Joshua 12:8-24 versus the “echad is compound one” argument

I have addressed the argument that אֶחָד (“one”) refers to “compound” or “plural one”(!) in this blog, including:

Adam and Eve as "One Flesh": Evidence for Trinitarian Claims?

Echad does not mean "compound one"

To see the nonsense of this theory, I would ask a proponent of such a view to attempt to make sense of the instances of this number in the following king list in the book of Joshua:

The lands included the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the wilderness and the Negev. These were the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. These were the kings:

The king of Jericho one (אֶחָד) the king of Ai (near Bethel) one (אֶחָד)

The king of Jerusalem one (אֶחָד) of the king of Hebron one (אֶחָד)

The king of Jarmuth one (אֶחָד) the king of Lachish one (אֶחָד)

The king of Eglon one (אֶחָד) the king of Gezer one (אֶחָד)

The king of Hormah one (אֶחָד) the king of Arad one (אֶחָד)

The king of Libnah one (אֶחָד) the king of Adullam one (אֶחָד)

The king of Makkedah one (אֶחָד) the king of Bethel one (אֶחָד)

The king of Tappuah one (אֶחָד) the king of Hepher one (אֶחָד)

The king of Aphek one (אֶחָד) the king of Lasharon one (אֶחָד)

The king of Madone one (אֶחָד) the king of Hazor one (אֶחָד)

The king of Shimron Meron one (אֶחָד) the king of Akshaph one (אֶחָד)

The king of Taanach one (אֶחָד) the king of Megiddo one (אֶחָד)

The king of Kadesh one (אֶחָד) the king of Jokneam in Carmel one (אֶחָד)

The king of Dor (in Naphoth Dor) one (אֶחָד) the king of Goyim in Gilgal one (אֶחָד)

The king of Tirzah one (אֶחָד) thirty-one kings in all. (Josh 12:8-24 NIV)

Does Psalm 119:89 and Proverbs 30:5 teach Sola Scriptura?

Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. (Psa 119:89)

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. (Prov 30:5)

Sometimes, one will encounter these and similar verses to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. However, Protestant apologists who appeal to these passages confuse the categories of quality and sufficiency. Scripture has the quality of being inspired, and that is what Psa 119:89 and Prov 30:5 teaches; however, neither do these passages teach formal sufficiency, something which would be an impossibility anyway, as the entirety of the Bible was not written when those these texts were written (sola scriptura can only be operative when the totality of scripture is available [tota scriptura] according to Protestant theologians and apologists). Only by engaging in a common logical fallacy can one appeal to passages that speak highly of the quality of Scripture can one read formal sufficiency into such passages.

Furthermore, scholarly commentators on the Bible does not support such an eisegetical reading of such texts. For instance, R.B.Y. Scott in his Anchor Bible commentary rendered the verse as “Everything God says has stood the test! He is their shields who trust in them.” Commenting on this passage, he wrote:

The reply of the orthodox believer to the challenge of the skeptic: God’s self-revelation in his word is confirmed in the experience of the religious man. The language is pedestrian and sounds like a composite quotation from written scripture; cf. Prov xvii 30 CV; Deut iv 2; Job xiii 10, xxiv 25. (R.B.Y. Scott, Proverbs & Ecclesiastes [Anchor Bible; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965], 176-77)

John Gee on Shulem in the Book of Abraham

LDS Egyptologist John Gee (PhD, Yale University) has an article entitled, "Shulem, One of the King's Principal Waiters" which provides more evidence for the antiquity and authenticity of the Book of Abraham. What adds to the signifiance of this is that this is one of the elements of the Book of Abraham once thought laughable and "proof" of its fraudulent nature. Here is the abtract:

 Shulem is mentioned once in the Book of Abraham. All we are told about him is his name and title. Using onomastics, the study of names, and the study of titles, we can find out more about Shulem than would at first appear. The form of Shulem’s name is attested only at two times: the time period of Abraham and the time period of the Joseph Smith papyri. (Shulem thus constitutes a Book of Abraham bullseye.) If Joseph Smith had gotten the name from his environment, the name would have been Shillem.

Brian Hales and Don Bradley on the Kinderhook Plates

Brian Hales' Response to pp. 43-44 of the CES Letter

Don Bradley, "President Joseph Has Translated a Portion": Solving the Mystery of the Kinderhook Plates

(PDF transipt of presentation)

James White vs Matthew Roper on the Book of Mormon

In my experience, most Evangelical critics of the LDS Church are grossly ignorant, not just of the Bible (something covered in great depth on this blog) but also the Book of Mormon and other texts in the LDS canon, with Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine being good examples of such.

In 1996, James White wrote an article, "Of Cities and Swords: The Impossible Task of Mormon apologetics," where he revealed his lack of intellectual abilities, resulting in Matthew P. Roper writing a scholarly rebuttal to White's ill-informed piece:

Matthew P. Roper, Review of "Cities and Swords: The Impossible Task of Mormon Apologetics (FARMS Review of Books 9/1 [1997]): 146-58.

