Rome's Affirmation of Mary's Spiritual Maternity for all Christians

Eamonn Conway, former head of theology and religious studies at Mary Immaculate College in Limeric, Ireland, wrote the following in an essay on the topic of Mary and her relationship tosacerdotaldotal priesthood in Catholicism:

[E]ach of the Marian dogmas, properly understood, reveals something of Mary’s uniqueness and at the same time the redemption to which each Christian is called through Christ.

So how and why is Mary special and unique? Karl Rahner’s exploration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception can be a help to us here. Clearly, Mary is unique in being conceived without original sin. At the same time, this same grace is given to each Christian at Baptism. So there must be more. Rahner argues, to the dogma than the fact that Mary ‘was graced a little earlier, temporally speaking, that we were’ (through Baptism). The ‘more’ is that it was God’s plan that from the moment of her conception, Mary would play a constitutive part, an indispensable role, in salvation history. Through Mary, God’s promise of redemption is put into effect; the promise of redemption is rendered possible or the whole of humanity; through her, it literally takes flesh. Thus, Mary belongs to the very fabric, the structure of salvation history . . . Mary is a model of discipleship for us because she cooperated freely in God’s plan for her, as we also must do. However, in her case God’s plan saw her, a creature, being woven into the very fabric of salvation history. It is in this way that she is different from us, but not in having to struggle to accept and follow God’s will.

If we cooperate with God’s will, then we too participate in salvation history, but our participation is only possible because Mary played her part . . . Karl Rahner notes that:

Devotion to Mary, built into and included within the wholeness of the Christian life, is something essential for the Christian and particularly for the priest: something for which we can and should seek God’s grace, in order to really possess, cherish and maintain this living personal relationship to Mary the mother of the Lord and thus our mother also. (Eamonn Conway, “Mary’s Hymn of Praise” in Eamonn Conway, ed. Priesthood Today: Ministry in a Changing Church [Dublin: Veritas, 2013], pp. 213-222, here, 216-17, 218, 219, emphasis added)

 As with the rest of the doctrines, dogmas, and practices affirmed by the modern Roman Catholic Church, such serves as further reason why Latter-day Saints should never be tempted to engage in theological ecumenism with Rome, let alone be tempted to join (or, for others, myself included, to return) to her ranks.

For a volume presenting the truth about the Mother of Jesus, see Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology.

Mario Lopez, A Study of Homosexuality, all its Repercussions, and Marriage

Catholic apologist Mario Lopez has just posted a lengthy article on the ever controversial topic of homosexuality and its inherent dangers:

A Study of Homosexuality, all its Repercussions, and Marriage (cf. Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences by Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., PhD. and Paul R. McHugh, PhD)

For one blog post on my thoughts on this topic, see:

Some thoughts based on Elder Oaks' Recent Talk at Conference

Book Notice: D. Charles Pyle, I have Said Ye Are Gods

I just received a message from D. Charles Pyle informing me that his book on theosis will be released in February:

I Have Said Ye are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament

It will be a revised edition of his 1999 Fair Conference paper (available here)

It will be published by CreateSpace and the expected price will be $19.99. I will post the URL to Amazon when it becomes available.

LDS Appeals to J.R. Dummelow and the Trinity

I have been re-reading a book by Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon (Livermore, Calif.: Wingspan Press, 2006, 2009). In chapter 3, “Attacking the Trinity Doctrine,” he accuses Drs. Daniel Peterson and Stephen Ricks of abusing the work of J.R. Dummelow with respect to the development of Creedal Trinitarianism. On pp. 41-3, we read:

Christian Theologian J.R. Dummelow

Peterson and Rocks are not being entirely accurate in their quoting of scholars. Theologian J.R. Dummelow is quoted to explain to Mormon readers when the idea of the Trinity doctrine came into existence, by definition, in the fifth century . . . Let us investigate Dummelow’s quote, as presented in its entirety from the original source . . . Somebody modified the quote to fit his or her purposes. The following is Dummelow’s quote (Commentary on the Holy Bible [New York: MacMillan, 1920], p. cxiii), the full sentence as it appears in his book, compared to its quotation in the Ensign article and Peterson’s and Ricks’s book:

