The following are noted taken from:
Richard
R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS
Theology (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994, 2002)
As
background: I read the 1994 printing of this book back in late-2005 when I was
18. Since then, I have studied theology and related fields in depth, both at
university and personally, and have been blogging on theology since August
2014. I thought it would be interesting to re-read this book almost 18 year on.
Inerrancy
Versus Completeness
Evangelical
theology regarding the Bible does beyond inerrancy, and beyond issues associated
with human communication to a belief that the written Word of God is complete.
This
view denies that God could have more instruction to give Man. It also rejects the
distinct possibility that Men have lost some of the precious Word of God
revealed to them through the ages. Finally, it rejects the possibility that God
revealed Himself to groups outside the Middle East who also made a record of
His communications. Evangelicals assert that everything God has ever said, or
will ever say, is contained within the current canon accepted as the Protestant
Bible.
Evangelicals
would probably have rejected this view had they lived in the time of Christ and
been told by the scribes that the Old Testament contains lal God had revealed
or ever will reveal to Man. It is incongruous, therefore, for them to accept it
now. If inerrancy includes completeness, one must ask when the
scriptures became complete. Was not the Pentateuch complete when it was
revealed to Moses? What about the writings of the other Old Testament prophets?
Were they not complete, i.e., inerrant before the time of Christ?
To be
inerrant, God’s word need not contain everything He ever said, or ever will
say. It is complete only in the sense that it contains the entire message He
intended for the audience to whom it was revealed at the time. The Bible is not
a single work. It was not combined into one book until 367 A.D., long after the
original autographa were gone. The word “Bible” derives from the Greek biblia,
a plural word meaning “little books.” The word itself implies an anthology of
inspired works.
Protestant
Bibles published today (e.g., the KJV) are a collection of the available sacred
writings considered accurate and reliable by the majority of early Church
scholars. Vast schisms have arisen based on disagreement in this area given
Joseph Smith’s statement that “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.”
The very nature of the Bible implies it is not complete.
The
Evangelical notion of completeness is also undermined by the fact that some
books, originally part of inspired literature appear to have been lost (see
Appendix B). What if the lost Books of Enoch were found today, not the
apocryphal version common in many libraries, but the one from which Jude quotes
in Jude 14-15? What about the first epistle of Jude (Jude 3), or the epistle to
the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)? What about the book of the prophet from whom
Matthew quotes in Matthew 2:23? Would these texts be excluded from the canon if
they were found today? Archaeological research is unearthing new texts every
day. What does this do to Evangelical notions of biblical completeness?
If the
canon of Scripture is not complete in the sense Evangelicals assert, it follows
that additional works could be added, if satisfactorily authenticated. That is
why Mormons accept certain additional volumes as scripture. Their reverence for
these works do not and should not distract in any way from their reverence for
the Bible. (Further information on this subject is provided in Appendix B.)
As to
the accuracy of the Bible, no implication arises from an assumption that
the canon is not complete. Lost scripture merely proves that God has revealed
some things that Man has unwittingly failed to preserve. It should come as no
surprise that Men have been so fallible. The addition of new scripture, on the
other hand, only shows that Men continue to need revelation from God, a
conclusion that will shock no one familiar with Man’s intemperate tendencies.
