Kevin Barney, "Others in the Land?"

Kevin L. Barney has an excellent blog post showing that Mosiah 25:1-3 supports the contention of LDS scholars such as John Sorenson that there were pre-existing populations prior to Lehi et al. arriving in the New World. One can find the article, "Others in the Land?" here.

Solomon on Yahweh's throne vs. Divine Identity

In a previous post, I wrote the following:

 [N]ote one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21:

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I am also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Bowman, Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God. (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).

As for Rev 3:9, believers are said to be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, all other instances it is used elsewhere in the book of Revelation, it is always used within a religious context (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question-begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9 (cf. my discussion on whether Jesus receives λατρευω in the New Testament).

On the topic of people other than Yahweh sitting on the throne of Yahweh, Patrick Navas (author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures) wrote the following which serves as another refutation of the “divine identity” argument based Jesus sitting on the throne of Yahweh:

Another text that helps to underscore the fallaciousness of Wallace’s reasoning is found in 1 Chronicles 29:[23] which says:

“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Jehovah as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.”

Here Solomon is portrayed as one who “sat on the throne of Jehovah as king.” Does this text imply that Solomon therefore “shares all the attributes of Jehovah,” or that Solomon is ontologically “Jehovah,” or that he is a member of the “Godhead”? No. It simply means that Solomon occupied a position of supreme/royal authority over the people of Israel as Jehovah’s agent or representative. To sit on Jehovah’s throne does not make one ontologically Jehovah (or one who has all of Jehovah’s attributes as Wallace wrongly implies), but makes one an individual whom Jehovah has invested with kingly authority as his appointed and ruling representative. Solomon sat down on Jehovah’s earthly throne in Jerusalem. Following his resurrection, the supremely exalted Messiah, Jesus, sat down “at the right hand of the majesty on high”—in heaven itself, with all things in subjection to him, with the obvious exception of God himself (Heb. 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:27). (Patrick Navas, Response to Daniel Wallace)

On the worship of the Davidic King (in this instance, Solomon) and how such worship is the same worship Yahweh receives (and the same worship glorified Christians will receive, too, as per Rev 3:21), I wrote the following here:

That the Bible knows of, and approves of, praise (in some limited sense) being given to mortals and non-deity is seen throughout its pages, such as the use of the Hebrew verb חוה  or the Greek verb προσκυνεω in the LXX of mortals (often translated as “worship”/”bow down [to]”). A potent example would be 1 Chron 29:20 and King Solomon being the recipient thereof (emphasis added):

And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshipped the Lord, and the king.

Within a context of temple sacrifice and worship, the Israelites are commanded by David to “bow down” and “worship” both Yahweh and the king--the Hebrew construction of the sentence italicised above ( וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַיהוָה וְלַמֶּלֶך) does not allow for a distinction between the veneration Yahweh receives and what is given to the king from the assembly as does the LXX rendition (καὶ κάμψαντες τὰ γόνατα προσεκύνησαν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ).

Peter O'Brien on Hebrews 1:3

Heb 1:3 is a very important verse, one that shows that God the Father has a body just as the exalted Jesus Christ (see discussion here). I encountered the following from a Reformed author today. While the author does not believe that the Father is embodied as the Son is, the logical conclusions of his comments would fit the traditional Latter-day Saint interpretation of this verse if he were consistent (and were to back up the [false] claim that απαυγασμα is in the active voice [discussed in the exegesis provided above]):

[A]s ‘the radiance of God’s glory’, the Son is the perfect manifestation of God’s glorious presence. In the second declaration the term rendered ‘exact representation’ (charakér), which was used of a mark or impression placed on an object (e.g. of coins), signifies a ‘representation’ or ‘reproduction’ of the ‘being’ (hypostasis) of God. The Son is the exact representation, the perfect embodiment, of God, as he really is. To see him is to see what God is like. The Son is uniquely qualified to be God’s historical self-revelation because he is identified with Yahweh himself. (Peter T. O’Brien, God Has Spoken in His Son: A biblical theology of Hebrews [Downers Grove, Illin.: Intervarsity Press , 2016], 49-50)

Does Jude 3 preclude a Great Apostasy and need for a Restoration?

A critic of the Church recently used Jude 1:3 as evidence against the LDS view of the Apostasy and the Restoration. Here is my response:

On Jude 3, that is not a verse that is opposed to the LDS view on the apostasy and a need for a Restoration.

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (KJV)

The term translated as "once" is απαξ. It simply means "once" and does not, in and of itself, denote finality. Had Jude wished to convey such, he would have used εφαπαξ, which is used in the Greek NT for the once-for-all sacrifice and death of Christ (Rom 6:10; 1 Cor 15:6; Heb 7:27; 9:12; 10:10).

Notice how απαξ is used in the NT:

Thrice was I beaten with rods, once (απαξ) was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck a night and day I have been in the deep. (2 Cor 11:25)

For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again (απαξ) unto my necessity. (Phil 4:16)

Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again (απαξ); but Satan hindered us. (1 Thess 2:18)

Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more (απαξ) I shake not the earth only, but also the heaven. (Heb 12:26)

Two verses later in this text, Jude again used απαξ:

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once (απαξ) knew this, how that the Lord having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

LDS scholar, John Tvedtnes, commented on this verse thusly:

If the gospel (more correctly, faith) was to be delivered but once to men on the earth, then Paul would be wrong in writing that the gospel had been revealed earlier to Abraham (Galatians 3:8f). And if the gospel was revealed in the days of Jesus, never to disappear from the earth, there would be no necessity for the angel John saw coming in later times to reveal the gospel to the inhabitants of the earth (Revelation 14:6-7). We can either conclude that Jude 1:3 does not give the whole story, or we must conclude that the Bible contradicts itself. That is, the same argument used against Joseph Smith can be used against the writers of the biblical books, if one misinterprets this passage. (source: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Restoration.shtml#jude)

The burden of evidence is based upon the person arguing their point that απαξ denotes once-for-all/sense of finality. Jude 1:3 is not evidence, however, against the LDS view on the nature of the Apostasy and/or a need for a Restoration.