“Comparing LDS Beliefs,” (p. 7)	Offenders for a Word (p. 66)	Dummelow’s Original text from Commentary on the Holy Bible
“The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity . . . was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete until* the fifth century, or maybe even later.” * “until” should be “till” in this quote	“The exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity,” notes . . . Dummelow, “was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete till the fifth century or* even later.” Dummelow goes on, it is true, to observe that, “the doctrine itself underlies the whole New Testament, which everywhere attributes divinity to the Father, the Son and the Spirit, and assigns to them distinct functions in the economy of human redemption.” *”maybe” is missing from this quote	Although* the exact theological definition of the doctrine of the Trinity was the result of a long process of development, which was not complete till the fifth century or even later, the doctrine itself underlies the whole New Testament, which everywhere attributes divinity to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and assigns to them distinct functions in the economy of human redemption. *”Although” is in the original quote

The changes made to Dummelow’s quote appear to be minor. However, there are reasons to believe that these revisions were orchestrated deceptions . . . the latter part of Dummelow’s statement emphatically upholds the doctrine of the Trinity which is the topic Peterson and Ricks are trying to discredit by this quote!

Actually, Dummelow’s comment would support Social Trinitarianism but does not prove, beyond admitting, at best, there are “hints” of creedal/Latin Trinitarianism (three persons in one ousia/being) in the New Testament. There is the rest of the quote that Paulson  did not provide (using his “logic,” such was clearly an “orchestrated deception” on his behalf!):

The New Testament mainly contemplates the relations of the Divine Persons to man and the universe, regarding the Father as Creator, the Son as Mediator and Redeemer, and the Spirit as Sanctifier (the ' economic ' Trinity) ; but hints are not wanting that this threefold function in creation and redemption is an outward manifestation of certain inward and eternal distinctions in the Godhead Itself (the ' essential ' Trinity). In the early Church the Monarchians, and especially the Sabellians, laid such exclusive stress upon the ' economic ' Trinity, that they denied that there are any real distinctions in the Godhead at all, and taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are only three different modes in which the One Personal God reveals Himself to and acts upon man. The main current of Christian thought, however, has always held firmly to the belief that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit represent eternal and necessary distinctions, and those of a personal and ethical as well as of a merely metaphysical kind, within the Divine Substance. Christians have seen in the doctrine of the Trinity not only an intellectual, but also a moral and spiritual revelation of the highest importance.

Elsewhere, Paulson attempts to use early Christian authors in support of the Trinity. He writes:

[A]lthough the word “Trinity” is not recorded in Church writings until the fourth century, it does not discount the premise that the basic idea was held by early Christians in a primitive theology of the early Church or that it is taught in the Scriptures. (p. 45).

Elsewhere (pp. 47-8), he attempts to use early Christian writers, including Tertullian(!) to support the antiquity of the (creedal) Trinity doctrine! However, Paulson must overlook a number of things about their theology and all their writings, not selected proof-texts. Was to Tertullian a “proto-Trinitarian”? No! One can access Tertullian’s writings here, and I would always urge any reader to rely on the primary source materials than anyone’s commentary, no matter how informed (my own included). However, when one reads his writings, we find a number of things that are inconsistent with Trinitarianism; for instance:

That the person of the Father is the only true God (Answer to the Jews ch. 1)

That the true God was the “common Father” (the person of the Father [Apology ch. 39])

That Jesus did not exist eternally (Against Hermogenes ch 3)

That the Son’s relationship to the Father can be understood as that of a beam to the sun, a rather “Arian” understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (Against Praxeas 8)

The Father is older than the Son (Against Praxeas 9)

One could go on, but you get the idea. Tertullian also believed that, while God is “spirit,” he did not believe “spirit” was immaterial but material; this belief is inconsistent with the doctrine of “divine simplicity,” which is necessary for any (creedal) Trinitarian theology (see Against Praxeas 7), something that Trinitarian defenders will readily admit.

