Craig and Copan: ברא does not mean, in and of itself, creation ex nihilo

 

It is well known that bârâ’ (create) is used, for say, God’s creation of the people of Israel (e.g., Isa 43:15) or his creation of a clean heart (Ps 51:12), but obviously this should not be understood as being ex nihilo. . . . However much one loads this word with theological significance, bârâ’ does not by itself entail creation out of nothing—or reorganization, for that matter. (Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, “Craftsman or Creator? An Examination of the Mormon Doctrine of Creation and a Defense of Creatio ex nihilo,” in The New Mormon Challenge: Responding to the Latest Defenses of a Fast-Growing Movement, ed. Francis J. Beckwith, Carl Mosser, and Paul Owen [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2002], 109, 111)

 

Further Reading:

Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought (cf. Blake T. Ostler, "J.P. Holding on Creation Out of Nothing")

Constantine R. Campbell on Ephesians 2:14, 15

On Eph 2:14:

 

The dividing wall of the temple torn down in Christ’s flesh points to a theme that will grow toward the end of the chapter, namely the construction of a new temple. When Christ was crucified, the gospels record that the curtain of the temple was torn top to bottom (Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38), symbolizing that his death had unblocked access to the holy of holies. Jesus also referred to his body as the temple that he would rebuild in three days (John 2:19-21). Paul will go on in this passage to show that a new temple now exists with Christ as the cornerstone, and with Jews and gentiles built into it together as a dwelling place for God (2:19:22). The physical temple in Jerusalem is no longer the exclusive place in which God’s presence is accessed, with its attendant restrictions for gentile worship. Now in Christ, Jew and gentile may worship freely with God’s presence mediated by the Spirit, free from the restrictions of a physical location that discriminated against non-Jews. Thus, the Jerusalem temple’s dividing wall is now rendered against non-Jews. Thus, the Jerusalem temple’s dividing wall is now rendered irrelevant and ineffectual; there is nothing to hinder Jewish and gentile worship of the same God together. (Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 114)

 

On Eph 2:15:

2:15 The next way in which “Christ is our peace” (2:14) is by having nullified the law with its commands and regulations. This law, which is described literally as “the law of commandments in regulations,” no doubt refers to the law of Moses, with its 613 commandments (cf. Rom 10:4; Gal 3:23-26). Christ has nullified this law “so that he might create in himself one new man from the two, resulting in peace.” Thus it is implied that the law stood as a barrier between Jew and gentile, reinforcing the distinctions between them. . . . the law, and the old covenant to which it belonged, has been nullified since—through his death—Christ sealed a new covenant about which Paul cites Jesus’s own words, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (1 Cor 11:25; cf. Luke 22:20). (Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 114-15)

 

Constantine R. Campbell's Interpretation of Ephesians 2:20

 

The apostles and prophets are mentioned twice more in Ephesians (3:5; 4:11). Neither term is defined in the letter, and both have at least two possible interpretations. First, the “apostles” may refer to the so-called uppercase-A Apostles, namely the remaining original eleven plus Matthew (Acts 1:13-26), James the Lord’s brother (Gal 1:19), and Paul, who was sent by God to the gentiles (Acts 9:15; Rom 11:13; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:1). These Apostles were commissioned by Christ to carry forward his teaching by the inspiration of the Spirit (John 14:25-26; cf. Acts 2:42; 26:17). A second option is that the “apostles” refers to so-called lowercase-a apostles, such as Andronicus and Junia, who are possibly called “apostles” in Rom 16:7 (depending on how this verse is translated). Given, however, that there are only a few possible references to lowercase-a apostles in Paul’s writings (if we exclude the verse under consideration; cf. Rom 16:7; 1 Thess 2:7; 1 Cor 15:7), and that there is little in the present context to override the likely default meaning, “apostles” is best understood to refer to the uppercase-A Apostles, of which Paul is one (Eph 1:1). (Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 122)

 

A similar distinction may be made between “uppercase-P” Prophets and “lowercase-p” prophets. The former refers to the great prophets of Israelite history, especially those whose writings are preserved in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. The latter refers to prophets of the new covenant, such as Paul mentioned in 1 Cor 12:28-29 and 14:29-32. The major distinction between the two is that the former is a very select group, with great authority and perilous consequences for falsehood (Deut 13:1-5; Ezek 13:1-6), while the latter group appears to be broader with milder consequences for falsehood (1 Cor 14:29). In Ephesians, it is more likely the lowercase-p prophets in view, as 3:5 and 4:11 reveal. In 3:5, the mystery of Christ “is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” The temporal indicator “now”—along with reference to the Spirit—affirms the new covenant context of these prophets. Likewise, 4:11 puts prophets alongside other new covenant ministries such as apostles, evangelist, and pastor-teachers. Thus, in 2:20, “prophets” are new-covenant believers with the gift of prophecy, rather than the uppercase-P Prophets of the old covenant.