Indeed, White's article was so poorly researched that Paul Owen and Carl Mosser wrote:

The article by James White, "Of Cities and Swords: The Impossible Task of Mormon Apologetics," was an attempt to introduce evangelicals to LDS apologetics, to the work of FARMS, and, in the process, critique the group. This article failed on all three points. White's article does not mention a single example of the literature we have presented in this paper. He does not accurately describe the work of FARMS, or of LDS scholarship in general. He gives his readers the mistaken impression that their research is not respected in the broader academic community. We believe that we have demonstrated that this is simply not the case. His attempted critique picks out two of the weakest examples. Not only does he pick weak examples, he does not give even these an adequate critique. This is nothing more than "straw man" argumentation. (source)

To see White's poor grasp of biblical exegesis, see my post, “James White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29,” for instance. At least White is consistent in being a lousy researcher of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. It is really unfortunate that so many young Protestants I encounter online think he is worthy of their respect and trust.

Brant Gardner on Helaman 3:8

And it came to pass that they did multiply and spread, and did go forth from the land southward to the land northward, and did spread insomuch that they began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east. (Helaman 3:8)

Some have tried to argue that this verse contradicts the various Mesoamerican models for Book of Mormon geography. LDS scholar Brant Gardner, offered the following commentary on this verse:

Geography: I argue that we should not read as geographic references to Mormon’s description “from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east.” These four seas, each in at a cardinal point, cannot be literal references except for an island. Thus, rather than reading this passage geographically, we should see it as a literary image expanding the idea of the “whole face of the earth.” Mesoamerican peoples symbolically centered themselves in a universe that existed inside the four directions (David Freidel, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker, Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path, 126-27). The later Aztecs conceived of their world as completely surrounded by water. Their name for the earth was Anahuac or land ringed by water: “Completing their division in the horizontal plane, toward the four corners of the world, they conceived of this great disk of the world as surrounded by water” (Miguel León-Portilla, La Filosofia Nahuatl: Estudida in sus Fuentes, 113). Thus Mormon is repeating, with a literary flourish, the “whole world” concept. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon [6 vols; Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 5:65)

The Dunning-Kruger effect

In 1999, David Dunning and Justin Kruger published their paper, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Leads to Inflated Self-Assessments" (pdf). Their research for this peer-reviewed paper shows that people who are unskilled or lacking academic or professional qualifications in a particular field have a tendency to over-estimate their knowledge and skills in that field.

This is an important paper, especially in light of certain critics (e.g., Jeremy Runnells) who over-estimate their abilities in various fields, such as history and theology, in comparison to those with the proper academic and professional qualifications in those fields, and such often results in a mishandling of actual scholarly resources, too.

Dr. James McGrath, a New Testament scholar, did a pretty good job at refuting David Fitzgerald, a Christ-myth enthusiast, in this article. One of his criticisms was that "even though there is obvious dependence on scholarly findings, there is little evidence of awareness of scholarly methods." At the end of this article, McGrath offered a very good solution to this problem, which I will edit slightly to make it a bit more a propos to LDS studies:

If you are genuinely interested in the question of [LDS theology/history/Scripture], you should go straight to sources with genuine expertise in this area. You can get everything that [Jeremy Runnells; John Dehlin] offers and more, without the blatant factual errors, and as a result, with more satisfying historical conclusions being drawn.

"Spiritual Eyes" in pre-1830 literature

Critics (e.g., Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins [Signature Books, 2003]) have argued that Martin Harris’ claim that he saw the plates with his “spiritual eyes” (eyes of faith) is evidence that there were no physical plates, and that the experience of Harris et al. were hallucinatory and the like. For a good refutation of this, see the FairMormon wiki page, “Book of Mormon/Witnesses/"Eye of Faith" and "Spiritual Eye" statements by Martin Harris.” As the page correctly points out, “spiritual eyes” does not mean a non-physical event, but witnessing an event that is miraculous in nature, which fits the experience of Martin Harris and the other Book of Mormon witnesses.

The following are taken from religious and historical literature pre-1830 where the term “spiritual eyes” is used, showing that Grant Palmer et al. are guilty of misunderstanding this locution:

A bodily eye can only see bodies, like itself: the eye must answer the object: a spiritual object, therefore, as God is, must be seen by a spiritual eye. Moses's soul was a spirit; and that saw the God of spirits: so he, that is in himself invisible, was seen by an invisible eye; and so must be. If we have no eyes, but those that are seen; we are as very beasts, as those that we see: but, if we have invisible and spiritual eyes, we must improve them, to the sight of him that is invisible. (Joseph Hall, Select Tracts, pp. 57-8)

He [Emanuel Swedenborg] asserts that in the year 1743, the Lord manifested himself to him in a personal appearance; and at the same time opened his spiritual eyes, so that he was enabled constantly to see and converse with spirits and angels. (Jon Evans, A Sketch of the Denominations of the Christian World, p. 213)

Our great practical duty is to aim to expect the coming of the Son of Man rightly, as to, I. the Who; II. the Why; and III. the How.

