Saturday, December 30, 2017

Louis Bouyer on Transformative and Forensic Justification

Commenting on the anti-biblical nature of the Protestant understanding of forensic justification, Roman Catholic theologian Louis Bouyer noted the following:

Certainly, Isaias says that ‘all our justifications are like a soiled garment’, and Job, that God ‘finds fault even among the angels’. Nothing could express more strongly the reality of sin, not only as a transient act, but as a permanent state, causing a radical privation of justice in sinful man before God. The second of these texts mean, too, that even a creature untouched by sin is at an infinite distance from the holiness which is God’s and his alone. Yet none o this prevents the Bible from insisting with equal force on the ‘goodness’ inherent in every creature that comes from the hands of God, and that goodness which it recovers after sin, when moved and taken up by grace. No doubt Christ himself declared: ‘God alone is good’, but just as explicitly enjoins, ‘Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’; the supposition that he could have called men to this without giving them the means to respond is not worth considering.

The very condition of existence of the ‘new creature’ is the loving recognition of his actual and necessary dependence for everything upon God. But this, all the New Testament goes to show, does not mean that he has to remain in the state where sin has placed him, but that he must bear the image of the heavenly Adam as he did that of the earthly one; this amounts to saying that God reveals himself as Sovereign and alone Holy, not by leaving sinners to their powerlessness and sinfulness, but by rescuing them from it. The cry of faith, then, is not simply a perpetual contrasting of the holiness and greatness of God with the misery and sinfulness of man, but it is equally what St. Paul means when he says: ‘By the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace in me has not been void’ (1 Cor. XV, 10). That this is not a casual utterance, but indicates something actually existing and, in some degree at least, capable of being estimated, appears from a passage which itself occurs in a context contrasting utterly the weakness of man, his radical impotence, with the omnipotence of God: ‘We labor, whether absent or present, to please him. For we must all be manifested before the judgement-seat of Christ, that everyone may receive according as he hath done, whether good or evil, while still in the body.’

The uneasiness felt by Protestant systems opposed to Catholicism is nowhere so evident than in the long controversy on the meaning in St. Paul of the word δικαιουν, to justify. All Protestant exegetes, anxious to safeguard the expressions used by Luther and Calvin, set out to show that it can only mean ‘to declare just’, not ‘to make just’; that is, it applies merely to extrinsic justice’, which has nothing real to correspond with it in the person justified. Nevertheless, modern scientific exegesis unanimously acknowledges that the word can only mean ‘to declare officially just someone who is so in reality’. even the idea of the Word of God creating what he says by the act of saying it—so well drawn out by Barth from the entire Bible—would be enough to show that God makes just whom he ‘declares just’, even if he were not to beforehand, by the very fact of his declaration, so the opposition set up is without meaning.

To sum up the question, if the Bible sets God’s holiness, his sovereign greatness, in an ‘inaccessible light’, it does not at all intend to deny him the act of creating, or recreating, anything real or of value outside himself. Rather, it does so to emphasise how much the first creation, still more the second, attest by their intrinsic reality and goodness and incomparable reality and goodness of him they manifest. The God of Calvinism and Barthism, it seems, keeps all his greatness only if his creatures return to nothingness. The God of the Bible, on the contrary, shows his greatness in snatching them from it, not only, as St. John says, ‘that we are called, but really are, the sons of God’ (John III, 1) (Louis Bouyer, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism [trans. A.V. Littledale; Westminster, Md.: The Newman Press, 1957], 147-48)

This mirrors what Robert Bellarmine correctly noted:

When God justifies the sinner by declaring him just, He also makes him just, for God’s judgment is according to truth” (De iustificatione, II, 3, as cited by Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed, 2009], p. 312 n. 374)

Indeed, modern scholarship continues to support the transformative, not declarative merely, meaning of δικαιοω and other members of the δικαι- word group. In his seminal Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (trans. James D. Ernest; 3 vols.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994), 1:340-42, Ceslas Spicq wrote the following which agrees with what Schaff wrote:

