Response to "Is the Book of Mormon Credible?"

Back in Feb 2009, I tried to initiate an email exchange with a group in the UK, Reformed Ministry to Mormons headed by Andrew Price. One can access the email I sent here; while it is a bit old (almost 7 years as of posting), it does touch upon some important issues vis-a-vis the Book of Mormon, such as "reformed Egyptian" and other topics of interest. Here is the link to the exchange.

Were Apostolic Oral Traditions Retired after the New Testament era?

I listened to a debate between Robert Bowman (Protestant; co-author of Putting Jesus in His Place) and Laurent Cleenewerck (Eastern Orthodox; author of His Broken Body) on the topic of sola scriptura. Bowman, to his credit, presented a more defensible position of this practice/doctrine, one that holds to a higher view of the local Church, creeds, and other rules of faith (albeit, subordinated to the Bible [for him, the 66 books of the Protestant canon—EO hold to a larger canon than Evangelicals]). Bowman, in his opening, tried to relegate the on-going importance of texts that speak highly of “[oral] traditions” in the New Testament during the time the NT was being revealed/inscripturated, arguing that such was not passed down in post-apostolic times, and in his rebuttal said that "[there is no] basis for thinking that something other than Scripture provides to us today an infallible rule of faith and practice . . . . [no evidence] that such a thing exists outside of Scripture."

Answering this “objection,” one Catholic apologist wrote:

[W]e must challenge the statement that there is no "suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God." Since in 1 Thess. 2:13 Paul considers his oral teaching an authority equal to Scripture, and then in 2 Thess. 2:15 commands the Thessalonians to preserve this oral teaching, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the oral teachings given to Timothy, and later entrusted to other reliable men, possessed an authority equal to that of Scripture. To deny such a conclusion there must be substantial proof that the Catholic interpretation has no possibility of being correct. Moreover, nothing suggests that the oral teaching to the Thessalonians possessed more authority than the oral teaching to Timothy and his men . . . probably the most devastating [argument against the Protestant approach to] 2 Thess. 2:15 and similar verses is that neither Paul nor any other writers, gives any statement which commands that the Church retire oral revelation, either during the writing of Scripture or once Scripture was completed. Since the Protestant is required to form his doctrine only from mandates found in Scripture, the burden of proof rests on his shoulders to show that Scripture teaches that the propagation of apostolic oral revelation must cease with the completion of Scripture . . . in reality, the debate should stop here until the Protestant can furnish the Scriptural proof for his position. If he believes in sola scriptura, then he is required to give answers from sola scriptura, not answers based on what he thinks is correct and logical. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2013], 193-294, here, pp. 225-26, 236-37).

This is another instance where defenders of sola scriptura are caught like a fly in a venus flytrap, exegetially-speaking. It is a doctrine/practice to be rejected by those who truly accept what the Bible says.

That the post-New Testament Church did not hold to sola scriptura, see the following:

The Early Church Fathers Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

Irenaeus did not hold to Sola Scriptura

The audio of the debate is available on youtube here.

James McGrath, Did Jesus Exist?

A while ago, I provided a link to a radio debate between NT scholar Mark Goodacre and Christ mythicist Richard Carrier (link). I just came across the following short video by James F. McGrath, "Did Jesus Exist?" which emphasises some problems with the Christ myth theory and some cautions that, sadly, a lot of supporters of this nonsense theory do not heed (fortunately, it still remains, for the most part, an Internet phenomenon):

As an aside, McGrath has written two very important and interesting volumes on monotheism and Christology which I highly recommend:

The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context

John's Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology

How not to argue against “Socinian” Christology

I just started to read a book by a former Christadelphian, Ruth Sutcliffe, The Trinity Hurdle: Engaging Christadelphians, Arians, and Unitarians with the Gospel of the Triune God (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2016). The book is an attempted biblical/theological critique of Socinian (AKA: Biblical Unitarian/Humanitarian) Christology. While the Christadelphian movement is the largest Biblical Unitarian (hereafter BU) denomination within the broad Christian spectrum, many groups and individuals hold to this view, perhaps most notably Anthony F. Buzzard, author of works such as Jesus was not a Trinitarian (2007) and, with the late Charles Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound. Interestingly, these books are nowhere discussed by the author, nor are recent book-length studies of BU by Christadelphians, such as Duncan Heaster, The Real Christ (2009).

