Matthew Paulson's Struggle to Explain James 2

 Commenting on Jas 2 and its teachings on justification, Matthew Paulson, struggling with the plain meaning of the text, writes that

 

The justification by works in James is problematic. James says, “And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works . . . Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by work was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the Friend of God. ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” James 2;15-16, 24. Moreover, the Apostle Paul speaks of justification before God (Rom. 4:2) and not before men as in (James 2;24). This perspective seems to remedy the issue. (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], 182 n. 667, emphasis added)

 

To see why the “James is speaking of justification before man” apologetic is wrong, see:

 

Eisegeting James: Why the Book of James Doesn't Support Protestant "Demonstration/Vindication" Arguments

Carolyn Osiek on one living to God being contingent upon observing the commandments in the Shepherd of Hermas

  

if you keep these commandments you will be able to follow the right way and then ζηση τω θεω ("you will live to [or for] God"). This frequent expression concludes every Mandate except 5 and 11. While it certainly has eschatological meaning, it also carries the promise of earthly blessing, and is one of the factors in Hermas' paraenesis that joins the two dimensions. Not primarily a baptismal category, it nevertheless is a way of speaking of the continuation of baptismal blessedness restored with conversion. It is partially the opposite of "dying to God," but occurs far more frequently. Inasmuch as it means the ongoing life of faith and joy that the Christian experiences with conversion and that will continue in eternal life, "live to God" is the better translation, or "live in the eyes of God"; inasmuch as it also means how one lives the converted way of life, "live for God" is better. (Carolyn Osiek, The Shepherd of Hermas [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999], 104)

 

Further Reading:

Carolyn Osiek on Baptismal Regeneration and Posthumous Salvation in Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9.16.1-4

KJV and JST 1 Timothy 6:16

KJV 1 Tim 6:16 reads:

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can it to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

New Testament Manuscript 2, Folio 4, page 137 reads:

 

 

whom no man hath seen, nor can see, unto whom no man can approach, only he who hath the light and the hope of immortality dwelling in him.

 

Further Reading:

Andrew Malone on God being "Invisible" and 1 Timothy 1:17 and 6:16

James Stutz, Can a Man See God? 1 Timothy 6:16 in Light of Ancient and Modern Revelation
(cf. my post, Some Comments on Matt Slick's Attempt to Refute James Stutz on 1 Timothy 6:16 and Insights from D. Charles Pyle, "I Have Said Ye are Gods")

Robert Sungenis on 1 Timothy 6:16

James White on 1 Timothy 6:16: What cannot be seen is not the divine person in view, but the "unapproachable light"

The problem posed by Absolutising 1 Timothy 6:16 by Trinitarians who Use the Verse against Latter-day Saints

On the biblical evidence for divine embodiment (and responses to other proof-texts such as John 4:24 that are used against the LDS position), see:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

JST Exodus 6:3-4 Changing the KJV to be God Asking a Question to Moses

KJV Exo 6:3-4 reads:

 

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.

 

The JST rephrases this to be God asking a rhetorical question to Moses. In OT Manuscript 2, page 66 we read:

 

 

3^d  and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob[,]<.> I am the Lord God Almighty, the Lord Jehovah. And was not my name known unto them? yea, and I have also established my covenant with them, to give which I made with them, to give them the land of canaan; the land of there pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.

 

Note on the Differences between KJV and JST Genesis 38:8-9

KJV Gen 38:8-9 reads:

 

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went into under his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

 

The 1867 RLDS Inspired Version reads:

 

And Judah said unto Onan, Go and marry thy brother's wife, and raise up seed unto thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he married his brother's wife, that he would not lie with her, lest he should raise up seed unto his brother.

 

The JST makes it clear that Onan married the woman first and then was expected to engage in sexual intercourse; the KJV lends itself to coitus being expected before the marriage with the euphemistic command to "go in unto thy brother's wife" preceding "and marry her."