Here are some examples of how early Christian texts were clearly non-Trinitarian, clearly showing that creedal Trinitarianism is not apostolic in origins, but a later, post-New Testament development:

Origen said: Since once an inquiry has begun it is proper to say something upon the subject of the inquiry, I will speak. The whole church is present and listening. It is not right that there should be any difference in knowledge between one church and another, for you are not the false church. I charge you, father Heraclides: God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme God who made all things. Do you hold this doctrine?

Heracl.: I do. That is what I also believe.

Orig.: Christ Jesus who was in the form of God, being other than the God in whose form he existed, was he God before he came into the body or not?

Heracl.: He was God before.

Orig.: Was he God before he came into the body or not?

Heracl.: Yes, he was.

Orig.: Was he God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?

Heracl.: Obviously he was distinct from another being and, since he was in the form of him who created all things, he was distinct from him.

Orig.: Is it true then that there was a God, the Son of God, the only begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two Gods, while in another there is one God?

Heracl.: What you say is evident. But we affirm that God is the almighty, God without beginning, without end, containing all things and not contained by anything; and that his Word is the Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the spirit, man inasmuch as he was born of Mary.

Orig.: You do not appear to have answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow you. Is the Father God?

Heracl.: Assuredly.

Orig.: Is the Son distinct from the Father?

Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?

Orig.: While being distinct from the Father is the Son himself also God?

Heracl.: He himself is also God.

Orig.: And do two Gods become a unity?

Heracl.: Yes.

Orig.: Do we confess two Gods?

Heracl.: Yes. The power is one.

Orig.: But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill the doctrine in the ears of our hearers. . . . Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: "For the two shall be one flesh." Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: "For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Is it not true that the one is of a subordinate nature or of a low and inferior nature, while Christ's nature is divine and glorious and blessed? Are they therefore no longer two? Yes, for the man and the woman are "no longer two but one flesh," and the righteous man and Christ are "one spirit." So in relation to the Father and God of the universe, our Saviour and Lord is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous man is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honourable than these —God. That is why we understand in this sense "I and the Father are one." When we pray, because of the one party let us preserve the duality, because of the other party let us hold to the unity. In this way we avoid falling into the opinion of those who have been separated from the Church and turned to the illusory notion of monarchy, who abolish the Son as distinct from the Father and virtually abolish the Father also. Nor do we fall into the other blasphemous doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: "Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me," and "I am and there is no God but me"? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe . . . in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus' saying, "I and my Father are one."  Dialogue with Heraclides

1Clem 46:6
Have we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was shed upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? (notice that, for the author of 1 Clement and other texts, "God" is exhausted by, not the Tri-une being of God/three persons, but the singular person of the Father. Remember: Trinitarianism, albeit in an ambiguous way, allows for a distinction between the "persons" of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but not between "God" (and other like-terms [e.g., YHWH; Adonai]) and these persons.)

1Clem 59:3
[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abidest Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy; who layest low in the insolence of the proud, who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the lofty low; who makest rich and makest poor; who killest and makest alive; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh; who lookest into the abysses, who scanest the works of man; the Succor of them that are in peril, the Savior of them that are in despair; The Creator and Overseer of every spirit; who multiplies the nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honor us.

1Clem 59:4
We beseech Thee, Lord and Master, to be our help and succor. Save those among us who are in tribulation; have mercy on the lowly; lift up the fallen; show Thyself unto the needy; heal the ungodly; convert the wanderers of Thy people; feed the hungry; release our prisoners; raise up the weak; comfort the fainthearted. Let all the Gentiles know that Thou art the God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and the sheep of Thy pasture.