I.                 We must be clear, definite, and precise as to the nature and circumstances of his coming; the outline of which is a personal coming, and not a change only, however extensive and penetrating, in the face and moral temperament of the world: we do not expect such a change, but it is as the concomitant, not as the essential reality of the promised event. The coming will be first, and the change subsequent. Having come visibly, he will remain visible; with this difference, that, at his coming, he will be visible to the eyes of flesh; subsequently, only spiritual eyes will be capable of beholding him: he shall come to rule; of which the first exercise is to put down the opponents of the assumed authority: this he shall do by judging his church, by inflicting judgments upon all the individuals of those communities who profess his name and service falsely: having previously separated his faithful servants out of the midst of them, to be his assessors in the work of judgment, and his partners in bliss and glory. (Dialogues on Prophecy, 2:289-90)

O Lord, enable my spirit with humility to bow before thee, with thankfulness of heart, and gratitude of soul, gracious and merciful Savior, enable me, if thou pleases, to render unto thee thanksgiving and praises, for thy unmerited mercy, and loving kindness in this preserving and granting my present state of existence, to the present hour, enable me O Lord, to feel fully sensible of thy great mercy, and through thy power, enable my soul, if thou pleases, to bow before thee, in humble prostration and thankfulness. Be pleased O Lord, to help me; enable me though merciful one, to overcome the lusts of the flesh, the pride of the world, and the temptations of the devil. On thy everlasting mighty arm, enable me to rely; be pleased O God to strengthen my faith, and in thy acceptable time, be pleased to open my spiritual eyes; and O Lord, enable me to have patience under thy correcting hand. (William Gardiner and Susannah Gardiner, A Journal of the Lord's Gracious Dealings, pp. 24-25)

I walk there now, the impression seems hardly more real. I used to feel as if I actually pitched my soul there, and that spiritual eyes might have seen it shot over from Tuscany into York-street like a rocket. (Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 383)

The passage of paradise is not now so blocked up, as when the law and curse reigned. therefore finding, beloved Christians, "a new and living way consecrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, the flesh of Christ, by which we may with boldness enter into the holiest, I shall draw near with fuller assurance." And finding the flaming sword removed, shall look again into the paradise of our God. And because I know that this is no forbidden fruit, and withal that is good for good, and pleasant to the spiritual eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one truly wise and happy; I shall, through the assistance of the Spirit, take and eat thereof myself, and give to you according to my power that you may eat. (Ronald Baxter, The Saint's Everlasting Rest, p. 32)

These passages from Dr. Johnson must be read cum grano salis, considering for whose perusal they were chiefly written. That it is impossible for language so to ornament divine truths, as to make them acceptable to an ungodly world, is too serious a fact to be disputed; but that divine truths are without beauty, or the most sublime and enrapturing beauty, can only be affirmed by those, who have no spiritual eyes to see, or gracious hearts to enjoy them. (Erasmus Middleton, Evangelical Biography, p. 387)

It must needs follow, therefore, that the good angels are as close to us, and as inseparable from us: and, though we see neither; yet, he, that hath spiritual eyes, perceives though we see neither; yet, he that hath spiritual eyes, perceives them both, and is accordingly affected to their presence. (Joseph Hall and Josiah Pratt, The Works, vol. 6 p. 344)

We are sensible that to us as a people no new thing can be said, having been favoured with a knowledge of the divine law, and the testimony required of us to bear; yet under a fresh renewed sense of Divine regard, we feel a fervent engagement to stir up the pure mind in you, that you may be animated with a lively concern, and that the stakes which remain in our Zion may be strengthened; that we may unitedly continue to hold forth an invitation to those who have not rightly entered the true sheep-fold, to look upon Zion the city of our solemnities, the continued refute of the righteous, a quiet habitation, secure from the interruptions by which and unwearied adversary is seeking to retard our progress, and dim our spiritual eyes, in presenting the glory, wisdom, profits, and friendships of the world, or drawing the mind into its various commotions, whereby it is prevented from seeing the truth in its own purity and simplicity. (An epistle from the Women's Quarterly Meeting from the County of York, pp. 5-6)

I judge that another powerful means to withdraw us from vice, and to induce us to virtue, is, to represent to ourselves, at every moment, the excellency and dignity of our calling; to take delight in beholding, with the spiritual eyes, the white stone where our new name is written, which none knows but he who receives it. (Charles Drelincourt, The Christian's Defence Against the Fears of Death, p. 181)

The Church has already been said to have doves' eyes in the verse just referred to [Song of Solomon 1:15]; and let it be remembered here, in addition to what is there said, that the dove's eye is not only emblematical of love, constancy, and innocence; but as to the dove's eye is quick and penetrating, it shews the penetration and knowledge in divine things, with which Christ enriches all the election of grace after they are regenerated by the Spirit; and as the dove is a well-known emblem of the Holy Ghost, it is evident that the eyes of the Church here mention, are the spiritual eyes of her understanding. (J. Armitage, The Believer's Joy and Rejoicing, a poem, pp. 112-13)

A Christian under the cheerful influences of near communion with God, can, with the more cheerfulness, lay down his neck for Christ, than other men can lay out a shilling for him. In all these twenty particulars, you have an account of the excellency of this privilege; but, O how short an account have I given of it! What remains, is the application of this point, in a double use:

1. Of information

2. Of exhortation.

First, For information in the following inferences.