 

In Old Testament Manuscript 2, pp. 61-62, we read:

 

 

 

8th and Judah said unto Onan, go and marry thy brothers wife and raise up seed unt[y]<o> thy Brother <9^th> and Onon knew <that> the seed  should not be his; and it came to pass, when he married his  Brothers wife, that he would not lie with her, Least he should raise up seed unto his Brother

 

On Zion not being Moved and the Charge of False Prophecy in the Doctrine and Covenants

In response to the claim that

 

IN 1833, JOSEPH SMITH PROPHESIED TO THE SAINTS THAT THEIR CITY, ZION, IN JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, WOULD NEVER BE MOVED. (DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 101:11, 17, 20; SEE ALSO 43, 55, 56-58, 68-71)

 

Thomas S. Medford (LDS) wrote that

 

To understand the 101st section completely and the verses in question, the following should be noted:

 

a. “In his letter to the scattered Saints in Missouri, dated December 10th, 1833, the Prophet stated that the spirit withheld from him definite knowledge of the reason why the calamity had fallen upon Zion. Here is another striking evidence of his sincerity. If he had been in the habit of writing revelations without divine inspiration, he could have done so at this time. But it is perfectly evident that he did not speak in the name of the Lord except when prompted to do so by the Spirit.” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Revised Edition, p. 637)

 

b. This was a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, on December 16, 1833, and not a prophecy by Joseph Smith to the Saints.

 

c. The revelation was given to explain why the Saints were driven from Zion (V. 1) which the Lord explained was in consequence of their transgressions (V. 2).

 

d. Verses 6-8: “Some may ask why we did not tarry at the Center Stake (Meaning Zion itself) of Zion when the Lord planted our feet there. We had eyes, but did not see; we had ears, but we did not hear; we had hearts that were devoid of what the Lord required of His people; consequently, we could not abide in what the Lord revealed to us. We had to go from there to gain an experience. Can you understand this? I think there are some here who can. If we could have received the words of life and lived according to them, when we first gathered to the enter Stake of Zion (Meaning Zion itself), we never would have been removed from that place”. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 11, p. 102)

 

e. Verse 9: “We were driven out of Missouri—we were driven from one place to another in Missouri before we were driven out altogether. Then we were driven from Illinois to this Territory (Utah). But what of that? I know some men who thought the work was at an end. I remember a remark made by Sidney Rigdon—I suppose he did not live his religion; I do not think he did—his knees began to shake in Missouri; and on one occasion he said, ‘Brethren, every one of you take your own way, for the work seems as though it had come to an end.’ Brigham Young encouraged the people, and Joseph Smith told them to be firm and maintain their integrity, for God would be with His people and deliver them. I never saw a time that the Saints enjoyed themselves better than when they, apparently, were wading through their deepest troubles; I never saw them more full of the Holy Ghost.” (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Volume 11, pp. 25-6)

 

f. Verses 11 is irrelevant to the point trying to be made.

 

g. Verse 17 makes it clear that the location Zion had not been moved, although the people were scattered. “I am pretty sure of one thing—we shall go to Jackson County, Missouri; that is, those who do right and honor their calling, doing what they have been told to do. You will be blessed, and you will see the day when Presidents Young, Kimball, and Wells, and the Twelve Apostles will be in Jackson County, Missouri, laying out your inheritance. We shall be there in the flesh (This would have to be as resurrected beings for some who were mentioned had already passed away), and all our enemies cannot prevent it. Brother Wells, you may write that. You will be there, and Willard will be there, and also Jedediah, and Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and David and Parley; and the day will be when I will see those men in the general assembly of the Church of the Firstborn, in the great council of God in Jerusalem, too.” (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Volume 9, p. 27)

 

h. Verse 21 indicates that there were other places to be built up before Zion was established: “We are going to try to save ourselves, and when we come to understand we will then be counted worthy to possess Zion, even the Center Stake of Zion. It is true this is Zion,--North and South America are Zion, and the land where the Lord commenced His work, and where He commenced, He will finish. This is the land of Zion; but we are not yet prepared to go and establish the Center Stake of Zion. The Lord tried that in the first place now it is for you and me to prepare to return back and by and by to build up the Center Stake of Zion.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 11, p. 324)

