A Neglected Objection to the Modal Ontological Argument
Thursday, March 31, 2022
Zacharias Ursinus (Reformed Protestant) and Robert Roberts (Christadelphian) on Creation Ex Nihilo and "Out of Nothing is Nothing" Argument
Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583), in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) which he himself composed, wrote the following against the “out of nothing is nothing” objection to creatio ex nihilo:
5.
Obj. Out of nothing is nothing. Ans. According to the order of nature as it is
now constituted, it is true, that one thing is generated or produced from
another. It is also true that nothing can be produced out of nothing by men;
but what is impossible to man is possible with God. Hence, this proposition,
out of nothing is nothing, is not true when applied to God. Nor is it true of
the first creation, or of the extraordinary working of God. Nor is it true of
the first creation, or of the extraordinary working of God, but only of the
order of nature as it is now established. That God created all things out of
nothing, should contribute to our comfort; for if he has created all things out
of nothing, he is also able to preserve us, and to restrain, yea, to bring to
naught the counsels and devices of the wicked. (The Commentary of Zacharias
Ursinus: On the Heidelberg Catechism—The Protestant Christian Doctrines, Dating
to 1563 [trans. G. W. Williard; Pantianos Classics, 1888], 160)
This reminded me of what the second pioneer of the Christadelphianmovement, Robert Roberts (1839-1898) wrote against the concept of
creation out of nothing (note: Roberts did not believe in creation ex
materia):
Popular theology teaches that God
made all things "Out of nothing." This is evidently one of many
errors that have long passed current as truth. It has proved an unfortunate
error; for it has brought physical science into needless collision with the
Bible. Physical science has compelled men to accept it as an axiomatic truth
that "out of nothing, nothing can come," and having been eld to
believe that the Bible teaches that all things have been made out of nothing,
they have dismissed the Bible as out of the question on that ground alone. They
have taken refute by preference in various theories that have recognised the
eternity of material force in some form or other. The Bible teaches that all
things have been made out of God—not out of nothing. It teaches . . . that God,
as the antecedent, eternal power of the universe, has elaborate all things out
of himself. (Robert Roberts, Christendom Astray, Or, Popular Theology (Both
in Faith and Practice) Shewn to be Unscriptural; And The True Nature of the
Ancient Apostolic Faith Exhibited in Eighteen Lectures [Birmingham: R.
Roberts, 1884], 121-22
On creatio ex nihilo itself, see:
Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian
Reformed Protestant Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) Responding to Ezekiel 18:20 as a proof-text against Original Sin
Obj. 7. But it is said, Ez. 18:20,
that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father; therefore it is unjust
that posterity should endure punishment for the Sin of Adam. Ans. The son shall
not, indeed, bear the iniquity of the father, nor make satisfaction for his
transgression, if he does not approve of it, nor imitate it, but condemns and
avoids it. But we justly suffer on account of the sin of Adam: 1. Because all
of us approve of, and follow his transgression. 2. Because the offence of Adam
is also ours; for we were all in Adam when he sinned, as the Apostle testifies:
“We have all sinned in him” (Rom. 5:12). 3. Because the entire nature of Adam
became guilty; and as we have proceeded from his very substance,--being, as it
were, a part of him,-we must also necessarily be guilty ourselves. 4. Because
Adam had received the gifts of God upon the condition that he would also import
them unto us, if he retained them; or lose them for us also, if he lost them.
Hence, it is, that when Adam lost these gifts, he did not merely lose them for
himself, but also for his posterity. (The Commentary of Zacharias Ursinus: On
the Heidelberg Catechism—The Protestant Christian Doctrines, Dating to 1563 [trans.
G. W. Williard; Pantianos Classics, 1888], 63)
Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583): God gives false faith to nominal members of the Visible Church
Temporary faith, as well as the
faith of miracles, is given to those who are members of the
visible church only, that is, the hypocrites. “Have we not in thy name done many
wonderful works: cast out devils?” &c. (Matt. 7:22.) The faith of miracles,
however, which was possessed by many in the primitive church, has now
disappeared from the church, inasmuch as the doctrine of the gospel has been
sufficiently confirmed by miracles, historical faith may be possessed even by
those who are out of the church, and also by devils. (The Commentary of
Zacharias Ursinus: On the Heidelberg Catechism—The Protestant Christian
Doctrines, Dating to 1563 [trans. G. W. Williard; Pantianos Classics,
1888], 131)
James A. Greenberg on the Textual Differences between the MT, LXX, and Samaritan Pentateuch Concerning סמך in the Singular/Plural
In his A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus, James A. Greenberg addresses the ḥaṭṭā’t offering:
How do anointing with oil and the ḥaṭṭā’t
offering consecrate the altar? Here, it seems that the normal process of
applying oil consecrates (Holiness School: Exod 40:9-15; Priestly Torah: Exod
30:22-33) and in this special case of the ḥaṭṭā’t, the binding of the
altar with the anointed priest also consecrates the altar. It is possible that,
by binding Aaron and his sons to the altar via the ḥaṭṭā’t blood,
following Exod 30:29, Aaron is considered to have the same nature as a holy
object (he is anointed with the other holy objects; Lev 8:10-12; Exod 29:37),
and thus, the altar, which is not holy, is made holy by Aaron. (James A.
