Mike Thomas has just posted the new Reachout Trust newsletter, linking to two papers on "Mormonism":
The Mormon God (see here, for instance, of a refutation of much of the proof-texts Thomas cites against the LDS view of deity; cf. here for a discussion on LDS Christology)
Baptism for the Dead
On the latter article, Thomas writes:
On a similar note, Robert Sungenis noted:
Latter-day Saints, however, have an advantage over Protestants—we are not bound by a false (and, ironically, anti-biblical) doctrine that states that the Bible is formally sufficient. Even if the Bible was silent about the topic, we have the same source the people during the biblical prophets relied upon—modern revelation. As I wrote in a previous response to Thomas:
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
Another (false) theological presupposition that informs Thomas' rejection of baptism for the dead (and the entirety of posthumous salvation) is his rejection of water baptism being salvific. One should read the rest of my paper in response to Thomas, "Latter-day Saints and the Bible" which shows how far out in the left field, with respect to historical-grammatical exegesis of the Bible, he is on this point.
As an aside, in both editions of Mormonism: A Gold-Plated Religion that he co-authored with this wife, Thomas argued that 1 Cor 15:29 is not a valid proof-text for baptism for the dead as a Christian practice due to the use of the pronoun, "they." The Greek text of 1 Cor 15:29 reads as followed (followed by my translation of the Greek):
The Mormon God (see here, for instance, of a refutation of much of the proof-texts Thomas cites against the LDS view of deity; cf. here for a discussion on LDS Christology)
Baptism for the Dead
On the latter article, Thomas writes:
The concept is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible or in other early Christian documents, with two exceptions. If it had been as important or as frequent a part of the original Gospel as it is to one of our latter-day denominations, we would expect to find many references to it in writings by Christians who lived a short time after Jesus. Yet, barring one reference by Clement of Alexandria in Excerpt 22 of Excerpta ex Theodoto and one by Tertullian in Against Marcion 5.10, 1 Corinthians 15.29 stands alone in the age of Saint Paul and for centuries afterwards.
Keep in mind, sola scriptura is not attested at all in the early Church; the same for forensic justification/sola fide. Even if Thomas is correct (which he is not), he has to answer how two crucial doctrines of the Reformation (sola scriptura [the formal doctrine]; sola fide [the material doctrine]) are utterly unknown in the early Church (unless one wishes to do what Michael Patton et al. do, and proof-text the fathers [see here and here, for e.g. sola scriptura; click here for a discussion of 1 Clement and here for a discussion of other early writers]). Also, the Bible does not, and cannot teach, such a doctrine. During the cross examination period of a debate between Roman Catholic (now Sedevacantist) apologist Gerry Matatics and James White on the topic of sola scriptura, the following exchange took place:
Gerry Matatics (M): Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura? The hearers of our Lord?
James White (W): I have said over, and over, and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the Church, not to times of inscripturation.
M: So your answer is "no"?
W: That is exactly what my answer is--it is "no"
M: Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no
W: No
M: Thank you; did the successors to the apostles practice sola scriptura; only believing that Timothy [in 2 Tim 3:16-17] only believed what Paul had written him?
W: Eh, what do you mean? The first generations who were alive during the time of inscripturation?
M: Titus . . .
W: Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster theological seminary, you are asking every question of a straw-man--it [sola scriptura] after the inscripturation of Scripture.
M: Thank you Mr. White
W: So I am glad to affirm everything you said.
M: So, Mr. White; you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura . . .
W: I asserted it
M: . . . His hearers do not; the apostles do not and their successors do not; and yet you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from this pattern for reasons you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different methodology . . .
This is yet another nail in the coffin of sola scriptura, as it shows that the doctrine could not have been practiced during the time of the New Testament Church and, as a result, cannot be proven from the Bible itself.
On a similar note, Robert Sungenis noted:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24]
Latter-day Saints, however, have an advantage over Protestants—we are not bound by a false (and, ironically, anti-biblical) doctrine that states that the Bible is formally sufficient. Even if the Bible was silent about the topic, we have the same source the people during the biblical prophets relied upon—modern revelation. As I wrote in a previous response to Thomas:
[O]ne has to understand one of the presuppositions Thomas, a Protestant, holds to--the formal sufficiency of the Protestant Bible which is the doctrine of sola scriptura. I have discussed this issue in great detail already on my blog, including providing an exegesis of the key verses used to support this (click here for pages that discuss sola scriptura), including 2 Tim 3:16-17; Matt 4:1-11 and 1 Cor 4:6, so I won't rehash things here. However, for Thomas, as there is no greater authority than the Bible (all other authorities are to be subordinated to it), appealing to a source that has equal authority to the Bible is not allowed in such an epistemological framework.
However, that such is the biblical model is without dispute where it is the authorised leadership of the Church that makes a doctrinal decision, even if scant or actually no meaningful biblical evidence is available to them (from the historical-grammatical method of exegesis). For instance, in Acts 1:20, we read:
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick (επισκοπη [office]) let another take.
If one examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and 109:8. However, nothing in these two verses says anything about Judas, apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles. If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement (v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.
Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
Another (false) theological presupposition that informs Thomas' rejection of baptism for the dead (and the entirety of posthumous salvation) is his rejection of water baptism being salvific. One should read the rest of my paper in response to Thomas, "Latter-day Saints and the Bible" which shows how far out in the left field, with respect to historical-grammatical exegesis of the Bible, he is on this point.
As an aside, in both editions of Mormonism: A Gold-Plated Religion that he co-authored with this wife, Thomas argued that 1 Cor 15:29 is not a valid proof-text for baptism for the dead as a Christian practice due to the use of the pronoun, "they." The Greek text of 1 Cor 15:29 reads as followed (followed by my translation of the Greek):
Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν; εἰ ὅλως νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν
Else why are the one's being baptised on behalf of the dead ones? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are the one's being baptised on behalf of the dead ones?
The Greek text does not have the pronoun “they.” Instead, it uses a present passive participle, literally, “the being baptised ones” (οι βαπτιζομενοι). Contra critics who harp on the pronoun “they” and their ignorance of the original language texts, the verse is entirely neutral towards the question of whether Paul himself was in favour of this doctrine (though some commentators argue that v.30 shows Paul associated himself with those who were baptised on behalf of the dead).