 

We may suppose that the function of the apostles and prophets differ according to the nature of their roles—assuming we have correctly understood to whom Paul refers here. Apostolic authority was, and remains, a fixed bedrock of the church’s understanding of Jesus and his ministry. But prophetic ministry addresses specific circumstances and occasions. It is “unfixed,” and in this way complements apostolic authority. Indeed, perhaps it is helpful to view prophetic ministry as the application of apostolic teaching to specific situations. If so, that would explain why it makes sense for “the apostles and prophets” to refer to uppercase-A Apostles while also referring to lowercase-p prophets, as argued above. (Ibid., 123)

 

Constantine R. Campbell on Ephesians 1:23

  

But in what sense is the church the fullness of Christ? There is little in the immediate context to shed much light on it. However, Col 1:19, 2:9-10 claims that the entirety of God's fullness dwells in Christ, and Christ fills his people. Thus, the fullness of Christ in his body the church most likely refers to the fullness of the deity living in them (cf. Eph 3:19). Markus Barth points to the Old Testament concepts of the shekina (glorious presence), the spirit or wisdom of God for understanding the fullness of God dwelling in his people. The glory of God fills the house of God and the whole earth (Jer 4:12; cf. 23:23-24; Pss 48:10; 119:64), and "God's presence and manifestation are always described by a form of the verb 'to fill' or by the adjective 'full.'" (Barth, 203-4) As such, Barth rightly concludes that the "fullness" in Christ "manes no less than God's presence and operation in Christ; the dwelling of Christ in the saints is to be identified with Christ's full and real presence in his body, the church." (Barth, 205)

 

While Christ fills all reality with his reconciling presence (cf. 1:10), so the church is the ultimate expression of his fullness—God dwells within Christ who dwells within his body. Moreover, as the fullness of Christ, the church gives expression to his presence in the world. That is, the church is so filled by Christ that he has a tangible presence on earth through it, even while he is himself the filling power of the universe. In that sense, the two arenas of his fullness parallel that of the glory of God which fills the house of God specifically and the whole earth generally (Jer 4:12). (Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 80)

 

Nick Brennan on on the Personal Preexistence of Jesus in light of Hebrews 1:10-12's use of Psalm 101 (LXX)

 

Though there is certainly an interest in the eschatological tone of Ps 101 LXX, and its connection to Christ’s role in winding up the present creation, the unchangeable character of the Lord of the quotation is grounded to his protological standing. He does not wear our like the world, because he was there before it. This suggests that in attributing the quotation to Christ it cannot be made to terminate only on eschatological categories, it must also involve the protological. In this regard, Schenck’s equivocation on pre-existence is unhelpful, sometimes seeming to claim that the Son was son at all points of existence, but at other times seeming to reconfigure this as the “pre-existence” of a principal or plan in the mind of God which reaches its goal in Christ. In the context of Hebrews, such a thesis proves far too much, for the exaltation of Christ is not the only fulfilment of this divine plan. Though Christ may play a singular role, as Schenck notes, the accomplishment of human destiny in toto is at work here. Does this then mean that, because the glorification of the many sons was foreordained in the mind of God, the audience ought also to draw from the catena a sense of their own “pre-existence” in the divine wisdom? Or that, on such grounds, they might see the address as Creator Lord of Ps 101 as somehow being applicable to the hearers themselves? Such questions demonstrate that to deny a personal and protological existence to Christ as necessitated by the quotation of Ps 101:27, 28 is to loosen the connection to him from its moorings and make it too far-ranging. (Nick Brennan, Divine Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Son as God [Library of New Testament Studies 656; London: T&T Clark 2022], 64, emphasis added)

 

Some Recent Presentations on Sola Scriptura

 A few weeks ago, I appeared on a friend's youtube channel to critique Sola Scriptura:

A Latter-day Saint Critique of Sola Scriptura

I think I did a good job, including refuting some of the essential "building blocks" for the doctrine (e.g., the fact the Bible does not teach a cessation of public revelation at the death of the last apostle, etc).

The only "responses" are from two idiots (one of whom lets me live in their head rent-free) who would never engage in public debate on these issues, including the ludicrous claim that 1 Chron 25 refutes any appeal to 2 Chron 29 and 35 against Sola Scriptura during the Old Testament era.

I was also interviewed on the To Whom Shall We Go? Podcast. We also addressed Sola Scriptura:

Sola Scriptura An Interview w/Robert Boylan

For more, see:

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Some Helpful Resources on the Articles of Faith

John A. Tvedtnes, Using the Articles of Faith to Respond to Anti-Mormon Criticisms

Matthew B. Brown, Accusations Against the Articles of Faith

Lyndon W. Cook, The Articles of Faith

Constantine R. Campbell: "washing of water" in Ephesians 5:26 is a Reference to Water Baptism

  

5:26 Christ gave himself for the church (Eph 5:25) “to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word.” This purpose clause indicates the goal of Christ’s self-giving—it was to make the church holy. To make people holy—or sanctified—is to include them “In the inner circle of what is holy, in both cultic and moral associations of the word.” In the Old Testament, sanctification referred to setting apart for religious use, often with reference to the sacrifice of an unblemished animal, whose blood in turn sanctified the worshipers. Of Christians specially, it can refer to being consecrated by baptism, as seen in the second part of 5:26—“cleansing her with the washing of water.” The word translated “washing” can refer to a bath or—as here—to the washing of baptism. (Constantine R. Campbell, The Letter to the Ephesians [The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 254 [note: Campbell is a critic of baptismal regeneration])

