Orthodox and Protestant Churches "subsisting in" the Roman Catholic Church

Those of us who study Roman Catholicism, as well as interact with her apologists, can often be confused by some of the “ecumenical” terminology used post-Vatican II (1962-1965), such as the claim that certain Churches (Eastern Orthodox and many Protestant) groups “subsists in” the Catholic Church. The following is a very good discussion of the theological meaning of this term and how it does not necessarily mean that Catholicism is backing away from its unique truth claims after Vatican II, at least on this score:

Concerning the interpretation of the term subsistit in—which is in fact “the foundational and essential principle upon which ecumenism is based”—it should be explained that the Second Vatican Council effectively recognizes the presence of some elements of holiness and truth in the separated Churches and ecclesial communities, which are, however, “gifts belonging to the Church of Christ” which “constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him”. It is true therefore to say that all the baptized are “Christians” and “united to Christ”; but fully incorporated into Christ and only those who “accept all the means given to the Church together with her entire organization and who—by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion—are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops”. The replacing of “est” with “subsistit in” has given the impression that the Church has renounced her claim to be the true Church of Christ. In reality, though this is not an abandonment of her traditional claim but rather the Church’s opening to the particular demands of ecumenism and of the separated ecclesial communities. In virtue of the elements of holiness and truth present in such communities, it cannot be denied that they have “a certain ecclesial character. But to be ‘ecclesial’ is not yet to be a ‘Church’.” (Adriano Garuti, Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004], 164)

Alexander Jones on Matthew 26:28

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt 26:28)

I have discussed the use of the present participle ἐκχυννόμενον ("being shed/poured out") coupled with the present tense εστιν ("is") before, in response to Roman Catholic theologians and apologists who have appealed to this construction as evidence that Jesus' own blood was shed at the Last Supper:

Was Christ's Blood Shed at the Last Supper?

Another note on the use of the present participle in the Last Supper Accounts

Also see The Last Supper was not a Propitiatory Sacrifice

Alexander Jones, a Roman Catholic scholar discussed the possible Aramaic words that would have been uttered by Jesus at the Last Supper and how such would not support the contention of Ludwig Ott et al that Jesus’ words support the claim His blood was being poured out at the Supper:

He said den adam keyami: this (is) the blood of my covenant, adding “which is poured out” (the participle used is used but the context demands “which is about to be poured out”, as the corresponding Aramaic permits): the blood still to be shed is liturgically offered now. (Alexander Jones, The Gospel According to Matthew: Text and Commentary For Students [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1965], 295, emphasis in original)

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Ben Stanhope - Animals Died Before the Fall

Before I post this video I just came across on youtube which contains some very interesting information, I have a few job interviews over the next few weeks, so prayers/positive thoughts my way will be more than appreciated.

Ben Stanhope - Animals Died Before the Fall

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Crawford Gribben on the Problematic Nature of the "Sinner's Prayer"

Crawford Gribben, a conservative Presbyterian (Calvinist), wrote the following critique of the “Sinner’s Prayer,” a common evangelistic tool, and its unbiblical and theologically problematic nature:

The efficacy of the Sinner’s Prayer is one of the most cherished myths in contemporary evangelical church life. Advocates of its merit have included many of the most famous evangelists of the twentieth century. The Sinner’s Prayer can find support from many of the most significant leaders across the evangelical world.

But that does not mean that it is right . . . the methodology of the Sinner’s Prayer is entirely without biblical foundation . . . the Bible never teaches us that we are saved through a prayer. Neither do the apostles ever instruct their hearers that praying a prayer with these specified components will guarantee salvation . . . for we are saved by faith, not the utterance of a prayer, and it is only too possible that the mechanistic idea of salvation [of the Sinner’s Prayer] will encourage people without saving faith to believe that have been saved because they have recited a set form of words. The Sinner’s Prayer is a myth that has made possible the corruption of the modern evangelical church, channelling many who have never known the saving grace of God into membership of his churches. It provides its own word of assurance: ‘Thank you for helping me and saving me, and I pledge the rest of my life to you.’ Tragically, it convinces people that they are Christians when too often they are not . . .The Sinner’s Prayer provides an unstable and uncertain foundation for assurance and raises more difficulties than it solves . . . Far from providing true assurance, it often completely undermines it.

The great danger of this traditional evangelical method is that the prayer of faith becomes the object of faith, and the Sinner’s Prayer becomes the sinner’s hope. In spiritual crises, the anxious soul looks back to words that were prayed, and the assurance of these words were believed to guarantee. Yet these words cannot bring salvation – only faith can do that. Our words cannot generate assurance – that springs from the secret working of the Holy Spirit, sowing in believers the graces that John describes in his first epistle. There is false assurance as well as true – note Jesus’ insistence that ‘those Jews which believed on him’ were actually ‘of [there] father the devil’ (John 8:31, 44) . . . Instead of leading their repentant listeners through a prayer, the apostles exhorted them to faith and repentance and insisted their conversion be immediately sealed in baptism and church fellowship: ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house’ (Acts 16:30-31). (Crawford Gribben, Rapture Fiction And the Evangelical Crisis [Webster, N.Y.: Evangelical Press, 2006], 72-73, 74 first comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