Inference 1. How sure and certain a thing it is, that there is a God, and a state of glory prepared in heaven for sanctified souls.

These things are undeniable. God hath set them before our spiritual eyes and senses: Beside the revelation of it in the gospel which singly makes it infallible; the Lord, for our abundant satisfaction, hath brought these things down to the touch and test of our spiritual senses and experiences. You that have had no many sights of God by faith, so many sweet tastes of heaven in the duties of religion, O what a confirmation and seal have you of the reality of invisible things! You may say of heaven and the joys above, as the apostle did of him that purchased it, 1 John i.1. "That which our eyes have seen, and our ears have heard, and our "hands have handled," & c. (John Flavel, The Whole Works of John Flavel, vol. 4, p. 260)

And holy awful, silent waiting before God, is spiritual Israel's abiding in their tent, where no divination nor enchantment can prevail against them. This is exceeding beautiful reaching, and convincing to all, whose spiritual eyes are in degree opened, when they see the things, as set forth Numb. xxiv. 5, 6, 7. "How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob! and thy tabernacles, O Israel! as the vallies are they spread forth, as gardens by the river-side, and as trees of lign-aloes which the Lord hath planted, and as cedar trees beside the water. He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters." (John Griffith, Some brief remarks upon sundry important subjects, p. 52)

The Spirit is considered by [Quakers], not only as teaching by inward breathings as it were, made immediately and directly upon the heart, without the intervention of outward circumstances, but as making the material objects of the universe, and many of the occurrences of life, if it be properly attended to, subservient to the instruction of man, and as enlarging the sphere of his instruction in this manner in proportion as it is received and encouraged. Thus, the man, who is attentive to these divine notices, sees the animal, the vegetable, and the planetary world with spiritual eyes. He cannot stir abroad, but he is taught in his own feelings, without any motion of his will, some lesson for his spiritual advantage; or he perceives so vitally some of the attributes of the Divine Being, that he is called upon to offer some spiritual incense to his Maker. (The Monthly Review, eds. Ralph Griffiths and George Edward Griffiths, p. 160)

[1 Cor 11] v. 22-25. And they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, &c.

The divine words of blessing do not change or annihilate the substance of the bread and wine (for if their substance did not remain, it could be no sacrament) but it changeth them in use and in name; for that which was before but common bread and wine, to nourish men's bodies, is, after the blessing, destinated to an holy use, for the feeding of the souls of Christians, and where before they were called but bread and wine, they are now called by the name of those holy things, the body and blood of Christ; the better to draw our minds from those outward elements to the heavenly graces, which, by the sight of our bodies, they represent to the spiritual eyes of our faith. Neither did Christ direct these words, this is my body, this is my blood, to the bread and wine, but to his disciples, as appears by the words going before, take ye, eat ye: neither is the bread his body, but in the same sense that the cup is the New Testament; viz. by a sacramental metonymy. (Notes on the Bible, ed. Joshua Toulmin, vol. 2 p. 220)

Chad Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ

Chad Pierce's PhD dissertation, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18-22 in its tradition-historical and literary context (Durham, 2009) is available online; it can be found here. Those interested in this long-debated pericope, as well as Latter-day Saints interested in the relationship between modern historical-critical scholarship and LDS theology will also find this a fascinating study.

Did Jude and Peter deconstruct 1 Enoch?

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints. (Jude 1:14)

In this passage, Jude is quoting from the pseudepigraphic text 1 Enoch. The Greek reads:

Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἑνὼχ λέγων, ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν κύριος ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ.

I wish to propose that Jude is not endorsing 1 Enoch and its concepts, but deconstructing them.

Firstly, the phrase Προεφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις should be rendered "prophesied to these" as it is a dative of reference, not a genitive. As one leading Greek grammarian noted:

14. And to these also (de kai toutois). Dative case, for these false teachers as well as for his contemporaries. (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures of the New Testament VI: 192)

Additionally, the verb προφητεύω ("to prophesy") can be used of an utterance of a false prophet, not just a true prophet. LXX Jeremiah, for instance, furnishes many examples, such as:

The priests said not, Where is the Lord? And they that handle the law knew me not the pastors also transgressed against me, and the prophets prophesied (προφητεύω) by Baal, and walked after things that do not profit. (Jer 2:8)

The prophets prophesy (προφητεύω) falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes? (Jer 5:31)