I am perhaps the rare Latter-day Saint who has an interest in Christadelphianism and have studied Christadelphian literature on Satan/Demons, as well as Christadelphian and non-Christadelphian defences of BU for the past couple of years. I can honestly say that, while I would agree with Sutcliffe that Jesus personally pre-existed, as opposed to having only pre-existed in the mind/plan of God (notional pre-existence); that Jesus is divine, and in the personality of the Holy Spirit, she is trying to defend a dogma (creedal Trinitarianism) that relies on a lot of illogical and eisegetical leaps and jumps, as well as disregarding even basic language.

For instance, she appeals to "[what] Richard Bauckham describes [as] YHWH's 'unique divine identity'" (p. 13) to force Deut 6:4 to allow for multiple persons within the Shema. However, she is seemingly unaware that Bauckham’s work has been refuted by theologian and philosophers, such as Dale Tuggy (see here), a well-known BU advocate. If she wished to advocate Bauckham’s understanding of “divine identity,” she could have rehabilitated it by interacting with, and critiquing his opponents, but nothing of the kind was done.

With the assumption of Bauckham’s understanding of divine identity being true, on pp. 16-17 she then attempts to "prove" multiple persons within the Shema in light of Deut 6:4 (LXX) and 1 Cor 8:4-6 (cf. Rom 11:36). The problem with this is that 1 Cor 8:4-6 is not a text conducive to Trinitarianism; I would urge one to read my exegesis of this pericope, showing that it is an anti-Trinitarian, not pro-Trinitarian, text here. This is rather representative of the often shallow exegesis one finds within the volume.

On p. 14, she writes that "Time and again, the Old Testament states that God is one, there is no other God," and references, among other texts, Deut 32:39. The problem is that the earliest manuscripts of Deut 32 militates against such strict ontological monotheism (though both Trinitarians and Christadelphians/other BU advocates) will disagree with this (I am a Latter-day Saint, so I get to annoy both groups!).

Deut 32:7-9, 43 reads as follows in the NRSV:

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment . . . Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him all you gods! For he will avenge the blood of his children, and take vengeance on his adversaries; he will repay those who hate him, and cleanse the land for his people.

One recent commentary offers the following comments on these texts:

Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.

Instead of teaching strict, numerical monotheism, the Old Testament is more consistent with what Blake Ostler labels “Kingship Monotheism”:

Kingship Monotheism There are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).

Texts such as those found in Isaiah are about the supremacy of Yahweh, but they are not statements about the non-ontological existence of other gods in His midst.--in fact, such is required by the biblical data when one takes a pan-canonical approach to theology and the Bible (just as one example, take Psa 29:1 "A psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, o divine beings [Heb: בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים beni-elim], ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" [1985 Tanakh, Jewish Publications Society]).

It is interesting that, to support the “Oneness” of God in the New Testament, she points to texts that distinguish between, not just the persons of the Father and the Son, but God and Jesus, such as John 17:3, where, on p. 5, after referencing this text writes that “Jesus said that to know the only true God is eternal life.” However, John 17:3 is a non-Trinitarian text, as Jesus puts the person of the Father into the category of “only true God.” For Jesus, that category is exhausted, not by a “being” shared by three persons, but one person, His Father.

After citing 1 Tim 2:5 under the heading, “The New Testament affirms the Oneness of God” she writes that: “Contrary to what may be implied from some Christadelphian writings, trinitarians affirm the full humanity of Jesus . . . Paul is emphasizing that there is only one way of salvation, i.e., into relationship with the One God, and that is through Christ. There is one God. There is one mediator, whose humanity qualifies him for that role." (p. 18)

Firstly, I would argue that, notwithstanding the belief, defined at Chalcedon, of Jesus being both fully/truly human and fully/truly divine, the Hypostatic Union makes nonsense of the humanity of Jesus (see my discussion of the doctrine here under the heading "The Hypostatic Union Examined"). Additionally, as with John 17:3, there is a distinction, not just between the Father and the Son, but between God and Jesus.

On pp. 47-48, she lists Old Testament Yahweh texts and their use in the New Testament for Jesus. However, her treatment is pretty superficial on this score and no real discussion of the Jewish concept of the Shaliach. Furthermore, her superficial treatment results in a lot of logical nonsense. Consider her claim:

The Old Testament says “x” about Yahweh

The New Testament says “x” about Jesus

Conclusion: Jesus is numerically identical to Yahweh

Sounds good, doesn’t it? However, there are problems with this.

The promise to rule with a rod of iron from Psa 2:9 is given to all believers in Rev 2:27

Jesus is said to rule with a rod of iron in Rev 12:5, 19:15

All believers are numerically identical to Jesus

See the blog post by Dale Tuggy, "The Bible teaches that David is God" to see the problems with this superficial approach to the identity of Jesus in the New Testament.