The 144,000 in Jehovah's Witness Theology

Today I came across the following Jehovah’s Witnesses publication in a secondhand bookstore:

The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life (Brooklyn: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1968)

It was an interesting read, especially as the society, at the time, was focusing a lot on both 1914 (when Jesus returned invisibly, in their theology) and 1975 (at the time of publication, when Armageddon was meant to take place), so a lot of eschatology was contained therein. Furthermore, there are some comments about the 144,000 and JW theology thereof which I found intriguing. As I am trying to study more about JW theology when I can, I am reproducing some comments made about the 144,000 and their role in JW theology in the book:

They are persons who show full faith in God’s provision for salvation through Christ. They are ones whose lives prove the Devil a liar when he charged that men serve God only for selfish advantage. Jehovah has marvelously purposed to use them for his glory.—Ephesians 1:9-12. (p. 76)

HOW ONE KNOWS WHETHER HE IS OF THE “LITTLE FLOCK”

Members of the “little flock” know that God has called them to heavenly life. How? By means of the operation of God’s spirit, which implants and cultivates in them the hope of heavenly life. The apostle Paul as one of the “little flock,” wrote: “The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children. If, then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.” (Romans 8:16, 17) The operation of God’s spirit changes the entire outlook of such a person, to that his thoughts and prayers are centered upon serving God with the heavenly hope in view. Being with Christ in heaven is more important to him than any earthly ties . . . In the past did you believe that all good persons go to heaven? If so, and if you have endeavored to life a good life, you may well have expected to be included among them. You may also have hoped in this way to be reunited with your loved ones whom you had lost in death. But when you had that expectation, did you know that the Bible says that such faithful servants of God as King David and John the Baptist did not go to heaven? (Acts 2:29, 34; Matthew 11:11) At that time did you know that only 144,000 chosen from among mankind over the past nineteen centuries would gain heavenly life? And did you know then that the Bible holds out hope of eternal life under righteous conditions here on earth or all others who would become faithful servants of God?-Psalm 37:10, 11, 29 [36:10, 11, 29, Dy]. (pp. 78-79)

[E]ach year, on the anniversary of Christ’s death, the few remaining members of the “little flock” yet on earth keep the Memorial of Christ’s death. As Jesus directed, they partake o unleavened bread and red wine, which are symbols representing the flesh and blood that Jesus gave for mankind. Jesus said to those whom he instructed to partake of these emblems that he was making with them ‘a covenant for a kingdom’; so those who are not heirs of the heavenly kingdom do not partake of the emblems. (Luke 22:19, 20, 29) Nevertheless, those who look forward to earthly life are present each year in large numbers as observers at the Lord’s evening meal. As one who is keenly interested in life under the heavenly kingdom, you too should be in attendance. (p. 80)

In chapter 13 (“The True Church and its Foundation”) and the members thereof, we read that “members of the true church” and the “anointed class” (the 144,000) are one-to-one equivalent to one another:

It we want to live eternally in God’s new system we must acknowledge the true church and its foundation. With reference to them, Jesus said: “Upon this rock I will build my Church.” (Matthew 16:18, Dy) . . . Could anyone of us decide to “join” this church simply by getting his name placed on some membership roll here on earth? No; as Hebrews 12:13 (Dy) explains, this is the “church of the firstborn who are written in the heavens.” God is the one who selects the members. He sets them in the congregation as he pleases. (1 Corinthians 12:18) These are the ones who will be with Christ in heaven. And Jesus revealed that, far from including all who profess to be Christians, they are limited in number to 144,000.—Revelation 14:1-3; Luke 12:32. (pp. 114, 115)

APPRECIATION OF THE TRUE CHURCH AND ITS FOUNDATION

The members of the true church under Christ their head are said to become “Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise.” (Galatians 2:29) This promise is that all others of obedient mankind will bless themselves through Christ and his congregation. (Genesis 22:18) . . . [Those who are of the “Great Crowd”] have the prospect of receiving eternal lie on earth, along with all the other blessings that will flow from Christ and his glorified congregation in the heavens.  (p. 120, 121, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Daniel McClellan, Cognitive Perspectives on Early Christology

Daniel McClellan just posted on his Website an article of his that was published in a peer-reviewed journal:

Cognitive Perspectives on Christology, Biblical Interpretation 25 (2017):647-662

It interacts with, in part, Richard Bauckham and his (nonsense) theory of "divine identity" and other important areas related to Christology.




Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

The NET takes a leaf out of the page of the NWT's Methodology

The 2nd edition of the NET has been announced, and some of the changes are rather disappointing, such as Gen 3:5. The first ed reads:

For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.

The second ed reads:

For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Anyone who can read Hebrew can tell you that the 1st edition is correct while the new edition is simply wrong (the text refers to plural divine beings, not God singularly). Why the change and others like this? Here is one of the explanations:

Important key passages were revised to make the translation more consistent and acceptable with the mainstream of evangelical views and thus more acceptable in the church.