 

i. Concerning Verses 43-62: “This section contains a parable concerning the redemption of Zion. The Saints understood it, as soon as it was explained to them, but to the world it was as intelligible as was the Parable of the Sower to the Jews. Our Lord, in the discourse found in Matthew 21:33-46, employs, practically, the same parable. The Prophet Isaiah has a somewhat similar parable. (5:1-7)

 

“Our Lord, in this part of the Revelation, compares Zion to a choice piece of land, owned by a nobleman who has commanded his servants to plant twelve olive trees upon it (v. 44); to set watchmen round about them, and to build a tower from which the grove could be watched (v. 45). The servants planted the trees, built a hedge, appointed watchmen, and began to build the tower. But while they were laying the foundations, they decided that there was no need of a tower (v. 48).

 

“The settlements of the Saints were the olive trees; and officers of the Church were the watchmen, and the Temple, the site of which was dedicated August 3, 1831, would have been the tower from which the movements of the enemy could have been observed by inspiration. But, as nothing more was done to complete that tower, the enemy came by night and broken down the hedge, and the servants, of the noblemen fled, leaving the enemy in possession (v. 51).

 

“The noblemen rebuked his servants for their disobedience, but at the same time he commanded one of his men to gather them together again, and to take ‘the strength of mine house’ and proceed to the land where the olive grove had been planted, and rescue it from those who held possession of it illegally (vv. 55-6). Here, then, is a Revelation containing the divine instructions that were carried out, afterwards by those who formed the historic Zion’s Camp.” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Revised Edition, p. 647)

 

j. Concerning Verses 63-75: “The Saints in the various Branches of the Church are here instructed to continue to gather (v. 64). But they must remember that gathering is not the final sorting out of the wheat from the tares. That will be done later (vv. 65, 66). At present all kinds will be found among the gathered Saints. Their gathering, however, should not be in haste, ‘but let all things be prepared before you’ (v. 68); let land be purchased in Jackson County and adjacent counties, and then leave the matter in the hands of God (v. 71). Further, let agents be appointed to purchase the land (v. 73). There was no excuse for delay in acquiring all the land that was for sale, for the Saints had accumulated enough property to redeem Zion, and they could have done it by united efforts (v. 75).” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Revised Edition, p. 649)

 

It can be concluded, therefore, that Joseph Smith did not prophesy to the Saints that their city Zion, in Jackson County, Missouri, would never be moved. What Joseph Smith did write was a revelation from the Lord which indicated that the location of Zion would not be changed regardless of what happened to the Saints and that eventually the Saints would return to that location at the appropriate time. This is also true of Jerusalem and the Promised Land which the twelve tribes of Israel were given as an everlasting inheritance, but because of their sins and transgressions, they were afflicted often, scattered, and so forth. Yet they still have the promise of returning (the tribe of Judah [Jews]) is already gathering) in the latter days and to receiving their inheritance. (Thomas S. Medford, “A Response to Eight False Prophecies of Joseph Smith,” January 6, 1980, M230.9 M488re 1980, Church History Library)

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

D&C 104:1 and the United Order being "Everlasting"

In response to the criticism that

 

JOSEPH SMITH HAD A REVELATION IN 1834, THAT THE UNITED ORDER WOULD BE AN EVERLASTING INSTITUTION IN THE CHURCH (DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS 104:1, 32, 69-70 AND 82:18-21)

 

Thomas S. Medford wrote that

 

“one of the Lord’s celestial laws is the law of consecration. Early in this last dispensation, the Lord revealed this law and also a system called the ‘united order’ for applying the financial aspects of the law. From February 1831 (see Doctrine and Covenants 105:42), when the united order was first introduced, until June 1834 (see Doctrines and Covenants 105:34) when the Saints were told that this law was to be fulfilled after the redemption of Zion, some unsuccessful attempts were made to establish the united order (The following are the historical highlights :)

 