 

Joseph Smith's Prophecy (June 30, 1843) Concerning the Fate of Thomas Ford

In his journal for June 30, 1843, Joseph Smith made the following prophecy concerning Governor Thomas Ford:

 

“I prophecy in the name of the Lord God that Governor [Thomas] ford by granting the writ—again[s]t me. has damned hims elf politically and eternally and his carcase will. stink on the face of the earth and be <as the careon is that to> food for the carrion crow & Turkey buzzard— (as

 This can be understood as a fulfilled prophecy:

 

As Ford's gubernatorial term ended in early 1847, his criticisms of the now-outmoded Illinois Constitution led to a constitutional convention later in the year, which drafted a new state constitution which took effect in 1848. Among the new constitution's improvements was reducing the Illinois Supreme Court down to three justices while ending circuit duties. Other provisions empowered future governors over state affairs. However, Ford would not participate in the constitutional convention because he left office nearly bankrupt. Both he and his wife had contracted illnesses of which they would die in 1850. . . . Ford initially moved back to the Hambaugh farm after his gubernatorial term ended, but soon moved to Peoria, Illinois. There, he wrote his magnum opus of early Illinois history, as well as attempted to care for his wife (who died of stomach cancer on October 12, 1850; aged 38) and young children, as well as his own tuberculosis. He died on November 3, 1850, about six weeks after joining the local Methodist Church. (Thomas Ford (politician), wikipedia, April 29, 2023)

 

Further Reading:

Andrew H. Hedges, "Thomas Ford and Joseph Smith, 1842-1844," Journal of Mormon History 42, no. 4 (October 2016): 97-124

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Jack D. Kilcrease (Lutheran): The Apostles did not write all their teachings

  

. . . there is no evidence whatsoever that the apostles did not write down all their teachings in the New Testament documents. (Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture [Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics 2; Ft. Wayne, Ind.: The Luther Academy, 2020], 219)

 

For one to hold Sola Scriptura, one must believe that what the apostles orally taught is to be found substantially in the biblical texts. Of course, this begs many questions. For more, see

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Sang-Won (Aaron) Son: Our Corporate Union with Christ does not result in the Eradication of One's racial, social, and gender distinctives

  

Participation in the “one body” corporeity does not mean the loss of the individuality of the participants. Husband and wife remain distinct individuals while they are, at the same time, one corporate body in marriage. The “one body” union does not eliminate their individual distinctions. Otherwise, Paul’s exhortations given to husbands and wives respectively would not make sense. In the same manner, believers maintain their individuality when they form a corporate body with others and with Christ. Paul’s conception of Christ and the husband as the heads of their respective corporate bodies also draws a fine distinction between their individual and their corporate existence.

 

The corporate union with Christ has sometimes been misunderstood as referring to the eradication of the individual’s racial, social, and gender distinctives. Those who hold this view often appeal to Gal. 3:27-28: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, male and female; for you are all one (εις) in Christ Jesus.” Paul, however, does not teach in this passage that incorporation into Christ abrogates one’s racial, social, and gender distinctives. He is primarily concerned here with the corporate unity of all believers in Christ, which in some respects transcends and transforms but does not eradicate their racial, social, and gender distinctions. (Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in the Light of Paul’s Usage and Background [Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2001], 168)

 

J. Christopher Edwards on the Bodily Assumption of Mary in the Six Books Dormition Apocryphon

  

The Assumption of Mary

 

Both the sixth-century manuscript used by Wright, and the much later nineteenth-century manuscript used by Smith Lewis to fill in the gaps of her fragmented fifth-century palimpsest codex, narrate Mary’s death as follows: Mary’s soul departs from her, and Jesus sends it to the mansions of the Father’s house. Mary bids Jesus farewell and states, “I am looking to Thy coming which is at hand.” Jesus commands the apostles to place Mary’s body in a chariot of light. Her body is taken to the paradise of Eden, where later in the narrative Jesus approaches the body, commands Mary to rise, and she worships him. The reader is never told that Mary is reunited with her soul, although this may be assumed when Jesus resurrects her in the paradise of Eden.

 

Some scholarship has attempted to demonstrate a doctrinal development within the ancient Dormition traditions from those with a supposedly assumptionless Mary to those that confirm a bodily assumption. The key claim on the part of this developmental view is that early Dormition traditions, like the Six Books. Portray Mary’s resurrection in the paradise of Eden as temporary, in order to provide her a tour of the heavens and Gehenna. It is true that earlier in Smith Lewi’s palimpsest codex Jesus says to Mary, “I will make thy body go into the Paradise of Eden, and there it will be until the resurrection.” This statement could be understood as referring to the participation of Mary’s uncorrupted body in a future general resurrection. However, there is nothing in either Wright’s manuscript, nor in the much later manuscript used by Smith Lewis to complete her palimpsest codex, stating that after Jesus resurrects Mary’s body in the paradise of Eden, she resumes her bodily separation in anticipation of a future general resurrection. Therefore, Jesus’s statement may be best understood as simply referring to Jesus’s upcoming resurrection of Mary in the paradise of Eden.