Greenberg, A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose of
Kipper Revisited [Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 23; University
Park, Pa.: Eisenbrauns, 2019], 85)
Commenting on an interesting textual variant (focusing on singular/plural
instances of Hebrew סמך smk), we read the following:
This is a special case of the ḥaṭṭā’t
that is driven by the status of the altar and Aaron. In this context, Aaron,
while having holy oil on him, is considered a holy object and thus may transfer
his holiness to the altar; cf. Exo 29:37; Lev 10:7. In Lev 8:14, the verb smk
‘lean, lay, rest, support’ is singular even though the subject of the verb is
plural, Aaron and his sons. With the exception of Lev 8 and Exod 29, in all Biblical
Hebrew instances, when this verb is plural the subject is plural (Lev 4:15;
24;14; Num 8:10; 12; 2 Chr 29:23; 32:8; Isa 48:2). In Lev 8, the other
instances of smk are plural, with Aaron and his sons as the subject
(i.e., 8:18 for the burnt offering, and 8:22 for the ordination offering).
Thus, the author seems to think intentionally of Aaron and his sins as a single
entity, supporting this study’s contention that it is Aaron’s holiness that
changes the status of the altar along with the anointing act. The LXX and the
Samaritan Pentateuch differ from the MT and renders all instances of smk in
Lev 8 in the singular form. Perhaps this was an attempt by each tradition to
harmonize all instances of smk with 8;14. However, it is possible that
the LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch wish to represent Aaron and his sons as one
entity in all the Lev 8 rituals. For Exod 29, the text versions are inconsistent.
The MT renders smk as singular in 29:10, plural in 29:15, and singular in
29:19. The Samaritan Pentateuch renders smk as singular in all instances
and this is harmonized with Lev 8. This inconsistency with Exod 29 leads
Milgrom to find no discernible pattern to explain why smk is rendered a singular
in some cases and plural in others (Leviticus 1-16, 520). However, the
MT of Lev 8 is seems to highlight the unity of Aaron and his sons in the context
of the ḥaṭṭā’t and consecration. (Ibid., 85 n. 132)
James A. Greenberg on the Potency and Power of "Holiness"
Priestly texts claim that holiness
cannot interact with sin and uncleanness without significant, and often
immediate, negative ramifications. (James A. Greenberg, A New Look at
Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose of Kipper Revisited [Bulletin
for Biblical Research Supplement 23; University Park, Pa.: Eisenbrauns, 2019], 52)
The footnote to the above provides a lengthy elaboration of this:
Unclean people are not to eat holy
food, lest they suffer the penalty of being cut off (Priestly Torah: Lev 7:20-21;
Holiness School: Lev 22:3). Nadab and Abihu are destroyed by YHWH’s fire as a
result of their disobedience of offering strange fire (Priestly Torah: Lev
10:1-2). The Nazirites, who are holy before YHWH, must not make themselves
unclean by going near a dead person (Priestly Torah: Num 6:6-8). The Nazirite
may deal with the issue of corpse contamination through cleansing and sacrifice
(Num 6:9-12); however, it is clear that the mixing of unclean and holy is prohibited.
While this study disagrees that unresolved corpse contamination (Holiness
School; resulting in being cut off: Num 19:13, 20), bodily impurities (Holiness
School; resulting in death: Lev 15:31), and the sin of Molech worship (Holiness
School; resulting in being cut off and death, Lev 20:1-5) cause the sanctuary to
be polluted, at the very least, these texts show that sin and uncleanness
should not interact with the holy. The priests and high priest, who are holy
must take special precautions to avoid sin and contact with uncleanness (Lev 21-22;16).
The daughter of a holy priest who becomes a harlot shall be burned by fire
(21:9). The high priest must not contaminate himself with a corpse, no matter
what his family relationship is with the deceased. Furthermore, he must not
leave the sanctuary with the anointing oil on him (21:12; cf. “lest he die,” Lev
10:7). Presumably, his holiness, as a result of the anointing oil, brings about
destruction to a common thing or person. Not only should the unclean not come
in contact with the holy but the common person must not come in contact with
the holy. While a common object may become holy by touching a sacred object
(Priestly Torah: Exod 29:37; 20:29; Lev 6:11 [Eng. 18], 20 [Eng. 27]; see also
Ezek 46:20), a common person, that is, a non-priest, shall receive the punishment
of death when attempting to enter the holy sanctuary (Holiness School: Num
1:51; 3:10, 38; 4:19; 17:5 [Heb.], 28 [Heb.]; 18:3, 7; even if they
unintentionally look upon the sanctuary while it is being dismantled; Holiness
School: Num 4:20; see also Neh 6:11). It is clear from the Priestly texts that
holiness is dangerous to the unclean and even to the common. It is important to
note that, with the possible exception of holy food (Lev 7:20-21; 22:3), it is always
the person who is negatively affected by holiness, not the other way around.