Then I said I, Ah, Lord God! Behold the prophets say (προφητεύω) unto them, Ye shall not see the sword neither shall ye have famine; but I will give you assured peace in this place. Then the Lord said unto me, The prophets prophesy (προφητεύω) lies in my name: I send them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them: they prophesy (προφητεύω) unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that prophesy (προφητεύω) in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed. And the people to whom they prophesy (προφητεύω) shall be cast out in the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters: for I will pour wickedness upon them. (Jer 14:13-16)

What are the “things” Jude is talking about? They are the fallen angels concept (as well as those who accepted such false beliefs) that was in vogue during his time, based on Gen 6:1-4 and the “sons of God” that 1 Enoch and other texts reworked to tell the narrative of the sons of God being, not mortals, but angels who sinned, known as “the Watchers,” a concept mentioned previously in the epistle:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 1:6)

According to many scholars, Jude (and 2 Peter) were written to subvert and deconstruct popular theologies that were derived from 1 Enoch, such as the Watchers narrative:

The only earlier evidence that might betray some unease with 1 Enoch might be 2 Peter, which retains the content of Jude 6 (the Fall of the Watchers), but omits the explicit reference to Enoch. Schelke goes so far as to speak here of one book "demythologizing" the other. (Petrusbrief, Judasbrief, p. 221).' Hultin, "Jude's Citation of 1 Enoch" in Charlesworth and Mcdonald, eds. Jewish and Christian Scriptures: the Function of "Canonical" and "Non-Canonical" in Religious Texts, p. 125)

The importance to this to LDS theology is two-fold:

(1) The Book of Moses understands the “sons of God” in Gen 6 to be, not angels, but mortals (Moses 7:1; 8:13, 21). That Jude was deconstructing the embellishments of contemporary uninspired commentary on Gen 6 helps support the plausibility of the LDS reading of the Genesis text.

(2) Secondly, that such a deconstruction in Jude and 2 Peter allows for one to argue that 1 Pet 3:18-20, while cognizant of the Watchers myth, is not endorsing it, as some commentators argue, but instead, is deconstructing it. Some critics have used this as evidence against the LDS reading (based on D&C 138), but their approach to Peter’s use of 1 Enoch is rather simplistic. As one scholarly source stated on this pericope:

Having looked at the many sin and punishment traditions concerning angels, giants, spirits, and humans, the present study finds that, individually, none of them provide the background to 1 Pet 3:18-22. Rather, the stories of angelic sin and punishment, the birth of the giants, the presence of evil spirits, the examples of human evil, and the proclamations made to them exist in such multiple and conflated forms from the third century B.C.E. to the composition of 1 Peter that it is impossible to specify a single tradition-historical explanation behind this passage in 1 Peter. (Chad T. Pierce, Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18-22 in Light of Sin and Punishment Traditions in early Jewish and Christian Literature, p. 236)

If the hypothesis that Jude and 1 and 2 Peter were deconstructing/demythologizing the Watchers myth from 1 Enoch, not embracing it, helps resolve some of the challenges to the Latter-day Saint exegesis of 1 Pet 3:18-20 (cf. 4:6) and also helps answer the question of why 1 Enoch is not seen as being worthy of considered to be part of the canon.

Christology and Revelation 1:1

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. (Rev 1:1 NRSV)

The opening verse of the book of Revelation is a verse that is often overlooked in discussions about the Trinity, but it deals this theory a deathblow. Why? In this verse, not only is there a distinction between "God" (not simply the person of the Father) and "Jesus” (something that is not tolerated in Trinitarianism), but also God has to give Jesus a revelation (not simply commission him to speak His words as his agent), notwithstanding His now being glorified after his ascension (cf. Phil 2:5-11). Such does not fit well with creedal Trinitarian formulations of Christology, but is part-and-parcel of Latter-day Saint Christology whose “Jesus” is the true “Biblical Jesus.”

Critique of Alister McGrath on the nature of Justification

[I]f Protestants insist that NT Justification is based on the juridical system of the Roman law court, this becomes a problem since there is no known Roman law (or Jewish law) that allows an innocent victim to take the legal punishment of an accused criminal so that the accused can go free. Dr. Horton’s colleague, Alister McGrath, tried to find such a connection in Roman private law, but the only thing he found was a concept called acceptiliation, which, according to McGrath, refers to the dissolution of an obligation by a verbal decree on the part of the one to whom the debt was due, without any form of payment having been exchanged (Iustitia Dei, II, p. 45). But this does not fit the Protestant concept of Atonement and Imputation, since the theory claims that Christ actually paid the debt, not merely let the culprit go free without anyone making a payment to the one owed. Thus, as it stands, there is no legal precedent for the forensic atonement used in Protestant soteriology . . . More importantly, McGrath also asserts that Greeks and Latins had decisively different ideas of the concept of merit, and that this was the main cause for the Latin church’s emphasis on merit and the prevalence of merit in medieval theology. According to McGrath, in Greek culture merit was only a matter of “estimation” which is not inherent in its object, i.e., considering an entity to be something that it is not in itself. McGrath asserts that merit, in the Latin culture, refers to the quality inherent in the object or person. 