What I also found interesting (read: annoying, as I know the literature well) is that the BU use of Psa 110:1 is never interacted with. This is the single most popular text employed by Anthony Buzzard and current BU defenders, as the text distinguishes between Yahweh and adoni (“my lord”), the latter referent being Jesus in light of New Testament revelation (e.g., Mark 12:36), notwithstanding this text being discussed on pp. 54-56. To read two articles representative of current BU apologetics, see Anthony F. Buzzard, Confusing the Two Lords of Psalm 110:1: A Way to Guarantee a Misunderstanding of the Bible and  Jaco Van Zyl, "Psalm 110:1 and the Status of the Second Lord--Trinitarian Arguments Challenged," in An E-Journal from the Radical Reformation: A Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism, winter/spring 2012, pp. 51-60. Also, see "LORD, Lord, and lord" by Christadelphian apologist, Dave Burke ("Evangelion") to see a Christadelphian summarisation of the data from Buzzard and Hunting.

Much more could be said about the many failings in this book. However, from what I have read thus far, it does not look like a volume I would recommend to anyone who wishes (1) to understand the best exegetical case in favour of creedal Trinitarianism and (2) a completely persuasive refutation of BU theology, though I do look forward to how BU apologists themselves will interact with this volume (if they find the book noteworthy for review), as an outsider (though an informed outsider; I am well read in historical and modern BU literature and the scholarship they cite [e.g., Ohlig; Dunn; Kuschel]), I am hesitant to speak for a movement I am not a part of, though I am sure BU proponents will agree that this is not a “slam dunk” refutation of such a Christology.

A.E. Harvey on the Concept of Agency

Further precision may be gained from the Jewish law of agency as it prevailed at the time [of Jesus]. Agency was an effective means of conducting business only if the acts of the agent could be assumed to be approved by his principal, and therefore to bind the principal in respect of legal liability. To express the relationship, the maxim was coined that ‘A man’s agent is like himself’, that is to say, for the purpose of the transaction for which the agent was authorised, it was as if the principal himself were present, and the agent must receive the respect which would be due to the principal—a good biblical instance if Abigail’s prostration before the messenger-agents of David who came to seek her consent to marriage (1 Sam 25.41). (A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982], 161)

Latter-day Saints not being bound by Scripture Alone

Christadelphian apologist, Duncan Heaster, on this Website, wrote the following:

The Mormons have a really twisted doctrine about baptism for the dead which they base on a single passage in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (I Corinthians 15:29) which appears to teach it. (source)

Firstly, a good exegetical case can be made in favour of the Latter-day Saint understanding of posthumous salvation from 1 Cor 15:29, as well as 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6. For a discussion on 1 Cor 15:29, see my blog post here, for instance. As a Christadelphian, Heaster's dismissal of the LDS practice is not grounded in exegesis, per se, but his acceptance of soul-death (thnetopsychism), so baptism for the dead is, at best, a superfluous practice. Furthermore, LDS base our practice, not on 1 Cor 15:29 per se, but the same (ultimate) source of 1 Cor 15:29—divine revelation from God to an oracle (in this case, the revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith). Even if there was no biblical text for the doctrine, that would not be an issue for Latter-day Saints, as we don’t hold to the false practice/notion of sola scriptura.

However, I wish to use Heaster's comment to show that "Mormonism," unlike Protestantism and other groups that hold to some formulation of sola scriptura, is not bound to Scripture (not just the Bible [click here to see posts refuting sola scriptura]), and do not hold to any singular authority as being infallible/inerrant/impeccable. Consider the following quotations from LDS leaders (examples could be multiplied):

When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. He spoke to the children of Jacob through Moses, as a blind, stiff-necked people, and when Jesus and his Apostles came they talked with the Jews as a benighted, wicked, selfish people. They would not receive the Gospel, though presented to them by the Son of God in all its righteousness, beauty and glory. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little.

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311

Were the former and Latter-day Saints, with their Apostles, Prophets Seers, and Revelators collected together to discuss this matter [the nature of Deity], I am led to think there would be found a great variety in their views and feelings upon this subject, without direct revelation from the Lord. It is as much my right to differ from other men, as it is theirs to differ from me, in points of doctrine and principle, when our minds cannot at once arrive at the same conclusion.

-Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 2:123

…we believe, from the Scriptures of truth, that to every church in the past ages, which the Lord recognized to be his, he gave revelations wisely calculated to govern them in the peculiar situation and circumstances under which they were placed, and to enable them by authority to do the peculiar work which they were to perform. The Bible contains revelations given at different times to different people, under different circumstances, as will be seen by editorial articles in this paper. The old world was destroyed for rejecting the revelations of God, given to them through Noah. The Israelites were destroyed in the wilderness for despising the revelations given to them through Moses; and Christ said that the world, in the days of the apostles, should be condemned for not receiving the word of god through them: thus we see that the judgments of God in the past ages have come upon the people, not so much for neglecting the revelations given to their forefathers, as for rejecting those given immediately to themselves. Of the blessings of heaven it may be said, they have always rested upon the heads of those to whom they were promised: Therefore, seeing that it not only was, but as long as God remains the same, always will be the privilege of the true church to receive revelations, containing blessings and cursings, peculiarly adapted to itself as a church.

-The Evening and the Morning Star- July 1832, 13.

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted-by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

-Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 256.

Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: "There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day." "And now," said he, "when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books." That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation, "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth."

- President Wilford Woodruff, Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 22-23.

The Latter-day Saints do not do things because they happen to be printed in a book. They do not do things because God told the Jews to do them; nor do they do or leave undone anything because of the instructions that Christ gave to the Nephites. Whatever is done by this Church is because God, speaking from heaven in our day, has commanded this Church to do it. No book presides over this Church, and no book lies at its foundation. You cannot pile up books enough to take the place of God's priesthood, inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the constitution of the Church of Christ. … Divine revelation adapts itself to the circumstances and conditions of men, and change upon change ensues as God's progressive work goes on to its destiny. There is no book big enough or good enough to preside over this Church.

-Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, October 1916, p. 55. Quoted by Loren C. Dunn, in General Conference, Ensign May 1976, p.65-66

"We who have been called to lead the Church are ordinary men and women with ordinary capacities,"
-Boyd K. Packer, "Revelation in a Changing World," Ensign (November 1989): 16.

"We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators."
-James E. Faust, "Continuous Revelation," Ensign (November 1989): 11.

"I am not a perfect man, and infallibility does not come with the call [of Apostlehood]."
-Robert D Hales, Ensign, May (1994):78

"the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President."
-Alma P. Burton, Ensign, Ensign, October (1972):6.

Though general authorities are authorities in the sense of having power to administer Church affairs, they may or may not be authorities in the sense of doctrinal knowledge, the intricacies of church procedures, or the receipt of the promptings of the Spirit. A call to an administrative position itself adds little knowledge or power of discernment to an individual.
-Elder McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, "General Authority"

With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their problems without inspiration in many instances.
-Elder McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, "Prophets"

Alan Kerr on the divine name being given to Jesus

Jn 17:11–12 speaks of the Father’s name, which he has given to the Son. The previous discussion has demonstrated that the most likely name is ἐγὼ εἰμι. This name pervades the Gospel of John both in its predicative and absolute forms. It has further been argued that this name is intimately associated with the Hebrew name יהוה, and once that linkage is allowed then one can see how ἐγὼ εἰμι undergirds the Johannine Christology, which is climatically summarized in Thomas’s confessional statement before the risen Jesus: ‘Ο κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου (20:28). Jesus is one with Yhwh. Jesus has effectively been given the name יהוה by the Father.

This is also the name the Jewish high priests carried on their foreheads, engraved in gold. For Jesus it is not engraved in gold; it is given not ἐπʼ αὑτῷ, but rather ἐν αὑτῷ or בקרבו as the mt describes the giving of the name of God to the angel of Yhwh (Exod. 23:21) (discussed above, 9.5.7). For the high priests there was a sense in which the name יהוה was external—they wore it as part of their priestly attire—whereas for Jesus the name was part and parcel of who he was. It is because of this that Shirbroun is right when he says that the name the Father gives the Son cannot be given to the disciples. It belongs to Jesus by virtue of who he is—it cannot be passed on to his disciples in the same sense in which he has been given it.

Nevertheless he does have the name יהוה, and in having it, not just upon him, but within him as it were, he is the fulfilment of the high priest. (Kerr, A. (2002). The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (Vol. 220, p. 335). New York, NY: Sheffield Academic Press.)