1Clem 64:1
Finally may the All seeing God and Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ, and us through Him …that they may be well pleasing unto His Name through our High priest and Guardian Jesus Christ,through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honor, both now and for ever and ever. Amen.

1Clem 65:2
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom be glory and honor, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and forever and ever. Amen.

The Didache, variously dated from 50-100:

And concerning baptism, baptize as follows: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water. And if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else is able, but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. (7).

We thank You, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant. To You be the glory for ever.(9).

We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your servant, to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your Kingdom for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. (9).

We thank You, Holy Father, for Your holy name you that made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you revealed to us through Jesus Your servant. Glory to You forever and ever. You, Almighty Lord, have created all things for Your own name’s sake, You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You, but to us You freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your servant. Above all things we thank You that You are might. Glory to You forever and ever. (10).

Papias (AD 125):

The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature, and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up his work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, “For he must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” For in the times of the Kingdom the righteous man who is on the earth shall forget to die. “But when He says all things are put under him, it is manifest that He is excepted Who did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subjected to him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to Him, Who put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” – Fragments of the Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.

Aristides (ca. 125).:

Now the Christians trace their origin from the Lord Jesus Christ. And He is acknowledged by the Holy Spirit to be the son of the Most High God, who came down from heaven for the salvation of men.(Apology, 2).

For they know God, the Creator and Fashioner of all things through the only-begotten son and the Holy Spirit, and beside Him they worship no other God. (Apology 15)

Justin Martyr (100-165), Dialogue with Trypho, chapters 48, 49:

And [the Jew] Trypho said, “…Resume the discourse… For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish.”

And I [Justin] replied to this, “I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race… Now assuredly, Trypho,” I continued,”[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly [i.e. before his conception] as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father’s will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends,” I said, “of our race [i.e. Christians], who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I, even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself.”

And Trypho said, “Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ].”

Some may point to the early Christian use of "Trinitas" whence "Trinity." However, apart from being the root/etymological fallacy, "Trinitas" was not used to denote three persons in one being as it would later be used; instead, it denoted a "Triad." As we have seen, for Tertullian, one of its earliest users, the "Trinitas" consisted of the Father, Son, and Spirit, but (1) for Tertullian, the "one true God" was not the Trinitas, but the singular person of God the Father and (2) Tertullian's theology was opposed to the later, dogmatic theology on the Trinity on many key points.

Finally, it should be noted that Daniel Peterson (or any informed Latter-day Saint for that matter) with the use of “Trinity” per se. As Peterson wrote in a recent essay:

Although Latter-day Saints tend not to use the term Trinity, some Mormon authorities have employed the word to describe their belief in a Godhead of three persons. Thus, for example, here is Brigham Yong, speaking of “the Father of us all, and the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” at the Salt Lake Tabernacle in 1871: “is he one? Yes. Is his trinity one? Yes” (JOD 14:92). Similarly, Apostle James E. Talmage’s quasi-canonical treatise on The Articles of Faith contains several references to Godhead as a “trinity” (The Articles of Faith [1919], 38-47). Furthermore, canonical texts peculiar to Mormonism assert the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at least as strong as does the Bible itself. An April 1830 revelation to Joseph Smith, for instance, affirms that “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end” (D&C 20:28). The Book of Mormon concurs, declaring (with an interesting use of the singular verb) that “the Father, and . .. the Son, and . . . the Holy Ghost . . .is one God, without end” (2 Nephi 31:21; c. 3 Nephi 28:10). The impressive testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, published in every printing of the book since the 1830 first edition, concludes by ascribing “honor . . . to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God.” “I am in the Father,” says the Lord to Joseph Smith in an 1833 revelation, “and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one” (D&C 93:3; cf. 3 Nephi 11:27, 36; John 17:21; 10:30). “Monotheism,” explained the late apostle Bruce R. McConkie in his influential and oft-reprinted 1958 work Mormon Doctrine,

is the doctrine or belief that there is but one God. If this is properly interpreted to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—each of whom is a separate and distinct godly personage—are one God, meaning one Godhead, then true saints are monotheists. (Bruce R. McConkie, “Monotheism,” in Mormon Doctrine [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958], 511, emphasis deleted).