 

Shoemaker surveys the perspectives on Mary’s assumption in the various Dormition traditions, from those which clearly support Mary’s bodily assumption to those, like the Six Books, that some scholars have understood as supporting an assumptionless Mary. According to Shoemaker, not only is the assumptionless understanding of the Six Books mistaken, because Mary is not separated from her body after her tour, but so is the argument that there is a demonstrable development in the assumption theologies of the ancient Dormition traditions. Shoemaker argues that the variety in the Dormition traditions regarding Mary’s assumption is not due to theological development. Rather, there was an initial diversity in theological differences concerning the exact nature of Mary’s final state, so that one tradition cannot claim to be the original from which the others evolved. He states that “the various narrative types are best understood as coexistent, rival traditions [. . .] with none having a substantial claim to priority over the others, and with no evidence of any tradition having developed or decayed from the others.” (J. Christopher Edwards, “The Departure of My Lady Mary From This World (The Six Books Dormition Apocryphon),” in Early New Testament Apocrypha, ed. J. Christopher Edwards [Ancient Literature for New Testament Studies 9; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2022], 314-15)

 

Excerpts from "The Story of the Image of Edessa"

In the 10^th century text, “The Story of the Image of Edessa,” we see how, over two centuries after the Second Council of Nicea (787), the very high view of religious images:

 

The miracles of the image in Edessa

 

33 With this divine representation of the God-human Christ in hand, he went with greater hope to that place where the Persians had come in their digging, made evident from the noise of the bronze utensils. The people of the city began to dig from inside and when the two parties came near each other, the citizens dripped oil from that lamp into the fire they had prepared for use against their enemies, dropped it on the Persians who were in the underground passage, and killed them all. Delivered from the plot here, they carried forth a similar attempt against the war machinery that was outside the wall. They set these ablaze in heaps as well and killed most of the enemies that were in them. Now encouraged anew, they were launching clusters of stones from the walls, under which the commander of the enemy army happened to fall and many others with him. 34 But this was not all. There was a pyre that had been lit by the Persians from outside for use against those inside, kept fed by an incalculable amount of wood from olive and bunches of other felled trees; the power of the auxiliary divine image made it go after them! For when Eulalius was going through the city from atop the wall with it extended in his own hands, suddenly, when he came to this very place, a violent wind was raised, and it turned this fiery flame back against those who were keeping it lit. IT even pursued and burned them up like the Chaldeans in the past.

 

35 (18) These events are not a story without a witness, fabricated by us for the pleasure of hearing or for deceit. Rather, three patriarchs together—Job or Alexandria, Christopher of Antioch, and Basil of Jerusalem—recorded the account and made it known that these things happened in this manner when they wrote to Theophilius, the emperor who abused the sacred images. This was when they were demonstrating the holiness and venerability of divine images through many examples and gave it a clear treatment. It is possible for someone who wishes to read that many-lined letter to learn about it too.

 

36 Moreoever, if someone were reading the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with diligence, then they would by all means know what he says about this holy image in the fourth book. (19) He records how Khusro, since he openly wished to prove false the claim repeated by the Christians about this city—namely, how it was unsackable—did the following along with the other things. By issuing a command, he assembled a great wealth—a boundless multitude—of wood in a short time through the many hands of his army. He then fixed the wood in a double wall in a circle around the city and tossed dirt in between the posts, constructing another wall facing the city. It was higher than the walls of Edessa, and thus he was going to launch projectiles down on those who were braving engagement on behalf of the city to a degree that he had not previously. 37 When the Edessenes saw it being raised like a mountain opposite their walls (by means of which their enemies were hoping to attack the city as if from level ground), they devised what they could in opposition, even though they were without recourse. They were attempting to dig a trench in front of that newly built wall, so that if they were able to set fire to the palisades in front of the mound from underneath, then they would filch the dirt down toward the ditch In this way, that great wall would quickly be brought down and fall away as if it had been fabricated on the basis of a dream. 38 But when the trench had been completed, they were falling short of their goal as they threw the fire onto the wood. The fire was not able to catch hold of any empty space that lacked fuel since the dirt was packed in tight and the wood was still green. But once they brought this holy image to that newly constructed ditch, sanctified water with it, and dripped the water onto the fire and the wood, they coaxed the fire into combustion. Since divine power assisted the faith of those who did this, the water became like oil to the fire and ignited the flame; it consumed everything it met. At this point, the king of the Persians gave up hope of capturing the city. Once he learned what the source of their aid was, he moved for negotiations, made peace treaties, and returned again to his own lands.

