Blake Ostler, "Was It Possible for Jesus to Sin?"

  

Was It Possible for Jesus to Sin?

 

If the moral properties are perfectly preserved in Jesus, however, then the question arises whether Jesus was morally free to sin in any significant respect. If Jesus possessed the property of perfect goodness in the same respect that God is perfectly good, then it seems inconsistent to say that Jesus truly could sin, for it seems incompatible with the divine nature to permit sin in any sense. However, the notion of moral perfection underlying this objection assumes the doctrine of essential predication pursuant to which God is understood to possess any property which he possesses necessarily. If Jesus is necessarily morally good, then it is logically impossible for Jesus to actually sin. Ut if it is logically impossible for Jesus to sin, then it seems impossible for Jesus to be tempted in any meaningful sense, as Hebrews says he was. It seems that a person can be truly tempted only if it is possible for him to actually give in to the temptation and sin. If it is impossible for a person to give in to temptation, then the temptation is not a real possibility—in other words, is not really tempting at all. (24) If Jesus was free in the libertarian sense which respect to whether he sinned, then actually sinning must have been an actual possibility for him even if on every occasion where he might sin he freely chose not to do go. If Jesus cannot possibly sin, even if he were totally ignorant of his inability to sin given his divine nature, then he is not responsible for having chosen not to sin because it is not up to him whether he sins. Jesus cannot be morally praiseworthy if he cannot possibly sin. (25) We thus seem to have deducted a logical incompatibility in assuming that Jesus’ identity preserved essential moral goodness of the divine nature.

 

The proper response to the problem of divine goodness is to deny the doctrine of essential predication with respect to the divine status of the individual divine persons. In other words, Jesus refrained form sinning not because it was logically impossible for him to do so, but because he freely decided not to sin even though he was free in the libertarian sense to do so. (26) But such a response may seem to make trust in divine goodness precarious. Though God has not done any evil thing yet, it is still logically possible that he will do so. Nevertheless, I think that trust in God is possibly only because we recognize that God is truly free and could sin, but we trust that he will not do so. We have a relationship is possible with logical necessities. We have faith and trust in God because of the excellence of his personality and character, not because it is impossible for him to do wrong. For example, it is logically possible that Mother Teresa will suddenly leave her calling to serve the poor and join a brothel, but it is not something that anyone could reasonably sit up nights worrying about. Her established character is just too inconsistent with such acts. Our faith and trust in God’s goodness arise from our experience of God’s love and commitment to our well-being. His love for us is analogous to the trust a husband must have in the faithfulness of his wife if there is to be any true relationship of intimacy at all. How much less do we need to worry, then , that God will suddenly depart from his righteous ways?

 

Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001), 479-80

 

Notes for the above (ibid., 487-88):

 

(24) The argument which shows that Jesus is not responsible runs as follows (assuming that any act which a person is tempted to do must be a sin):

 

(1)   For any agent S and action A, if A is not logically possible for Si to do, then it is not up to S whether Si does A.

(2)   What is not up to S is not something S can be responsible for.

(3)   What is not logically possible for S to do is not something S can be responsible for (from 1 and 2).

(4)   It was not logically possible for Jesus to act other than righteously as r (assumption essential goodness).

(5)   For any action A which Jesus was tempted to do, it was not logically possible that Jesus do A (from 4).

(6)   Therefore, Jesus was not responsible for acting righteously at t when he was tempted to do A (from 3, 4, and 5)

 

(25) Wes Morriston, “What Is So Good about Moral Freedom?” Philosophical Quarterly 50, no. 200 (July 2000): 334-58

 

Joseph Smith's Interpretation of 1 John 5:7 as recorded by George Laub (June 16, 1844)

  

I and my father are one &again. that the father son and holy ghost are one 1 John 5 ^ch 7 ve But these three agree in the same thing. So did the saviour pray to the father. I pray not fo rthe world But for those whome ye gave me out of the world that we might Be one or to say Be of one mind in the unity of the faith. But every one Being a diffrentor seperate person & so is god and Jesus christ and the holy ghost Seperate persons But the[y]all agree in one or the selfsame thing. But the holy ghost is yet a spiritual Body. And waiting to take to himself a body as the saviour did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies. for the Saviour says the works that my father did do I also and these are the works; he took himself a body and then Laid down his Life that he might take it up again and the scripture says those who will obey the commandments hall be heirs of god and join theirs with Jesus Christ. we then also took Bodies to lay them down and take them up again. & the spirit itself Bareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of god and if children then heirs &of god and joint heirs with Jesus Christ if so be that we Suffer with him in the flesh that we may be also glorified together. see Romans 8 chap16 & 17 verses