But
despite the occasional failure of Men to safeguard sacred writings and their
need for additional guidance on a continuing basis, Mormons are confident God
has preserved in the existing text of the Bible the important truths, the good
tidings He published to the Jews and the early Church. (Strictly speaking, the
Bible contains only the words God intended to make public. There are
references therein to more esoteric information, the revelation of which OGd
has restricted [e.g., 2 Cor. 12:34; Deut. 29:29]) That confidence can be held
without also embracing the unbiblical notion that the canon of scripture is
full or that inerrancy demands an end to revelation from God. (pp. 28-29)
[Matt
5:18]
Evangelical
theology denies the possibility that any of God’s revelations to man has ever
been lost. Their position is stated thus:
To say
that there are scriptures missing is to claim that Christ lied when He said,
‘Til heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18) (Trivanovich, Speaking the
Truth in Love, 13)
This
analysis presents a grossly flawed interpretation of Matthew 5;18, which has
nothing to do with the canon of scripture. The Bible was not even compiled at
the time the Gospel of Matthew was written. Matthew 5:18 relates to “the law,”
the Law of Moses, and Christ’s fulfillment thereof. The Law of Moses was
contained in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. Thus, if the
Evangelical position on Matthew 5:18 were correct, it would require them to
limit their scriptures to the Pentateuch (a view that may have been adopted by
the ancient Sadducees and certainly by the Samaritans).
What
Christ says in Matthew 5:18 is that not one dot of an “i” or cross of a “t” in
the Law of Moses would be changed until it was all fulfilled by Him. Far from
teaching that the Law would never change, it is implicit in this statement that
the law would “pass” once it was fulfilled. The Law of Moses was fulfilled by
Christ, and did pass away (Heb. 7:18).
The
Evangelical interpretation of Matthew 5:18 is based on an assumption not
specifically identified in their exegesis, namely that the word “scripture” is
the same as the word “law” in that verse. That interpretation can be tested
using the hermeneutic device of substitution. The passage should have the same
meaning if the word “scripture” is substituted for the word “law” in the text.
In fact, however, such a substitution changes the word “law” in the text. In
fact, however, such a substitution changes the entire meaning of the passage.
Clearly, Matthew 5;18 does not teach that there have been no lost
scriptures, and cannot be used as a basis for that thesis. (p. 281)
[on
soul sleep]
The
proof-text used to support this belief is Ecclesiastes 9:5 (NASB: “but the dead
do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is
forgotten”; see also Eccles. 9:10). Their reliance on this passage, however, is
misplaced. It is part of a discourse examining the viewpoint of Men “under the
sun” (Eccles. 9:3), and reflects the attitude of the natural world that knows
nothing of God. It is a description of death from the viewpoint of the worldly
man. It does not reflect the true state of the dead. (p. 57)
[on
Christology]
. . .
Mormons teach that God created the heavens and the earth by forming the planets,
the sun, and the stars out of formless matter. Even the spirits of Men were
formed out of existing components. Before being formed into spirits, Men
existed as intelligences (Abraham 3:22-23 in the Pearl of Great Price).
Even intelligences were not created out of nothing but are eternal in
nature (D&C 93:29)
Thus,
it is a distinctive precept of Mormon theology that, before His creation as the
firstborn of the Father, Christ existed from all eternity, His form being that
of a perfect intelligence. In a very real and significant way, He was,
therefore, “uncreate.” His “creation” as the Son of God only meant His eternal
nature as an intelligence took on the form of the spirit Son of God. The Bible
attests that Christ is immutable, or unchanging, but it only makes such
statements in relation to His basic character. This is a reassuring and
powerful testimony of Christ, and one that does not force Him into immobile
stasis.
While
Mormons believe that all Men have an eternal element in their nature (their intelligences
have also existed from all eternity), they believe that all Men, save Christ
alone, have to change their basic character to some degree in order to be in
the perfect image of God. No such change appears to have been necessary for
Christ. Though He learned from the father (John 5:20), He has always been
the perfect example of the Father’s Love (cf. John 5:19). Thus, only the form
of His existence has changed (Phil. 2:6-8). God revealed to Men in the flesh,
He has remained perfect and unchanged in that perfection throughout all
eternity. (pp. 68-69)
The
Virgin Birth. Because of this biblical teaching.
Mormons are accused of denying the virgin birth of Christ, but that is a
mistaken notion. Mormons emphatically believe in the virgin birth (see, 1
Nephi 11:18-20; and Alma 7:10). The fact that Christ was the literal,
physical Son of God the Father, as reported in Luke 1:31-35, does not require
that His conception occurred by other than immaculate means.