So basically the NET is going down the New World Translation road, perverting biblical texts to support a perverse (here, Evangelical Protestant) theology.

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Gary Michuta on Trent and the Book of Esdras

I have discussed the issue of the book of Esdras and the Tridentine decree on the canon, such as:

Answering Trent Horn on the Canonicity of the Apocrypha

In his new edition of Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Gary Michuta offers the following on the Counciil of Trent and the book of Esdras:

Trent’s “Rejection” of Esdras

The argument also makes a factual error. It is assumed that since the Council of Trent didn’t include the book of Esdras in its canon, it rejected it. If all we had to look at was the canon itself that might be a possible interpretation. It could be argued that Trent intended its canon to be exhaustive so that whatever is not included is to be considered rejected. But there is no reason to guess. We possess the Acts of Trent and the various diaries and letters of its participants, so we can know how the fathers of the council wished the decree to be interpreted. Once these primary sources are consulted, rather than commentators on those sources, it becomes clear that Trent did not implicitly or explicitly “reject” Esdras. Instead, they wished that the decree to be silent on the issue. How do we know this?

On March 29, 1546, fourteen questions (called capita dubitationum) were proposed to the council fathers to provide direction for the framers of the document. Question four asked whether the books that were not included in the official list of the canon, but were included in the Latin Vulgate (the book of Esdras, 3 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees), should be rejected by the decree by name or passed over in silence. Only three fathers voted for an explicit rejection. Forty-two voted that these books should be passed over in silence (Latin, libri apocryphi sub silentio). Eight were undecided.

Therefore, not only did Trent not explicitly reject the book of Esdras, but the fathers did express a wish that the decree not name these books as being rejected. This is a subtle but important point. It’s not altogether accurate to say that Trent “rejected” the book of Esdras.

Does this mean that Catholics can accept the book of Esdras as canonical Scripture or that the contents of the canon of Scripture is an open question? Not at all. The canon of Scripture is what is given at the Council of Trent, the Council of Florence, and the African councils. I suppose it could be theoretically possible at some future date to admit Esdras to the canon since it was never explicitly rejected, but this would be practically impossible since the book has fallen into disuse. (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger [rev ed.; El Cajon: Catholic Answers, 2017], 322-23, italics in original)

Note what Michuta is saying here: the infallible decree on the canon from Trent failed to answer authoritatively on the canonicity or thereof of a book that could or could not be inspired by God. This is rather significant as one of the claims of Roman Catholic apologists is that Rome can give infallible assurance of doctrinal issues, and yet, on the issue of Esdras, the now immutable decree of Trent in April 1546 passed over in silence a book that Michuta tries to downplay the significance thereof due to it simply having fallen out of use(!) If anything, it shows that Rome’s claim to being able to provide infallible certainty is nothing short of a smokescreen. Furthermore, Rome has proclaimed, using her alleged infallible authority, dogmas without any basis in the Bible and early Christian history, such as the Immaculate Conception (see Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception) so one is forced to reject her claims of authority.

To be fair, this should not be seen as a wholesale rejection of Michuta’s book. As with the first edition, Michuta does a very good job at refuting a lot of the weaker arguments used against the Apocrypha, including the false claim that Jews believed that there was no special revelation from God between Malachi to the time of Jesus’ ministry, as well as “proof-texts” such as Luke 24:44.

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

John W. Welch, "Hours Never to be Forgotten: Timing the Book of Mormon Translation"

John W. Welch, "Hours Never to be Forgotten: Timing the Book of Mormon Translation" (2017)

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Sola Scriptura Debate Between Kyle Roberts and Dale Ahlquist

Today I read a volume by Kyle Roberts, A Complicated Pregnancy: Whether Mary was a Virgin and Why it Matters (Fortress Press, 2017). Roberts engaged in a public debate on the topic of Sola Scriptura against Catholic apologist Dale Ahlquist back in 2010, held by The Argument of the Month Club. One can find the mp3s of the debate here:

Sola Scriptura: Classical Catholic-Protestant Debate on Biblical Authority

As readers of this blog know, I have written a book-length critique of Sola Scriptura:

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

It is the perfect gift to get any LDS apologist as a stocking filler ;-)




Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Kyle Roberts on the (Physical) Perpetual Virginity of Mary

The Roman Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary does not simply state that Mary did not engage in sexual activity throughout her life (“sexual virginity); instead, such is only secondary to the dogma. What is primary about the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is that she remained physically a virgin, that is, her “virginal integrity” (her hymen) remained intact perpetually, and was not compromised by the birth of her divine son. As Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott wrote:

§ 5. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Mary was a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ.

The Lateran Synod of the year 649, under Pope Martin I, stressed the threefold character of Mary’s virginity teaching of the “blessed ever-virginal and immaculate Mary” that: “she conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost, generated without injury (to her virginity), and her virginity continued unimpaired after the birth” (D 256). Pope Paul IV declared (1555): Beatissimam Virginem Mariam … perstitisse semper in virginitatis integritate, ante partum scilicet, in partu et perpetuo post partum. D 993.