 

Source: Discourse, 16 June 1844–A, as Reported by George Laub

A Potential Unrecorded Prophecy of Joseph Smith informing D&C 135:2

 In D&C 135:2, the author of the text writes that:

 

John Taylor and Willard Richards, two of the Twelve, were the only persons in the room at the time; the former was wounded in a savage manner with four balls, but has since recovered; the latter, through the providence of God, escaped, without even a hole in his robe.

 

Commenting on this passage, the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers wrote that:

 

This alludes to an earlier prophecy of JS about Willard Richard that evidently was not record contemporaneously. In their account of the murders of JS and Hyrum Smith, written in the 1850s, the Church Historian’s Office staff recorded, “D^r. Richards’s escape was miraculous, he being a very large man and in the midst of a shower of balls, yet he stood unscathed with the exception of a ball taking away the lip end of the lower part of his left ear, which fulfulled literally a prophecy which Joseph made about four months previous, that time wd. come that the balls w^d fly found him like hail, and he sh[oul]^d see his friends fall on the right and the left, but that there sh^d. not be a hole in his robe if he w^d. continue to war it.” In 1861 Brigham Young recalled a promise that JS evidently made to Richards in reference to special clothing Richards had been given as part of a temple-related ordinance called the endowment. According to young, JS said, “Willard, never go without this Garment on our body, for you will stand where the balls will fly around you like hail, and men will fall dead by your side and if you will never part with this garment, there never shall a ball injure you.” (George A. Smith, Martyrdom Account, 24-28 June 1844, [22], draft, Historians Office, JS History Draft Notes, CHL; Brigham Young, Discourse, [Salt Lake City, Utah Territory], 14 July 1861-A, 6, Historian’s Office, Reports of Speeches, 184501885, CHL.) (The Joseph Smith Papers—Documents: Volume 15: 16 May-28 June 1844, ed. Brett D. Dowdle, Adam H. Petty, J. Chase Kirkham, Elizabeth A. Kuehn, David W. Grua, Matthew C. Godfrey [Salt Lake City: The Church Historian’s Press, 2023], 516 n. 33])

 

I say “the author” as opposed to John Taylor. As the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers note:

 

The text of the announcement itself is unattributed. During the twentieth century, it became commonplace for Latter-day Saints to attribute the document’s authorship to John Taylor, presumably because he was listed as the publisher and printer of the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and was in the jail with JS at the time of his murder. But while Taylor likely provided input on the document, evidence suggests it is unlikely he was the sole or even the principal author. Taylor was still convalescing from the wounds he had sustained in the jail when the announcement was written. Owing to the absence of any manuscript copies of this document, it is not clear who wrote this account of the murders. While Willard Richards and John Taylor were witnesses, the text speaks of both men in the third person. The wording of the document, however, closely matches phrases and ideas that were previously included in editorials and other accounts of the murders written during late June and early July 1844, including material by Richards and Taylor. Other contributors to these account were William W. Phelps and Parley P. Pratt. The document also seems to have drawn ideas from two poems—one composed by Eliza R. Snow and the other by an anonymous writer—in the wake of the murders.

 

These textual similarities suggest that the announcement was either authored by a single person wo incorporated the ideas of these other authors into the document or composed by multiple individuals. Due to Taylor’s convalescence, the individuals who were most likely to have authored this announcement are Willard Richards and William W. Phelps. This account seems to draw upon Richards’s journal and his published eyewitness account of the murders for details about the event. Furthermore, on 7 July, Richards evidently told Taylor that he “would assist in the times & seasons offices,” which suggests that he was at least somewhat involved in the church’s publishing efforts while Taylor was healing. Accordingly, even if Richards did not write the account, he was almost certainly consulted about its contents. Similarly, Phelps was heavily engaged in the day-to-day work of the printer’s office during this period. Records seem to indicate that he took on much of the responsibility for the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in Taylor’s absence. Additionally, Phelps helped prepare the issues of the Nauvoo Neighbor and the Times and Seasons that directly addressed the murders and was a signatory on two published letters to the Saints on the subject.