Wenham states, “It is not God who is endangered by the pollution of sin but man”
(Leviticus, 95). (Ibid., 52 n. 4)
James A. Greenberg on Leviticus 12
Milgrom views the prohibition in
Lev 12:4, “the parturient must not touch any consecrated thing or enter the
sanctuary until her days of purification are complete,” as a clear indication
that there is a transition of contagion levels of the parturient between states
one and two (Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, 992). According to Milgrom, Lev
12:4 stipulates that after the parturient launders and bathes, she no longer
infects the sacred by air but may infect the sacred by touch. Furthermore, in
respect to the common, the parturient is no longer contagious and may resume
most if not all of her normal activities in the community.
Following the case of the
menstruant’s impurity outlined in Lev 15:19-23, in agreement with Milgrom, the
parturient is contagious to the common by touch in stage one (she is contagious
to objects that are underneath her, people who touch those objects, and through
intercourse following the stipulations of the menstruant [ibid., 952-53]).
Furthermore, like the menstruant, the contagious nature of the parturient to
the common ends after stage one (see Lev 15:19, where the time the menstruant
is unclean and contagious by touch is restricted unless the discharge
continues; see also v. 25). Thus, in agreement with Milgrom, the text seems to show
that, after purification stage 2, the effect the parturient has on the common
is reduced by one degree, from touch to nothing. Finally, with Milgrom by stage
three, the parturient must enter the sanctuary in a clean state, since her interaction
with the holy sanctuary in an unclean state would mean her death (Ibid.,
945-46).
However, in disagreement with
Milgrom, the text shows that the parturient is more contagious to the sacred by
one degree of intensity in every purification stage. Leviticus 12:4 makes more
sense if it is truly a warning and not, as Milgrom contends, an explicit
statement specifying the change in the contagion of the parturient to the
sacred after her first purification stage (Ibid., 992). The Priestly
legislators must remind the parturient that even though she is not contagious
to the common she is still unclean in reference to the sacred. This warning is
understandable given that the thirty-three (or sixty-six) day duration for her
last purification stage is by far the longest waiting period for any bodily impurity
in the Priestly Torah. None of the other bodily impurity rituals have a text
that states the affected person may not touch a consecrated thing or enter the
sanctuary. Why not? The other bodily impurities do not have a final
purification stage that lasts more than seven days. As a result, it is unlikely
that Lev 12:4 explains the change in the parturient contagious nature to the
sacred, from aerial to touch. Rather, it explains how the contagion of the
parturient to the common has changed. This change in respect to the common
and the long duration of stage three required a warning to the parturient.
While she is no longer unclean to the common, she is still unclean to the
sacred.
Thus, until the last purification
stage, the parturient seems to be always unclean in reference to the sacred,
but her contagious level to the common reduces after each purification stage.
Only during the last purification stage is the parturient more contagious to
(and so endangered by) the sacred than to the common by one degree. Thus, the
last purification stage is the required time interval to move the person with
bodily impurity from an unclean to a clean state in respect to the sacred. (James
A. Greenberg, A New Look at Atonement in Leviticus: The Meaning and Purpose
of Kipper Revisited [Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 23;
University Park, Pa.: Eisenbrauns, 2019], 96-97, emphasis added)
In a footnote to the above, Greenberg asks the question
Why do people with bodily impurities
require waiting periods before they are declared clean in relation to the
sacred? Perhaps it is a precautionary period to ensure all of the unclean
substance is removed. For example, a parturient’s bleeding may stop significantly
in the timespan of seven to fourteen days; however, bleeding may continue to a
lesser extent for up to six weeks (Ibid., 749; Wenham, Leviticus, 188).
It seems as though bodily impurity that was visible to the eye was contagious
to the common. Bodily impurity that was no longer visible or significantly
reduced was no longer contagious to the common but may still be considered to
be endangered by the sacred. (Ibid., 97 n. 17)
Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) on Biblical Texts that Speak of a Plurality of Gods (e.g., Psalm 82:6; 1 Corinthians 8:5)
Obj. But the Scriptures declare
that there are many gods: “I have said, ye are gods.” “There are gods many, and
lords many.” (Ps. 82:6. 1 Cor. 8:5). Moses is also said to have been made a god
to Pharaoh. (Ex. 7:1.) yea, the devil is called the god of this world. (2 Cor.
4:4.) Ans. The word God is used in a double sense. Some times it signifies him who
is God by nature, and has his being from none, but of and from himself. Such a
being is the living and true God. Then again, it designates one who bears some
resemblance to the true God in dignity, office, &c. Such persons are, 1.
Magistrates and judges, who are called gods on account of their dignity, and
the office which they bear in the name of God, as it is said, “By me kings reign.”
(Prov. 8:5.) As God, therefore, administers his government through magistrates
and judges, as his vicegerents and servants upon the earth, he in like manner
bestows upon them the honor of his own name by calling them gods, that those
under them may know that they have to deal with God himself, whether they obey
or resist the magistrate, according as it is said, “Whosoever resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” (Rom. 13:2.) 2. Angels are also called
gods, in view of the dignity and excellency of their nature, power and wisdom,
in which they greatly excel other creatures; and on account of the office which
they exercise by divine appointment in defending the godly and punishing the
wicked. “Thou hast made him a little lower than the gods,” that is, the angels.