Mary’s virginity includes virginitas mentis, that is, a constant virginal disposition, virginitas sensus, that is, freedom from inordinate motions of sexual desire, and virginitas corporis, that is, physical integrity. The Church doctrine refers primarily to Her bodily integrity. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pp. 203-4, emphasis added)

Elsewhere, Ott (p. 205) writes:

2. Virginity During the Birth of Jesus

Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained. In general the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains (cf. S. th. III 28, 2

Section 499 of the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church reads as follows (emphasis added):

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it" and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin."

Kyle Roberts, in a recent volume on the virginal conception of Jesus, wrote about this understanding of the perpetual virginity and how it is very docetic in nature:

THE HOLY HYMEN

Consider, for example, the early church father Ambrose (337-397 CE) who links the “gate of the sanctuary” of the temple in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 44:1-2) to Mary’s hymen: “Holy Mary is the gate of which it is written: ‘The Lord will pass through it, and it will be shut,’ after birth, for a s a virgin she conceived and gave birth.” Ambrose elaborates that no man “shall pass through” that gate (Mary’s hymen) except for God. In another text, he insists that Jesus “preserved the fence of her chastity and the inviolate seal of her virginity.”

Or his student Augustine (354-430 CE) who argues that because the resurrected Jesus could walk through walls, it’s no stretch (no pun intended) to believe that the baby Jesus could pass through the “closed doors” of Mary’s vagina without disturbing the hymen. The laws of physics and of biology do not apply to the birth of the Son of God. Augustine ends this segment with a dramatic portrayal of the delivery of baby Jesus: “As an infant He came forth, a spouse from His bride-chamber, that is, from the virginal womb, leaving His Mother’s integrity inviolate” . . . For Ambrose, the painless, bloodless virginal birth reversed this curse. Mary, the “new Eve,” experienced no pain while birthing Jesus, and this illustrated that salvation had arrived . . . The assumption that Mary’s hymen was undisturbed by the birth of Jesus didn’t originate with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, both of which are sparse in deliver-room detail, but from texts dating to the middle of the first and second centuries (CE). (Kyle Roberts, A Complicated Pregnancy: Whether Mary was a Virgin and Why it Matters [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2017], 6-7, 8)

While discussing The Protoevangelium of James, Roberts writes:

Mary was informed by an angel that she would conceive. Her pregnancy caused a stir among the religious power brokers: the priests who learned of her apparent indiscretion and Joseph’s illicit behaviour were enraged at the betrothed couple’s impropriety and disobedience. Both Mary and Joseph were proven innocent through a ritual resembling a witch-trial. When God apparently protected them from harm, the priests were finally convinced of their innocence.

Mary gave birth to Jesus in a cave underneath a “luminous cloud.” A blinding light covered her. When it dissipated, the newly born Jesus was revealed and he immediately latched onto the breast of his mother. The midwife, who played no effective role in the delivery, proclaimed to another midwife, Salome: “I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth—a thing which her nature admits not of.” Then said Salome: “As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.”

Salome, this story’s version of a doubting Thomas, investigated Mary’s vagina to prove that this miracle had really occurred; sure enough, Mary was still a virgin. Her doubts were met by a burning sensation in her hands, as she exclaimed: “My hand is dropping off as if burned with fire.”

This story formed the basis of subsequent assumptions about Mary’s virginity; her sexual purity had been preserved and her feminine body protected through the miraculous cloud-covered birth of Jesus. This influence was unfortunate, however, because it allowed docetic tendencies to creep in to the way theologians read the two Gospel accounts of Jesus’s birth. If we take the incarnation seriously, we should embrace the biological realities of birth, not deny them, (Ibid. 11-12)

Indeed, this aspect of the perpetual virginity of Mary seems to be explicitly contradicted by the testimony of Scripture. In Luke 2:21-24 (RSV) we read the following:

And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord") and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

As Eric Svendsen noted about this pericope and v. 23’s reference to the phrase “opens the womb”:

The Roman Catholic teaching of Mary’s virginity during birth (in partu) (i.e., without rupture of the hymen) seems to be negated by Luke’s phrase in v. 22 that Jesus “opened the womb” (διανοῖγον μήτραν). The sacrifice made in vv.21-24 presupposes a normal birth process for Jesus, and many Catholic scholars note that it is unlikely that Luke would have employed this phrase if he had known of this Marian tradition. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 143)

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Bart Ehrman vs. Robert Price on the Historicity of Jesus

This Sunday I will be giving a brief overview of some of the evidences supporting the historicity of Jesus (I wanted to give a Christmassy lesson with an apologetics bent). I decided to rewatch the following debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert M. Price on the topic of whether Jesus existed. There is no question that Ehrman won this debate (at least 8-2, if not 9-1--it was not even close, and even Richard Carrier and others who hold to the Christ Myth theory admitted that Price lost badly):

Bart Ehrman & Robert Price Debate - Did Jesus Exist

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Michael Haycock on Mormon Illustration and the Burden of History

Michael Haycock posted two interesting articles on the "Peculiar People" blog on the topic of LDS Church history and the depictions of scenes thereof by LDS artists:

Mormon Illustration and the Buden of History - 1 of 2

Unbridling Mormon Illustration: “From the Dust” – 2 of 2




Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Arie W. Zwiep on Acts 1:21-22

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us-- one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection. (Acts 1:21-22, NRSV)

Critics of Latter-day Saint ecclesiology often point to Acts 1:21-22 as “proof” that to be a true apostle, one must be an eye-witness of the resurrected Jesus. However, absolutizing this passage results in an internal consistency within the Acts of the Apostles itself as well as the rest of the New Testament and early Christian understandings of apostleship.