 

The similarities to other published works also seem to suggest that the announcement was most likely composed sometime during or after the middle of July, following the publication of most of the compositions with similar passages. Furthermore, evidence indicates that the new edition of the Doctrine and Covenants had become publicly available by early September. Because the announcement was typeset, printed, and bound with the volumes of the Doctrine and Covenants by early September, it seems likely that its authors had composed the document by mid-August. (Ibid., 511-12)

 

 Further Reading:

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

Theodore of Mopsuestia on Romans 1:17 and the Righteousness of God

  

In his comments on Rom 10:3, Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428) makes clear that he interprets the phrase as equivalent to “justification”:

 

On the one hand, they [the Jews] have disregarded the justification from God promised to us; on the other hand, having supposed that by their own works and by following  the law in their conduct they would be able to save themselves, they made no effort to believe in Christ and to receive the justification thenceforth promised to us by grace (την μεν παρα του Θευ επαγγελθεισαν ημιν δικαιωσιν παρειδον, οιηθεντες δε απο των οικειων εργων ακολουθως τω νομω πολιτευομενοι τουτο εαυτου περιποιησαι δυνασθαι, ουδε μιαν εθεντο σπουδην του πιστευσαι Χριστω, και την εκειθεν ημιν κατα χαριν επαγγελθεισαν δικαιωσιν δεξασθαι). (Theodore of Mopsuestia; PG 66.845; translation mine)

 

Notice that Theodore glosses “the righteousness of God” as “the justification from God (παρα του Θεου) promised to us,” indicating that he takes “righteousness” as equivalent to “justification” (δικαιοωσις), and “of God” as a genitive of source of a genitivus auctoris.

 

(Charles Lee Irons, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation” [PhD Dissertation; Fuller Theological Seminary, May 2011], 17)

 

D. Charles Pyle on Passages relating to Psalm 90:2

For example, we can see the similar usage in the Hebrew text of Psalms 103:17 and of Micah 5:2. However, in the case of Psalm 103:17 we find an interesting twist to the text that shows that this text is by no means speaking literally or eternity. That passage, when red conjointly with verse 18, clearly states the following:

 

But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children. To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them.

 

Here is the rub. The created children and children’s children are not eternal, so far as to their physical existence on earth are concerned. Those who fear the LORD also are not eternal in the sense that Evangelicals and other critics say the word indicates when used to speak of the God of the Bible. So, if we have mercy needed by created beings, that mercy cannot be truly said to have existed from eternity. We know that they had beginnings as organized beings. The same kind of thing can be seen in the passage at Micah 5:2, for in that passage its text in various translations clearly states that the origins of the Messiah have been “from everlasting.” Now, it yet is true that the King James Version of the Bible (and a number of others), have rendered it as “goings forth” but the word there actually makes reference to origins or to points of origination . . . .

 

If we turn to the Hebrew text of Jeremiah 7:7, we see yet another passage that has a phrase very similar to that found in the ninetieth Psalm, only therein it refers to God causing the children of Israel, to dwell in the land that he gave to their fathers. The King James Version translates that as “for ever and ever” whereas the phrase actually represents meaning like that in Psalm 90:2. Yet we know that both the people and the land itself had beginnings! Looking over Jeremiah 25:5 we find the identical phrasing and meaning to that at Jeremiah 7:7. Again therein, Israel’s fathers and the land itself both also had beginnings, or origins, at the time of their creation.

 

At Jeremiah 28:8, we find a phrase that literally translated might be rendered “from the eternity” but the passage speaks of prophets prophesying, which we know had a beginning—at least here on earth. At Psalm 93:2 we find it speaking of God, and also of his throne, but the very same word is used in Proverbs 8:23 to speak of wisdom being set up from the same reference to time! Yet the fact that wisdom was set up shows a point of origin in time. So again, this is not that concept of eternity that we Westerners would expect to see here.