“Are they not all ministering spirits.” (Ps. 8:5; Heb. 1:14.) 3. The
devil is called god of this world, on account of the great power which he has
over men, and other creatures according to the just judgment of God. 4.
There are many things which are called gods, in the opinion of men, who regard
and worship certain things and creatures for gods. So idols are called gods, by
imitation. “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they
shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.” “Whose god is their
belly.” (Jer. 10:11. Phil. 3:19.) But here the question is in reference to the
true God to him who is God by nature, having his power from no one else, but
from and by himself Such a being is one only. (The Commentary of Zacharias
Ursinus: On the Heidelberg Catechism—The Protestant Christian Doctrines, Dating
to 1563 [trans. G. W. Williard; Pantianos Classics, 1888], 145)
Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583): We Know We Have Faith "From the Testimony of the Holy Ghost"
We may know that we have faith, 1.
From the testimony of the Holy Ghost, and by the true and unfeigned desire which
we have to embrace and receive the benefits which Christ offers unto us. (The
Commentary of Zacharias Ursinus: On the Heidelberg Catechism—The Protestant
Christian Doctrines, Dating to 1563 [trans. G. W. Williard; Pantianos
Classics, 1888], 131)
Attempt to Defend Trinitarianism in light of John 17:3 by Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583)
10. The Father only is the true
God, as it is said, John 17:3, “That they might know thee, the only true God” Therefore
the Son is not the true God. Ans. 1. According to the sixth general rule, there
is not here an opposition of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; but of the true
God, with idols and creatures. Therefore the particle only does not exclude the
Son and Holy Ghost from Deity, but only those who whom he is opposed. 2. There
is a fallacy in dividing clauses of mutual coherence and necessary connection;
for It follows in the passage above referred to, “and Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent.” Therefore eternal life also consists in this, that Jesus Christ,
sent of the Father, might likewise be known to be the true God, as it is said, “This
is the true God and eternal life.” 3. There is also a fallacy in referring the
exclusive particle only to the subject three, to which it does not belong; but
to the predicate the true God, which the article in the Greek plainly shows;
for the sense is, that they might know thee, the Father, to be that God, who
only is the true God. (The Commentary of Zacharias Ursinus: On the
Heidelberg Catechism—The Protestant Christian Doctrines, Dating to 1563 [trans.
G. W. Williard; Pantianos Classics, 1888], 217)
The late-19th century Attitude Towards the Word of Wisdom in light of Susa Young Gates and the Young Women's Journal
The [Young Women’s]
Journal in virtually every issue promoted the Word of Wisdom, often
by stories with detailed the woes of not adhering thereto, particularly
regarding alcohol. The Word of Wisdom, the Mormon health code, had long
vacillated somewhere between good advice and strict commandment. Some
Latter-day Saints, including church leaders, would continue to use coffee,
tobacco, and liquor after the Word had been introduced by Joseph Smith in 1833.
Bus Susa and Jacob had decided earlier in their marriage to obey it strictly,
and Susa preached its benefits to others. In one story, when a woman confesses
that she sometimes has wine, her neighbor and fellow Mormon replies coolly, “We
have a few true Latter-day Saints left who do not allow wines upon their tables,
and who never allow it to pass their lips” (“Lead Us Not into Temptation,” YWM,
July 1898, 312).
Coffee and tea, although not as
taboo in the pages of the Journal or in broader LDS culture, still was
counseled against in the magazine.
In an article by Susa’s daughter
Leah, partaking of coffee or tea was condemned as not only breaking “the Word
of Wisdom but the laws of health,” and girls were advised that if they “thoughtlessly
formed that habit because mother or father doe, stop it immediately” (“Hot
Drinks for Breakfast,” YWJ, May 1898, 235).
The two exceptions to this strict
prohibition were for missionaries and for health purposes. Some Saints took
coffee for headaches, and missionaries sometimes drank what was offered to them
if to refuse would be impolite. Even Susa may have drunk tea at a reception at
Windsor Palace hosted by Queen Victoria. She wrote in her lengthy report on the
International Council of Women, “We all hastened into the great hall, where delicious
tea . . . was served to every one . . . yes, every one! We do not drink tea . .