Several times St. Paul uses dikaoō in its forensic OT sense, “declare or acknowledge to be just,” especially when he is quoting the OT, but it would be wrong to extend this meaning to all the texts. In the first place, this would be to forget that “verbs in – mean to make whatever the root indicates. Thus dikaoō should properly mean ‘make just.’ This meaning is not found in secular Greek for rather natural reasons.’”[86] In the second place, it would overlook the fact that St. Paul, as a converted Pharisee, perceived as no one else did the opposition between the new covenant and the old covenant, law and grace, circumcision and baptism, and perhaps especially the inefficacy of the old legal dispensation compared to the efficacy and realism of the dispensation of salvation centered on the cross of Jesus. The consequence is a radical change in ideas concerning righteousness/justification, as is seen in the frequent linking of the verb “justify” with faith in Christ and in the explicit contrast between justification and the works of the law; there is a different scheme or process for attributing justice/righteousness in the new covenant than in the old covenant. The apostle gives dikaoō a causative sense, as appears from Rom 3:24—“All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (cf. Rom 8:30; 2 Cor 3:18; 5:21); (henceforth) they are justified (present passive participle, dikaioumenoi) freely by his grace, through the redemption (apolytrōsis) that is in Jesus Christ.” God has shown his mercy, but not by pronouncing acquittal pure and simple; through Christ a price was paid, a ransom (lytron) with expiatory value (cf. verse 25: hilastērion), so that “sinners” have become just, have been made truly righteous.[87] Another clear text is Rom 3:26-“to show his justice/righteousness (his salvific action), so that (it might be established that) he himself is just and that he justifies (present active participle, dikaiounta) the one who has faith in Jesus”: the just God communicates his justice/righteousness and makes just.[88]

Notes for the Above

[86] M.J. LaGrange, La Justification selon saint Paul, Revue Biblique 1914, p. 121

[87] “The sacrifice of Christ has satisfied once and for all the demands for outward justice which God had deposited in the Law, and at the same time it has brought the positive gift of life and inward justice which the latter was unable to give” (P. Benoit, Exégèse et théologie, vol. 2 p. 39 n. 2); c. Rom 5:18—“justification gives life.” The best commentary is the Trinitarian baptismal text on the “bath of regeneration and renewal” (Titus 3:7), “so that having been justified by the grace of this (Jesus Christ) our Savior (ἵνα δικαιωθέντες τῇ ἐκείνου χάριτι), we might become . . . heirs . . . of eternal life”: the aorist passive participle denotes the present state of this new and internal righteousness that permits entry into heaven, where nothing impure may go in. C. H. Rosman, “Iusticicare (δικαιουν) est verbum causalitatis,” in Verbum Domini, 1941, pp. 144-147.

[88] Cf. Rom 4:5—“The one who has no works but who believes in the One who justifies (δικαιουντα) the ungodly, will have his faith counted as righteousness.” M.J. Legrange (on this verse) comments: “δικαιοω in the active cannot mean ‘forgive’: it has to be ‘declare just’ or ‘make just.’ That God should declare the ungodly righteous is a blasphemous proposition. But in addition, when would this declaration be made?” H.W. Heidland (TDNT, vol. 4, pp. 288-292) explains λογιζεσθαι: “Justification is not a fiction alongside the reality. If God counts faith as righteousness, man is wholly righteous in God’s eyes . . . He becomes a new creature through God’s λογιζεσθαι.”









Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Wishing everyone a happy 2018! Also: update on Priesthood Book

I just want to take this time to say "thank you" again to all my followers, and wish everyone a wonderful 2018! 2017 was truly a great year for this blog, even resulting in the publication of two books:



I hope to continue blogging next year with as much frequency as 2017. Of course, I have to balance other things in my life, so if you wish to support this blog and my writing, feel free to make a donation via Paypal or Gofundme

I hope to write more books in the next few years on various issues (Christology; soteriology; a volume discussing Open Theism in light of LDS Scriptures and theology; a volume on the place of "Mormonism" within Christianity [the volume I hope to co-author with Tarik LaCour] and contribute to/edit a volume on Book of Mormon historicity).

On the topic of books, I have finished a volume that is, in part, a follow up to Not by Scripture Alone:

"After the Order of the Son of God": The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood.

I hope it will be published in January 2018. Here is the table of contents:

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Biblical Evidence for an Ordained, Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant from the Last Supper Accounts

Chapter 2: Are Melchizedek and Jesus the Same Person?

Chapter 3: Hebrews 7:12 and the Aaronic Priesthood

Chapter 4: Does 1 Peter 2:4-10 teach the “Priesthood of All Believers”?

Chapter 5: Insights into John 20:23, Christology, and the Confessing of Sins

Chapter 6: Galatians 1:1 and the Ordination of Paul to the Apostleship

Chapter 7: James 5:14-15 in Early Christianity

Chapter 8: Does Luke 9:49-50 refute the need for a New Covenant Priesthood?