 

D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye Are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and Supplemented) (North Charleston, S.C.: CreateSpace, 2018), 213-14, 220-21

Further Reading:

Resources for "We Agree with Moroni 8:18" day (18 August)

Blake Ostler on 1 John 3:1-3

The scripture in 1 John 3:1-3 has also played a prominent role in discussions of deification. Next to John 17, it is the scripture most often cited in the “Lectures on Faith” to support its view of deification. It states: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now we are the sons of God (τεκνα θεου) and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him (ομοιοι αυτω); for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”

 

. . .

 

[T]he believer in robust deification asserts that we are children of God in an additional sense that moderate deification rejects. The believer in robust deification asserts that there is scriptural support for the belief that we are, in some sense, literally begotten as God’s children. Both the biblical and Mormon scriptures speak of two different types of filial relation between God as Father and us as humans. We are children of God by shared genus or kind and also by adoption.

 

Mormons reads Acts 17:28-29 to state that we are the same genus as progeny of God in some literal sense—because that is literally what it says γενος ουν υπαρχοντες του θεου, “Forasmuch as we are the offspring of God.” The word γενος (genos) is not the same as the terms used for “sons of God” when John speaks of being sons (and daughters) of God (τεκνα θεου, tekna theou) in Romans 8;14 and 19. The term used by Acts, genos, is specific—we are of the same genus as God. It means that, in some sense, we are literally begotten in the sense of being the same kind or the same sort as God is. The term used in 1 John 3:1-2, tekna theou, can also mean that we are literally offspring or begotten as children of God, but it has a wider semantic range that includes fellowship among very close friends.

 

The term used by Paul, huios, has an even broader semantic field and ranges between being literally the offspring or genetic son of another to being esteemed or honored by a patron in the patron/client relationship. It also denotes the legal relationship of adoption. The use of genos in Acts must be seen as intentional and is intended to clearly convey the view that we are literally begotten as God’s offspring to be the same kind that he is. The statement in 1 John 3:1-3 that we are sons of God in the precise sense that we are like him (ομοιοι αυτω, homoioi auto) appears to include both connotations: both literally begotten sons of God and also sons who abide in close and abiding love. The phrase that we are “like God” means that we are similar to him in the sense that we have characteristics in common. John specifies that we are like God in the sense that we are pure just as he is pure. However, we are also like him in the sense that we see him as he is. The notion is that we can see and know only what we are.

 

However, we are also adopted as sons and daughters of God through entering into communion with God and sharing Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection as well. How can we be both natural children and also adopted? It is clear that natural parents don’t need to adopt their children. However, Mormons believe that we were once in God’s presence just as Adam was. We all made the same decision as Adam to leave God’s presence despite the inevitable alienation entailed by that decision. In the premortal life, we were, in some way, unknown to us, literally begotten as children of Heaven Father.

 

However, because the purpose of life is to give us a chance to freely choose to enter into a relationship with God, we also have a different kind of filial relationship that is a matter of choice. When we choose to open our hearts and let the Spirit of God enter into us, we are reborn and become children of God by adoption. That is, because the new life in us is begotten by choosing to respond to God’s prevenient offer of a loving relationship, the divine nature is actuated in us and vivified by entering into close and abiding communion with God. In this relationship, the light of God penetrates us and enters into us. Because the relationship is a matter of choosing to accept God’s love, the nature of our sonship is one that doesn’t just happen as a matter of natural growth simply because we have the uncreated nature that we do.

 

In this sense, human nature is unlike the divine nature. The divine nature differs from human (mortal) nature in the sense that divine nature is necessarily relational. As a human, I will grow into what my father is simply by living long enough to biologically mature as a human. However, the divine life does not grow simply because I am the offspring of God and times passes; rather, it grows and matures only as a matter of choosing to accept the gracious invitation to enter the relationship of indwelling unity enjoyed by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The divine nature is an emergent reality that exists “in-between” us and an “I” that cannot be an “I” in this sense without the relationship with the divine Thou. There is no such thing as a divine person who is self-sufficient or a se, for to be fully divine is to be internally and maximally related.

 

Thus, we are not God’s natural children in he same sense that we are adopted as God’s children. We are adopted as God’s children because we choose to enter into relationship with him and through the enabling grace of the Atonement. Thus, the relationship that is freely accepted is more like adoption than biological birth in which we have no choice. As eternal spirits or intelligences, we are God’s genus or kin; however, we do not just grow into deified individuals simply because God is our Father in this genetic sense. Rather, we grow in the grace of deification because we accept the atonement of Christ and are united in the indwelling spirit in which God’s life begins to grow in us as we enter into him.

