Jeremiah Boddy has recently tried to
respond to my
refutation of his review of Not
By Scripture Alone:
Dealing
with the Issue of Revelation
In it, Jeremiah shows a lack of
intellectual honesty and even basic reading comprehension. For instance, he writes as if I did not present any
biblical evidence for Latter-day Saint theology:
I
would challenge Robert to show me where within oral tradition there is the
teaching of eternal marriage only possible by temples, that idea that Christ is
our brother, the idea of a restoration of Aaron’s priesthood, and that there is
one man appointed to lead the church as prophet . . . Mormons are biblically
and historically incapable of prove their theology from Scripture.
Note that, all throughout his writings, Jeremiah assumes that the category of "scripture" is exhausted by the 66 books of the Protestant canon. On this, see the section "Falling at the First Hurdle: Why Sola Scriptura is an exegetical impossibility" in Not By Scripture Alone.
As with his first attempt to critique Not By Scripture Alone, it is
clear that Jeremiah did not bother to read everything I wrote. Had he done so,
he would have read the following section (he quotes the text immediately before this, so I can only conclude he is being deceptive):
Furthermore,
as I have demonstrated on my blog, even using the Protestant framework of sola
and tota scriptura, Reformed theology is anti-biblical but Latter-day Saint
theology is entirely biblical. For representative examples:
God
the Father being embodied: Lynn
Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment
Christology: Latter-day
Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus
The
"number" of God: Refuting
Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (exegetes Isa 43:10; 44:6, 8 and
other relevant texts; cf. C.J.
Labuschagne on the language of "incomparability" in the Old Testament
and Literature of Surrounding Cultures)
Biblical
critique of Reformed theology: An
Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed
Theology
Biblical
refutation of Imputed Righteousness/Forensic Justification: Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed
Righteousness
Exegesis
of John 19:30 and related texts (e.g., Heb 2:17; 10:10-14) vs. the Reformed
doctrine of the atonement: Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of
John 19:30
Biblical
exegesis of Acts 2:38 and related texts supporting baptismal regeneration: Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation and Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7
Jeremiah's comment that Latter-day Saints believe that there is "one man appointed to lead the church as prophet" shows how ignorant he is about Latter-day Saint ecclesiology. We believe that there all 3 members of the First Presidency and members of the Quorum of the Twelve are prophets, seers, and revealtors.
What distinguishes Joseph Smith and his
successors is not the spirit of prophecy, or being a Prophet, but the
apostleship. Wilford Woodruff explained that "anybody is a prophet who has
a testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders of
Israel are prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle." (JOD
13:165).
Brigham Young explained the differences
between the titles "prophet," "apostle," and
"president." In a conference address delivered April 6, 1853, he
said:
Perhaps it may make
some of you stumble, were I to ask you a question. Does a man's being a Prophet
in this Church prove that he shall be the President of it? I answer, No! A man
may be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his
being the President of the Church. Suffice to say, that Joseph was the
President of the Church, as long as he lived; the people chose to have it so.
He always filled that responsible station by the voice of the people. Can you
find any revelation appointing the President of the Church? The keys of the
Priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the
earth, and were not to be taken from him in time or in eternity, but when he
was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people;
though he held the keys of the Priesthood, independent of their voice. (JOD
1:113)
To Brigham Young, being a prophet was
secondary to being an apostle and having keys from God. He explained the
difference in these words:
Many persons think if
they see a Prophet they see one possessing all the keys of the Kingdom of God
on the earth. This is not so; many persons have prophesied without having any
Priesthood on them at all . . . To be a prophet is simply to be a foreteller of
future events; but an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ has the keys of the Holy
Priesthood, and the power thereof is sealed upon his head, and by this he is
authorized to proclaim the truth to the people, and if they receive it, well;
if not, the sin be upon their own heads. (JOD 13:144).
. . . for it is necessary in the ushering in of the
dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to
usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of
dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be
revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but
those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world,
but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes
and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.
In light of our view of the Great Apostasy, we should not expect "oral tradition" (i.e., teachings outside of the Bible [e.g., early Christian writings, such as the Didache, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc]) to be "pure" and undefiled. Notwithstanding, many Latter-day Saint doctrines can be found therein, such as the plurality of Gods doctrine as seen in Origen's Dialogue with Heraclides.
But it is not just “Mormonism” that
Jeremiah fails in representing accurately. Note the following:
For
example within Roman Catholicism, Rome’s apologists admit there is no oral
tradition preached by Christ or the apostles that we don’t have in scripture.
At best, a modern Catholic apologist will
argue that there is no teaching of Catholicism without implicit support from
the Bible (e.g., for the Bodily Assumption, they would point to Enoch and
Elijah being assumed into heaven and the “woman” in Rev 12:1). However, many
Catholic apologists (e.g., Peter D. Williams) would argue more for the classical
understanding of the Council of Trent (session 4, 1546) and the “partum-partum”
view, namely, “part” of the divine deposit is in the written tradition, and
another part in the oral.
On the topic of Rome’s claims to actually
possessing oral tradition from the apostles, see:
Answering
Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception
Answering
Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons
Jeremiah said he would love to debate oral tradition. I would love to see both of us debate the Immaculate Conception with an informed Catholic apologist separately--only one of us could do a good job at (1) representing the Catholic position and (2) examining this dogma from scripture and tradition against an informed opponent (the other [Jeremiah] would actually lose such a debate).