It
certainly does not require that God the father had sexual relations with
Mary. (An opposing view has been expressed by some LDS leaders while teaching
the LDS belief that Jesus is the literal son of God. That view has never been
adopted by the LDS Church, and contradicts Isaiah 7;14 and 1 Nephi 11:20) In
this day, when artificial insemination has become a commonplace reality, Men
cannot hold to the argument that God’s only means of causing Mary’s pregnancy
was physical intercourse.
Isaiah,
speaking of Christ’s mortal birth, said “a virgin shall conceive”
(Isa. 7:14, emphasis added). The language of this passage implies that Mary did
conceive in normal human fashion, but that the conception of Christ was
accomplished in a way that left Mary a virgin. 1 Nephi 11:18-20,
describes Mary as a virgin after the Christ Child was born to her
(consistent with Matt. 1:25).
Luke
reported the angel’s promise to Mary that she would conceive in her womb
(Luke 1:31). When she asked how this could be done, seeing she was a virgin, it
is obvious her intent was to remain a virgin (Luke 1:34). The angel
responded, “the power of the Highest [meaning the Father] shall overshadow
thee” (Luke 1:35). The Greek word translated “overshadow” is episkiazо̄.
This word was used in Luke 9:34-35 to describe the effect of the cloud, from
which the Father spoke, unseen, to Peter, James and John at the
Transfiguration. To Mary, it implied that her conception would involve the most
gentle and noninstrusive contact imaginable leaving her a virgin. With that
explanation, Mary agreed to bear the child of God (Luke 1:38).
The
immaculate impregnation of a virgin is an accomplishment that can be duplicated
by scientists today. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Father was
capable of accomplishing the same feat without the intimacy involved in any
form of sexual contact.
Though
the Holy Ghost was involved in Christ’s conception, apparently as a facilitator
in some unrevealed manner (“the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, . . .”, Luke
1:35). Mormons aver that Jesus is the literal Son of the Father, “the Highest”
(NASB: “the Most High”), not the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35).
The
assertion by some Evangelicals that the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus,
rather than God the Father, is refuted by dozens of passages in the New
Testament in which Jesus and God the Father refer to each other as “Son” and
“Father.” All Men are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), but Paul spoke literally
of Christ when he said, “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”
(Col. 2:9, emphasis added). (pp. 102-3)
[On
John 1:18 JST, etc]
A key
word used in these passages is the preposition “of” that appears in the phrase
“of God.” John 6:46 uses the preposition para, which the KJV translates
“of” and the NASB translates “from.” John 8:47 uses the Greek preposition ek,
which both versions render “of.” Para indicates close proximity, and in
the context of verbs of origination, it means “to be from someone.” Ek
indicates origin from something with which there has been a close connection.
It can be translated “from, of or by.” There is no valid reason, outside of
theological preference, to give these prepositions, a different meaning in this
context. Para Theou, for example, is used in John 1:6 in reference to
John the Baptist.
Another
key word is “he,” translated “the One” in the NASB as if it were intended to
refer only to Christ. But the subject (“he” or “the One”) doesn’t appear in the
Greek text of John 6:46 at all. It must be assumed from the construction of the
phrase, o hon para tou Theou. O and tou are forms of the definite
article “the.” Hon is comparative, and means “as, like as, even as,
according as, in the same manner as, etc.” The subject of the clause is left to
be assumed by the reader. This suggests a broad designation one that would
incorporate the reader as well as all Men. There is no valid reason to assume
the clause refers exclusively to Christ. Thus the KJV is truer to the Greek,
where “he” could be translated word hon broadens its application to all
who are “like as” Christ. (p. 92 n. 36)
[on 1
Pet 3:21]
The parenthetical
phrase in this verse has presented significant problems for Evangelical
exegetes. They erroneously claim that the statement, “not the putting away of
the filth of the flesh,” means that Man is not saved by water baptism.