 

Further, it is essential that we are divine by nature or as offspring so that we are the same king as God as a condition to the very possibility of deification, for we must be capable of receiving that which is imparted to us—yet unless we already possess the potential to receive divinity and to be actualized when it dwells within us, we could not be divine. If we did not already possess the divine nature in potentiality because we are God’s children, the imparting of the divine spirit could not actuate the divinity in our nature. Divinity would be imparted, but we would be incapable of receiving it.

 

Robust deification also asserts that we are created in the image of God in a sense that believers in moderate deification would probably reject. The believer in robust deification accepts that we are created in the image of God in a physical sense in addition to the sense that we are rational and morally responsible. Being created in the image of God is a “both-and” rather than an “either-or” in the sense that we are like Christ both in our rational and our physical resemblance. This view is strongly supported by the scriptural and archaeological evidence. First, Genesis 5:4 states that Adam “begat a son in his own image and likeness, after his image: and called his name Seth.” The same terms for image and likeness (‎צֶלֶם, selem or image) and ‎דְּמוּת (demut or likeness), are used in both this passage and also in Genesis 1:26 where it is asserted that man is created in the image and likeness of the gods. It means that Seth resembles Adam in his physical appearance and also in his dominion as a result of his genetic inheritance. Second, belief that we are physically in the image and likeness of God is strongly supported by a statue of a king bearing an Aramaic inscription at Tell Fakhariyeh. This statue is physical and representational, and it states that it is the demut or likeness of the king. In this context, the term “likeness” means “look like.” (W. Randall Garr, “’Image’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh,” 227-34; Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism, 121-22)

 

. . .

 

We are glorified as Christ is because we share fellowship with him. . . . each person bears a genetic endowment ensuring that, when we are fully mature in our humanity, we will share as heirs all that he has and be in the process of being conformed to all that he is—glory for glory. Thus, deification is a recognition that humans are theomorphic or made in God’s image on many levels.

 

. . .

 

[S]alvation is a continual process of being conformed to the image of God in Christ. It is never completed because divine life is always growing in dynamic union. Irenaeus expressed a similar view of eternal human progression toward deity: “And to those whom He says, ‘[C]ome, you blessed of my Father, receive the Kingdom prepared for you for eternity,’ will receive the Kingdom and progress in it forever.” Irenaeus also says that in this kingdom God will be “always teaching and man always learning from God.” (Irenaeus, quoted in Jordan Vajda, “Partakers of the Divine Nature”: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization, 17) Similarly, Gregory of Nyssa believed that “the place of [God] is so great that the one running in it is never able to cease from his progress.” (Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, 117)

 

Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: Of Gods and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008), 408, 414-17, 418, 419

Alexander Kocar on Revelation 21:27

  

If Revelation 21:26-27 reflects John’s discomfort over the possible entry of Gentiles into the new Jerusalem, what is the rhetorical function of John’s list of excluded and morally depraving individuals in Revelation 22:15 (“dogs, sorcerers, fornicators, murders, idolators, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood”)? . . . this proscription is distinct from John’s prohibition of the profane, i.e., Gentiles. Furthermore, it is nearly identical to the list of vices of those who will suffer the second death of the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8): “But for the cowardly, those practicing abominations, the murders, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Who are these sinners and why do they still exist in the era of eschatological celebration?

 

Returning to the specifics of Revelation 21:27, John has excluded both the profane as well as those who may be morally impure, i.e., members of his Jewish audience who may fall short of John’s high ethical standards. In this way, Revelation 21:27 is a paraphrase of Isaiah 52:1: “Put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy (αγια) city; for the uncircumcised and the impure (ακαθαρτος) shall enter you no more.” As Christine Hayes has argued, Isaiah is referring to two distinct sorts of people: the uncircumcised/profane and the impure/unclean. (Gentile Impurities, 232 – 33 n. 50) Thus, similar to Isaiah’s prohibition against Gentiles and the impure, John (21:27) has also prohibited Gentiles but he has further elaborated what sources of impurity were especially illicit (i.e., blasphemers and liars). The rhetorical impact of this is that John has warned his Jewish brethren of some of the moral expectations of those who wish to dwell within the holy city of the new Jerusalem.