Book of Mormon Battle Numbers

My friend, Stephen Smoot, has a great article on his blog, "Why the Book of Moron Battle Numbers Don't Add Up (And Why That's Evidence for Its Authenticity)." His arguments and conclusions (which are spot-on) reflect similar comments Brant Gardner made on Ether 15:1-2:

Ether 15:1-2

1 And it came to pass when Coriantumr had recovered of his wounds, he began to remember the words which Ether had spoken unto him.

2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.

Finally after this gigantic slaughter, Coriantumr remembered Ether’s prophetic warning/promise. Although the record specifies nearly two million dead, including men, women, and children, the number should be considered a metaphoric number, not even an estimate and certainly not an exact count. There would simply have been no way to count the dead. Rather, we should read this number as communicating tremendous devastation with a greater loss of life than had ever been seen before. (Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon [6 vols.; Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007], 6:320)

Anti-Mormons acting like cultists

Usually, when cornered with the overwhelming evidence for LDS teachings, critics sometimes show that they engage in projection by claiming Latter-day Saints are cultists by engaging in "arguments" that are, being blunt, reflective of starry-eyed, braindead cultism, to borrow from their nomenclature. Here are two examples:

The late Doug Harris:

Believing with the heart is far easier than trying to explain things away with the head.

I will not continue this fruitless mind explanation but pray that the Holy Spirit will reveal Himself to you in your heart that will bring you to rest now and give you assurance for the future.

Source: Email exchange between Robert Boylan and Revelation TV (on the topic of Alma 7:10 and the birthplace of Christ)

As I wrote in response to Harris, "Funny thing is this--if a Latter-day Saint said such, you would just use that as evidence they are in a false teaching group/cult and trying to engage in self-deception and the like. Oh well; you can take a horse to water, but cannot make him drink."

Dave Maxfield (ex-LDS turned Evangelical/Trinitarian)

In response to refuting his arguments against Latter-day Saint theology using the historical-grammatical method of exegesis:

Robert Boylan You are different. Most Mormons when confronted with difficult questions rely on their warm inner feeling and recite the testimony they have heard repeatedly every Sunday. However, since you consider yourself to be a highly educated intellectual, and have a problem with pride . . .

Source: How similar is Open Theism to Mormon Theology? (facebook discussion)

As my friend Mike Parker said in response, "Dave: So most Mormons "rely on their warm inner feeling," but Robert gave you concrete answers backed up by reputable scholarship, so he's full of pride. Heads you win; tails he loses."

I think the words of Paul in Rom 1:24 are rather a propos here:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves. (NRSV)

John Tvedtnes on the Benjamin/Mosiah change in Mosiah 21:28/Ether 4:1

To me, it is fascinating to see the critics attacking the Book of Mormon on issues that would similarly be damaging to the Bible. And since most of our critics are Bible-reading Christians, I believe that the best approach is to use the Bible as much as possible in our responses. Let’s look at some examples.

King Benjamin’s death is recorded in Mosiah 6:5, but critics claim that when writing the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith forgot that he had made Benjamin die, and wrote of him living at a later time.16 The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon shows this error, though subsequent editions, in an attempt to remove the problem, changed the name to King Mosiah in the later references.

Our normal response to this is that King Benjamin lived three years after his son Mosiah2 was made king. It was at the end of these three years that the expedition was sent to the Land of Nephi, where the plates of Ether were found. After relinquishing his kingship, Benjamin may have continued to act as a seer for the three-year interval. The chronology in this part of the Book is not all that clear and we do not know how long Ammon and his brethren were in the Land of Nephi. It could have been only a matter of weeks or months. It is not inconceivable then, that Benjamin passed away shortly after their return, which still would have been “after three years.”17 It is certainly possible that the keeper of the record of Zeniff or Mormon and Moroni18 may have erred in compiling the records. After all they were mortals, capable of making mistakes. It is also possible that this was an example of a scribal error, later corrected by Joseph Smith the translator.

It is interesting that the Bible has a situation similar to that found in the Book of Mormon. We read in 1 Kings 14:31-15:5 that Abijam (also called Abijah, as in the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 12:16) became king of Judah after the death of his father Rehoboam and that, despite his sins, the Lord preserved his kingship for the sake of his ancestor David. Then, in 1 Kings 15:6-7, we read,

And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life. Now the rest of the acts of Abijam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And there was war between Abijam and Jeroboam.

The name Rehoboam is anachronistic, since he was dead and the passage was intended to describe events in the days of his son Abijam. The error is actually corrected in a few Hebrew manuscripts and in the Peshitta (Christian Aramaic) version to read, “And there was war between Abijah the son of Rehoboam.” The parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 13:2 reads, “And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam.”

Notes for the Above:

16 See Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1.

17 Mosiah 6:5.

18 Ether 4:1.

Source: John A. Tvedtnes, The Mistakes of Men: Can the Scriptures Be Error-Free?

Recent exchange with two critics of the LDS Church

I (and two other LDS apologists [Mike Parker and James Stutz]) recently interacted with two critics of the Church on an Open Theism facebook page, Dave Maxfield (who, notwithstanding his ignorance, was once a Latter-day Saint[!]) and Vince Capobianco. I usually don't engage in hen-pecking on facebook, but the topic was the relationship between Open Theism and "Mormonism," which is something I have an interest in (I am both a Latter-day Saint and Open Theist). You will notice that these two critics lacked, not just intellectual integrity but intellectual capacity, as well as not being able to engage in even basic exegesis; instead, just repeating claims that were refuted previously and engaging in eisegesis that would result in an F grade in exegesis 101 class. Don't take my word for it, however--read the exchange for yourself (it is a public page, so you don't have to have a facebook account, let alone be a member of the group, to view the exchange).