 

The healing of Khusro’s daughter

 

39 (20) In any case, this man was soon about to encounter benefactions from this holy image, the benefactress of his enemies and destroyer of his people. The daughter of this man, because she was seized by a demonic spirit and had abandoned her natural state, was roused through its agency to be constantly shouting. “Unless the not-made-by-hand image comes from Edessa, the one dwelling in her will not thence depart!” Once the king heard this, he thought back to the events of the siege—the unexpected, sudden strength and courage of the Edessenes did not, after all, escape his notice. At once, he wrote to the leader of the city, to Eulalius the Metropolitan, and to the community of the city, asking for the divine and all-powerful representation to be sent to him with haste. He added that the reason was the misfortune of his daughter, and he was asking in every way, seeking forcefully not to fail at his request.

 

40 The Edessenes, for their part, surmising the untrustworthiness of the Persian character and suspecting that the Persians wanted to use deceit to make off with their strength, were not planning to give up their champion and benefactress. However, neither were they planning to break the peace for the sake of such an excuse, so they came up with a keen plan that also benefited them. They copied a painted image of the unpainted one as best they could—equal and alike in every regard—and once they made the representation conform in exact resemblance as much as possible, they sent it to the one who had requested it. 41 As soon as those who were conveying the image came within the boundaries of Persia, immediately the demon cried out through the daughter of the king that it would depart with haste and change dwellings because of the power of the one coming, but only if the likeness that had been summoned would turn back and not approach the royal precincts or the city of the Persians. It was begging for this and beseeching the king earnestly. Once the king promised, the demon departed from the maiden, and the child of the king came into a healthy state. Khusro, either fulfilling the petition of the demon who was beginning and upholding his promise or because he feared the power of the one coming because of the poor and abominable quality of his own deeds, sent messengers with gifts he contributed from his own person for those who sent it and ordered that this image return to the city whence it came. (Nathan J. Hardy, “The Story of the Image of Edessa,” in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Tony Burke, 3 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 3:97-99)

 

 Further Reading:

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

The Healing Properties of Jesus' bath water in “The Hospitality and Perfume of the Bandit"

In “The Hospitality and Perfume of the Bandit,” dated c. 12^th-14^th century, we read of how the bath water used by Jesus had medicinal qualities:

 

The healing of the bandit’s child

 

(17.3d) From this wife he had a little son, but he was quite leprous, indeed, scabby. But since the hour for bathing his son had not approached, the bandit said to his wife, “Allow this infant to be bathed first because he is beautiful, and you can bathe our infant afterward, because he is scabby and quite leprous.” But after the blessed Mary had bathed her son Jesus, as the bandit’s son was bathed, in the same water, immediately he was totally cleansed from all filth and from every infirmity. And the bandit said to his wife, “Truly, this is the Son of God.” And he fell prostrate on the ground and worshiped him. (Mark Glen Bilby (trans.), “The Hospitality and Perfume of the Bandit,” in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Tony Burke, 3 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 3:10)

 

Satan Swearing an Oath with Jesus in the Wilderness in "The Dialogue between Jesus and the Devil"

In “The Dialogue Between Jesus and the Devil,” dated c. 7^th-12^th century, Satan, when he appears in the wilderness, “swears and oath” with Jesus:

 

1 When Jesus Christ, our Lord, came to the mountain with Peter, James, Andrew, and John, and the rest of his holy disciples, Jesus fasted forty days. The devil appeared before him and said to him, “I swear an oath with you in the name of mighty God, yes! that you tell me the entire truth. Where are you from?

 

Jesus said to him, I am from the eternal and immortal God. . . .  (E. Bonar and Slavomir Čéplö (trans.), “The Dialogue between Jesus and the Devil” (Greek text), in New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Tony Burke, 3 vols. [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 3:53)

 

 

Sang-Won (Aaron) Son on the Spirit, not the Person of Christ Himself, Dwelling in the Believer (cf. D&C 130:3)

  

If believers are in Christ, how can Christ be in believers at the same time? Does Paul really speak of mutual indwelling of Christ and believers? It has been already pointed out that Paul speaks of Christ’s indwelling in believers only six times, most of which can be understood differently, and that Paul seldom speaks of the believer’s existence in the Spirit but often of the indwelling of the Spirit in believers. From these facts, one may safely conclude either (1) that it is the Spirit rather than Christ himself who dwells in believers or (2) that Christ’s indwelling takes place through the Spirit. (Sang-Won (Aaron) Son, Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in the Light of Paul’s Usage and Background [Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 2001], 28)

 

Ambrosiaster’s understanding of “Predestination” as “Foreknowledge”

The following comes from:

 

Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (British Academy Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 185-87

 

Predestination explained as foreknowledge

 