 

Consequently, although Revelation 22:14-15 introduces another list of excluded individuals through the disjunction of those “inside” and those “outside,” I think it incorrect to deduce that John conceived of those “outside” to mean those dwelling on the new earth; instead, it appears that John was deploying the hortatory rhetoric of “two ways” (a way of life vs. a way of death) to reinforce ethical uprighteness among his putative community of Jewish readers. In this way, there is no remedial salvation for those Jews who might morally err from time to time. John has remained his audience of the fire consequences awaiting those who might fall short of the moral uprightness required to belong “inside” the heavenly new Jerusalem: those Jews who are outside John’s community are destined for the lake of fire and the second death.

 

Ultimately, Revelation tells the ethical and soteriological story of five groups of people: Jewish martyrs and the priestly elect, Gentile converts and priests, remedially saved Jews, saved Gentiles, and all the rest who are destroyed. For John these groups were established characters in the drama of salvation history, with some (e.g., Gentile converts) holding a more theoretical than practical place in John’s conception of the end times. Thus, John reconciled expectations for Gentile salvific inclusion with complex spatial and temporal subordination while all the while underscoring that Gentile salvation is not primarily about saving the Nations but was rather part of Israel’s restoration. In this way, according to John, salvation history will conclude with higher and lower levels of salvation and different roles for different types of the saved. (Alexander Kocar, “In Heaven as it is on Earth: The Social and Ethical Dimensions of Higher and Lower Levels of Salvation” [PhD Dissertation; Princeton University, January 2016], 83-84)

 

 

 

MRM (McKeever & Johnson) not Wanting to Debate

 Recently, an Anglican friend of mine reached out to Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson of Mormonism "Research" Ministry if they would debate me. Both McKeever and Johnson are long-time critics of the Church, have written books, articles, and lecture in various Protestant churches worldwide critiquing Latter-day Saint history, theology, and scriptures, and present themselves as experts on "Mormonism." One would expect that they would happily engage in debates with informed Latter-day Saints, to show how LDS arguments fail and how their flavor of Protestnatism holds up to scrutiny.

Well, one would think that, but nope. As I told Liam, they are cowards who will not engage in debates, and I have been proven true (my thanks to Liam McDade [originally from Cork, Ireland] for sending me these images):

Whenever one encounters McKeever and Johnson and/or fans of MRM, just remind them that they are spineless.

Pat Ament's Joseph Smith's Prophetic Gifts has been Republished

I have done a lot of work on Joseph Smith's prophecies. See my listing of articles at:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies

 

I am happy to announce the best book dealing with Joseph Smith's prophecies has been republished:

 

Pat Ament, A Timeline of Joseph Smith's Prophecies: His Prophecies Fulfilled, ed. Brian Stutzman, rev. ed. (2023)

William Johnstone on 2 Chronicles 29:35

 

 

As the restorer of the Davidic system, Hezekiah completes the act of restitution by reinstalling the Temple musicians (v. 25; for the verb, cf. 1 Chron. 6:31). The action of the cult is accompanied and complemented by music and words; the cymbals, the lutes and the harps are the instruments of the Levites as in 1 Chron. 15:16. Music-making is a form of prophecy in C (1 Chron. 25:1); thus it stands under the authority of the two prophets associated with the later career of David, Gad (1 Chron. 21:9) and Nathan (1 Chron. 17:1). Even David is here subordinated to the prophets as mediums of revelation. (William Johnstone, 1 and 2 Chronicles: 2 Chronicles 10-36, Guilt and Atonement [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 254; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997], 196)

 

Is the Book of Abraham authentic?? | with Stephen Smoot

 

Is the Book of Abraham authentic?? | with Stephen Smoot

Further Reading:

Stephen O. Smoot et al. "A Guide to the Book of Abraham," BYU Studies 61, no. 4 (2022)

Charles Lee Irons (Protestant) Conceding there being a Rupture between the Soteriology of the Patristics and the Reformers

  

First, I believe it is significant that the patristic and medieval tradition, especially among the Greek-speaking fathers, is nearly unanimous in taking δικαοσυνη as referring to the righteous status conferred on the believe as a gift and the genitive θεου as a genitive of source of author. If the fathers who were native Greek speakers did not see “covenant faithfulness” or iustitia salutifera in this Pauline lexeme, and rather interpreted δικαοσυνη in a manner more in line with its traditional meaning in extra-biblical Greek (i.e., as “righteous” or “a righteous status”), then there is good reason to doubt that correctness of the Hebraic/relational view.