The Problems Posed by Isaiah to Trinitarianism in light of Psalm 110:1

I have discussed Isa 43:10 and other like-texts that Trinitarians have used against Latter-day Saint theology, including the following:

Attempted exchange with Desmond Ferguson (formerly of Irish Church Missions)

Is Isaiah 44:24 in conflict with Latter-day Saint Theology?

The rhetoric of Isaiah and the supremacy of Yahweh

I recently posed this challenge to a Trinitarian critic of the LDS Church about these texts where Isaiah is speaking about Yahweh, which shows the theological and exegetical bind Trinitarians place themselves in if they appeal to such passages:

I am asking you which divine person is speaking. It is YHWH--in your view, is this the Father? Son? Spirit? If all three, why the singular personal pronouns and singular verbs? (unless you are a Modalist who views all three as a singular person .[I know you are not]).

 If you claim YHWH and the three persons of the Trinity are one and the same (some go down this route with these passages), then what about texts where Jesus is distinct from Yahweh? For e.g., in Psa 110:1, Yahweh speaks *l'adoni* (to my lord). Per the NT, Yahweh in this passage (when 109:1, LXX is quoted/alluded to) is the person of the Father while this second lord (adoni) is the Son (e.g., Mark 12:36f; Heb 1:13; cf. Paul's midrash-like expansion in 1 Cor 15:22-28), so unless you will posit that the Father, Son, and Spirit (YHWH) spoke to a second lord who is numerically distinct from this YHWH who is the person of the Son (which is nonsense), then one cannot go down this route unless one wishes to engage in question-begging; special pleading, and rejecting the identity of indiscernibles.

 While I disagree with his Unitarian conclusions, Jaco Van Zyl, speaking of Psa 110:1 in light of texts such as Isa 45:5, was pretty spot-on in the following:

 *Trinitarians like James White argue that Yahweh (Adonai) speaks to someone else who is also Adonai. However they want to look at it, this is troublesome even to Trinitarian theology: If Yahweh is 3-in-1 God, speaking to another Adonai adds between 1 and 3 to the existing 3, leaving us with between 4 and 6 Persons in one God. If, however, you add the second Adonai to the first, then Yahweh is 2 and not 3 Persons, isn’t He (or should I say they)?* (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, pp. 51-60, here, p. 60).

Salvation in "old fashioned Mormonism"

One will often hear from critics of the Church that it is only in recent years that Latter-day Saints have put emphasis on the grace of God as the basis of one’s salvation and exaltation, abandoning a very strong legalistic if not “Pelagian” soteriology of “old-fashioned Mormonism.” Of course, this is as false as their claim that the Christocentric nature of modern “Mormonism” is in opposition to so-called “old fashioned Mormonism” (discussed here).

To be sure, Latter-day Saint soteriology is not monergistic; instead, it is consistent with the teachings as explicated in Jas 2:22-24; 1 Cor 3:15; Psa 106:30-31 and other key soteriological passages. However, in spite of the abuse of 2 Nephi 25:23 and the phrase “after all we can do” (see James Stutz’ excellent exegesis of this verse), Latter-day Saint soteriology is grounded in the grace of God, not human works that are not empowered by such grace (see my discussion of Isa 64:6 here).

Today, I read the following from a book by Timberline Riggs, A Skeptic Discovers Mormonism which was originally published in 1941. The following quote shows that this attitude towards grace has always been part of Latter-day Saint soteriology and it is not a novelty towards ecumenism (fwiw, I oppose theological ecumenism in the sense of hashing out theological differences and coming to a theological compromise á la the modern ecumenical movement [e.g. ARCIC]):

GRACE AND WORKS: We understand the mission and sacrifice of The Messiah, together with the organization He effected and the continuing help He offers to man, to constitute The Grace of God, and that only through these means provided can man be “saved.” We also believe that the acceptance of this “Grace” is not a passive acquiescence in any sense of the word, and that it remains ineffective to long as man does not actively respond to it with good works, and by placing himself in tune with God’s work. We also believe that this Grace of God makes possible man’s advancement far beyond the point of mere “saving”, but that such further advancement is directly predicated on man’s proving himself through his works. (Timberline W. Riggs, A Skeptic Discovers Mormonism as told by a Mormon Convert [4^th ed.: Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1946], 105-6)

In a related passage, we read:

ALLEGIANCE TO CHRIST. We find ourselves in this life, in degree, held subject by compulsion to the dominance of evil—to a physic mastery of our moods and thoughts, beyond our capacity to break without help—that same dominance of Lucifer our father Adam first submitted to, and which I believe some religions call “original sin.” “The good that we would, we do not, and the evil we would not, we do.”

The help to break this slavery must come from the only source capable to give it—from Jesus, The Saviour, Himself.

Therefore, the first necessary step in the right direction is to, with sincere desire and earnest heart ask that help of God, “who giveth liberally and upbraideth not.” In other words, we must seek new leadership and source of inspiration. Without that change of leadership, it is impossible for us to control our moods and thoughts and actions and to solve our overwhelming problems—for attention waves—purpose falters—and confusion overtakes us.

But with such change of leadership and consequent “aim,” we find ourselves at last on the right road. This of course, does not mean that we “are saved,” or that from that time on, all we have to do is rely on God and His Providence and “the Blood of the Lamb.” It means that we have started right on a long, long journey—a journey only we ourselves can make, but now with a proper guide and teacher, and sufficient help when we have it.

Observe, please, that this growth and schooling which we call “life” is not merely scientific mechanics and compliance with material law. There are higher laws, and spiritual values, which too, we must experience and learn. God has meant that His children should be bound together by personal understanding of each other and their leaders: by mutual attraction and liking; by love and loyalty; and this all comes through “association, service, and sacrifice.” Particularly, this is meant in regard to allegiance and loyalty to The Great Leader, Jesus, who has made our advancement and salvation His task and duty. By tremendous service and sacrifice He has earned that allegiance, and it is good that through working in His cause (the welfare of man) we learn to know and to love Him and His ways. To Him be all honor and reverence. (Ibid., 122-123; italics in original).