D.A. Carson on John 12:41

Perhaps the most difficult statement in John 12 occurs in v. 41: Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ (lit. ‘his’, but the most natural antecedent is Jesus; but see below) glory and spoke about him. . .  It means that in his vision Isaiah saw (the pre-incarnate) Jesus. But there is a slightly different possibility. Targum Jonathan (an Aramaic paraphrase) to Isaiah 6:1 reads not ‘I saw the Lord’ but ‘I saw the glory of the Lord’, while the Targum to Is. 6;4 reads not ‘the King, the Lord of hosts’ but ‘the glory of the shekinah of the King of the ages, the Lord of hosts’. It may be necessary to appeal to the Targum; even in the Hebrew text Isaiah 6:3 already speaks of God’s glory. If instead we are to take the pronoun, as in the NIV, to refer to Jesus’ glory then John is unambiguously tying Jesus to Yahweh the Lord of hosts the Almighty—Isaiah saw Jesus in some pre-incarnate fashion . . .  What is remarkable, on this rendering of the passage, is the statement that Isaiah saw Jesus glory. This may be no more than the conclusion a chain of Christian reasoning: If the Son, the Word, was with God in the beginning, and was God, and if he was God’s agent of creation, and the perfect revelation of God to humankind, then it stands to reason that in those Old Testament passages where God is said to reveal himself rather spectacularly to someone, it must have been through the agency of his Son, his Word, however imperfectly the point was spelled out at the time. Therefore Isaiah said those words because (a stronger reading than ‘when’, AV) he saw Jesus’ glory.(D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John [Nottingham, England: Apollos, 1991], 449-50)

Use of "sacrifice" in Didache 14:1-3 and the Eucharist

In a previous post, I discussed the Eucharistic theology of the Didache, a very early Christian text, showing that the Didache and its community did not view the Eucharist to be a propitiatory sacrifice, nor in a concept of Real Presence, per the concept of Transubstantiation.

Some Catholic apologists[1] focus on the use of the Greek term for "sacrifice" (θυσια) in 14:1-3, the same term used of Christ's sacrifice in Heb 5:1; 9:23-24 in the context of discussing the Lord's Supper:

But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice (θυσια) may be pure. But let no one that it is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice (θυσια) may not be profaned. For this is what which was spoken by the Lord [in Malachi 1:11]: In very place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice (θυσια); for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.

From the context, there is clear that the "sacrifice" is the spiritual sacrifice believers are offering up, not a propitiatory sacrifice. The fact that prayers, alms, and even the Eucharist is described as a "sacrifice" is not the equivalent of the Catholic Mass. Furthermore, what undermines the Roman Catholic claim is that Mal 1:11 is quoted in Didache 14:3, a prophecy of the then-future sacrifices of the New Covenant. That such a sacrifice is a spiritual, not propitiatory sacrifice is evidenced on two fronts; firstly, with respect to the New Testament text's interpretation thereof, Christians are said to offer “spiritual sacrifices” to God.  In 1 Pet 2:5, we read:

Ye also, as lively stones are built upon a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

In this text, believers are said to “offer up” (αναφερω; a sacrificial term in both the LXX and NT and used of Jesus “offering” of himself [e.g. 1 Pet 2:24]) themselves as “spiritual sacrifices" (πνευματικὰς θυσίας). This is echoed in Paul’s epistle to the Romans:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service. (Rom 12:1)

The dedication of one’s body to God is said to be a sacrifice (θυσια) to God the Father, notwithstanding it not being a literal (in the sense of propitiatory/expiatory) sacrifice for sin. Such “spiritual sacrifices” can be prayers, petitions, and other godly actions for our fellow man (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-4) as well as the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit (cf. Psa 34:18; 51:17; Isa 57:15; 66:2).

Secondly, with respect to other early Christian literature, this interpretation of Mal 1:11 is accepted. In an early Christian text, attributed to Irenaeus of Lyons (it is debated if this is genuine or pseudepigraphical, though it is early, regardless of its providence) that does not hold that the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice is prophesied by Mal 1:11, but instead, the prayers and other “spiritual sacrifices” of New Covenant believers, one of which is the Eucharist (the author clearly did not believe prayers of New Covenant saints to be a sacrifice that propitiates the wrath of God!)

Section 37 of this writing reads as follows (taken from this Webpage, though one can find it in print in vol. 1 of the Ante Nicene Fathers by Schaff):

Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; Malachi 1:11 as John also declares in the Apocalypse: The incense is the prayers of the saints. Then again, Paul exhorts us to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Romans 12:1 And again, Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips. Hebrews 13:15 Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; Colossians 2:14 but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God in spirit and in truth. John 4:24 And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.

There is no sound exegetical basis to argue that, simply due to the use of θυσια in Didache 14:1-3 is support for the Catholic dogmas of the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation.

Note for the Above:

[1] Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice (2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2009), 225.

Alan Kerr on John 4:24

6.6.4 God Is Spirit

Commentators generally agree that this statement is not a philosphical proposition but a message about God in his relation to people. Two similar sentences about God in 1 John bear a similar sense: God is light (1:5) and God is love (4:8). It is also generally agreed that ‘Spirit’ here captures the Old Testament nuances of רוח as the life-giving creative power of God. The decisive issue for John is summed up in the stated purpose of the Gospel: ‘These things are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you might have life through his name’ (20:31). The goal is life (ζωή), and it is God the Spirit who gives life (6:63). This life is traced back to being born of the πνεῦμα, the life-Giver (3:5). In some way this life is bound up with knowing—knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (17:3)—that is, knowing the truth.