 

Second, while the Reformers undeniably departed from the patristic and medieval tradition when they asserted that the righteousness from God is imputed rather than infused, they nevertheless operated within the same lexical and syntactical framework of patristic and medieval interpretation. (Charles Lee Irons, “ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗ ΘΕΟΥ: A Lexical Examination of the Covenant-Faithfulness Interpretation” [PhD Dissertation; Fuller Theological Seminary, May 2011], 12-13)

 

This is not to say that the church fathers held what would later be known as the Reformational understanding of justification. None of them made the sharp distinction between justification and sanctification that would later characterize the Reformation’s central insight. (Ibid., 25)

 

To be sure, there are important points of discontinuity between the Reformation and the patristic interpretational traditions. Arguably the most significant point of discontinuity is that the Reformation tradition treats “the righteousness of God” as the imputed righteousness of Christ, making a sharp distinction between justification as a purely forensic act, on the one hand, and the moral renewal and sanctification of the believer, on the other. (Ibid., 26)

 

In his anti-Pelagian treatise, “On the Spirit and the Letter,” Augustine made the following statement about Rom 3:21:

 

He does not say, the righteousness of man, or the righteousness of his own will, but the “righteousness of God,”—not that whereby He is Himself righteous, but that with which He endows man when He justifies the ungodly. (Augustine, De spiritu et littera 9.15. NPNF¹ 5.89)

 

Augustine’s interpretation was hugely influential throughout the medieval period, and even Luther, Calvin and the Reformation tradition followed the same general path, although they emphasized that the righteousness was given to humans by a forensic declaration rather than by the transformation of the new life in Christ. (Ibid., 278-79)

 

MIchael E. Heiser on the Language of "Incomparability" and Alleged "Denial Statements" in Deuteronomy and Isaiah

  

First, all the denial statements made by Isaiah and other prophets have exact or near exact linguistic equivalents in two passages universally regarded as containing “vestiges” of other gods—Deuteronomy 4:19–20 and 32:8–9. These statements actually speak to Yahweh’s incomparability among all the other ‘ĕlōhim, not to the denial of the existence of other ‘ĕlōhim.

 

The second problem concerns Deuteronomy 32:17, a text that alludes to the failures of Israel in disobeying the warnings of Deuteronomy 4:19–20. This text quite clearly has Moses referring to the other ‘ĕlōhim as evil spiritual entities (šēdim): “They [Israel] sacrificed to demons (šēdim) who are not God (‘ĕlōah), to gods (‘ĕlōhim) they did not know; new ones that had come along recently, whom your fathers had not reverenced.” While these lesser ‘ĕlōhim are linked to the statues that represented them in the mind of their worshippers (Deuteronomy 4:28; 7:25; 28:64), these beings must be considered real spiritual entities.

 

Lastly, there is a logic problem. If one goes back and reads the denial statements in Deutero-Isaiah, it is not difficult to discern upon what basis the denial language occurs. Is the language concerned with making the point that Yahweh is the only god who exists or something else? In Isaiah 43:10–12 Yahweh claims to be unique in his preexistence, in his ability to save, and in his national deliverance. In Isaiah 44:6–8 the focus is on certain attributes of Yahweh. In the texts from Isaiah 45, there are very obvious comparisons between Yahweh’s deeds, justice, salvation, and deliverance of his children and the impotence of the other gods. All these passages are transparently concerned with comparing Yahweh to other gods—not comparing Yahweh to beings that do not exist. That would be empty praise indeed.

 

. . .

 

[Isa 43:10] does not deny that Yahweh created any ‘ĕlōhim. Rather, it asserts there will be no such god as Yahweh to follow. If the objects of creation were what was intended to be negated, we would expect a plural form of hyh, not the singular yihyeh, or some other negated plural construction. (Michael E. Heiser "You've Seen One Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82," FARMS Review 19, no. 1 [2007]:232-33, 254)