The author known as Ambrosiaster referred to the questions raised by Paul’s statements about Jacob and Esau as a ‘complaint’ or ‘accusation’ (querela), and said that pagans interpreted Paul’s statements as disproving Christianity’s claim to present a just God.254 He interpreted Jacob and Esau as types who represented believers and non‑believers.255 His explanation of the Jacob and Esau story was that this referred to God’s foreknowledge. Ambrosiaster explained predestination as foreknowledge in an emphatic manner, using the word ‘foreknowledge’ or variants of it fifteen times in his comments on Rom. 9:11–16 to underline his argument that this was foreknowledge of autonomous human decisions.256 He repeated nine times that God was just.257 Reading Ambrosiaster’s comments on Rom. 9:11–16, what come across strongly are his prioritising of justice, his overwhelming concern to interpret predestination as God’s foreknowledge of autonomous human actions, his references to the ‘will’ (uoluntas) and the ‘mind’ (mens) of the individual as the factor determining God’s responses, his references to merit, his suggestion that all nature is good and only the will creates evil, his concern that man should not be able to make excuses (the same argument that Evagrius, Jerome and Pelagius used), his reference to God’s universal salvific will [1 Tim. 2:4], and the fact that in order to preserve God’s justice he cited Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11:God is not a (p.186) respecter of persons, to show that God did not have pre‑selected favourites, just as Ambrose and Jerome did. Ambrosiaster then suggested that the complaint should cease because he had resolved the issue.

 

He thus worked hard to interpret Paul’s words to show that God’s judgements were dependent on man’s autonomous decisions:

 

For when they were not yet born nor had they done anything either good or bad, so that God’s plan might continue according to his election, it was said not on the basis of works but on the basis of the calling, that the elder would serve the younger, as it is written: I loved Jacob, but Esau I hated [Mal. 1:2–3]. That is in Malachi. Paul proclaims God’s foreknowledge in these matters, because nothing else can happen other than what God knows will happen. For through his knowledge of what each of them will be in the future, he said: ‘This one will be worthy, who will be the younger, and the one who will be older will be unworthy’. He chose one and rejected the other as a result of his foreknowledge. And God’s plan continues with regard to the one he chose because nothing can happen except what God knows and has planned with regard to him, that he will be worthy of salvation; and concerning him whom God rejected, likewise God’s plan continues, that he planned concerning him, because he will be unworthy. This God does as one who knows the future and not as a respecter of persons [Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11], for he condemns no‑one before they should sin, and he crowns no‑one before they should conquer. This relates to the case of the Jews who defend their previous privilege as sons of Abraham.258

 

Ambrosiaster’s explanation of Paul’s meaning is at odds with Augustine’s interpretation, in which prevenient grace was the cause of an individual’s virtue and God’s foreknowledge of an individual’s free decision was not a viable escape route from that truth, as Augustine explained:

 

But it is surprising to see the steep cliffs they hurl themselves over when they are trapped by these difficulties and fear the nets of truth. They say: ‘He hated one and loved the other of those not yet born because he foresaw their future works’. Who would not be surprised that the Apostle lacked this very clever idea? . … Where now are the merits, where are the works either past or future, carried out or to be carried out, as if by the strength of free will? Did not the Apostle offer a clear statement concerning the excellence of gratuitous grace, that is, of true grace? . … Is it on (p.187) account of the future works of both of them which God foresaw? No, heaven forbid this also.259

 

It is noteworthy that in around AD 428–9, Prosper of Aquitaine wrote to Augustine saying that among earlier interpreters of Scripture the consensus understanding of predestination was that it was God’s foreknowledge of autonomous human actions.260

 

Notes for the Above:

 

(254) Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:1–13 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, p. 317); all references and quotations are taken from the γ-text of Ambrosiaster’s Commentary on the Pauline Epistles.

 

(255) Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:10 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, p. 311).

 

(256) Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:11–16 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, pp. 313–23). The evidence to support this argumentation can be found in the translation and text of Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:11–16 in the appendix at the end of this chapter. The total of 15 uses of the word ‘foreknowledge’ includes only occurrences of the words praescientia and praescius, and omits the times he referred to God’s knowing the future (nouit/ sciens futurum, etc), of which there are several also. Ambrosiaster also propounded this argument that predestination was God’s foreknowledge in his comments on Rom. 8:28–30 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, pp. 289–93).

 

(257) Counting uses of the words ‘justice’ (iustitia), ‘just’ (iustus) and ‘not unjustly’ (non iniuste).

 

(258) Ambrosiaster, In epistolas Paulinas, on Rom. 9:11–13 (ed. Vogels, CSEL 81/1, p. 313), ‘Nam cum nati nondum fuissent aut aliquid egissent bonum uel malum, ut secundum electionem propositum Dei permaneret, non ex operibus, sed ex uocatione dictum est, quia maior seruiet minori, sicut scriptum est: Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui [Mal. 1:2–3]. Istud in Malachia habetur. Praescientiam Dei flagitat in his causis, quia non aliud potest euenire, quam nouit Deus futurum. Sciendo enim quid unusquisque illorum futurus esset dixit: “Hic erit dignus, qui erit minor, et qui erit maior, indignus”. Vnum elegit praescientia et alterum spreuit. Et in illo quem elegit, propositum Dei manet, quia aliud non potest euenire quam scit et proposuit in illo, ut salute dignus sit; et in illo quem spernit, simili modo manet propositum, quod proposuit de illo, quia indignus erit. Hoc quasi praescius, non personarum acceptor [Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11], nam neminem damnat, antequam peccet, et nullum coronat, antequam uincat. Hoc pertinet ad causam Iudaeorum, qui sibi praerogatiuam defendunt, quod filii sint Abrahae.’