Representative of these two meanings, according to McGrath, is the Greek passive axiousthai (“to deem worthy”) and the Latin equivalent, mereri. The Greek word that would have denoted “inherent merit” is meroma, from which the Latinmeritum is derived. McGrath’s conclusion: the disjunction between axiousthai and mereri is similar to the disjunction between dikaiosune and iustificare. Hence the Greek word has the primary sense of being considered righteous, whereas the Latin word denotes being righteous or the reason one is considered righteous. 

All in all, McGrath concludes that the initial transference of a Hebrew concept, to a Greek concept, to a Latin concept, led to a fundamental alteration in the concepts of justification and righteousness as the gospel spread from Palestine to the Western world (p. 15). Unfortunately, McGrath’s linguistic analysis and conclusion appear to read into history what his theology dictates. 

Despite the anomalies that always occur in translating a word from one language to another, it is a matter of certain faith that inspired Scripture, which translates Hebrew text into Greek text, cannot err, and does not envision the problem McGrath proposes. First, without reservation, the New Testament authors use the dikaioo cognates to translate the Hebrew and Septuagint cognates. These translations occur in many non-justification contexts (i.e., “non-imputation” contexts). 

For example, in 2 Cor. 9:9 Paul cites a quotation from Psalm 112:9 and uses the Greek dikaiosune to translate the Hebrew feminine noun tsadaqah (which the LXX also translates as dikaiosune). The context of 2 Cor. 9:9-10 concerns liberal giving, both of God and men, to those in need. 

Thus, contrary to McGrath’s thesis, dikaiosune is understood as that which is inherent within both God and man due to the good they have done. Similarly, Hebrews 1:9 uses dikaiosune to translate the Hebrew male noun tsadaq in Psalm 45:7 (of which the LXX uses dikaiosune) and speaks of the inherent righteousness of Christ. (The relevance of the LXX may be even more significant here since Hebrews 1:6 is quoted by Paul directly from the LXX). 

In addition, 1 Peter 3:12 uses dikaioo to translate the Hebrew adjective tsadeek of Psalm 34:15 (of which the LXX usesdikaious). The context of 1 Peter 3:12 regards righteous individuals as inherently righteous, for it is they who “turn from evil to do good” and “seek peace and pursue it.” Similarly, Hebrews 11:7 uses dikaiosune to describe the righteousness of Noah, translating the Hebrew adjective tsadeek in Genesis 7:1 which refers to God seeing Noah as inherently righteous for his goodness in the midst of the wicked people of his day. 

We should also add that Scripture does not support McGrath’s assessment of the Greek word axioo to refer only to the estimation of an individual rather than his merit (which he distinguishes from the Latin notion of merit that gives the individual the “right” of the third party estimation, i.e., because he is deserving of it). The New Testament uses axioo not only in considering someone worthy but also in recognizing someone worthy because he is actually worthy. For example, Hebrews 3:3 uses axioo in reference to Christ’s worthiness: “Jesus has been counted worthy of greater honor than Moses…” This is a common usage of axioo and its cognates in the New Testament (cf., 1 Thess. 1:11; 1 Tim. 5:17; Col 1:10; et al).  (Robert A. Sungenis, “Is justification by Faith Alone? Response to Michael S Horton”)

The LDS use of Isaiah 2:2-5

And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord. (Isa 2:2-5)

Latter-day Saints often take this passage as a direct prophecy about the then-future temple in Salt Lake City. However, there are many exegetical problems with this common interpretation, including the fact that, from the context, Isaiah is speaking of the eschatological temple in Jerusalem. In verse 1, we read:

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

Is there a way that Latter-day Saints can use this as an allusion to the Salt Lake temple in light of this? It is possible, especially within the realm of pesher and other like-methods of interpretation. We see that the New Testament authors allowed for a prophetic expansion of sorts beyond the historical-grammatical meaning of a passage. For instance, in Matt 2:15, we read the following:

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

However, when one examines the text Matthew quotes from (Hos 11:1), we find that, contextually, it is not a prophecy about the Messiah and his family, but is about the nation of Israel and how Yahweh rescued them from Egyptian bondage:

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. (Hos 11:1-2)

Evangelical scholar, Robert Gundry, offered the following commentary on Matthew’s use of Hos 11:1:

The formula of fulfillment introducing the quotation from Hos 11:1 reads exactly as 1:22b . . . The preceding mention of Egypt has united with “Son of God” and “Son of the Highest” in the tradition of Jesus’ nativity (Luke 1:32, 35) and with Matthew’s own interest in Jesus’ divine sonship . . . to suggest the statement in Hos 11:1. There, the Lord addresses the nation of Israel as his son. The multiplicity of parallels drawn between the history of Israel and the life of Jesus suggests that Matthew saw that history as both recapitulated and anticipated in the “king of the Jews”; like Israel in the messianic age Jesus receives homage from the Gentiles (2:11); as a son he, like Israel, receives God’s fatherly protection in Egypt (2:15); his oppression brings sorrow as the oppression of Israel brought sorrow (2:17-18); like Israel he is tempted in the wilderness (4:1-10). The messianic reference preceding the statement “God brought him [the Messiah] out of Egypt” in Num 24:7-8 LXX may also have facilitated quotation of the similar statement in Hos 11:1, for Matthew has recently used Numbers 24. (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982], 33-34)

In a similar fashion, armed with modern revelation and recent events in “salvation history,” Latter-day Saints can appeal to Isa 2:2-5 as perhaps having a secondary fulfillment with the Salt Lake temple, as well as the accepting the interpretation, based on the historical-grammatical method of exegesis, that Isaiah directly spoke of a still-future temple in Jerusalem.