February 1831	Doctrine and Covenants 42	Lord’s law revealed—the basic charter of the law of consecration administered under the united order.
May 1831	Doctrine and Covenants 51	Edward Partridge called as bishop to ‘appoint unto this people their portions’ (Doctrine and Covenants 51:3)
March 1832	Doctrine and Covenants 78	Saints instructed to organize for ‘regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse for the poor of my people, both in this place (Kirtland) and in the land of Zion’ (Doctrine and Covenants 78:3) Additional instructions about the law of consecration given.
April 1832	Doctrine and Covenants 82	Certain brethren specified to be ‘ . . . bound together by a bond and covenant . . . to manage the affairs of the poor . . . both in the land of Shinehah (Kirtland)’ (Doctrine and Covenants 82:11-12) Responsibility of those unto whom much is given, the sacredness of covenants, and the principle of equality emphasized.
April 1832	Doctrine and Covenants 83	The Lord clarifies the place of children, widows, and orphans in the united order.
November 1832	Doctrine and Covenants 85	A careful report to be kept ‘of all those who consecrate properties, and receive inheritances’ (Doctrine and Covenants 85:1)

 

“In the latter part of 1832 and the early part of 1833, several letters were sent by the Prophet Joseph to the brethren in Zion clarifying some of the principles and practices relating to the united order.

 

March 1833

Doctrine and Covenants 92

Frederick G. Williams to be included as ‘a lively member’ in the united order (Doctrine and Covenants 92:2)

 

“In the summer and fall of 1833 serious conflicts with the enemies of the Church in Missouri and the ‘jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires’ (Doctrines and Covenants 101:6) among the Saints resulted in their failure to live the law of consecration in November, 1833, the Saints were driven from Jackson County.

 

April 1834

Doctrine and Covenants 104

Instructions concerning those who had broken the covenants of the order. Basic principle of stewardship repeated. Individual stewardships identified. United order in Kirtland to be separate from united order in Zion.”

 

“The Zion’s Camp experience of May and June, 1832, did not result in returning the Saints to their lands in Zion. The Camp was disbanded by revelation (see Doctrines and Covenants 105) in the latter part of June 1834. IN the same revelation the Lord said: ‘And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption’. (Doctrine and Covenants 105:34)” (Doctrine and Covenants-Gospel doctrine teacher’s supplement, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1978, pp. 163-164)

 

Concerning the withdrawal of the requirement to live in the united order, President J. Reuben Clark said:

 

“It was under these circumstances, with the Saints scattered and sometimes hunted like wild animals, with their property gone, their organization largely broken up, wounded in mind and spirit, with the condemnation of the Lord pronounced upon their heads because of their unfaithfulness, not to say wickedness, with ‘Zion’ to all intents and purposes destroyed, that the Lord commanded them, in the great revelation given at Fishing River:

 

“’And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption’. (105:34)

 

“It is interesting to note that after this pronouncement, the Lord practically never referred to the United Order in His revelations to the Prophet. The people had had their opportunity and failed. He then gave them the law of tithing in a revelation given in Missouri itself, in Zion. (July 8, 1838, Section 119), which is still in full force and in effect.

 

“As hereinbefore stated, the Lord had already, before Fishing River, dissolved the relationship between the Order in Zion and in Kirtland (Section 104) and gave directions as to setting up the Order in Kirtland. But apparently before any real progress was made to this end, serious troubles broke out there, which finally compelled the Brethren in Kirtland to flee in late 1837 and early 1838 to Missouri.

 

“Then followed the evacuation of Missouri, under the compulsion of the mob, supported by the State authorities, and their removal to Illinois.