Liberal New Testament scholar Arie W. Zwiep, while agreeing with many Evangelicals that this is the proper way to understand the text (i.e., as providing the test for true apostleship) notes that this results in a gross inconsistency in the theology of Acts itself:

In these verses there emerges clearly a different understanding of apostleship in comparison with the rest of the NT and early Christianity. Whereas the primitive Christian requirements of apostleship demanded a personal encounter with the risen Lord as for instance in the case of Paul, the requirements mentioned here seem to involve much more than that. Luke’s definition is in agreement with this stress on eyewitnesses. Paul and Barnabas would not meet the strict Lukan criteria. This is almost certainly a Lukan innovation. By the time he wrote Acts and most of the leading apostles were no longer alive, the question about who represented the true apostolic gospel gained increasing significance. In my view, Luke wishes to stress the legitimacy of the Pauline mission by firmly anchoring Paul to the Twelve apostles in Jerusalem, who in turn had been commissioned by the risen Lord himself. This explains why Luke shows no further interest in the succession of the apostles after their death, as for instance, in the case of James. (Arie W. Zwiep, Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26 [WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 155-56, emphasis added)

If Evangelical critics wish to use this passage against LDS claims to authority, they will have to be intellectually honest and jettison inerrancy of the Bible, too.

For more, see my The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page

Support this blog:

Paypal

Arie W. Zwiep on The Death Accounts of Judas

Commenting on the two conflicting accounts of Judas’ death in Matthew 27 and Acts 1, Arie W. Zwiep commented:

The Death Accounts of Judas

In the NT we have two different accounts of the death of Judas. According to Matthew 27:3-10, Judas committed suicide by hanging himself when he had come to realize that an innocent man had been condemned by his foolish act. According to the version of Acts 1:16-20, he died (accidentally?) by “falling headlong” on the field that he had bought with his treacherous money, “so that he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out”, apparently with no sign of remorse. Both accounts relate the cruel death of Judas to a particular field in the vicinity of Jerusalem, the so-called Field of Blood (Matthew: ἀγρὸς αἵματος, Acts: χωρίον αἵματος), which in Luke’s version is called by its Aramaic name, Akeldama (חקל דמא).

From early days on attempts have been undertaken to harmonize these two accounts, for example by advancing the thesis that Judas hanged himself on a tree (= Matthew), but that either the branch or the rope broke, so that he fell forward on the ground and his entrails gushed out (= Acts). Or that his attempted suicide failed and that he continued to live on his own property until he died by an unfortunate fall or in otherwise unknown circumstances. However, from a modern perspective these harmonizations, creative and ingenious as they may be, are unconvincing and superficial on several grounds. First, the integrity of both stories as complete narratives in themselves is seriously disrespected when the two stories are being conflated into a third, harmonized version. Neither story was ever meant to be read in the light of the other. Second, in addition to the two canonical stories, there was a third, allegedly independent account of Judas’ death in early Christian sources. Apollinaris of Laodicea, who died around 390 attributes to Papias, who was active in the first decade of the second century (!), the story that after the betrayal Judas continued to live, but that at a given time his body swelled to such immense proportions “that where a wagon could go through easily he could not go through” and when he finally came to die “after many trials and sufferings, he died in his own place, which because of the stench has remained deserted and uninhabitable to the present day. Until today, no one can pass by that place without holding his nose.” Significantly, such conflicting traditions on the death of Judas were passed on in Christian circles, even in conscious competition with the existing canonical stories, as, for example, the various fragments from Apollinaris make clear. (Arie W. Zwiep,  Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26 [WUNT 51; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004], 16-17)

Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Anthony Sweat on "Knowing the Temple"

In a recent short volume on the temple endowment, LDS author Anthony Sweat wrote the following which is rather useful for those wishing to understand the temple and the endowment:

KNOWING THE TEMPLE

The temple is a place where profound eternal truths of the plan of exaltation are presented, both plainly and subtly. As you participate in the temple endowment, try to do so in an attitude of approaching God to obtain further truth and knowledge from Him. He has said in scripture that He wants to bless His faithful Saints to know “the hidden mysteries of [His] kingdom from days of old, and . . . the wonders of eternity” (D&C 76:7-8). Even if the only prayer in your heart is to learn something new about the Lord, His ways, and His kingdom, then let that be offered up to God, and He has promised to pour down knowledge that will settle upon you like dew from heaven (see D&C 121:33, 45).