They arrive at this conclusion by assuming that “the filth of the flesh” refers
to fleshly sins and “the putting away” refers to water baptism. Thus,
Evangelicals could render the passage: “The like figure whereunto even baptism
doth also now save us (not water baptism, but the answer of a good conscience
toward God,).”
This
interpretation is profoundly flawed. It assumes the very concept Peter intended
to prove–that water baptism washes away sins–then arrives at a contrary
conclusion. To assert that “the putting away of the filth of the flesh” means
water baptism, one must accept the idea that water baptism does, in fact,
“[put] away” fleshly sins. To do that, and at the same time disclaim the
efficacy of water baptism for that very purpose, is a fear of logic that would
only be comfortable for a Hellenist. If one assumes that water baptism is the
washing away (“the putting away”) of sins (“the filth of the flesh”), one must
also acknowledge that it is the saving ordinance Peter referred to in this
verse.
Actually,
the phrase “putting away of the filth of the flesh” in this context is not a
reference to water baptism, but should be taken literally as washing dirty form
the body. The phrase, “the answer of a good conscience toward God” is Peter’s
allusion to water baptism. What the parenthetical phrase means is that baptism
is not the same as taking a bath, it is the answer of the new convert to God’s
call for Men to commit to Him and obtain a good, or clean, conscience.
Evangelicals
say that “the answer of a good conscience toward God” means the baptism of
fire, or the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Peter’s remarks in Acts 2:38 make it
clear that the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Peter’s remarks in Acts 2:38 make it
clear that the gift of the Holy Ghost is an answer from God to
the baptized believer. That is, the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost is God’s
answer, or reward, to Men who have sought a good conscience, and were
cleansed by baptism for the remission of sins. It was not Man’s answer
“toward” God.
The
NASB translation of 1 Peter 3:21 makes this point clear:
And
corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the
flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ.
The
ordinance of water baptism is an appeal by men to God for a good (or
clean) conscience, washed free of sin and prepared to receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost, the baptism of fire. Peter states that this ordinance “now saves
you . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (emphasis added). (pp.
200-1)
[on
Matt 22:23-30]
This
passage describes a confrontation between Christ and a group of Sadducees–members
of a sect who did not believe in the literal resurrection of the body. The
Sadducees did not come to Christ to seek understanding. They came to confront
Him with a situation they thought would demonstrate the foolishness of His
teachings and vindicate their own belief that there is no resurrection. They
concocted a clever trap by carefully drafting a hypothetical question based on
what they knew to be a teaching of Christ.
The
question they chose would not have served their purpose if Christ had not been
teaching eternal marriage. They assumed Christ would say that each marriage in
their story continued after the resurrection. If His answer had been consistent
with their meager understanding of eternal marriage, it would have proved that
Christ’s teachings result in a state of intolerable confusion. God is not the
author of confusion but of order (see, e.g., 1 Chron. 15:12-14; 2 Chron.
29:35). They hoped Christ would be caught in this trap.
If
Christ had not been teaching eternal marriage, their question would not have
fitted into their plot. It would simply have allowed Christ to bear further
testimony of the resurrection. From the parenthetical reference to the
Sadducees’ disbelief in the resurrection (Matt. 22:23), it is obvious they
would not have wanted that. Hence, it is clear that Christ taught eternal
marriage, and the Sadducees knew He did.
In
fact, just three chapters earlier Matthew recorded Christ’s teachings on
eternal marriage. There He addressed the Pharisees in response to their
question about divorce. In Matthew 19:3-6 (NASB, see also Mark 10:2-9) it
reads:
And some
Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife for any cause at all?”
And he answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them
from the beginning made them male and female,
“and
said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’?
“Consequently
they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together,
let no man separate.”
