require the interpretation that God exercises meticulous control over human affairs. (John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence [2d ed.; Downers Grove, Illin.: IVP Academic, 2007], 85)

Another consideration adding support to Sander’s claim that Joseph “desires to vanquish his brother’s fears” is found in Gen 45:3

And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer, for they were troubled at his presence.

The Hebrew term the KJV translates as “troubled” is בהל which means "to be terrified, out of one's senses" (cf. Exo 15:15).

Gregory Boyd points out the theological difficulties resulting from the traditional way Calvinists absolutistise Gen 50:20:

[I]f we interpret this episode as evidence of how God always operates, we must accept the consequence that this passage always minimizes the responsibility of human agents. This is the conclusion Joseph himself draws from his observation that God used his brothers to send him to Egypt. “Do not be distressed, or angry with yourselves,” he tells them, “for God sent me.” If this text is taken as evidence of how God always controls human action—if God is involved in each kidnapping and murder the way he was involved in the activity of Joseph’s brothers—we must be willing to console every murderer and kidnapper with Joseph’s words: “Do not be distressed or angry with yourself, for God kidnapped and murdered your victims.” We cannot universalize the mode of God’s operation in this passage without also universalizing its implications for human responsibility. No one, of course, is willing to do this. (Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy [Downers Grove, Illin.: IVP Academic, 2001], 396-97)

Additionally, Boyd notes that:

The text only suggests that at some point in the course of God’s interaction with humans, God decided that it fit his sovereign purpose to steer the brothers’ intentions in the manner we read in Genesis. It wasn’t God’s original plan that the brothers would acquire the character they did, but in the flow of history it fit his plan to use these brothers in the way he did. (Ibid., 397)

As we have seen, there are a number of problems with the common Reformed appeal to Gen 50:20 as biblical evidence in favour of compatibilism.



Saturday, March 19, 2016

If the Father is "the only true God" does that mean Jesus is an idol?

The New Testament clearly presents the person of the Father as the “only true God” (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν as per John 17:3; cf. 1 Cor 8:4-6; Eph 4:5-71 Tim 2:5). Some may then ask, if the person of the Father “is the only true God,” ipso facto, Jesus can only be a “false” god (read: idol).

However, this ignores the biblical witness that there are (true) beings who are called “gods” (e.g., Deut 32:7-9, 43; Psa 29:1; 82:6, etc), not “false gods” or “idols.” Instead, the term “true” (Greek: ἀληθινός) in John 17:3 refers to God the Father being intrinsically God; as we know from texts such as Heb 1:3 and the unanimous consent of the Patristics, only the person of the Father is God in an underived sense (autotheos); the Son is divine based on His participation with the Father.

The “either Jesus is true God in the same sense of the Father, or he is an idol”-approach is nothing short of an either-or fallacy. For instance, in John 6:32, we read:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you note that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven (τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν).

Jesus is referred to being “true” bread, using the same adjective in John 17:3 (ἀληθινός). However, the bread (manna) the Israelites received in Exo 16 was not “false” or “non-existent” bread; however, it was not the archetypal bread that Jesus truly is, as only the latter can give eternal life to those who consume; the former could only satiate physical hunger and could not provide salvation.


John 17:3 is clearly a non-Trinitarian verse. The LDS view, that allows for a polysemic meaning to the term (true) G/gods is consistent with the entirety of the biblical witness, something that Trinitarian and Socinian theologies do not allow for. This “either-or” approach is based on eisegesis, as it is based on a common logical fallacy.

Friday, March 18, 2016

King David Refutes Reformed Soteriology

In Rom 4, Paul uses two Old Testament figures as examples of an individual justified by God--Abraham (through his use of Gen 15:6) and Kind David (through his use of Psa 32). We have discussed Abraham's justification, and how such refutes, not supports, the Reformed view of justification (cf. this discussion on Rom 4:9 and this study on λογιζομαι).

In Rom 4:5-8, we read the following:

But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin." (NRSV)

In the above pericope, Paul quotes from Psa 32:1 (cf. Psa 52:1); the entire psalm reads as follows:

Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the Lord," and you forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah. Therefore let all who are faithful offer prayer to you at a time of distress, the rush of mighty waters shall not reach them. You are a hiding place for me; you preserve me from trouble; you surround me with glad cries of deliverance. Selah. I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you. Do not be like a horse or mule without understanding, whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle, else it will not stay near you. Many are the torments of the wicked but steadfast love surrounds those who trust in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart. (NRSV)

In this psalm, David is proclaiming God's forgiveness of his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam 11-12). God sent Nathan the prophet to convict David of his heinous sins, with Nathan's parable of the little ewe lamb resulting in David being brought to his knees in repentance.

Paul in Rom 4, alongside the example of Abraham, uses this as an example of an individual who was justified by God, linking the justification of Abraham previously discussed with that of David's through the use of the conjunction καθάπερ ("even/just as") in v. 6.

The crucial question is "Was Psa 32 the first time David was forgiven of his sins and justified?" The biblical answer, which refutes Reformed soteriology, is "no."

The Bible clearly shows us that David, prior to committing those heinous sins, was a justified person. In his youth, David called on the Lord to defeat Goliath (1 Sam 17). David was so close to God that in 1 Sam 13:14 (cf. Acts 13:22) is described as a man after God's own heart, hardly something said of an unsaved person! Indeed, David was truly a justified child of God many years prior to the Bathsheba incident. If David was not justified, he was not a man of God, but a pagan idolater feigning belief in God in how he had lived his life prior to Psa 32 and had written earlier psalms before his encounter with Bathsheba in such a spiritually dead state with no true relationship with God.

As one writer put it:

We cannot escape the fact that Paul, in using the example of David in the context of justification, is saying not merely that David's sins were forgiven, but also that David was actually justified at this point. Paul, in Rm 4:5, underscores this fact both by speaking of "crediting righteousness" to David when he confessed his sin in Psalm 32, and by calling him a "wicked" person whom God must justify in order to return him to righteousness. We must understand, then, that a "crediting of righteousness" occurs at each point that one confesses his sins. Since this was not the first time David confessed sin before the Lord (which other Psalms verify, cf. Ps 25:7, 18; 51:5), he must have been "credited with righteousness" on each occasion of repentance. Since he was credited with righteousness upon repentance in Psalm 32, and since it is an established fact that he was not a man of God prior to his sin with Bathsheba, we must therefore consider all previous acts of repentance a "crediting of righteousness." (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International, 2009], 253)


Unless one wishes to accuse the apostle Paul of the grossest form of eisegesis (wrenching select passages of the psalter out of context), it is hard to escape that, based on sound exegesis, David lost his justification due to murder and adultery, and Psa 32 represents another justification (“re-justification” if you will) of David, per Paul’s soteriology. This disproves the Reformed view that justification is once-for-all, and can never be lost.