 

(259) Augustine, Ep. 194.8.35–9 (ed. Goldbacher, CSEL 57, pp. 204–7), ‘Mirum est autem, cum his coartantur angustiis, in quanta se abrupta praecipitent metuentes retia ueritatis. “Ideo”, inquiunt, “nondum natorum alium oderat, alium diligebat, quia eorum futura opera praeuidebat.” Quis istum acutissimum sensum defuisse Apostolo non miretur? . … Vbi nunc merita, ubi opera uel praeterita uel futura tamquam liberi arbitrii uiribus adimpleta siue adimplenda? Nonne apertam protulit Apostolus de gratuitae gratiae, hoc est uerae gratiae commendatione sententiam? . … An propter opera quae futura praeuidebat amborum? Immo et hoc absit’.

 

(260) Prosper, apud Augustine, Ep. 225.8 (ed. Goldbacher, CSEL 57, p. 467), ‘When the opinions of earlier teachers on this matter are reviewed, one and the same judgement is found in almost all of them, by which they have taken the plan and predestination of God as being based on his foreknowledge, so that God made some people vessels of honour and others vessels of reproach for this reason, namely, because he foresaw the end of each person and knew in advance how each would will and act in the future under the help of this grace’; ‘Retractatis priorum de hac re opinionibus, paene omnium par inuenitur et una sententia, qua propositum et praedestinationem Dei secundum praescientiam receperunt, ut ob hoc Deus alios uasa honoris alios contumeliae fecerit, quia finem uniuscuiusque praeuiderit et, sub ipso gratiae adiutorio in qua futurus esset uoluntate et actione, praescierit.’

 

Jerome’s understanding of “Grace” in his Commentary on Titus 2:11-14

The following comes from:

 

Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (British Academy Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 158-59

 

Jerome regularly referred to the grace of Christ’s advent as unmerited.155 When he contrasted grace with works, it was always this generalised grace that could not be merited.156 Specific gifts of grace, by contrast, were given to the virtuous and to those who were already believers. In his Commentary on Titus, written in around AD 387, Jerome discussed the use of the word ‘grace’ at Titus 2:11–14:

 

For the grace of God our Saviour has dawned upon all men. For there is no difference between free and slave, Greek and barbarian, circumcised and uncircumcised, woman and man, but we are all one in Christ. We are all called to the kingdom of God, we are all to be reconciled to our Father after stumbling, not through our merits but through the grace of the Saviour. This is either because Christ himself is the grace, living and subsisting from God the Father, or because this is the grace of Christ, God and Saviour; and we are saved not by our merit according to what is said in another place: You will save them for nothing [Ps. 56:7]. This grace, then: Has dawned on all men to teach us to renounce impiety and worldly desires, to live chastely and justly and piously in this world.157

 

Jerome here asserted once again the universality of God’s salvific will, and characterised grace as universal and as referring to Christ’s incarnation and teaching.

 

Notes for the Above:

 

(155) Jerome, In Esaiam 18.7, on Isa. 65:8 (ed. Gryson et al., pp. 1838–9), ‘It should be known that in Hebrew, for heat, thoda is written, which means grace, which of course refers to the fact that Israel is saved by the grace of God, and not by the merit of their own works’; ‘Et tamen sciendum in hebraico pro calore scriptum esse THODA, quod interpretatur “gratia”, quod scilicet gratia Dei, et non merito operum suorum, saluatus sit Israhel.’ Christ’s advent unmerited: 16.31, on Isa. 59:15c–18 (ed. Gryson et al., p. 1709), ‘So that those who have willed to be converted from error are saved not by their own merit, but by the mercy of God’; ‘Vt qui uoluerint ab errore conuerti, non suo merito, sed Dei clementia conseruentur.’

 

(156) Jerome, Commentarii ad Ephesios 1, on Eph. 2:5 (ed. Migne, PL 26.468B), ‘You have been saved by grace. If the sufferings of this time are not worthy of the future glory which will be revealed in us [cf. Rom. 8:18], we have been saved by grace rather than by work. For we can give nothing back to the Lord for all the things which he has given us’; ‘Gratia saluati estis. Si non sunt dignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam quae reuelabitur in nobis [cf. Rom. 8:18], gratia magis sumus quam opere saluati. Nihil enim possumus Domino retribuere pro omnibus quae retribuit nobis.’

 

(157) Jerome, In epistolam ad Titum 2, on Titus 2:11–14 (ed. Bucchi, CCSL 77C, pp. 52–3), ‘Illuxit enim gratia Dei Saluatoris omnibus hominibus. Non est enim aliqua differentia liberi et serui, Graeci et Barbari, circumcisi et habentis praeputium, mulieris et uiri, sed cuncti in Christo unum sumus, uniuersi ad Dei regnum uocamur, omnes post offensam Patri nostro reconciliandi sumus non per merita nostra, sed per gratiam Saluatoris. Vel quod Dei Patris uiuens et subsistens gratia ipse sit Christus, uel quod Christi Dei Saluatoris haec sit gratia, et non nostro merito saluati sumus, secundum illud quod in alio loco dicitur: Pro nihilo saluabis eos [Ps. 56:7]. Quae gratia omnibus hominibus ideo illuxit, ut erudiret nos, abnegantes impietatem et saecularia desideria, pudice et iuste et pie uiuere in hoc saeculo.’