Given this statement—πνεῦμα ὁ θεός—we must interpret ἐν πνεύματι in the light of it. It cannot refer to any spirit, but only to the Spirit that is God. While the primary emphasis of ἐν πνεύματι is on the life-giving and creative power of the worship, there is also a secondary significance intimated by 3:8 where πνεῦμα is the unconfined, uncontrolled and uncomprehended wind/Spirit that blows where it wills. The presence of God who is πνεῦμα is not to be confined to Jerusalem or Gerizim. The true worshipper should therefore not be confined by spatial limitations.

On the other hand, for John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. This emerges most clearly in the pronouncement about the Johannine Paraclete, who extends and communicates the presence of Jesus while Jesus is away. So in Jn 14:18 Jesus can say, ‘I am coming to you,’ and refer directly to the Spirit Paraclete in the previous verses (14:16, 17). C.F.D. Moule succinctly comments on how Christology dominated pneumatology in early pneumatic experience, a comment that aptly sums up the entwinment of the Spirit and Jesus in John: ‘The Spirit is Christified; Christ is Spiritualized.’ So given Johannine pneumatology it would be in order to say that worshipping ‘in Spirit’ would be partially equivalent to worshipping ‘in Jesus’. (Kerr, A. (2002). The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (Vol. 220, pp. 192–194). New York, NY: Sheffield Academic Press.)

Max Thurian on the True Humanity of Jesus

In a number of posts (e.g., "The Reality of Christ's Humanity: Was it possible for Jesus Christ to sin?"), I have argued that, for Jesus to have been truly human, and to have been truly tempted like we are, it had to be possible for him to sin, not just for him to be tempted. If not, this makes a charade of His temptation in the wilderness (Mark 1:12-13; Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), and makes nonsense of Heb 2:17-18:

Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself was tested by what he suffered he is able to help those who are being tested. (NRSV [click here for a discussion of the use of ιλασκεσθαι and its soteriological significance])

Consider also the words of Heb 4:15:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin (πάντα καθ᾽ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας). (NRSV)

Here, the author of Hebrews states that Christ was made like us in every respect except for the fact he did not commit sin, not in every respect except the inability to sin. The only way truly have been tempted necessitates that one has the ability to sin.

I just recently came across the following quote on the true humanity of Jesus from Max Thurian that, while he is a Trinitarian and holds to the Hypostatic Union which, ultimately, makes nonsense of Christ’s humanity ("[Christ] is, in two distinct natures, divine and human, one single person" [p. 66]; for a refutation of this doctrine, see the section, “The Hypostatic Union Examined” of this paper), he is spot-on on the necessity of Jesus being truly human, not just the second person of the Trinity who has impersonal human nature:

If God was truly to share our humanity he could not simply live among us under an outward appearance of humanity. Then he too would have remained remote and we would not have felt involved with him, through his human example and his liberation of mankind. So God's will was to become man he became a man like ourselves, except for sin. The person of the Son was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, the son of the Virgin Mary, according to the Father's will, by the action of the Holy Spirit. (Max Thurian, Our Faith: Basic Christian Belief [trans. Emily Chisholm; Taizé, France: Les Presses De Taizé, 1978] 66)

Cecil Andrews on Mormonism and the nature of a "Cult"

I just listened to a presentation on "Cults" by Cecil Andrews, head of a Reformed "counter-cult" ministry, "Take Heed" (Website). Cecil has been involved in peddling his Reformed heresies since the 1980s, as well as attacking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with baseless, and often eisegesis-driven arguments. I emailed him twice in 2006 about some of his false claims about "Mormonism," but he never responded (out of fairness, I will put it down to a busy schedule). Andrews, as with many Protestant apologists, tends not to do well against opponents who (1) are good debaters and (2) are informed about the relevant scholarship and literature. For instance, see his debate against Catholic apologist, Peter D. Williams on the Catholic dogmas of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and transubstantiation here. I will note that, unlike Andrews, I have the ability to respect Greek exegesis and interact with, and refute the arguments of Williams (e.g., the claim that τουτο εστιν του σωμα μου proves Transubstantiation). Andrews embarrassed himself, and his dismissal of Peter's appeal to Greek grammar and exegesis is, well, absurd. Then again, Andrews in a debate I attended in Dublin argued in favour of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 (see here showing that this text is spurious), further revealing how anti-intellectual he and other Fundamentalists truly are.