As you probably have heard or experienced by now, the temple uses symbol, imagery, and ritual to communicate spiritual knowledge. Why these somewhat ambiguous and sometimes confusing methods? Frankly, because they’re good teaching. You can’t be a lazy learner with symbol, imagery, and ritual. You have to figure things out as they lie hidden in plain sight. The Lord explained His rationale for puzzling teaching techniques to His disciples: “Because it Is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given . . . Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand . . . But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear” (Matthew 13:11, 13, 16).

In addition, symbol and ritual cut across racial, ethnic, social, and generational divides. The endowment experience isn’t meant to speak only to modern American Saints but to connect equally to Saints in diverse culture s across the earth, past and present. Thus, the experience will likely be foreign to your modern frame of reference. Mystery is the revelatory vehicle to help transport your mind and heart to other realms-in this case, the realm of heaven. If at first you find yourself bewildered about some things, and that causes you to study, think, and pray, then the endowment ceremonies are effectively doing their job.

As mystery transports you to unknown realms, ask God questions about His teaching methods. Why are we doing this? What does that setting suggest? What does this room symbolize? What could this phrase mean? What might this clothing imply? How could that symbol be interpreted? What could that gesture represent? How is this related to that? All of these questions should be asked in a spirit of reverence and meekness. This is because the truly humble and teachable get God’s answers to their questions (see D& 112:10). The Lord has said that His thoughts and ways are not your thoughts and ways (see Isaiah 55:8-9), so instead of criticizing His approach because it might be confusing or isn’t how you may have done it, inquire of the Lord why He does what He does and what it could mean. You simply cannot be mentally passive in the temple and expect to learn the mysteries of God. A “house of learning” inherently implies a need to “seek learning . . . by study” (D&C 88:118-119), and study requires using your mind to actively search, analyse, interpret, and connect.

Even if you are mentally active and seek to “know” as you worship in the temple, you may not learn something new from the endowment each time you participate. Some things come together slowly over time and through repeated visits, which is why there is a need to be patient and to return often. Even if you don’t gain some new insight through the endowment, you may be reminded of knowledge you previously learned—truths you already understand but that God want to bring to your remembrance or impress more deeply upon your soul. Sometimes the things you learn will be revelatory insights into a personal problem or decision. And sometimes the “know” from the temple endowment will be knowing you’ve just done something great for someone else, providing vicarious exalting ordinances for a deceased daughters or son of God. (Anthony Sweat, The Holy Invitation: Understanding Your Sacred Temple Endowment [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017], 47-50)

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Susan Niditch on Letters in the Old Testament

In my article "Epistle" in the Book of Mormon, I discussed that the use of the term "epistle" in the Book of Mormon is not an anachronism, as (1) the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient text into English and (2) "epistle" refers to a literary record in a form of a letter.

I have added the following to this article from a book I read recently which discusses letters ("epistles" if you will) in the Bible:

Some references are to the official correspondence of royalty, for example, Huram (Hiram) of Tyre’s letter to Solomon written in connection with plans to build the temple in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 2:10 [v. 11 in English]), or public decrees. (These include, for example, Esth. 3:12, the edict to kill the Jews; 2 Chron. 30:1, Hezekiah’s invitation to celebrate the Passover in Jerusalem; Esth. 9:20-23, Mordecai’s letters to the Jews concerning the celebration of 14 Adar; see also 9:29, Esther’s letter, and Esth. 8:8; 8:5; 8:10; 1:19.) Some are accusatory; for example, Ezra 4:7-16, the letter written by Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and their comrades to King Artaxerxes to derail the returned exiles’ building projects, and the king’s response (Ezra 4:17-22). Such an accusatory letter relates to another genre of written communication, the lettre de cachet: the communiqué to place Uriah in the forefront of the battle (2 Sam. 11:14, 15); Jehu’s communiqué to the elders of Jezreel to dispatch with Ahab’s seventy sons (2 Kings 10:1, 6, 7); the false accusation against Naboth (1 Kings 21:8, 9). (See also Job 31:35; perhaps also Job 13:26.) Partaking of the interplay between oral and written discussed by Finnegan, Thomas, and others are texts such as Ezra 1:1 (2 Chron. 36:22) referring to a written edict of Cyrus that is also spread in the land orally by herald. Similarly, Elijah is said to engage in a long-distance form of prophecy, sending a letter to King Jehoram of Judah. This passage at 2 Chron. 21:12-15 is not represented in the Deuteronomistic corpus (see at 2 Kings 8). At 2 Chron. 32:17 Sennacherib is pictured to have written letters to “deride” God—letters that are read aloud as a public proclamation to frighten the Israelites. Here communiqué, curse text, oral and written merge.