Chapter 9: The Authority of the Church in the New Testament

Chapter 10: Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

Chapter 11: The Rending of the Temple Veil, the Need for a Mediator, and the On-going Importance of Temple Worship After the Crucifixion

Chapter 12: Refuting a Criticism of the Latter-day Saint Interpretation of Malachi 4:5-6

Chapter 13: “Elias” as a “forerunner” in LDS Scripture

Chapter 14: Old Testament Practices and Mormonism

Chapter 15: Revelation 21:14—Evidence against LDS Ecclesiology? Ephesians 2:20--Evidence for LDS Ecclesiology?

Chapter 16: A Note on the Meaning of “Priest” and "Priesthood" in the Early Restored Church

Chapter 17: Responding to a Critic of Brigham Young being Joseph Smith's Proper Successor

Chapter 18: Joseph Smith seeing God the Father Before the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood

Chapter 19: Final Questions and Answers about Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood

Appendix: Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology





Note on Philo and λογιζομαι

On a section of his intellectual biography of Philo of Alexandria, entitled “Philo’s Role as Pious and Suffering Ambassador,” Maren R. Niehoff wrote:

Philo as a narrator builds his leading role in the Jewish embassy by pointing to his experience and intellectual superiority. His exemplary maturity shows in the first meeting with Gaius, who greeted them in a friendly manner and conveyed the message that he himself would hear the case in due course. While the other ambassadors rejoice at the emperor’s positive response, Philo remains sceptical and is troubled by the following thoughts:

But as I believe to have a greater amount of good sense on account of my age and my good education, I was alarmed by the things that gave joy to them. Bestirring my own thinking power (logismos), I said: Why, when so many envoys have arrived from almost the whole earth, did he say that he would hear only us? What does he want? He cannot have remained ignorant of the act that we are Jews , for whom it would be a pleasure not to be disadvantaged . . . Thus thinking I was deeply disturbed and had no rest by day or night. Yet fainthearted I kept my sorrow secret, since it was not safe to express it, while another very heavy calamity suddenly and unexpectedly fell upon us—a calamity that brought danger not only to one part of the Jewish citizen-body, but collectively to the whole people. (Legat. 183-84) (Maren R. Niehoff, Philo of Alexandria: An Intellectual Biography [The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018], 34)

Commenting on this section from Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium (“On the Embassy to Gaius”), Niehoff writes:

This is one of the more personal passages in Philo’s entire oeuvre, when he shares with his readers the thoughts going through his mind. Stressing his own doubts regarding Gaius’s sincerity, Philo connects this scene from the initial stage of the embassy with the subsequent news about Gaius’s plan to erect his own statue in the Jerusalem Temple. Philo gives the impression that immediately after the meeting with Gaius, while he was still thinking about its meaning, the bad news about the Temple reached him. According to Philo’s own testimony, however, the Jewish ambassadors heard the news at a considerably later stage. In Embassy 185 he mentions the journeys they had in the meantime undertaken to follow Gaius, who was “spending some time round the bay [of Puteloli].” Philo thus had harmonized two events, namely, the initial meeting with Gaius in the early part of 39 CE and the subsequent announcement of his plans about the Jerusalem Temple which most probably dates to the summer of 40 CE. By fusing the two events Philo gives the impression that human diplomacy was doomed to failure from the beginning.

Philo explains his inner thoughts and shows how he relies on his education and logismos in order to judge external appearances more carefully than others. He prides himself in having the “good sense” to distrust Gaius rather than accept his gestures and benevolence. This disclosure of a personal reaction to an external stimulation reflects Stoic philosophy, which is concerned with the individual as embedded in society and reacting to the outside world. While Philo does not use distinctly Stoic terminology, except the rather general notion of logismos, his position is close to that of the Roman philosopher Seneca, who began to publish his first works at the time of Philo’s embassy. Seneca similarly treats the individual person with emphasis on his or her reaction to the outside world. Time and again he describes how he reacted to specific situations and other people by applying his rational judgement.

. . .