2 Samuel 24:11, missing books, and the Word of God equals the Bible argument

For when David was up in the morning, the word of the Lord came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer . . . (2 Sam 24:11)

This is another verse that refutes a common “argument” made by some (not all—the more sophisticated apologists don’t use it) in favour of sola scriptura, namely that “Word of God/Lord” is one-to-one equivalent to the Bible. For a listing of other passages that refute this incredibly weak apologetic, see here.

Furthermore, I highlight this verse as it refers to Gad as a (true) prophet of God (Heb: נָבִיא) as well as a seer( חֹזֶה ) Why is this important? There is a book in the Bible ascribed to this prophet:

Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of God the seer. (1 Chron 29:29)

Now, Protestant apologists will just tell us that, simply because a work is referenced in the Bible is not proof that such is inspired, and such is unobjectionable, in and of itself. However, this book is not a secular source, but a work of a divinely inspired prophet of God, so the apologist is engaging in special pleading and question-begging. In reality, when it comes to the “missing books in the Bible” issue, our Evangelical friends are incapable of giving a logically consistent answer, something I discussed a few times on this blog, including:

1 Cor 5:9-10 and the "missing books of the Bible" argument

The failure of Protestantism to Define the Canon Authoritatively

Steven Anderson and the Logical Problems of the Trinity

In a presentation on the Trinity, Steven Anderson said to his congregation:

"God" consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost . . . We do not believe in three Gods but we believe in one God, but we believe that "God" is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, he is three-in-one . . . Even though Jesus Chris was God in the flesh, even though He said if you seen me you've seen the Father, even though he said I and my Father are one, there is a difference, listen to me now, between the Father and the Son (0:00-0:49)

Hopefully, one can see the inconsistencies in just this opening statement which is reflective of a lot of the problems inherent within Trinitarianism.

Firstly, notice that for Anderson, "God" = the Father, Son, and Spirit, but this three [persons]-in-one God is said to be a single person ("he"; not "it" or "them"). Furthermore, ignoring the textual problems with 1 Tim 3:16 in the KJV (Anderson is a KJV-onlyist), if Jesus = God [in the flesh], then God = Jesus, and yet, "God" for Anderson is not "Jesus" but "Father, Son/Jesus, and Holy Ghost."

Furthermore, if one believes in the personal distinction between the Father and Son (as well as the Spirit), unless one allows either for polysemy for the use of (true) God(s) as one finds in LDS theology, one is reduced to a humpty dumpty style of language when claiming Jesus = God; Father = God; Spirit = God; and God = Father, Son, and Spirit, and yet there is one God.

Additionally, from a purely logical perspective, there has to be a plurality of Gods unless one wishes to embrace a form of strict Unitarianism:

First Premise: There are three divine persons
Second Premise: Each divine person is "God."
Third Premise: If every "a" = "b," there cannot be fewer "b's" than "a's"
Conclusion: There are at least three Gods

I would urge Trinitarians to reconsider (1) their theology and (2) Latter-day Saint theology in light of logic and exegesis.

Objections to Calvinism

Today, I read a fascinating volume from 1856, Objections to Calvinism by R.S. Foster, a Methodist This is one of the best books I have read refuting Calvinism (perhaps the best, pound-for-pound, would be Why I am not a Calvinist by Walls and Dongell and Robert Shank's Life in the Son and Elect in the Son). Here are some excerpts that show the illogical nature of Reformed theology (a topic I have discussed quite a bit here on this blog):

[On the topic of election and reprobation] But hear Mr Dick, a modern. He says, in answer to the objection that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, “I confess that the statement may be objected to as not complete; that there are still difficulties that press upon us; that perplexing questions may be proposed and that the answers which have been returned to them by great divines are not satisfactory in every instance, as those imagine who do not think for themselves, and take too much upon trust. The subject is above our comprehension. There are two propositions of the truth of which we are fully assured—that God has foreordained all things which come to pass, and that he is not the author of sin. There can be no doubt about either of them in the mind of the man who believes the Scriptures. He may not be able to reconcile them but this ought not to weaken his conviction of their truth.” Was ever argumentation more transparent! Ye Arminians, how can you withstand such reasoning! How are you open your lips again! Where shall you find an apology for such temerity!

Since writing the foregoing, I find Dr. Rice has favored us with his mode of escaping from the charges I have brought upon his system. Hear him: “Are these representations true?” he asks; and replies, “This question might be answered by a fair statement of the doctrine, and a comparison of its principles with the word of God. There is, also, another way of answering the question satisfactorily, namely by inquiring what have been the fruits of this and kindred doctrines called Calvinistic?” Then follows a long article to show that the fruits of Calvinism have been good; and, therefore, the inference is drawn, it is not liable to the charges we have preferred against it. Now, I ask my readers, is not this a novel mode of escaping logical consequences? “The fruits of the system are good; therefore, the logical consequences, deduced from its premises, are not legitimate!” Verily, this is logic!) (pp. 108-9)

Sovereignty of God.—This subject, though of sufficient importance to claim a separate and distinct notice, must, for the present, be disposed of by a brief notice, in connection with the foregoing.

In Calvinism, all things are resolved into sovereignty. No difficulty so great, but the sovereignty of God explains it. No absurdity, or contradiction, or blasphemy so appalling, but here is its defense: “Even so, Father, for it seemeth good in thy sight. “Who art though that repliest against God?” “Shall the things formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus?”