. but we knew ‘our manners’ too well to refuse such a lovely invitation from
such a lovely lady” (“International Council of Women,” YWJ, Oct. 1899,
449-50). (Romney Burke, Susa Young Gates: Daughter of Mormonism [Salt
Lake City: Signature Books, 2022], 217-18)
Further Reading
Mike Ash, Up
In Smoke: A Response to the Tanners’ Criticism of the Word of Wisdom
Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) on Transubstantiation not being Possible at the Last Supper
Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583), the author of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), wrote a lengthy commentary on this catechism. In the discussion of the Lord's Supper, he provides the following reason why Transubstantiaion could not have taken place at the Last Supper (and, as a result, the supper itself could not have been a propitiatory sacrifice):
If the bread is properly the body,
and the cup the blood of Christ, it must follow, that in the first supper the
blood was separated from the body of Christ, and then they are both exhibited
to us separately, as they are separate signs. But neither was the blood in the
first supper without the body, nor is the body of Christ now given to us
without the blood; for then at the first supper Christ was not yet dead, or
does he now die any more. The bread is, therefore, the body, and the cup the
blood of Christ, not properly, but sacramentally. (The Commentary of
Zacharias Ursinus: On the Heidelberg Catechism—The Protestant Christian
Doctrines, Dating to 1563 [trans. G. W. Williard; Pantianos Classics,
1888], 404)
Zacharias Ursinus' Attempt to Defend Sola Fide in light of James 2:24 and Psalm 106:30-31
Obj. 8. James says, (James 2:24) “Ye
see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”
Therefore faith only does not justify. Ans. There is here a double ambiguity.
In the first place, the apostle James does not speak of that righteousness by
which we are justified before God, or on account of which God regards us as
just; but of that righteousness by which we are justified before men by our
works. That this is so, is clear from the following considerations. In verse
18, he says, “Shew me thy faith without thy works.” Shew me, he says, who am a
man. He, therefore, speaks of the manifestation of faith and righteousness in
the sight of men. In verse 21, he says, “Was not Abraham, our father, justified
by works, when he had offered his son upon the altar.” This can not be
understood of justification in the sight of God; for Abraham was accounted
righteous in this sense long before he offered his son. Paul also says, that
Abraham was justified before God, not of works, but of faith. James, therefore,
in the chapter to which reference is had, means that Abraham was not justified
before God by faith, because it is written, “Abraham believed God, and it was
counted unto him for righteousness;” (Rom. 4:3) but he gave evidence to men of
his righteousness, by his good works, and obedience to God. This is the first
ambiguity in the word justify. The other is in the word faith; for when this apostle
denies that we are justified by faith, which consists in mere knowledge, without
confidence and works. This is evident from what he says, in verse 17: “Even so
faith if it hath not works is dead, being alone;” and attributes such a faith
to the devils who certainly have no true justifying faith. Finally, in verse
20, he compares that faith which he says does not justify to a dead body; but
such is no true, or justifying faith. In a word, if the term justify, as used
by the apostle James, is understood properly of justification before God, then
the term faith signifies a dead faith; and if we understand the faith here
spoken of as true, or justifying faith, then the ambiguity in it is the word
justify. (The Commentary of Zacharias Ursinus: On the Heidelberg
Catechism—The Protestant Christian Doctrines, Dating to 1563 [trans. G. W.
Williard; Pantianos Classics, 1888], 351-52)
Obj. 10. The work of Phinehas (Ps.
106:30, 31) is said to have been counted unto him for righteousness. Therefore
we are justified by works. And This, however, is a wrong interpretation of the
passage alluded to; for the sense is, that God approved of his work; but not
that he was justified on account of it: for by the works of the law, no flesh
shall be justified in the sight of God. (Ibid., 352)
For a refutation of Ursinus' (desperate) attempt to salvage Sola Fide, see, for instance:
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
Refuting Christina Darlington on the Nature of "Justification"
Gregory Stewart on the use of "Elias" to Denote a Forerunner
The name, or title, of “Elias” has
been used to refer to many individuals through the scriptures. The Lord committed
to “Elias” the key to of restoring all the things that the prophets spoke, from
the beginning of the last days [D&C 27:5} . . .
Elias
Many presume that this Elias [in
D&C 110] is the actual man who was named Elias, and is the first referenced
in the scriptures. We don’t know much about him except that he lived during the
time of Abraham, and he appeared in the Kirtland temple and restored keys to
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery . . . It is curious to me that Elias came to
commit the keys of the gospel of Abraham. Apparently, the keys of the gospel of
Abraham weren’t held by Abraham, but by Elias. This is all we know via
canonized scripture. Perhaps Abraham was this Elias who was sent to commit the
keys of his gospel. Perhaps it was Noah sent as Elias, as it is believed that Noah’s
and Abraham’s lifetimes overlapped, and as the angel Gabriel (Noah) is
identified as Elias who appeared to Zacharias and Mary, the mother of Jesus. We
just don’t know at this time. . . .
Another Elias Will Come in the
Last Days
The holy scriptures testify that
Jesus Christ will come again in the last days to usher in the millennial
dispensation. Before he arrives, he will once again send an Elias before him to
prepare the way before him.
JST Matthew 17:13-14
13 But
I say unto you, Who is Elias? Behold, this is Elias, whom I send to prepare the
way before me.
14 Then
the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist, and
also of another who should come to restore all things, as it is written by the
prophets
Who is this Elias and why isn’t
anyone talking about him? We have yet to see an Elias in the last days that
will make bare the arm of the Lrod and will wield that spirit and power of
Elias as Elias’s of past dispensations have.