The talk was entitled, "Cults--The Religion Peddlers" (link). His definition of a cult is most revealing; he argues that a cult has an earthly head and has additional revelation to the Bible (as well as a false Christology and soteriology). Keep in mind the opening two "marks" would condemn New Testament Christianity; after all, Andrews, as a good Trinitarian, would hold to the Hypostatic Union, wherein Christ was and is 100% divine and 100% human, so in effect, Christ was a (truly) human head of the Church. Furthermore, we know that the apostles were the heads of the Church after the ascension, as evidenced by Acts 15 and the Jerusalem council, and the roles played by Peter and James (cf. Matt 16:18-19; 18:18). In addition, during the time of Christ and the time after His ascension, the only Scriptures were the Old Testament--the New Testament was only written after the time of Christ, and we know also that non-inscripturated revelation was also privileged as being on par with the authority of "the Bible" of the time (the OT), as evidenced by texts such as 1 Thess 2:13 and 2 Thess 2:15, among other texts. Even allowing Sola Scriptura to be true (which it isn't--search on "sola scriptura" to see various posts exegeting the key "proof-texts" used to support this man-made doctrine), the New Testament authors were "cultists" according to Andrews' "arguments."

The issue of LDS Christology and soteriology is too lengthy an issue to deal with, though a search of "salvation," "Christology," and related terms on this blog post will provide articles on these issues, such as "Latter-day Saints have chosen the true Biblical Jesus" and my review of the Holt/McKeever debate on LDS soteriology. Needless to say, it is Latter-day Saint Christology and soteriology that is supported by sound biblical exegesis, not Andrews' Trinitarian Christology/Reformed soteriology.

Andrews' arguments against the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, early LDS history, and related issues reveal a death of research on his behalf (e.g., his false claim that "there is no such language as reformed Egyptian" [refuted here] and his claim that there is no evidence of any the places in the Book of Mormon [see here for a summary of Nahom/Bountiful in Arabia]) and have been answered by LDS apologists and scholars for decades (e.g., the wiki from FairMormon). This only shows a lack of intellectual integrity on the behalf of Andrews, mirroring his lack of exegetical abilities. A more honest researcher would at least ensure they are informed about the responses from the other side, and meaningfully interact with them.

Andrews claims that (1) Joseph Smith "stole" the concept of baptismal regeneration from Roman Catholicism and (2) that baptismal regeneration is false. There is no evidence that Joseph had much, if any, contact with Roman Catholicism in his formative years. Furthermore, baptismal regeneration is biblical, unlike the merely symbolic view of baptism Andrews, as a Reformed Baptist, holds to. For instance, consider the following from a Calvinist who, unlike Andrews, has enough intellectual integrity to admit that Paul’s use of language in Rom 6:1-5 supports baptismal regeneration:

The explanatory γαρ in 6:5 links the verse with his previous comments about the believer’s death with Christ through water-baptism in 6:3-4. His argument appears to be that believers died to sin and should no longer live under its power (6:2). Their water-baptism proves that they participate in the death of Jesus and experience a spiritual death to the power of sin (6:3). Therefore, Paul concludes that believers have been buried with Jesus through their participation in water-baptism, a baptism that identifies them with the death of Jesus (their representative [5:12-21]) and thereby kills the power of sin in their lives, so that they would live with Jesus in the resurrection just as Jesus presently lives in the power of his physical resurrection (6:4). Believers who died to the power of sin by being baptized into Jesus’ death will certainly (αλλα και) participate in a physical resurrection just as Jesus died and resurrected, because those who died to the power of sin (just as Jesus died = τω ομοιωματι του θανατου αυτου) will participate in a future resurrection (just as Jesus has already been resurrected) (6:5). (Jarvis J. Williams, Christ Died for Our Sins: Representation and Substitution in Romans and their Jewish Martyrological Background [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2015], 178).

There were other things that Andrews discussed, such as John 19:30 and his claim that τετελεσται (“it is finished”) is biblical proof against LDS claims of the priesthood and that there is only one holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood. These arguments have been refuted soundly by LDS apologists, and I have discussed these issues in some detail, too, such as:

Does John 19:30 teach Penal Substitution?

τελεω and τελειοω in the Johannine Corpus

The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page (e.g., this paper on the evidence for an ordained, ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant from the OT and NT)

Needless to say, Andrews' Reformed theology results in perverse view of both ecclesiology and soteriology (cf. Gal 1:6-9).

As with many critics of the LDS Church who operate in the 32 counties (e.g., Desmond Ferguson, formerly of Irish Church Missions), Andrews is grossly ignorant, not just of Mormonism, but biblical exegesis.