It is worth noting that this intertwining of written and oral communication with special emphasis on the former is found particularly in postexilic material (see also the written agreement to the covenant discussed above [Neh. 10:1]). Indeed the vast majority of references to letters are late. Note, for example, that Hiram’s response to Solomon in the Deuteronomistic passage parallel to the story of the building of the temple in 2 Chronicles 2 does not introduce Hiram’s words of response with references to a letter or writing (1 Kings 5:1-22 [English vv. 7-8]; cf. 2 Chron. 2:10 [English v. 11]). The later writer of Chronicles frequently adds the accoutrements of a more literate mentality to the earlier version in the Deuteronomistic History. The epigraphic corpus offers many actual examples of letters from the period of the monarchy. One does not mean to imply that letters are a postexilic phenomenon or the like. Nevertheless, late biblical authors of Ezra-Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles, and Esther certainly refer to letters as recordlike documents on file, as proof for certain clams of reliability, or as testaments to the importance and factuality of certain decrees. (Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996], 90-91)

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Mark Hausam on the Problematic Understanding of Sanctification in Reformed Theology

Mark Hausam (formerly an elder at Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City, now a Roman Catholic) posted a very interesting article recently:

Is Sanctification the Cherry on Top of Salvation?

Mark, whose knowledge of Reformed theology seems rather impeccable based on my reading of his blog (also, see his appearance on Jason Wallace's show, The Ancient Paths - John Calvin), does a great job at showing the problematic nature of sanctification in Reformed theology and how it relates to justification. One should read the entire article, but the following is "on the ball" as we say in Ireland:

The difficulty (or at least one difficulty) is this:  If legal justification is all that we need to be right with God, what is the point of sanctification?  Apparently it is not important to God, since he finds us wholly satisfactory without it.  His moral character is totally reconciled to us apart from any consideration of it.  And surely if God is wholly morally satisfied with us--if he finds nothing in us to warrant a moral rejection--then surely, since we are so righteous, we must attain to the fullness of blessedness.  If God's law declares us righteous, God's law will grant to us all the blessed fruits of a right relationship with God.  So it would seem that sanctification must have no role to play in our salvation at all.  Now, many Reformed theologians balk at this, insisting on the cruciality of sanctification in our salvation; but it is difficult to see how it could be so crucial.  Is legal justification all we need to be totally right with God or not?  If it is, then what could we need more for salvation than to be totally right with God?  Doesn't that include everything of importance?  If it isn't, then it will have to be admitted that the Catholics have a point when they include sanctification in the mix of all that makes us morally acceptable to God.

For those interested on the LDS "take" on the topic, see my article:

Does LDS Theology Confuse the Relationship Between Justification and Sanctification?



Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Susan Niditch on the Golden Calf being a representation of Yahweh

An archaic epithet for Yahweh, god of the Israelites, provides an interesting case study: ‘ăbîr ya’ăqōb. The translation for this phrase in the RSV, the NRSV, and others is “the Mighty One of Jacob.” This translation is itself countermetonymic, a theologically motivated attempt to invoke only one aspect of the phrase’s meaning. More basically and literally the ‘ābîr in Northwest Semitic languages means “bull,” as P.D. Miller has shown in a classic study and as poetic texts such as Isa. 10:13; Ps. 22:13 (v. 12 in English) and Ps. 50:13 strongly confirm. In the latter two passages in particular, “bull” is in synchronic parallelism with “steer” (Ps. 22:13) and “he-goat” (Ps. 50:13).

The horned bull includes implications of strength (hence the translation “Mighty One”), youth, warrior skills, and fertility with a particular sort of machismo. Americans of a particular generation might speak similarly of a “young buck” or a “stud.” Ancient Canaanite religion if rich in tales of the god Baal imaged as a bull. In fact, horned crowns were important symbols of god-power throughout the ancient Near East. As metonymic symbols of various deities, such crowns were set upon thrones in temples representing and ensuring divine indwelling presence.

In part because of the association of the bull with Canaanite and other ancient Near Eastern deities, not all Israelites were comfortable with bull iconography or the related mythology—hence the condemnations in Exodus 32 and 1 Kings 13—and yet for many, perhaps most Yahweh worshippers the bull symbol invoked a range of positive aspects of the deity as powerful, youthful bringer of plenty, rescuer from enemies. When in Ex. 32:4 the Israelites shout toward bull icons, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!” it is the power symbolically and metonymically represented by the bull that captures their imagination. This bull is not Baal or El or Marduk, but the God of Jacob Israel. (Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature [Louiseville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996], 15)

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Martin Luther on Baptism

In a sermon, “The Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism” from 1519, Martin Luther offered the following comments about baptism which LDS and others might find interesting:

1. Baptism [Die Taufe] is baptismos in Greek and mersio in Latin, and means to plunge, something, completely into the water, so that the water covers it. Although in many places it is no longer customary to thrust and dip infants into the font, but only with the hand to pour the baptismal water upon them out of the font, nevertheless the former is what should be done. It would be proper, according to the meaning of the word Taufe comes undoubtedly from the word tief [deep] and means that what is baptized is sunk deeply into the water. This usage is also demanded by the significance of baptism itself. For baptism, as we shall hear, signifies that the old person and the sinful birth of flesh and blood are to be wholly drowned by the grace of God. We should, therefore, do justice to its meaning and make baptism a true and complete sign of the thing it signifies.

. . .