 

Jerome’s Non-Reformed Interpretation of Ephesians 1:11

The following comes from:

 

Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (British Academy Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 155-56

 

Predestination

 

In his Commentary on Ephesians of around AD 387, Jerome discussed the issue of predestination and specifically interpreted it so as to keep human free will intact:

 

Eph. 1:11: Of Him who brings all things to pass according to the counsel of His will. We must give attention to the fact also that προορισμός and πρόθεσις, that is predestination and purpose, are placed together, according to which God works all things according to the counsel of His will. It is not that all things that come about in this world are accomplished by the will and counsel of God, otherwise evil things too could be imputed to God, but that everything which He does He does by His counsel and will since, of course, they are also full of the reason and power of the maker . … No one, however, can resist Him [Ps. 75:8] but He does everything which He wills. Moreoever He wills that all those things which are full of reason and counsel: Be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth [1 Tim. 2:4]. But because no one is saved except by his own will, for we have free will, He wants us to want what is good, so that when we have willed it, He himself may also wish to fulfil His counsel in us.144

 

This passage suggests that Jerome was aware of difficulty surrounding the interpretation of God’s omnipotence in relation to human free will. Already he saw the potential for contradiction between predestination, defined as the preordaining of decisions, and human free will; and the allied potential for contradiction between God’s omnipotence and the principle of 1 Tim. 2:4: God who wants all men to be saved. But Jerome consistently explained predestination as foreknowledge:

 

The fact that he has declared that we were chosen before the creation of the world: That we should be holy and unstained before him, that is, before God, pertains to God’s foreknowledge, for whom: All future things have already been done [Eccles. 3:15] and: All things are known before they come to pass [Dan. 13:42].145

 

Jerome composed Book 1 of his Commentary on Ezekiel in AD 410, and in it he made a pointed denial of the interpretation of predestination that limited effective free will. Instead he propounded the explanation of predestination that it was divine foreknowledge of autonomous human decisions:

 

But God says these things with a state of mind that is undecided, so that these words should demonstrate man’s free will, lest foreknowledge of good or bad in the future might make unchangeable what God knows will happen: for it is not necessary that, because He knows what is going to happen, we must do what he knows in advance; but what we are going to do by our own will, He knows will happen, through His divine nature.146

 

In Jerome’s account, God’s ‘state of mind’ (affectus) was described as ‘undecided’ (ambigens) and waiting on man’s autonomous freely willed choices. It is noticeable that in this passage he did not use the word ‘predestination’ and opted instead for ‘foreknowledge’.

 

Notes to the Above:

 

(144) Jerome, Commentarii ad Ephesios 1, on Eph. 1:11 (ed. Migne, PL 26.455A–B), ‘Considerandum quod et hic προορισμός et πρόθεσις, id est, praedestinatio et propositum, simul posita sint, iuxta quae operatur omnia Deus secundum consilium uoluntatis suae. Non quo omnia quae in mundo fiant, Dei uoluntate et consilio peragantur: alioquin et mala Deo poterunt imputari; sed quo uniuersa quae facit, consilio faciat et uoluntate, quod scilicet et ratione plena sint et potestate facientis. Nos homines pleraque uolumus facere consilio: sed nequaquam uoluntatem sequitur effectus. Illi autem nullus resistere potest, quin omnia quae uoluerit, faciat. Vult autem ea quaecumque sunt plena rationis atque consilii, uult saluari omnes, et in agnitionem ueritatis uenire [1 Tim. 2:4]. Sed, quia nullus absque propria uoluntate saluatur (liberi enim arbitrii sumus), uult nos bonum uelle, ut cum uoluerimus, uelit in nobis et ipse suum implere consilium.’

 

(145) Jerome, Commentarii ad Ephesios 1, on Eph. 1:4 (ed. Migne, PL 26.446C), ‘Quod autem electos nos: Vt essemus sancti et immaculati coram ipso, hoc est, Deo, ante fabricam mundi testatus est, ad praescientiam Dei pertinet, cui: Omnia futura iam facta sunt [Eccles. 3:15], et: Antequam fiant uniuersa sunt nota [Dan. 13:42].’

 

(146) Jerome, In Hiezechielem 1, on Ezek. 2:4–5 (ed. Glorie, CCSL 75, p. 28), ‘Loquitur autem haec Deus ambigentis afectu, ut liberum hominis monstrent arbitrium, ne praescientia futurorum mali uel boni immutabile faciat quod Deus futurum nouerit: non enim quia ille uentura cognoscit, necesse est nos facere quod ille praesciuit, sed quod nos propria sumus uoluntate facturi, ille nouit futurum quasi Deus.’