That God is sovereign, no one disputes. That he has a right to rule, and does rule in heaven and earth, is not even questioned. But we protest, in the name of reason and religion, and for the honor of God, against appealing to his sovereignty for the purpose of propagating slanders against his character—against so understanding and construing it, as to bring it in conflict with his justice and other attributes of his nature. He has no rights inconsistent with his own glorious nature—he has no sovereignty that can act adversely to his glorious perfections. He is a sovereign. But he is a sovereign God, not a sovereign devil. His is not an irresponsible, blind, capricious sovereignty. His rights and his rule are not resolvable into mere arbitrary acts of will. He rules in righteousness, and wisdom, and truth. And what conflicts with these, God claims no right to—he has no right to; to say to the contrary would be to dishonor him. The sovereignty of God, therefore, never should be quoted in support of, or excuse for, what is manifestly contrary to these. He has no such sovereignty. When anything is charged to him which requires such a supposition, it is false and slanderous to God. Here is where Calvinism commits one of its greatest practical blunders—a misapprehension of the nature of sovereignty! It assumes that such and such things are so—revealed in the Bible; and, it matters not how horrible the assumption, it holds itself under no obligation to consider the consequences, however glaringly false, and inconsistent, and dreadful. It is all referred to God’s sovereignty. It is all answered in a breath: “Even so, Father!” Shame on such trifling and profanation of holy things! Suppose ye that the God of the universe feels himself honored with such sacrifice? Does he esteem such a defense—a defense which demonizes his character to illustrate his sovereignty? No, no it is a mistake! God’s sovereignty explains no principle that is manifestly wrong—sanctions no fact that is inconsistent with justice “The Judge of the whole earth will do right;” he cannot do wrong His sovereignty gives him no such power. (pp. 212-13)

Anthony Sweat on the nature of heavenly life

Heaven won't just be sitting around on celestial clouds singing worship songs or praise music for eternity. The highest form of worship is emulation, and we will worship God in heaven by living as He does--acting, thinking, doing, loving, teaching, serving, and creating like Him in a celestial family with an immortal body of flesh and bone. Mortality provides us the opportunity to learn and grow and prepare for this future state--our time not only "to prepare to meet God" (Alma 34:32), but to prepare to become more like him. That is "how to worship" (D&C 93:19) according to the Lord. "For if ye keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace" (D&C 93:20). (Anthony Sweat, Christ in Every Hour [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016], 118)

The LDS Church and Coke

A former Latter-day Saint wrote the following on my facebook page recently:

 I read on Mormon doctrine that cola drinks are against the word of wisdom, but that was written before the church bought shares in coke cola.

Does the LDS Church own shares in the Coka Cola company? Well, according to the non-LDS Website, Snopes, the answer is "nope"--this is just a stupid "criticism" that is floating around the Internet that this individual uncritically accepted.

As for the Church's stance on cola drinks and other similar drinks (e.g., energy drinks), some Latter-day Saints go the extra mile, if you will, and avoid Coke, Pepsi, etc. However, the Church's position on these was explicated in the following from Priesthood Bulletin, Feb 1972, p. 4:

With reference to cola drinks, the Church has never officially taken a position on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and we now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in acquiring the habit. Any beverage that contains ingredients harmful to the body should be avoided.

Now, if don't mind, I am off to drink some Irn Bru . . . ;-)

Bruce McConkie on the Fallibility of the Chapter Headings

Mike Thomas recently wrote the following on the topic of the chapter headings in the LDS Scriptures:

Oh, the argument goes, but the chapter headings are not part of the original Book of Mormon. Like the introduction, they were added latterly by Bruce R McConkie. Of course, anyone who knows Mormonism will know that McConkie is the favourite whipping boy when it comes to Mormon doctrinal controversies.'Oh, brother McConkie wrote it. weeaall...' And so he is dismissed. (source)

I have argued elsewhere that Mike Thomas lacks intellectual integrity; it appears I was mistaken--he lacks intellectual capacity.

Here is what Bruce McConkie himself wrote on the nature of the chapter headings to the LDS Scriptures:

[As for the] Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazeteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only. (Mark McConkie, ed. Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989], 289-90 emphasis added)

What is rather interesting is that McConkie’s own son, Joseph Fielding McConkie, who himself was rather conservative, did not view the footnotes and chapter headings as infallible. In a commentary he co-authored with Robert Millet, he wrote the following about Alma 11:4-19 and the Nephite monetary system, the chapter heading of the time errantly read Nephite Coinage:

These verses seem to describe not a group of Nephite coins but rather a system of weights and measures by which to establish various degrees of monetary worth. (Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, volume 3: Alma Through Helaman [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2007], 73)

Yet another example deception by Mike Thomas.

Furthermore, the article fails miserably in honestly dealing with the scholarly evidence in favour of the Book of Mormon. I would recommend one pursue volumes such as Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon and Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited (as well as the other books the Maxwell Institute have now made available online), as well as pursue the Mormon Interpreter journal. The most scholarly volume in support of Book of Mormon historicity would be Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History (Greg Kofford, 2015) by LDS Mesoamericanist Brant Gardner.


Additionally, Jeff Lindsay has a good page summarising some of the evidence for the antiquity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon instead of the hatchet job Thomas provides.

How Sola Scriptura Cessationists trap themselves

I have addressed how unbiblical the Protestant doctrine of "sola scriptura" is many times on this blog; furthermore, passages such as 2 Chron 29:25 show that sources external to inscripturated revelation were privileged with the same authority as Scripture, something Protestantism rejects.

I just came across this image of, and quote from, the Puritan theologian John Owen:

Interestingly, as with so many proponents of cessationism, his arguments for this ultimately traps him vis-a-vis any meaningful defense of Sola Scriptura. How so? Consider the authority of the New Testament texts--Owen would argue that they are consistent with the Old Testament texts, so if, in his view, any true post-New Testament revelation is not needed as it would be consistent with the biblical revelation, why the need for the New Testament texts? Why not just interpret the Old Testament in light of the tradition received from the New Testament-era Church and its experiences? Of course, Owen would reply, if he were alive, that the New Testament is God-breathed revelation, but that is only special-pleading--so would any other inspired revelation. Perhaps Owen would reply (general) revelation ceased with the death of the apostles, but there is nothing in the Bible that supports such a concept; furthermore, it is putting the theological cart before the horse as one will have to assume sola scriptura/tota scriptura (as understood by Protestantism), which is question-begging to the max.