3. The significance of baptism is a blessed dying unto sin and a resurrection in the grace of God, so that the old person, conceived and born in sin, is there drowned, and a new person, born in grace, comes forth and rises. Thus, Jesus, in John 3[:3, 5], says: “Unless you are born again of water and the Spirit, you may not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” For just as a child is drawn out of his mother’s womb and is born, and through this fleshy birth is a sinful person and a child of wrath [Eph 2:3], so one is drawn out of baptism and is born spiritually. Through this spiritual birth, one is a child of grace and a justified person. Therefore, sins are drowned in baptism, and in place of sin, righteousness comes forth.

. . .

6. Baptism was foreshadowed of old in Noah’s flood, when the whole world was drowned, except for Noah with his three sons and their wives, eight souls, who were saved in the ark. That the people of the world were drowned signifies—as St. Peter explains in his second epistle—that through baptism a person is saved. Now, baptism is by far a greater flood than was that of Noah. For that flood drowned people during no more than year, but baptism drowns all sorts of people throughout the world, from the birth of Christ even until the day of Judgement. Moreover, while that was a flood of wrath, this is a flood of grace, as is declared in Psalm 29[:10], “God will make a continual new flood.” For without doubt many more people have been baptized than were drowned in the flood.

7. From this it follows, to be sure, that when someone comes forth out of baptism, one is truly pure, without sin, and wholly guiltless. Still, there are many who do not properly understand this. They think that sin is no longer present, and so they become remiss and negligent in the killing of their sinful nature, even as some do when they have gone to confession. For this reason, as I have said above, it should be properly understood and known that our flesh, so long as it lives here is by nature wicked and sinful . . .

. . .

8. A baptized person is, therefore, sacramentally altogether pure and guiltless. This means nothing else than that the person has the sign of God; that is to say, one has the baptism by which it is shown that one’s sins are all to be dead, and that one also is to die in grace and at the last day is to rise again to everlasting life, pure, singles, and guiltless. With respect to the sacrament, then, it is true that one is without sin and guilt. Yet, because all is not yet completed and one still lives in sinful flesh, one is not without sin. But, although not pure in all things, one has begun to grow into purity and innocence. (The Catholic Luther: His Early Writings, eds. Philip D.W. Krey and Peter D.S. Krey [New York: Paulist Press, 2016], 90, 91, 93, 94)

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Some Random Articles, Podcasts, Interviews, and Videos

I am heading to London for the weekend so I won't be posting here for a few days. To keep you busy, here are a few things of interest I have read/listened to today:

Exploring Mormon Thought ep 31: Sin and the Uncircumcised Heart (Pt 2)

A Disciple's Plea for Openness and Inclusion (interview between Terryl Givens and Elder Marlin K. Jensen)

Robert R. Bennett, Science vs. Mormonism: The Dangers of Dogmatism and Sloppy Reading (review of Duwayne R. Anderson, Farwell to Eden: Coming to Terms with Mormonism and Science [2003])

Unlocking the Old Testament Part 30 - Hebrew Poetry

Why Mormons LOVE Star Wars

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme

Book Notice: The Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion

I just got notification from Deseret Book a few days ago that my copy of this book shipped. It looks like it will be an interesting read on an all-too-neglected volume of Scripture in the Latter-day Saint Canon:

The Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017)

Here is the product description:

Compiled in 1851 by President Franklin D. Richards in Liverpool, England, and canonized in 1880, the Pearl of Great Price occupies a unique place in the Latter-day Saint canon of scripture. Its revealed content is the basis of much theology and practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion is an encyclopedic dictionary that explores the depth and breadth of that precious book. This magnificent volume addresses nearly 400 topics on the Pearl of Great Price: people, places, words, phrases, doctrine, themes, historical background, and much more—all conveniently collected here. In addition, it contains maps, illustrations, outlines, and photographs to enhance your study of the Pearl of Great Price.

The entries in this reference companion have been prepared by some of the finest scholars in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: faculty members from Brigham Young University, teachers in the Church Educational System, research personnel from the Church Historical Department, and others. Contributors include Alexander L. Baugh, Richard E. Bennett, Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, John Gee, Steven C. Harper, J.B. Haws, Kent P. Jackson, Daniel K. Judd, Robert L. Millet, Kerry M. Muhlestein, Camille Fronk Olson, Dana M. Pike, David R. Seely, Andrew C. Skinner, Gaye Strathearn, and Robert J. Woodford.

The Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion includes:

Entries on the Pearl of Great Price from A to Z.

A split-column reference style.

Concise explanations of topics followed by a more in-depth treatment.

An internal reference system to guide the reader to related articles.

Extensive cross-referencing to its sister volumes, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants Reference Companions.

The Pearl of Great Price Reference Companion is the first multi-authored encyclopedic dictionary ever published on the Pearl of Great Price. Similar to the LDS Bible Dictionary, this volume provides Latter-day Saints with information on hundreds of Pearl of Great Price topics, including its unique doctrinal contributions. It is truly a comprehensive work. Those who desire to improve their understanding of the Pearl of Great Price will find this book to be an indispensable part of their gospel library.

Support this blog:

Paypal

Gofundme