It is my contention (and I am always happy to defend this), is that Latter-day Saint theology is either supported by, or is neutral towards, the biblical texts in light o the historical-grammatical method of exegesis.

Note on the text of John 5:3b-4

When one compares John 5:3-4 in the KJV with many modern translations, one will notice that much of v.3 is missing and v.4 is absent in translations such as the NRSV:

In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. (KJV)

In these lay many invalids--blind, lame, and paralyzed. (NRSV)

It is universally accepted by New Testament textual critics that the longer reading is a later interpolation into the text. Writing on this, Philip Comfort, a conservative Protestant scholar, wrote the following in a volume I *highly* recommend:

This portion (5:3b-4) was probably not written by John, because it is not found in the earliest manuscripts (P66 P75 א B C* T), and where it does occur in later manuscripts it is often marked with obeli (marks like asterisks) to signal spuriousness (so Π 047 Syrh marking 5:4). The passage was a later addition--even added to manuscripts, such as A and C, that did not originally contain the portion. This scribal gloss is characteristic of the expansions that occurred in gospel texts after the fourth century. The expansion happened in two phases: First came the addition of 5:3b--inserted to explain what the sick people were waiting for; and then came 5:4--inserted to provide an explanation about the troubling of the water mentioned in 5:7. Of course, the second expansion is fuller and more imaginative. Nearly all modern textual critics and translators will not accept the longer portion as part of the original text. NASB and HCSB however continue to retain verses in deference to the KJV tradition. (Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts and how they related to the major English translations [Carol Stream, Illin.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2008], 273)

The footnote to this passage in the NET offers the following comment on this textual variation:

The majority of later MSS (C³ Θ Ψ 078 ƒ^{1, 13} Û) add the following to Joh 5:3: "waiting for the moving of the water. Joh 5:4 For an angel of the Lord went down and stirred up the water at certain times. Whoever first stepped in after the stirring of the water was healed from whatever disease which he suffered." Other MSS include only v. Joh 5:3 (A^c D 33 lat) or v. Joh 5:4 (A L it). Few textual scholars today would accept the authenticity of any portion of vv. Joh 5:3-4, for they are not found in the earliest and best witnesses (î^{66, 75} ‌א‎‏‎ B C* T pc co), they include un-Johannine vocabulary and syntax, several of the MSS that include the verses mark them as spurious (with an asterisk or obelisk), and because there is a great amount of textual diversity among the witnesses that do include the verses. The present translation follows NA²⁷ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

"The Lord" in Malachi 3:1

I just re-watched the debate from 2003 between then-Jehovah's Witness apologist, Greg Stafford (author of Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended) and Reformed Baptist James White (available online here). During the audience Q&A, one of the audience members argued that the locution הָאָדוֹן ("the Lord") in Mal 3:1 is a divine title, and ergo, Jesus is numerically identical to the "One God" in the Trinitarian understanding thereof, as the NT figures who fulfill this text are John the Baptist (the messenger) and Jesus (the Lord).

Firstly, while used of Yahweh elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it is a rare locution, only appearing five other times in the Old Testament, all in Isaiah:

Therefore saith the Lord (הָאָדוֹן), the Lord of hosts(יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת), the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies. (Isa 1:24)

For, behold, the Lord (הָאָדוֹן), the Lord of hosts(יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת), doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water. (Isa 3:1)

Therefore shall the Lord (הָאָדוֹן), the Lord of hosts(יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת), send among his fat ones leanness; and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning of a fire. (Isa 10:16)

Behold, the Lord (הָאָדוֹן), the Lord of hosts(יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת), shall lop the bough with terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled. (Isa 10:33)

And the Egyptians will I give over to the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king will rule over them, says the Lord (הָאָדוֹן), the Lord of hosts(יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת). (Isa 19:4)

In each of these instances, הָאָדוֹן is coupled with "Lord (Yahweh) of hosts" (יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת), something one does not find in Mal 3:1, so there is a difference between the Malachi text and the Isaiah texts that have this locution. The coupling of הָאָדוֹן with יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת is the reason why we know Yahweh is in view; not the bare of use הָאָדוֹן.

Furthermore, what undermines this text from Malachi as being a valid "proof-text" is that there is a distinction between Yahweh and the figure labelled הָאָדוֹן as evidenced by the fact that it is Yahweh who is speaking (cf. 2:17) about a person distinct from Him who is הָאָדוֹן:

Behold, I will send my massager, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord (הָאָדוֹן), whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts (יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת)

While not disproving Trinitarian formulations of Christology and concepts of ontological oneness, etc., this argument does not prove such.