We have to see Elias stand before
the nations of the world and say “Repent . . . or else.” Then fight the battle
of the saints, and destroy the wicked by fire.
2 Ne 30:10
10
For the time speedily cometh that the Lord God shall cause a great division
among the people, and the wicked will he destroy; and he will spare his people,
yea, even if it so be that he must destroy the wicked by fire.
Given the enormity of the mission
placed on this last Elias, his works will eclipse the works of all Elias’s that
came before him.
The Lord said that there was “another
who should come and restore all things, as it is written by the prophets”.
This last Elias will be the Last Seer of the Last Days, to restore all things,
and he has been prophesied in our scriptures. His role to play prior to the
second coming of Jesus Christ will be monumental, but nobody is talking about
him. We find him among the verses of the standard works as he will live his life
before the Lord declares him to the world—hidden. (Gregory Stewart, The Last
Seer of the Last Days [2022], 1, 2, 10-11, comments in square brackets
added for clarification, emphasis in original)
Further Reading
The "Church of Elias" and their founder, John Michael Fletcher, being the "Elias" Promised in Joseph Smith's Revelations
I am always curious as to the use of “Elias” to denote a “forerunner.” One such group that has a teaching that “Elias” can denote a “forerunner” is a small group in the broad “Mormon” Restorationist movement, the “Church of Elias”:
4.65 Church
of Elias
1988 * Pocatello, Idaho * John
Michael Fletcher
Responding to visions, dreams, and
revelations that began in the mid-1980s, John Michael Fletcher (1957-2003)
prepared a manuscript containing vital information about the last days. He
completed the first draft of this work in 1988. The book was titled, Millennial
Dawn. Fletcher wrote that he presented a copy of the book to the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (4.0) on 19 August, 1988. Subsequent rewrites
of the work were published as The Witness and finally The Record of
Warning. The book is complete, and "stands as a testimony of the
world."
Fletcher contended that the birth
of Jesus is June 9. He said the date was incorrectly changed to April 6 in
Section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants (SLC) (Section 17 IND and RES
editions). The same section is dated June 1830 in the Book of Commandments,
according to Fletcher.
The church website declares,
"The Church of Elias is under the direct supervision of the man John
Michael Fletcher. Any and all doctrines are subject to his direction and
approval, along with all of its dictates and policies." Fletcher declared
that because there are so many churches using the name "Jesus Christ"
and "God" that he was directed by revelation "form the
Savior" to name the Church as "The Church of Elias."
Basing his work in the Joseph
Smith jr. movement of 1820, Fletcher declared that the generation of Joseph
Smith did not receive the fullness of gospel due to their inability "to
live the commandments and revelations as given through the prophet Joseph
Smith, and their lack of love, sacrifice and service as a people." He
contends that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (4.0) lost the
keys of the priesthood and the spiritual endowments that accompany those keys.
Quoting many passages from the
Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, Fletcher argued that he
was the John or the Elias, prophesied to come in the last days "to restore
all things." He says he is the "man likened unto Moses, to bring
to pass this work with the saints. I bear witness that I am he, even the man
John, who hath received the priesthood of Elias. I am he that commenced the
work of restoring truths . . . I promise the blessings of the gospel and all
things through it."
The Church of Elias was not
organized until after Fletcher's death in 2003. Fletcher's Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints home teacher, James Armstrong, frequently called on
the family, and over time was converted to Fletcher's teachings. Armstrong and
his wife became the leaders of the new church and maintain headquarters in
Idaho Fall, Idaho. Fletcher's widow lie in Logan, Utah, where a branch of the
church reportedly meets occasionally. (Steven L. Shields, Divergent Paths of
the Restoration: An Encyclopedia of the Smith-Rigdon Movement [5th ed.; Salt
Lake City: Signature Books, 2021], 380-81, kindle)
In a tract on the Website for the group, we read the following:
To whom will the Lord reveal of these things?
"And also with Elias, to whom I
have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things
spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning
the last days;" (D&C 27:6)
To the man Elias who is said to
restore all things as spoken by the mouths of all the prophets concerning the
last days.
. . .
He it is to whom would do the work of the
last days when the restoration was to occur of taking the faithful to the lands
of promise.
"Behold, I say unto you, the
redemption of Zion must needs come by power;
"Therefore,
I will raise up unto my people a man, who shall lead them like as Moses led the
children of Israel.
"For ye
are the children of Israel, and of the seed of Abraham, and ye must needs be
led out of bondage by power, and with a stretched?out arm.
"And as
your fathers were led at the first, even so shall the redemption of Zion
be." (D&C 103:15-18)
He is the man likened unto Moses,
to bring to pass this work with the saints.
I bare witness that I am he, even
the man John, who hath received the priesthood of Elias.
I am he that has commenced the
work of restoring the truths, which truths I will reveal as you have greater
faith and seek to receive further light and knowledge. This comes through the
Church of Elias.