 

“During the Illinois period, the Saints in Iowa undertook to establish the United Order there. The minutes of the High Council meeting held March 6, 1840, at Montrose, Iowa, contains the following entry:

 

“’President Joseph Smith Jun., addressed the Council on various subjects, and in particular the consecration law; stating that the affairs now before Congress was the only thing that ought to interest the Saints at present; and till it was ascertained how it would terminate, no person to be brought to account before the constituted authorities of the Church for any offense whatever; and (he) was determined that no man should be brought before the Council in Nauvoo till the time, etc., etc. The law of consecration could not be kept here, and that it was the will of the Lord that we should desist from trying to keep it; and if persisted in, it would produce a perfect defeat of its object, and that he assumed the whole responsibility of not keeping it until proposed y himself.’ (Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume 4, p. 93)

 

“Thus the Lord directed that the law he had given regarding the setting up of the United Order in Zion was to be ‘executed and fulfilled’ after the redemption of Zion, that is, in the meaning in which the Lord was then using the word Zion, the ‘redemption,; the reestablishment of the people in Missouri. This has not yet been accomplished.” (“The United Order and Law of Consecration as Set out in the Revelations of the Lord,” Church News, 15 September, 1945, p. 9)

 

Concerning the verses quoted from Sections 82 and 104:

 

a. The cannot be understood without reading the entire section in which they are contained.

 

b. Related sections of the Doctrine and Covenants must be read to find out what happened and what the Lord did after the revelations were given.

 

c. In Section 82, the last part of Verse 20 is the key:

 

“This order have I (the Lord) appointed to be an everlasting order unto you, and unto your successors, inasmuch as you sin not.”

 

“The Order here referred to would have been permanent, if the Saints had lived up to it, and would have made them capable of practicing the higher, or celestial, Order. But it was not accepted and practiced with an eye single to the glory of God. In 1839, the Prophet Joseph wrote to the Saints: ‘We would suggest to the brethren that there be no organization of large bodied upon common stock principles, until the Lord shall signify it in a proper manner, as it opens such a field for the avaricious, the indolent, and the corrupt-hearted, to pray upon the virtuous, the industrious, and the honest We have reason to believe that many things were introduced among the Saints, before God had signified the time, and notwithstanding the principles and the plains may have been good, yet aspiring men, who had the form of Godliness, but not the substance, by their aspiring notions brought trouble both upon themselves and the Saints at large. However, the time is coming when God will signify many things which are expected, for the well-being of the Saints.’ (Millennial Star, Volume V, p. 71). This letter was written in Liberty Jail. It was signed by Joseph Smith, Jr., Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wright, Caleb Baldwin, and Alexander McRay, and parts of it are embodied in the Revelations contained in Sections 121 and 123.” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Revised Edition, pp. 493-494).

 

d. Concerning Verse 1 of Section 104:

 

“The Lord established the United Order, or the Order of Enoch, when it had been demonstrated that the Saints were not able to practice the celestial law of consecration. This Order was to be permanent, but when the Saints also proved themselves unequal to its requirements, the Lord again released them, temporarily, and gave them the law of tithing.” (Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, Revised Edition, pp. 668-669).

 

e. Verse 32 of Section 104 pertains to Frederick G. Williams and Oliver Cowdery only. In Verse 29 they were given stewardship over the printing office. Verse 31 says that they would receive blessings inasmuch as they are faithful (to their stewardship). Both were excommunicated from the Church at different times for different transgressions.

 

f. Verses 69-70 of Section 104 pertained to a treasury (V. 67) for those named in Section 104 to cast all monies received from their stewardships by improving upon the properties given to them (V. 68). These monies could then be drawn out by those participating to help whoever it was in his stewardship (V. 73) as long as he was in full fellowship and wise in his stewardship V. 75). (Thomas S. Medford, “A Response to Eight False Prophecies of Joseph Smith,” January 6, 1980, M230.9 M488re 1980, Church History Library)

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

David M. Mayfield (then-Assistant Church Librarian-Archivist) on Oliver B. Huntington and Joseph Smith's Teachings about the Inhabitants of the Moon

In approximately 1881, Oliver B. Huntington recorded in his journal some reminiscences, one of them being the one about which you inquired. The following is a copy of that account as copied from his journal:

 

“The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height.
They dress very much like the quaker style and are quite general in style, or the one fashion of dress.
They live to be very old, coming generally, near a thousand years.
This is the description of them as given by Joseph the Seer, and he could ‘See’ whatever he asked the Father in the name of Jesus to see.
I heard him say that ‘he could ask what he would of the Father in the name of Jesus and it would be granted’ and I have no more doubt of it than I have that the mobs killed him.”