Furthermore, without any explicit injunction from the New Testament supporting his view that spiritual gifts ceased with the apostles (something that is actually refuted by the New Testament), Owen is, at best, offering a guess to support a dogmatic perspective he is holding to.

Owen and other cessationists, both historical and modern, trap themselves as they cannot be consistent in (1) defending sola scriptura and (2) arguing in favour of the cessation of the spiritual gifts in the post-apostolic period.

Modern Biblical Scholarship vs. Forensic theories of atonement

Texts like Eph 1:7 (“redemption through his blood”) and 1 Pet 1:18-19 (“you were redeemed . . . with the precious blood of Christ”) can scarcely be made to support the theory of Jesus’ death to support the theory of Jesus’ death as a ransom price paid, since both texts do not use the Gk construction of a genitive of price. (Tuckett, “Atonement in the New Testament,” in Freedman, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:519)

Similarly Paul’s language of Jesus “redeeming” those under the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:13; 4:5) can only with difficulty support the view that Jesus’ death is being interpreted as a ransom price paid in a substitutionary sense. Far more important for Paul hwere seems to be the representative nature of Jesus’ death. (ibid. 521)

The nearest one gets to an idea of a price being paid is in Mark 10:45, where Jesus’ death is said to be a lytron anti pollon, “a ransom for many.” The use of anti (“in the place of,” “for”), if pressed, does suggest ideas of substitution and equivalence, and the ransom idea in lytron could be said to reinforce this. However, one should not read too much into this. There is for example no talk of “sin” where and one should not necessarily interpret the verse as implying a view of Jesus’ death as an expiatory sacrifice for sin with a substitutionary idea of sacrifice implied. This probably confuses categories unnecessarily. (ibid. 521)

According to the Gospels, Jesus thus draws on a plethora of images from the OT by way of communicating the saving significance of his death. With echoes from Isa 52:13-53:12, the phrase “for many” unavoidably signals the vicarious nature of Jesus’ death on behalf of humanity. Interpreters often take Jesus’ reference to “RANSOM” (λυτρον lytron) in its usual sense in Greek literature, where it pertains to the “price of release” of a new slave or prisoner of war. In the OT, the connection between “ransom” and “atonement” is more straightforward (e.g., Exod 21:30), but when the Lord is named as the one who ransoms (e.g., Exod 30;12, 16; Ps 49:15; Hos 13:14) there is no hint that actual payment is involved. Rather, God ransoms by liberating (λυτροομαι lytroomai) the people from Egypt (Exod 6:6; 16:13), a claim echoed in Luke 1:68; 2:38; 24:21. Similarly, the sayings at the Last Supper trade on images and language from Israel’s covenant sacrifice (Exod 24:8), the restoration of Israel that signals the end of exile (Zech 9:9-11), and the hope of covenant renewal (Jer 31:31-33). In these myriad ways, Jesus’ death marked the long-awaited restoration of God’s people, Jew and Gentile. In his exposition of his own death, Jesus pushed back into Israel’s history and embraced fully Israel’s hope of redemption. The new exodus, God’s decisive act of deliverance, was inaugurated in Jesus’ mission, the climax of which is his death on the cross. (Joel B. Green, “Atonement” in The New Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, 1:346)

Neither in the Gospels nor otherwise in the NT, however, do we find story lines portraying God as the subject and Jesus as the object (i.e., God punishing Jesus in his death). (ibid.)

Brigham Young--Theological Dictator?

I have been having an on-going discussion with an inactive Latter-day Saint, and one of his claims is that Brigham Young believed that his words were to be privileged en par with Scripture and were to be blindly followed (refuted here). The following is a comment from Brigham Young refuting this and urging Latter-day Saints to examine his claims and the claims of other LDS leaders:

What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. Brother Joseph W. Young remarked this morning that he wished the people to receive the word of the Lord through his servants, be dictated by them, and have no will of their own. I would express it in this wise: God has placed within us a will, and we should be satisfied to have it controlled by the will of the Almighty. Let the human will be indomitable for right. It has been the custom of parents to break the will until it is weakened, and the noble, Godlike powers of the child are reduced to a comparative state of imbecility and cowardice. Let that heaven-born property of human agents be properly tempered and wisely directed, instead of pursuing the opposite course, and it will conquer in the cause' of right. Break not the spirit of any person, but guide it to feel that it is its greatest delight and highest ambition to be controlled by the revelations of Jesus Christ; then the will of man becomes Godlike in overcoming the evil that is sown in the flesh, until God shall reign within us to will and do of his good pleasure. Let all persons be fervent in prayer, until they know the things of God for themselves and become certain that they are walking in the path that leads to everlasting life; then will envy, the child of ignorance, vanish, and there will be no disposition in any man to place himself above another; for such a feeling meets no countenance in the order of heaven. Jesus Christ never wanted to be different from his father: they were and are one. If a people are led by the revelations of Jesus Christ, and they are cognizant of the fact through their faithfulness, there is no fear but they will be one in Christ Jesus, and see eye to eye. (Journal of Discourses 9:150 | January 12, 1862)

John Turner on "Mormonism" as "Christian"

Given this trajectory [of modern LDS interactions with non-LDS faiths], it no longer makes sense to consider Mormonism a "new religion," a "new world religion," or even a "new religious tradition," if that implies a supersession of or definitive break with Christianity. Instead, Mormonism is a vibrant new branch of Christianity, one in which temples, ordinances, and prophets have taken their place alongside a Jesus who is both utterly Christian and distinctively Mormon. (John G. Turner, The Mormon Jesus: A Biography [Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 2016], p. 294; comment in square brackets added for clarification).