The question is, therefore, not whether the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are on in Mormon thought, but that the nature of their unity is. (Daniel C. Peterson, “Notes on Mormonism and the Trinity” in Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson, eds. “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch [Orem, Utah: The Interpreter Foundation, 2017], pp. 267-315, here, 269-70)

Paulson has failed to make his case for (1) Peterson and Ricks engaging in “orchestrated deception” in their use of Dummelow and (2) providing evidence for the antiquity of Creedal Trinitarianism. This is all the more telling when we read Paulson's own self-assessment of his book:

[T]he best arguments to prove Mormonism in error are contained in this book . . . This information will help build genuine, persuasive, and biblical support of classical Christianity. Also, this work will demonstrate that Mormonism cannot be considered a mainstream Christian religion . . . Christians reserve the right to determine as a group which churches are mainstream Christian church and which groups are non-Christian cults. (pp. 6, 40, emphasis in original)

Catholic Apologists, the Deuterocanon, and the Septuagint

When it comes to defending the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical works, some pop Catholic apologists often appeal to the Septuagint (LXX) as the LXX, purportedly, contain these works. The reasoning goes that, as the LXX was “the Old Testament” of the earliest Christians, ipso facto, the Deuterocanonical works were accepted as being equally authoritative as the other books in the Old Testament.

There are many problems with this line of reasoning, including the fact that there was no one type of Septuagint, and many contained different listings of books, including some not accepted as canonical by Trent in its infallible decree in April 1546 (e.g., 1 Clement). As one Catholic Bible wrote in the preface to its translation of 1-2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh:

SOME ADDITIONAL BOOKS

INTRODUCTION

1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh are accepted by many Protestants and Anglicans as being part of the Apocrypha. They are not accepted as canonical by Roman Catholics. 1 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh constituted a part of the Septuagint Greek text of the Old Testament used by Christians during the early centuries of Christianity. The book of 2 Esdras may not have been in its final form until toward the end of the second century AD. (Good News Bible with the Deuterocanonical Books also called The Apocrypha [2d ed.; The Bible Societies/Harper Collins, 1994], emphasis added)

In this instance, appealing to the LXX without qualifications and nuances as more informed Catholic apologists do, puts the Catholic apologist in the unenviable position of having, if they wish to be consistent, to (1) admit that Trent was wrong in not accepting the canonicity of 1-2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh or (2) that the common manner of appealing to the LXX is errant.

As I stated above, there are more informed Catholic approaches to this issue, most notably the works of Gary Michuta, such as:

Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger (2d ed.) and

The Case for the Deuterocanon: Evidence and Arguments

While I disagree with his conclusions, Michuta does a very good job in many areas, including refuting the common Protestant abuse of Luke 24:44 (some have even used this as evidence for Sola Scriptura during the time of Jesus!). I just mention this as I do not wish to beaccusedd of ignoring the better arguments for the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical works forwarded by informed Catholic apologists.

As an aside, Michuta engaged James White in a debate on this issue back in 2004--it is worth watching (White relied upon the arguments of William Webster, which was unfortunate, as Webster is a poor researcher--he should have relied upon Roger Beckwith's 1985 The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church as he did in another debate with Gerry Matatics in 1993, even if one finds Beckwith's arguments at times to be strained):

The Great Debate IX: Is the Apocrypha Scripture?