Therefore, walk with wisdom,
seeking truth, and I promise the blessings of the gospel and all things through
it. ("Have
the Prophets spoken of an Elias to Come?” The Church of Elias)
Further Reading
A Challenge to Paul Gee concerning Proverbs 30:5-6 and Sola Scriptura
Paul, as many already know, we were scheduled to debate the thesis, "Is the Bible the Only Word of God?" on March 27, and you chickened out. Here is one question I wanted to ask you in the cross-examination period. I would love to see you meaningfully respond to such.
In your "Statement
Of Faith," you state that "We believe the Bible to be the only
Word of God. God’s Word is pure and holy and should not be added to or taken
away from."
In support of this, you reference Prov 30:5-6:
Every word of God is pure: he is a
shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words,
lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (KJV)
To give an alternative translation:
Every word of God is tested; He is
a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will
reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. (NASB)
Now, ignoring the fact that "Word of God" is not
one-to-one equivalent to inscripturated revelation, let alone the Bible
("The Word of God" = "The Bible" Fallacy, something I washoping to address in my opening statement of our debate), my questions are:
· Do
you know the difference between "inspiration" and
"sufficiency"?
Assuming you do, then to show the folly of using Prov 30:5-6 to
support Sola Scriptura:
Is the book of Obadiah "inspired," and the words
contained therein, to borrow from Prov 30:5-6, "true" or
"pure" (the author of Proverbs is using metallurgical imagery)? I am
sure you will say "yes." Good. Now, answer me this:
Using only the book of Obadiah, please show me, using the
historical-grammatical method of exegesis, the following primary doctrines of
your faith:
· The
personal pre-existence of Jesus
· The
personality of the Holy Spirit
· The
divinity of the Holy Spirit
· The
worship-worthiness of the Holy Spirit
Bonus points if you can prove forensic justification and
atonement.
Now do you see the difference? Something being
"inspired" and even if the autographs (and even copies thereof) are
inerrant, that does not make them sufficient.
Further Reading
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
The 1947 Lowry Nelson Correspondence: Lessons Gleaned Beyond the Priesthood/Temple Restriction Issues
The 1947 correspondence between Lowry Nelson, Heber Weeks, and the First Presidency of the Church is rather infamous for the First Presidency repeating the (false) claim the Priesthood/Temple restriction originated with Joseph Smith and other beliefs. There are other things we learn in this correspondence, such as:
Bigoted Attitudes towards Roman Catholicism in the 1940s
Lowry Nelson, letter to Heber Weeks, June 26, 1947, p. 1:
In reference to Catholicism, while
the Cubans are nominally Roman Catholic, they take the religion rather lightly.
Wherever I went, I asked rural people about the church and invariably they told
me that they saw the priest only once a year, when he came around to baptism
the babies at $3.00 per head; like branding the calves at the annual roundup.
Some families have crucifixes and other paraphernalia in their homes and carry
on something of the ancient ritual, but my impression is that it means little
to most of them.
First Presidency teaching that any social benefits of the Gospel are only “incidental”
The First Presidency (George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr.,
and David O. McKay), letter to Lowry Nelson, July 17, 1947, p. 1
We make this initial remark: the
social side of the Restored Gospel is only an incident of it; it is not the end
thereof.
Tuesday, March 29, 2022
Background to, and Excerpts from, "The Life of Pachomius"
In the Life of Pachomius, we read of how, as a youth, he could eschew the idolatry of his parents and was lead by God to the truth (read: Eastern Orthodoxy). It reminds one of the common theme of religious figures, in their youth, indicating, in varying degrees, signs that God was working with them, often to lead them out of false traditions:
The
Life of Pachomius (n.d.)
The
Life of Pachomius, trans. Apostolos N. Athanassakis (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,
1975), 5-167
The Life of
Pachomius is an anonymously authored biography of the man widely considered
to be the founder of “cenobitic,” or communal, monasticism, a form of
monasticism much different from the hermetic life described in the Life of
St. Antony and the Sayings of the Deseret Fathers.
When Pachomius (ca. 292-34/8)
first decided to become a monk, he followed the example of St. Antony and his
immediate successors by adopting a solitary life. But then, according to this
biography, God instructed Pachomius to build a monastery to house the first
community of cenobitic monks. The site was Tabenna (Tabennesis in the text
below), an island in the Nile River in upper Egypt.
Although The Life of Pachomius celebrates
the ascetic example of Antony, and although it takes pains to demonstrate the
Pachomius managed ascetic feats, it ultimately promotes an anti-individualistic
(and hence somewhat anti-Antonian) ideal of monasticism as community.
For Pachomius, monasticism—as ordered by God through an angel—centers around a
godly community of “brothers” and “sisters,” not isolated people devoted to
individual feats.
This biography, a case study of
sorts on the possibility of shared struggle and support, served as an important
example of new coenobitic monasteries. Pachomius himself helped establish
hundreds of such communities, and his work inspired many more. In 357-358 St.
Basil (the Cappadocian father who worked on Trinitarian matters with the two
Gregories) visited Pachomius’s monastery, an experience that inspired Basil to
form his own community patterned on Pachomius’s model.