Jeremy Runnnells: The Ken Ham of Anti-Mormonism

Joseph Smidt has produced a good article on reddit (of all places!) showing the lack of critical thinking and intellectual integrity of Jeremy Runnells (click here). Also, see the FairMormon refutation of the CES Letter here.

In light of his recent disciplinary council, my friend Stephen Smoot has a good article about it here.

Peter Enns on the Problematic Nature of Sola Scriptura

I have addressed the overwhelming biblical evidence against the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura many times on this blog, exegeting texts such as 2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Cor 4:6 and other passages. In his recent book Peter Enns commented on this practice/doctrine thusly:

The long Protestant quest to get the Bible right has not led to greater and greater certainty about what the Bible means. Quite the contrary. It has led to a staggering number of different denominations and subdenominations that disagree sharply about how significant portions of the Bible should be understood. I mean, if the Bible is our source of sure knowledge about God, how do we explain all this diversity? Isn't the Bible supposed to unify us rather than divide us?

In a sense , the fact that churches continue being preoccupied with correct thinking is perfectly understandable: holding to what you know is part o the Protestant DNA, passed down to contemporary evangelicalism and fundamentalism via the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. But the preoccupation is also inexcusable, because we only need to google "churches in my area" to see that this road of getting the Bible right has led, if not to a complete dead end, then at least to an endless traffic circle.

The struggle between fundamentalists and modernists over the Bible has also revealed an odd fact lying just below the surface. Even though these two groups see the Bible in polar opposite ways, they share the same starting point: ay book worthy of being called God's word would need to talk about the past accurately. The modernists, looking at things like the problems with Genesis, concluded that the Bible wasn't, after all, a supernatural book that told us reliable facts about the past. (Peter Enns, The Sin of Certainty: Why God Desires our Trust More than Our “Correct” Beliefs [Harper One, 2016], 52)

Did Parley P. Pratt make false prophecies in his 1838 Mormonism Unveiled?

I have come across a few sources, both in print and online, that have claimed that Parley Parker Pratt (1807-1857) was guilty of stating a number of (false) prophecies in his 1838 volume, Mormonism Unveiled, a response to L.R. Sunderland, an early critic of the LDS Church.

The FairMormon wiki has a good page refuting this argument here.

Sidney B Sperry on the Nature of Prophecy and Revelation

What is the Nature of Revelation? Prophecy. Prophecy includes the idea of revelation. The word revelation means to unveil, or make known something that is hidden or kept secret, whether that be in the past, present, or future sense. Such revelation may be given in a dream which is sometimes called apocalyptic as in the Book of Daniel (Dan. 7:1). Again, it may be in waking vision such as Moses (Exo. 33:9-11) or Isaiah (Isa. 6:1) experienced. Some messages Jehovah dictated word for word (Isa. 7:3-9); others were inspired but the prophet was left to express them in his own language (Dan. 2:27-45). In such cases, the Lord, through the medium of the Holy Spirit, planted the ideas in the mind of the prophet and these were expressed as the word of God. In still another way the prophet, being inspired, reasoned from already established facts and persuaded the people to righteous living. Being the representative of God, the will of the prophet in such cases is also the will of Jehovah. Under inspiration, the intellect and spiritual faculties are quickened beyond the natural tempo, and with penetrating insight the inspired can unveil the unknown and make clear the obscure. The principal difference between inspiration and revelation lies in degree rather in kind . . . Prophecy is Not a Mechanical Process. When a man prophesies he is by no means a mere recording instrument. Truly, the Lord may move him to say the thoughts desired, but the voice and words are those of the prophet. He may either utter the message or keep silent. The prophet in such cases thinks, under the Holy Spirit, the thoughts of God and these he repeats in the vocabulary and language at his command. Were that not so, we would not have all the diversities of vocabulary, sentence structure, figures of speech, and style that are found in the Old Testament. (Sidney B. Sperry, The Spirit of the Old Testament [2d ed.; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1970], 124, 129)

Trinitarians being (Functionally) Unitarian

A Reformed apologist for the Trinity wrote:

In Isaiah 46, Israel's God compares himself to the gods of the Babylonians. They are mere idols, but no so the true and living God of Israel. In fact, no nation has a God like Israel's. In verse 9 God says, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me." No one like the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! No one like the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! (John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2000], 31)

In this above passage, the author falls at the opening hurdle of his book in defense of the Trinitarian understanding of Go by presenting the One True God as a single person, and that singular person is the Father of Jesus, not “the Trinity.” As many have commented on the Trinity and those who claim that such is an essential tenet of “true, biblical Christianity,” are functionally Unitarian, not Trinitarian.