 

Oliver B. Huntington also authored an article on the same subject which appeared in the Young Woman’s Journal, volume 3 (March, 1892): 263-264. We are enclosing a copy of this article.

 

We have checked through our files in an effort to find out how reliable the information in the article is. Our patriarchal blessing index shows no record of Oliver B. Huntington receiving a patriarchal blessing from Joseph Smith, Sr., in 1837 or in any other year. The records in dictate that he did receive a patriarchal blessing in 1843 from Hyrum Smith and another in 1897 from John Smith. We have read both of these blessings and find that neither of the mention the moon, inhabitants of the moon, or any information that could be interpreted as such. Oliver B. Huntington received a father’s blessing from his father, William Huntington, in 1836. In this father’s blessing it says: “. . . Before thou art 21 thou wilt be called to preach the fulness of the gospel; thou shalt have power with God even to translate thyself to Heaven and preach to the inhabitants on the moon or the planets if it shall be expedient.”

 

Memories, of course, are always subject to question, and it was many years after the death of the Prophet that Brother Huntington recorded in his reminiscences the things he claims Joseph Smith said about men on the moon. That his memory did play tricks on him is demonstrated by the fact that he made errors in his account of the patriarchal blessing.

 

We have checked our files to see if we could find anything else that would indicate that Joseph Smith ever taught that there were inhabitants on the moon. We have found nothing in our research to show that he ever taught this.

 

Sincerely,

 

David M. Mayfield, Assistant Church Librarian-Archivist.

 

Source: Thomas S. Medford, “A Response to Eight False Prophecies of Joseph Smith,” January 6, 1980, M230.9 M488re 1980, Church History Library

Matthew Paulson Citing Two Randomers against "Mormonism"

According to some people whose IQs are less than 70, I am guilty of referencing "randomers" in my books (see I have a New Fan! (and one who thinks a leading Evangelical Protestant Apologist is a Randomer on the Internet)). As an example of an Evangelical critic of doing this, consider the following:

 

In my research, a friend recommended Friar Father Stephen Soot of St. Anne Orthodox Church (Corvalis, Oregon) to review this section on Orthodox theology and LDS deification. Friar Soot commented, “I read the article on deification you sent me and it is mostly on track. The author rightly explains that there is a huge difference between the Mormon teaching of a man becoming a God of his own planet (like Jesus is the God of Earth) and the Orthodox understanding of theosis, or becoming ‘partakers of the divine nature’ (2 Peter 1:4” (e-mail, April 3, 2006). Of course, Friar Stephen only confirms that Mormon scholarship is twisting Orthodox theology to interpret Palamas’ theology to be inclusive or similar to LDS deification. (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], 65)

 

It is my contention that “Comparing LDS Beliefs” was the beginning of whitewashing LDS theology to get Mormonism under the umbrella of Christianity. There are others who agree. John Hatch stated, “After reading the reviews myself, it appears to me, and is my opinion, that FARMS is interested in making Mormonism’s past appear as normal as possible to readers by attacking history books that discuss complex or difficult aspects of the church’s past.” (Ibid., 31 n. 102)

 

Matthew Paulson's Self-Defeating Appeal to Hans Urs Von Balthasar on Original Sin and Anthropology

In an attempt to critique the LDS rejection of Original Sin, Matthew Paulson shoots himself in the foot with the following attempt to use Hans Urs Von Balthasar who himself refutes Paulson’s Reformed soteriology:

 

Although Roman Catholics tend to be cautious in discussions of original sin, some have noted that this doctrine can be used against Satan’s lie of deification. Catholic writer, Hans Urs Von Balthasar, stated, “Original sin does not sit somewhere on the periphery of human nature; no, the very promise eritis sicut dei [you shall be like gods] is the perversion of the original core of man’s being itself. Not in the way the Protestants interpret this, as if the innermost center of human nature had been annihilated by original guilt, but it has been ‘tinged,’ ‘saturated,’ distorted’ by sin.” (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], 143, emphasis in bold added)

 

We are also treated to this inane comment:

It is interesting to note this doctrine is not stipulated in the earliest Christian creeds. Neither the Apostles’ Creed nor the Nicene Creed mentions original sin. Apparently, the early church did not find it necessary to state what they taught was scriptural about the inherited sin, the depravity of man and the need for a Savior for mankind. (Ibid., 135)

 

Paulson would have no consistent response to a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox who would say the something about the Dormition and Assumption of Mary.