The Book of Mormon (Abridged for Reddit)

My friend Stephen Smoot has won the Internetz for 2018 with the following humorous post:

The Book of Mormon (Abridged for Reddit)

My personal favourite:

And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called “it’s just three letters that anybody could guess”

Amos and Reformed Theology

In the book of Amos we read of God and his lamentation over how, in spite of the divine judgment inflicted upon them, the people of Amos' time did not repent and return back to Him:

I have sent among you the pestilence after the manner of Egypt: your young men have I slain with the sword, and have taken away your horses; and I have made the stink of your camps to come up unto your nostrils: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord. (Amos 4:10)

Of course, this makes no real sense in light of Reformed theology unless one will posit that God is just play-acting and being deceptive. So, let me offer the Reformed Paraphrase Translation rendition of this verse:

I decreed in the eternal past to send you pestilence after the manner of Egypt for all the sins you committed, that I also decreed would infallible come to pass, all for my glory, but you are still responsible due to having compatibilist freedom: your young men have I slain with the sword, all to my eternal glory, and have taken away your horses, as they were totally depraved like you (and yes, I decreed all of that, too, infallible, and in the eternal past): and notwithstanding these means to bring you about to repentance, and the fact that I predestined and foreordained all secondary/instrumental means like these in the eternal past and your reactions thereto, I am going to act shocked and surprised to engage in play-acting (and also trick some future Open Theists like Gregory Boyd into thinking I can be upset at the free-will actions of humanity just so I can condemn them all to hell for doing that I predestined infallibly from the eternal past for my own glory).

Of course, in reality, the book of Amos presents many instances where God’s plans are frustrated due to their free-will actions in ways that are nonsense if Reformed theology were true:

For thus saith the Lord unto the house of Israel, Seek ye me, and ye shall live. But see not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beersheba: for Gilgal shall surely go into captivity, and Bethel shall come to nought. Seek the Lord and ye shall live; lest he break out like fire in the house of Joseph, and devour it, and there be none to quench it in Bethel. (Amos 5:4-6)

This is what the Lord God showed me: he was forming locusts at the time the latter growth began to sprout (it was the latter growth after the king's mowings). When they had finished eating the grass of the land, I said, "O Lord God, forgive me, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!" The Lord relented concerning this, "It shall not be," said the Lord. That is what the Lord God showed me: the Lord God was calling for a shower of fire, and it devoured the great deep and was eating up the land. Then I said, "O Lord God, cease, I beg you! How can Jacob stand? He is so small!" Then the Lord relented concerning this, "This also shall not be," said the Lord God. (Amos 7:1-6, NRSV)

In this passage, God is said to have relented (alt. change his mind [Hebrew: נחם Greek: μετανοέω]) from punishing Israel due to the intercession of Amos (cf. Exo 32-33 for a similar event where, based on Moses’ intercession, God relents from His promise to destroy the Israelites due to their idolatry). The plain meaning of this passage is that God changed His mind and did not engage in play-acting nor can this be relegated to a mere anthropomorphism. As one recent author on God’s contingent foreknowledge wrote:

First, not only did the Lord change his mind, but he affirmed his intention by verbalizing it (e.g., “’This shall not be’ said the Lord”). Hence, if one attempts to fictionalize this event, one must also fictionalize Amos’ recording of God’s own words, which, as the saying goes, means that Amos put words into the mouth of God that God did not actually say.

Second, the narrative gives us two contrasting actions of God in a cause-and-effect relationship: (1) God has already formed the locusts to destroy the vegetation, and (2) God stops the forming of the locusts and does not destroy the vegetation. Hence, if an exegete were to claim that God’s verbalized decision that occurs in between the cause-and-effect sequence of event #1 and event #2 is fictional (i.e., the statement “’This shall not be’ said the Lord” did not occur), it essentially requires that the whole narrative becomes fiction. In other words, the Lord’s changing of mind is an integral part of the natural sequence of events in the historical narrative, without which the Lord’s initial forming of the locusts to eat the vegetation and Amos’ plea to stop the forming would be superfluous or causes without effects. (Robert Sungenis, The Immutable God Who Can Change His Mind, The Impassable God Who Can Show Emotion [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2016], 37-8)