B.H. Roberts on the problems facing Trinitarian Conceptions of the Godhead

The Nature and Relations of the Christ

Adopting absolute "being" as the postulate of their conception of God, absolute oneness, and therefore absolute singleness, their difficulties arose in trying to reconcile the existence of three persons in the Godhead to the postulate of unity. The disputations were carried on chiefly concerning the Christ, the "Word" in his relationship to the Godhead; and the disputants concerned themselves with such questions as these: "Is Jesus the Word?" "If he be the 'Word,' did he emanate from God in time, or before time?" "If he emanated from God, is he co-eternal and of the same, that is, identical substance with Him, or merely of a similar substance?" "Is he distinct from the Father, that is, separate from Him, or is he not?" "Is he made or begotten?" "Can he beget in his turn?" "Has he paternity, or productive virtue without paternity?" (The Truth, the Way, the Life, p. 215)

David Bokovoy vs. Luke Wilson on the names of God

A couple of years ago, the now-Dr. David E. Bokovoy (PhD, Hebrew Bible [Brandeis]) commented on an article produced by the late Luke Wilson of the Institute for Religious "Research" (anti-Mormons like to use [loosely] the term "research" in the names of their ministries, including Bill McKeever]). The post is no longer online, but I did save it for future use. It contains some interesting material, so I believe it worthwhile to reproduce it here:

Today, I would like to point out another example of the incompetence manifested by the Institute for Religious Research.

In an embarrassing article entitled, “The Names of God in the Old Testament: The Implications for the Mormon Doctrine of Deity,” IRR attempts to belittle the Prophet Joseph Smith for not understanding several grammatical rules associated with Biblical Hebrew.

With this move, IRR demonstrates the same sort of cognitive dissonance for which their Institute is now famous. In the same article making fun of Joseph’s lack of knowledge concerning Semitic grammar, IRR stands guilty of promoting the following misnomer:

“[Elohim] is thought by many scholars to be related to the Hebrew word El, meaning "strength," "mighty," or "the Almighty."

The reality is that no scholar in the world believes that Elohim is related to the Hebrew word El. Such an association would leave the consonantal letter “h” unexplained—a major blooper when analyzing Semitic words.

Instead of El, Elohim is related to the Hebrew name Eloah. As Pardee explains, “there can be no doubt that the more common biblical and Jewish designation of ‘god’ as Elohim represents an expansion of Eloah, though there is debate both as to the ‘meaning’ of Eloah and as to the origin of the expanded form” (D. Pardee, “Eloah,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 285)

The divine name Eloah has a variety of Semitic cognates: Aramaic, ’ilah; Arabic, ’Allah; and even Ugaritic, ’ilhm—which contains the plural marker “m” just like the Hebrew name (see Koehler and Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1:52).

This final form 'ilhm is very significant for our present focus, for this form illustrates another example of IRR’s incompetence. The article mistakenly professes that the form Elohim “is unique to monotheistic Israel and is not found in the languages of any of her polytheistic, Semitic neighbors.”

Um…. the Ugaritic form derives from Israel’s polytheistic, Semitic neighbors.

The reason Eloah and Elohim have an “o” vowel, when the aforementioned cognates do not, is that Hebrew was subjected to the famous Canaanite shift.

If you're wondering right about now, how IRR can get away with making fun of Joseph Smith for not understanding Hebrew grammar while making these types of fundamental errors, believe me, so am I!

Honestly, the more I read, the more I shake my head wondering to myself who are these ignorant people promoting themselves as a legitimate institution devoted to the field of religious scholarship?

Update:

Recently, Robert Bowman has responded to this piece, and from the get-go, has accused me of some shady tactics:

Bokovoy or Boylan?

On May 8, 2016, Boylan posted a piece he titled “David Bokovoy vs. Luke Wilson on the names of God.” Boylan begins as follows:

A couple of years ago, the now-Dr. David E. Bokovoy (PhD, Hebrew Bible [Brandeis]) commented on an article produced by the late Luke Wilson of the Institute for Religious “Research” (anti-Mormons like to use [loosely] the term “research” in the names of their ministries, including Bill McKeever]). The post is no longer online, but I did save it for future use. It contains some interesting material, so I believe it worthwhile to reproduce it here:

The colon at the end of the paragraph indicates that what follows is to be understood as simply reproducing the post by David Bokovoy. The rest of the post exhibits the same tone and perspective, and there is no indication that any of the post other than the introductory paragraph is by Boylan. The reader is thus given to understand that except for that first paragraph David Bokovoy is the author of the post.

As it turns out, David is a friend of mine, so I contacted him about the article. David kindly responded, assuring me that he did not recognize the post attributed to him, that it does not represent his views or feelings toward the Institute for Religious Research, and that I had his permission to state as much in my response to Boylan.

Since I prefer to think the best of someone until forced to do otherwise by the evidence, I will suggest that it is possible that Boylan thought the material came from Bokovoy and confused him with someone else. Since I cannot prove otherwise, it is also possible that David wrote part of what Boylan quotes and that it has been repurposed by Boylan for his polemical purpose. What can be fairly said is that Boylan should have requested Bokovoy’s permission to use his comments, if they actually came from Bokovoy, before posting them on his blog. I take David at his word that he did not recognize the post as coming from him, and I therefore conclude that Boylan posted it without asking for permission or checking to make sure it accurately represented Bokovoy’s position

I will try to find time to respond to Bowman's response in the near future, however, as the following accusations are clearly thrown out to cast me into bad light (a common tactic used), let me respond with the following:

1. David Bokvoy is the author of this piece. He posted it under his very own name, and fortunately, I managed to find the original thread here from 2006. Unfortunately, due to a change in software and/or some other issue related to the forum, not all of David's posts have words contained therein, but it does show that Bokovoy was pretty active online against the IRR.

2. The article is on a public forum. I found it to be pretty useful and reproduced David's response to Luke Wilson with attribution. There is nothing wrong with such.

If Bowman has integrity, he will retract these bogus accusations he wrote against me.