God
joined Adam and Eve when they were immortal (Gen. 2:18-25), and He commanded no
man to part them. Would that same God later separate them himself? Certainly
not! That was the point of Christ’s instruction (especially verse 6). What God
does remains forever (Eccl. 3:14). Christ’s message was that the joining of
husband and wife was ordained of God, and was meant to be eternal.
The
Pharisees, who believed they could divorce their wives on the flimsiest of
grounds, were rebuked by this teaching, and obviously reported Christ’s
teachings to the Sadducees, with whom they disagreed as to the resurrection.
The Sadducees saw in this an opportunity to discredit Christ on both doctrines
(resurrection and eternal marriage). This explains why the Pharisees came
together on this occasion with the Sadducees.
What
then does Christ’s response to the Sadducees’ mean? Christ contradicted the
Sadducees’ assumptions in verses 29 and 30, but the implications of His
contradiction are not as broad as Evangelicals assume. He did not deny eternal
marriage. He said that the specific marriages identified in this
question were not eternal (verse 30: “For in the resurrection they
neither marry, nor are given in marriage,” emphasis added). This is
particularly clear from the book of Tobit, still in Catholic Bibles, which
contains a story describing the very circumstances posed by the Sadducees. So
what was it about the marriages in this example that differed from the marriage
of Adam and Eve cited by Christ in Matthew 19?
The
basis for the Sadduccee’s error was that they did not understand (1) “the
Scriptures,” or (2) “the power of God” (Matt. 22:29). Lack of
scriptural knowledge is evidenced by their failure to note that Adam and Eve’s
marriage had been performed by God, and would therefore “be forever”
(Eccl. 3:14). They also failed to note that the purpose of marriage to the
brother of a deceased spouse was only to raise up a mortal posterity for the
deceased spouse (Deut. 25:5-6). One would not expect, therefore, that any of
the subsequent marriages would last after the first brother and his wife were
restored to each other in the resurrection. This is evident from the version of
this example that appears in the Book of Tobit, with which they should have
been familiar. Finally, they failed to note that God’s laws are spiritual (Rom.
7;14), and no spiritual purpose would be served by a marriage performed
by God if it could not continue after the resurrection.
In
Matthew 16:19, just a few chapters before Christ taught the Pharisees about
eternal marriage, He explained that the power of God includes the power
to bind on earth and have it bound in heaven. Such authority (or “power”) is
needed to ensure that an earthly marriage is contractually binding in the
eternal realm. As Christ noted, the Sadducees knew nothing of this power, and
their question failed to mention its use in connection with any of the
marriages. Hence, none of them would be binding in Heaven.
Christ
did not contradict Himself, nor change His mind between Matthew 19 and Matthew
22. What His answer to the Sadducees demonstrates is that through “the power of
God,” marital relationships are maintained in an orderly manner in heaven. This
answer completely frustrated the Sadducees’ trap.
The
most important aspect of the message of Matthew 22:23-30, however, was not the
way in Christ foiled the Sadducees, but the implications of His answer to them.
Marriages performed under Man’s authority alone, as in the Sadducees’ example,
will not remain in effect after the resurrection. The power of God must be used
to bind men and women in order for their marriages to last forever. Those who
are not married by such authority, like the men and women in the Sadducees’
example, remains as the angels in heaven–messengers only, separate and single
forever.
This
interpretation of Matthew 22 is consistent with Paul’s teachings on the subject
(1 Cor. 11;11, emphasis added): “Nevertheless, neither is the man without the
woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” The phrase “in
the Lord” refers to Man’s ultimate state of rest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul
says that in that realm, the relationship of men and women is the same as that
of Adam and Eve, who, in their immortal state, were joined by God as one flesh.
As in Eden, the creation of such a relationship requires the power of God,
specifically the power given by Christ to Peter in Matthew 16:19. For those who
are bound by that power, unlike those in the Sadducees' example, Heaven will
include the promise of continued marital bliss, and with it, parenthood. (pp.
127-30)