For more on the overwhelming exegetical and theological problems with Reformed theology, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Evangelical Scholars on the Illumination of the Holy Spirit and Biblical Exegesis

The following, from a scholarly introduction to exegesis by three conservative Evangelical scholars on the role of the Holy Spirit in biblical interpretation, should be of interest to LDS readers:

Illumination

For his part, God provides the resource for such obedient understanding of his truth: the illumination of the Holy Spirit. A corollary of this requirement of faith is the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. That is, once people have committed their lives in faith to Jesus as Lord, the Bible speaks of a work that God performs in them. This internal operation enables believers to perceive spiritual truth, an ability unavailable to unbelievers (c. 1 Cor 2:6-16; 2 Cor 3:15-18). This illuminating work of the Spirit does not circumvent nor allow us to dispense with the principles of hermeneutics and the techniques of exegesis. It does mean that a dynamic comprehension of the significance of Scripture and its application to life belongs uniquely to those indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Though scholars possess an arsenal of methods and techniques with which to decipher the meaning of the biblical texts, interpretation falls short of its true potential without illumination of the Spirit. Neither methodology nor the Spirit operates in isolation from the other. Neither is sufficient in itself. For though the Spirit may supernaturally grant to a reader the true meaning of a text, independent of any study, we posit that the Spirit rarely, if ever, operates in this manner. On the other hand, methods alone are not sufficient to understand profoundly and exactly the true meaning and significance of Scripture. Then how are methodology and illumination interwoven?

First, consider whether one can depend simply upon the Holy Spirit for understanding the Bible apart from methods and techniques. Origen (ca. A.D. 200) might have been the earliest defender of this practice, but if so, he was certainly only the first in a long line that continues to this day. The reasoning often goes like this: if the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers, then certainly he can impart his meaning without recourse to such means as historical or grammatical study. C.H. Spurgeon countered such pretension with some advice to budding preachers in “A Chat about Commentaries”:

Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think of ways that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have labored before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk to such of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.

In the pulpit this error may sound like this:

Dear friends, I have consulted no other books or human sources or worldly wisdom. I have considered no commentaries. I have gone right to the Bible—and only the Bible—to see that it had to say for itself. Let me share with you what God showed me.

As B. Ramm, who invented a similar quote, observes, this sounds very spiritual,” but in fact “it is veiled egotism” and a “confusion of the inspiration of the Spirit with the illumination of the Spirit.” The Spirit’s work of illumination does not grant new revelation.

Unfortunately, some deeply spiritual people have purported some obviously incorrect interpretations of the Bible. Being indwelt by the Spirit does not guarantee accurate interpretation. Though the creative work of the Spirit cannot be diminished, the Spirit does not work apart from hermeneutics and exegesis. Rather, he provides the sincere believer that indispensable comprehension of the text (that “Ah, ha!”) by working within and through methods and techniques. An encounter occurs between the Spirit of the Word and the human spirit. Swartley says:

In the co-creative moment, text and interpreter experience life by the power of the divine Spirit. Without this experience, interpretation falls short of its ultimate potential and purpose.

Certainly, we cannot “program” this creative encounter; it requires a stance of faith and humility before the Lord of the universe who has revealed his truth on the pages of Scripture. Yet in seeking to hear his voice, the interpreter becomes open to true understanding. Prayer puts one in the position to hear and understand. For the Christian, prayer is an indispensable ingredient to the proper understanding of Scripture. We must ask God to assist our study and to speak to us through it so that we might understand his truth and will for our lives. We do not substitute prayer for diligent exegetical work. We pray that we will do our work well, that we will be sensitive to the Spirit’s direction, and that we will be obedient to the truth of what we discover. We openly admit our bent to sin and error and our finitude; we ask for an openness to receive what God has revealed and a willingness to learn from others throughout the history of interpretation.

. . .

What are the unique features of the Bible that formulate our preunderstanding?