Scholarly Greek Lexicons on the meaning of "Christian"/Χριστιανός

BDAG (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature):

7983  Χριστιανός

• Χριστιανός, οῦ, ὁ (formed like Ἡρῳδιανοί [q.v.] or Καισαριανοί Epict. 1, 19, 19; s. TMommsen, Her 34, 1899, 151f; Dssm., LO 323 [LAE 377]; Hahn 263, 9; B-D-F §5, 2. On the Pompeian ins CIL IV 679, the reading of which is quite uncertain, s. VSchultze, ZKG 5, 1881, 125ff. On the spelling Χρηστιανός Ac 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pt 4:16 [all v.l.]; AcPl Ha 9, 19 [cp. Just., A I, 4, 5]; s. FBlass, Her 30, 1895, 465ff; Harnack, SBBerlAk 1915, 762; B-D-F §24; Mlt-H. 72) one who is associated w. Christ, Christ-partisan, Christian (so also Lucian, Alex. 25; 38, M. Peregr. 11; 12; 13; 16; Tacitus, Ann. 15, 44; Suetonius, Nero 16; Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10, 96, 1; 2; 3 al., also in Trajan’s reply; ApcSed prol.; Ar., Just., Ath.; s. Hemer, Acts 177) Ac 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pt 4:16 (JKnox, JBL 72, ’53, 187-89); IEph 11:2; IMg 4; IRo 3:2; IPol 7:3; MPol 3; 10:1; 12:1, 2; D 12:4; PtK 2 p. 15, 8; τῶν Χρ. Dg 1:1. Without the art. 2:6, 10; 4:6; 5:1; 6:1-9. πολλοὺς Χρ. ActPl Ha 9, 19.—As an adj. χριστιανός, ή, όν: ἡ χριστιανὴ τροφή ITr 6:1.—For inscriptions s. esp. EGibson, The ‘Christians for Christians’ Inscriptions from Phrygia ’78; New Docs 128-39.—RLipsius, Über den Ursprung u. ältesten Gebr. des Christennamens, Prog. Jena 1873; Zahn, Einl. II³ 41ff; FKattenbusch, Das apostol. Symbol II 1900, 557ff; JDaniels, De Naam ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΙ: De Studiën 76, 1907, 568-80; JLeCoultre, De l’étymologie du mot ‘Chrétien’: RTP 40, 1907, 188-96; AGercke, Der Christenname ein Scheltname: Festschr. z. Jahrhundertfeier d. Univers. Breslau 1911, 360ff; Harnack, Mission I⁴ 1923, 424ff; EPeterson, Christianus: Miscellanea Giov. Mercati I ’46, 355-72; EBickerman, HTR 42, ’49, 109-24; JMoreau, La Nouvelle Clio 4, ’50, 190-92; HMattingly, JTS 9, ’58, 26-37 (cp. the term Augustiani); CSpicq, StTh 15, ’61, 68-78 (cp. the adj. Ciceronianus=of or belonging to Cicero: Sen., Con. 7, 2, 12).—DELG s.v. χρίω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.

Kittel, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols.):

Ac. 11:26 contains a note that the disciples—obviously the term which the original believers used for themselves—were first called Χριοστιανοι in Antioch. Χριστιανος is formed from Christ in analogy to ‘Ηρωδινοι and Καισαριανοι. It denotes Christ’s adherents, those who belong to him. It seems most likely that the term was first used by non-Christians, though this does not have to imply that it was meant derisively. Since such designations are usually based on names, it is possible that in Antioch Χριστος was taken to be a proper name outside the Christian community, probably the name of a god. A reason or coining the term Χριστιανοι is that the Christians in Antioch were now viewed as a separate society rather than as a section of the Jewish synagogue (on this c. Ac. 11:19-26a); possibly they were regarded as a kind of mystery fellowship. It is also worth noting that the term Χριστιανοι  (Ac. 11:26) is connected with Paul’s work in Antioch. He spent a full year there and attracted a large following. Paul speaks very pointedly of Jesus as Χριστος—a pre-Pauline formula which he is quick to adopt. Thus the designation Χριστος was perhaps the dominant one for Jesus in Antioch, and Paul played a decisive part in promoting it. This leads to the use of Χριστιανοι for the μαθηται, and the term spreads rapidly to other places. (IX: 536-37)

Louw-Nida, Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains (2d ed.)

11.35  Χριστιανός, οῦ m: one who is identified as a believer in and follower of Christ - 'Christian.' χρηματίσαι τε πρώτως ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ τοὺς μαθητὰς Χριστιανούς 'it was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians' Ac 11.26.