[. . .] There was a man named
Pachomius, born of pagan parents in the Thebaid (a region populated by monks in
the upper part of the Nile River Valley in northern Egypt), who, having
received mercy, became a Christian. He made progress and achieved perfection as
a monk. It is necessary to account his life from childhood on for the glory of
God, who calls everyone from everywhere to his wondrous light.
It happened that the child went
with his parents to an idol’s temple to sacrifice to the phantoms of evil
spirits in the river. And when the priest in charge of the sacrifice saw him,
he had him chased away, and furiously cried, “Chase away from here the enemy of
the gods!” When his parents heard this, they were greatly grieved about him
because he was an enemy of the so-called gods, who are no gods at all,
especially since once at another time they had given him to drink of the
wine-libations in that same place, and the child forthwith vomited what he had
drunk [. . . ] (Bryn Geffert and Theofanis G. Stavrou, Eastern Orthodox
Christianity: The Essential Texts [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016],
98-99)
Jack S. Bailey (LDS): "The Father Withdrew His Spirit From Christ"
The Father Withdrew His Spirit
From Christ
When suffering excruciating pain
upon the cross, Chris said in anguish:
My God, my God, why hast thou
forsaken me? (John 15:34.)
Evidently the suffering endured by
the Christ had become so intense and its duration so long that the Christ
either “felt” that He was enduring without the Father’s Spirit or He was, in
actuality and fact, enduring without the Father’s Spirit. Scripturally, very
little is said on the subject. However, it may be concluded that in order for
Christ to “descend below all things” (D & C 88:6), He had to descend where
the Spirit of the Father wasn’t. In some way He had to feel the total agony of
every sin and transgression that was ever to be committed by mankind. So, it
only follows that for Him to become a “sacrifice for sin,” He had to experience
the withdrawal of the Spirit, the divine penalty for sins. He didn’t “descend”
because of His own sins, however. He ”descended below all things” as a
consequence of taking upon Himself the sins of the world. Brigham Young taught
that the intense suffering done by Christ was the result of the Father withdrawing
His Spirit. President Young said:
I ask, is there a reason for men
and women being exposed more constantly and more powerfully, to the power of
the enemy, by having visions than by not having them? There is and it is simply
this—God never bestows upon His people, or upon an individual, superior
blessings without a severe trial to prove them, to prove that individual, or
that people, to see whether they will keep their covenants with Him, and keep
in remembrance that He has shown them. Then the greater the vision, the greater
the display of the power of the enemy. And when such individuals are off their
guard they are left to themselves, as Jesus was. For this express purpose
the Father withdrew His Spirit from His Son, at the time He was to be crucified.
Jesus had been with His Father, talked with Him, dwelt in His bosom, and knew
all about heaven, about making the earth, about the transgression of man, and
what would redeem the people, and that He was the character who was to redeem
the sons of the earth, and the earth itself from all sin that had come upon it.
The light, knowledge, power, and glory with which He was clothed were far
above, or exceeded that of all others who had been upon the earth after the
fall, consequently at the very moment, at the hour when the crisis came from
Him to offer up His life, the Father withdrew Himself, withdrew His Spirit, and
cast a veil over Him. That is what made Him sweat blood. If He had had the
power of God upon Him, He would not have sweat blood; but all was withdrawn
from Him, and a veil was cast over Him, and He then plead with the father not
to forsake Him, “No,” says the Father, “you must have your trials as well as
others.” [Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, 26 Vols. (London:
Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1855-86), Vol. 3, pp. 205, 206.]
. . . Melvin J. Ballard also felt
that the Father withdrew Himself from the Son:
When He was in the Garden of
Gethsemane, asking His Father to let this cup pass if it were possible, He was
not referring so much t His crucifixion as He was to bearing upon His shoulders
the weight and the load of the sins of the world. As evidence that it was not
fear of the cross, I refer you to his behavior upon the cross. No one suffered
more keenly the anguish of the driving of the nails through His hands and feet
than Christ did, and yet He murmured not. Behold these men at His side, under
the same torture, writhing n anguish, cursing and swearing even at Him, but He
was silent. All that He said has been recorded, and it was but very little. Once
He said, “I thirst.” Once He called one of His disciples to Him and asked Him
to care for His mother. And those who had caused His death reviled Him, but He
said, “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.” And then, in the last
moment, feeling His utter loneliness with all His friends gone, and God
Himself, apparently absent, withdrawing from that Son, with head bowed and
His heart broken, cried to His Father in heaven for release. [Byrant S.
Hinckley, Sermons and Missionary Service of Melvin Joseph Ballard (Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1949), p. 238.]
Although the suffering
accomplished by Christ is incomprehensible . . . we can know for assurity that
the said suffering did take place. The atonement is a reality. And the fact is
well established that it was even necessary for He who was perfect, even the
Lord Jesus Christ, to suffer most extensively. (Jack S. Bailey, Let Not Your
Heart Be Troubled: Answers to the Problems of Human Suffering [Bountiful, Utah:
Horizon Publishers and Distributors, 1976], 146-48, italics in original)
Further Reading
Was Jesus Abandoned by God on the Cross?
Does Jesus’ Cry on the Cross Support Penal Substitution?