1. First, we must recognize “the spiritual factor.” The full purpose of the Bible is realized only by the work of the Holy Spirit “who illuminates the mind and witnesses to the veracity of the divine verities.” Illumination does not provide data or information (the Holy Spirit does not provide further revelation to the interpreter), nor does illumination guarantee a correct understanding of the meaning of a passage. Ramm agrees that the ministry of the Spirit cannot replace careful analysis and sound exegesis, but it does assure us in conjunction with such diligence the believer can apprehend the significance and scope of God’s revelation. The Scriptures themselves describe this scope: “All Scripture is given by God and is useful for teaching for showing people what is wrong in their lives, for correcting faults, and for teaching how to live right. Using the Scriptures, the person who serves God will be capable, having all that is needed to do every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17 NCV).

So the question is not whether a believer is biased, since all interpreters are biased, but, rather, does “the spiritual actor” irreparably bias the believer and thus prevent an objective and true understanding? Not necessarily. In fact, the opposite is true. Given the spiritual nature of the Bible, only a spiritual interpreter can accurately assimilate its contents. All others will simply miss the spiritual dimension—they may even ignore it altogether, whether consciously or unconsciously. Given the Christian presupposition of the Bible’s inspiration, if the divine Spirit who inspired the Bible also enables believers to interpret it, then one could argue that they are better able to discern its true meaning! In fact, if the Bible informs correctly, God promised through the prophet Jeremiah that he would put his instruction in the minds and hearts of his covenant people (Jer 31:33).

This “internal instruction” does not replace learning from the Bible, nor implementing this process of hermeneutics, but it does suggest that God’s people occupy a unique position to grasp his message. Paul recognized that only a spiritual person possesses the capacity to apprehend spiritual truths (1 Cor 2:15f.). Commenting on the text Fee speaks of “the main concern of the entire passage, namely, that God’s wisdom can be known only by God’s people because they alone have the Spirit.”

God’s anointing has educative value (1 Jn 2:17). Concerning this latter verse, Smalley says: “So complete is the spiritual instruction which the true believer has received, John concludes that the need for temporal teaching is removed.” Of course, we must view the assertion in context. Smalley notes that in opposition to gnostic teaching, John stresses that “the ‘consecrated’ Christian . . . has no need of (basic?) spiritual instruction. He is already ‘set apart’ for God’s truth.” In other words, the believer occupies a privileged position to grasp and implement God’s truth.

. . .

The Role of the Holy Spirit

We would be remiss if we did not remind our readers that everything we have taught in this book falls short of the intended goal if interpreters do not simultaneously pray and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide them in the hermeneutic task. We assume that point of departure; it is part of our preunderstanding. Yet as we pointed earlier, an appeal to the Spirit is no substitute for sound interpretive methods. Roy Zuck’s excellent article on “The Role of the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics” deserves reading from start to finish; here we can merely summarize his fourteen main points:

1.     The Holy Spirit does not give new revelation on a par with Scripture.

2.     He does not guarantee that our interpretations are infallible.

3.     He does not give one person new insights that no one else has.

4.     Many non-Christians can apply sound hermeneutics to understand the meaning of Scripture; without the Spirit, however, they refuse to apply it adequately to their lives.

5.     Understanding is not the exclusive domain of biblical scholars.

6.     Spiritual devotion on the part of the interpreter is crucial.

7.     Lack of spiritual preparation can hinder correct interpretation.

8.     Here is no substitute for diligent study.

9.     The Spirit does not rule out study helps.

10.  He does not override common sense and logic.

11.  He does not normally give sudden intuitive flashes.

12.  The Spirit’s role in hermeneutics is part of the process of illumination.

13.  He does not make all of the Bible equally clear.

14.  He does not ensure comprehensive understanding.

In short, the five crucial elements for proper interpretation and application are: (1) salvation, (2) spiritual maturity, (3) diligent study, (4) common sense and logic, and (5) humble dependence on the Spirit for discernment. (William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation [Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993],84-5, 111-12, 425-26, emphasis in original)