3 Nephi 19:29 and the "oneness" of the Godhead

In the Bible, the "oneness" of the Father, Son, and Spirit is clearly not a metaphysical/ontological "oneness" of being, as formulated at various councils such as Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; instead, it is a covenantal oneness, similar to the "oneness" that Jesus wishes for believers to have with the Father:

That they all may be one (εν), as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one (εν) in us: that the word may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one (εν), even as we are one (εν). (John 17:21-22)

In the Book of Mormon, one finds various "oneness" texts, but it would be fallacious and eisegetical to read into such texts (e.g., 2 Nephi 31:13, 21) is not the Latin/Creedal Trinitarian understanding of such, but the same type of "oneness" explicated by Christ in John 17:21-22, consistent with a form of Social Trinitarianism. That such is the case can be seen in 3 Nephi 19:29, which should serve as a "controlling verse" for Book of Mormon theology:

Father, I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world, because of their faith, that they may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in thee.

For further reading:

The Number of God in the Book of Abraham and Alma 11

Examples of Non-Trinitarian Statements in the Book of Mormon

The theology of Alma 11:44

LDS Christology and John 10:30 and 14:10-11

Is "Nauvoo" a genuinely Hebrew Word?

Today, I have been browsing the 1832 and 1834 editions of Joshua Seixas' Hebrew grammars which were used by the Prophet Joseph Smith et al. when Seixas taught them (Sephardic) Hebrew (I studied Hebrew and Greek in university, so I find such things to be "fun" [it is part of the preparation for a series of lessons on the King Follett Discourse and Sermon in the Grove]).

On p. 28 of the 1832 edition, we find the following:

On p. 111 of the 1834 edition, one finds the following:

This shows that the following comment from p. 156 of the 1st ed (1945) of Fawn Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows my History:

When Joseph Smith stood on this hill after his escape from Missouri in 1839, the spot was wooded and trackless and swamps covered the lowlands behind him. But he could see the glistening river with its islands lying to the north like lush garden places, and the green Iowa hills beyond. ‘It is a beautiful site,’ he said fervently, ‘and it shall be called Nauvoo, which means in Hebrew a beautiful plantation.’ The name sprang fresh out of his fancy, and though a few of his pedant followers were troubled that the word was not listed in their Hebrew dictionaries, most of the Saints were pleased with the choice. “Nauvoo” had the melancholy music of a mourning dove’s call and somehow matched the magic of the site.

In reality, "Nauvoo" is a valid Sephardic Hebrew transliteration of the Hebrew word meaning "to be comely." To be fair, Brodie in later editions of her book would edit this passage admitting that it was a genuine Hebrew word, though it is a criticism still forwarded by Latayne Scott (The Mormon Mirage) and some other critics who obviously do not know Hebrew.

Furthermore, it should be noted that נַאֲוָה appears in the Hebrew Bible (Psa 93:5; Song 1:10; Isa 52:7).

The High View of Adam in the Pseudepigrapha

The following is a comment I made recently in a discussion on Adam in Latter-day Saint theology; it shows some of the ancient manuscript evidence supporting a high view of Adam (who LDS theology identifies with the archangel Michael), one shared in Latter-day Saint scriptures (e.g., D&C 78:16).

You might also like the fact that in early Jewish and Christian literature, Adam is given a *very* high place. For instance, in the Sibylline Oracles 8:442-444, God commands creation to give λατρευω (cultic worship) to Adam due to his being made in God's image (cf. Gen 1:26-27):

Behold, let us make man in a form altogether like our own, and let us give him life-sustaining breath; Him being yet mortal all things of the world will serve (λατρευω).

In The Life of Adam and Eve 12:1-16:3 (from the 1st century AD), the devil fell from heaven due to his refusal to worship Adam (a theme that would later be incorporated into the Qur'an and the fall of Iblis):

*And the devil sighed and said, “O Adam, all my enmity and envy and sorrow concern you, since because of you I am expelled and deprived of my glory which I had in the heavens in the midst of angels and because of you I was cast out unto the earth.” Adam answered, “What have I done to you, and what is my blame with you. Since you are neither harmed nor hurt by us, why do you pursue us?” The devil replied, “Adam, what are you telling me? It is because of you that I have been thrown out of there. When you were created, I was cast out from the presence of God and was sent out from the fellowship of the angels. When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael brought you and made (us) worship you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ And Michael went out and called all the angels, saying, ‘Worship the image of the Lord God, as the Lord has instructed.’ And Michael himself worshipped first, and called me and said, ‘Worship the image of God, Yahweh.’ And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ And when Michael kept forcing me to worship, I said to him, ‘Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to worship me. And when they heard this, other angels who were under me refused to worship him. And Michael asserted, ‘Worship the image of God. But if now you will not worship, the Lord God will be wrathful with you.’ And I said, ‘If he be wrathful with me, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven and will be like the Most High.’ And the Lord God was angry with me and sent me with my angels out from our glory; and because of you, we were expelled into this world from our dwellings and have been cast onto the earth.

And immediately we were made to grieve, since we had been deprived of so great glory. And we were pained to see you in such bliss of delights. So with deceit I assailed your wife and made you to be expelled through her from the joys of your bliss, as I have been expelled from my glory.*

In The Testament of Adam 3:2-4 (dated variously from the 2nd to 5th centuries AD), God promises Adam that he will be deified in the future and become a "god." Adam, speaking to his son, Seth, says that:

*“He [God] spoke to me about this [the future Messiah] in Paradise after I picked some of the fruit in which death was hiding: ‘Adam, Adam, do not fear. You wanted to be a god; I will make you a god, but not right now, but after a space of many years. I am consigning you to death, and the maggot and the worm will eat your body.’ And I answered and said to him, ‘Why, my Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘Because you listened to the words of the serpent, you and your posterity will be food for the serpent. But after a short time there will be mercy on you because you were created in my image, and I will not leave you to waste away in Sheol. For your sake I will be born of the Virgin Mary. For your sake I will taste death and enter the house of the dead. For your sake I will make a new heaven, and I will be established over your posterity. And after three days, while I am in the tomb, I will raise up the body I received from you. And I will set you at the right hand of my divinity, and I will make you a god just like you wanted. And I will receive favour from God, and I will restore to you and to your posterity that which is the justice of heaven.’*