It should be noted that Jeremiah's
understanding of Sola Scriptura is not the understanding of historical (e.g.,
Whittaker; Goode) and modern (White; Webster; King) Protestant apologists but instead is a novelty. This can
be seen in how Jeremiah responded to a question I posed: "Take the book of
Obadiah: would Jeremy argue that, as it is inspired of God, does that mean that
Obadiah is just as sufficient as the Torah and the Pauline corpus?"
Jeremiah responded thusly (emphasis added):
Again,
we need to make huge categories here. In short yes I think they are formally
sufficient as well as materially sufficient. The Holy Spirit gave us more
books, not because there is a deficit, but because He’s working all things out
according to the council of His will (Ephesians 1:11) and for his own glory. No
book is unnecessary and that’s never been the crux of my argument. I simply
asking are the scriptures sufficient, if not, where, and on what grounds can we
prove such? I would say yes to Obadiah being just as sufficient as Romans or
Hebrews.
Absolutely no Protestant theologian or
apologist I have studied would ever claim that a single book of the Bible is
formally sufficient, let alone materially so. For them, material and formal
sufficiency refers to the totality of the 66 books of the Protestant
canon. Be that as it may, I will ask Jeremiah to show us where Obadiah is
formally (or even only materially) sufficient to teach us the following central
doctrines of his faith:
The two natures of Christ
The personal pre-existence of Jesus
Virginal conception of Jesus
The personality of the Holy Spirit
The divinity of the Holy Spirit
Creation ex nihilo
Forensic justification
Alien imputed righteousness
(as an aside, once or twice I mistakenly referred to Jeremiah as "Jeremy"--that is a force of habit. Here in Ireland, rarely anyone is called "Jeremiah" but "Jeremy")
Boddy tries to argue that the distinction
between "formal" and "material" sufficiency thusly:
The
Bible is both materially and formally sufficient. People who create said
categories only do so in order to wedge in arguments that can’t be made
biblically.
This is falsified by Protestant apologists
and scholars. Take, for example, the question of the canon. The Bible itself is
not formally sufficient to provide someone with the definitive listing of 66
books (39 Old; 27 New) of the Protestant canon. At best, informed apologists
(note I said informed, I know Jeremiah will argue otherwise as he thinks each
book is, in and of itself, formally, not just materially, sufficient) will
claim the Bible it materially sufficient for such, and will appeal to
historical considerations to support such (e.g., Michael Kruger’s books, Canon
Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books
and The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament
Debate are representative of such an approach).
Jeremiah shows how dim he is when he
writes the following in response to my claims about the meaning of "word
of God":
I
don’t quite understand Robert’s point in this one. As a defender of Sola
Scripture, I understand the Bible is the paper Word of God and by burning them
all, you couldn’t destroy God, that’s not the point though. Crampton would
agree that you can’t divorce God from His word. He is married to it and it is
how He speaks to His creation. To question both the integrity and the
truthfulness of scripture, is to make an ontological argument against God.
Christ himself says it would be easier to destroy heaven and earth than for his
words to pass away (Matthew 24:35).
This only highlights how dim and/or
disingenuous Jeremiah is. Crampton (whom I quoted) did not state one would be
destroying God by burning all paper bibles; Crampton said one would not
be destroying God’s word. Again, I will quote Crampton again
(emphasis added):
[T]here
is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152,
160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If
one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not
have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given
in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and
to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had
been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to
write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had
not destroyed God’s Word. God’s Word is eternal propositions that find
expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The
Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002],
156)
For Jeremiah, "word of God" =
the Bible. However, as Crampton (himself a Reformed Protestant) argues, contra
Jeremiah, the Bible/inscripturated revelation is not one to one equivalent to
the Bible. It is the word of God written, texts such as Isa 40:8 and Matt 24:35
are not, contra Jeremiah, a promise about the integrity/preservation of the
Bible. If such were the case, there would have to be no textual variants whatsoever
if Jeremiah’s reading of Matt 24:35 is true (in reality, it is based
on eisegesis). It is true that God’s “word” is how he speaks to his creation.
Note, however, when God spoke the world into existence in Gen 1, it was at a
time when not a single word was inscripturated! This further blows Jeremiah’s
simplistic and false “word of God = inscripturated revelation” belief.
Jeremiah ends his article with the
following:
I respect
Robert and I’d love to debate him sometime on any subject he’d like.
I have absolutely no respect for Jeremiah whatsoever. If he respected me, he would represent my arguments accurately and engage with the texts beyond his "nuh-uh!"-type approach. In reality, Jeremiah Boddy is a windbag and is clueless about any topic he discusses and is incapable of historical-grammatical exegesis.
I would love to debate an informed
Protestant apologist who has intellectual integrity and honesty and knows what the
historic Protestant understanding of Sola Scriptura is--so that rules out Jeremiah
Boddy. However, at the time of writing, Joseph Lawal (of the LDS Philosophy
youtube channel) hopes to host a debate/dialogue on Sola Scriptura with
myself and a Protestant in the near future.