Evangelical Apologist Speaking From Both Sides of their Mouth Concerning Inerrancy and Preservation of the Bible

In his book, Breaking the Mormon Code, Matthew Paulson often speaks from both sides of his mouth concerning the inerrancy and preservation of the Bible. Consider the following:

 

The Bible makes no admission of error. The Bible testifies that all scriptures are inspired or “God-breathed,” (2 Tim. 3:16). Jesus says that the scriptures “cannot be broken” (John 10:35) and that not a small part of a Hebrew letter will be lost from them, (Matt. 5:18). (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], 214)

 

Of course, scholars and most Bible readers are well aware of minor transmission errors and alternate readings (Ibid., 214)

 

All theological writings or scripture should be tested and approached with great suspicion, especially when the original source documents do not exist. (Ibid., 221; it should go without saying: the original manuscripts of all the biblical books are no longer extant)

 

The best confirmation that the Book of Mormon used the KJV Bible is the existence of poor KJV translations copied into the Book of Mormon text. The KJV translators were fallible and they produced a few inadvertent poor transliterations. (Ibid., 244 [he means ‘translations])

 

. . . the King James translators (as good as they are) made, on a few occasions, poor translations. (Ibid., 245)

 

On Isa 9:3 (KJV):

 

It is puzzling to see that God has increased the nation and “not” increased their joy. The New King James Bible has a footnote on Isaiah 9:3: “Following Qere and Targum; Kethib and Vulgate read not increased joy; Septuagint actually reads “Most of the people You brought down in Your joy.” (Ibid., 248)

 

On the Johannine Comma:

 

For over 400 years, the King James Version has proven itself to be one of the most quoted and enduring Bible translations. It was a great effort that has won the praise of many scholars and critics. However, the translators were human and fell prone to bias. . . . Liberal and conservative Bible scholars agree that this text is spurious. Scholar Daniel B. Wallace provides the sources of the KJV current text: “This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, for of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16^th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10^th century).” (Ibid., 259, 260)

 

Matthew Paulson's Confusion Concerning Whether God Truly Has Emotions

Concerning the meaning of “image” and “likeness” in Gen 1:26, Matthew Paulson noted that

 

Many theologians have concluded that humans are image-bearers in several respects. Man was given a superior intellectual structure with emotions that are similar God. (p. 91)

 

However, Paulson elsewhere wrote that

 

Some Mormons have serious problems with the Westminster Confession of Faith from 1646, used by Presbyterians. This creed teaches that there is one God manifest in three persons, all of “one substance, without body, parts, or passions.” Of course, the Bible does describe the emotions of God’s wrath and his sorrow, i.e. “Jesus wept.” Moody Bible Institute graduate Philip R. Johnson explains that these “passions” are described in the Bible are to be recognized to be “ . . . as metaphorical, we must also confess that there is something they do not mean. They do not mean that God is literally subject to mood swings or melancholy, spasms of passion or temper tantrums. And in order to make this very clear, Scripture often stresses the constancy of God’s love, the infiniteness of his mercies, the certainty of His promises, the unchangeableness of His mind, and the lack of any fluctuation in His perfections. ‘With [God there] is no variableness, neither shadow of turning’ (James 1:17). This absolute immutability is one of God’s transcendent characteristics, we must resist the tendency to bring it in line with our finite human understanding.” (Ibid., 159-60)

 

Further Reading:

 

"Jesus Wept": Obvious and Needs no Interpretation to Understand?