On another occasion, [Seneca] says, “I reflected and recovered and regained my strength” through studies. Like Philo, Seneca engages in an inner dialogue, urging himself “not to be yielding up my soul.” Both Seneca and Philo have integrated personal experiences into their discussion and project a narrative self of Stoic complexion in order to demonstrate the concrete truth of their positions. Seneca discloses his self in order to show that “everything depends on opinion; . . . a man is as wretched as he has convinced himself that he is.” Philo tells his readers how he relies on his logismos in order to confront the impression of Gaius’s friendly gestures, suggesting that from the beginning, this Roman emperor is “our mortal enemy” (Philo, Legat. 180). (Ibid., 34-35, 36 emphasis added. Comment in square bracket added for clarification)

Why is this significant? The verb, transliterated here as logisomos is λογιζομαι, a verb that has been discussed a bit on this blog, including my 7-part series, Λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the New Testament:


The overwhelming evidence from this passage in Philo, as well as (1) the rest of Philo’s works and (2) the other Greek literature contemporary with the New Testament is that λογιζομαι does not support the popular Reformed understanding of the verb, namely, that it means imputation (seeing in someone something that is not really there but must be imputed to them from an alien [external] source); instead, the verb refers to what someone is thinking of as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing. That Philo, through his logismos, is able to know the true, intrinsic nature of Gaius, not his mere (deceptive) external presentation of himself.









Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

The Mormon restoration and the meaning of grace

Brent Schmidt and John Welch have a very good article on the Deseret News on the meaning of "grace":

The Mormon restoration and the meaning of grace

It is a very good discussion of the term χαρις in the New Testament and how its meaning has been restored in Latter-day Saint theology.

Schmidt is the author of a book I highly recommend that was published by BYU Studies:

Relational Grace: The Reciprocal and Binding Covenant of Charis




Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Friday, December 29, 2017

Daniel Peterson on the Book of Mormon Witnesses and the Witnesses to the Voree Plates

In an article, "The Book of Mormon Witnesses and Their Challenge to Secularism" Daniel C. Peterson tackles, among other issues, the purported parallels between the witnesses to the Book of Mormon and those of J.J. Strang's Voree Plates:

But aren’t such testimonies a dime a dozen? Isn’t there an obvious parallel in the case of James J. Strang, the leader of a short-lived splinter group after the murder of Joseph Smith?
Let’s have a look. (What follows is drawn from Milo Milton Quaife, The Kingdom of Saint James: A Narrative of the Mormons (New York: Oxford University Press, 1930); Roger Van Noord, The King of Beaver Island (Champaign/Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988).)
Though little remembered today, James Jesse Strang campaigned seriously to lead the LDS Church after Joseph Smith’s 1844 assassination.
When the general membership rejected the obscure new convert’s claim that a secret letter had appointed him as Joseph Smith’s successor, Strang started his own sect, ultimately headquartered on Beaver Island, Michigan. Like Joseph, he eventually claimed to have translated ancient metal plates and provided eleven corroborating eyewitnesses.
By 1856, when he himself was murdered, he had several thousand followers, including members of Joseph Smith’s family, former apostles, and Book of Mormon witnesses.
Incidentally, the fact that some Book of Mormon witnesses credited Strang argues for their sincerity: Had they been knowing perpetrators of a fraud with Joseph Smith, they would likely have been far more skeptical of Strang.
But does the fact that Strang had witnesses like Joseph’s mean that, for consistency’s sake, modern believers in Mormonism must either accept Strang’s claims or reject both Joseph and Strang?
No. Because the two sets of witnesses and their experiences were very different.
The two sets of inscribed plates that Strang claimed to have found in Wisconsin and Michigan beginning in 1845 almost certainly existed. Milo Quaife’s early, standard biography of Strang reflects that, while Strang’s angelic visitations “may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them, the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality.”
And they were almost certainly forgeries.
The first set, the three “Voree” or “Rajah Manchou” plates, were dug up by four “witnesses” whom Strang had taken to the plates’ burial place. Illustrated and inscribed on both sides, the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size — small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket.
Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. “With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise,” he wrote, “all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them.” One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.
The 18 “Plates of Laban,” likewise of brass and each about 7.5 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and were seen by seven witnesses in 1851. These witnesses’ testimony was published as a preface to “The Book of the Law of the Lord,” which Strang said he derived from the “Plates of Laban.” (He appears to have begun the “translation” at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.) Strang’s witnesses report seeing the plates but mention nothing miraculous. Nor did Strang supply any additional supporting testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.
One of the witnesses to the “Plates of Laban,” Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang’s movement and denounced it as mere “human invention.” Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had actually assisted Strang in the creation of the plates.
“We can hardly escape the conclusion,” writes Quaife, “that Strang knowingly fabricated and planted them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers”; and, accordingly, that “Strang’s prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture.” A more recent biographer, Roger Van Noord, concludes that “based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang — or someone under his direction — manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang’s advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion.”
Thus, Strang’s plates were much less numerous than those of the Book of Mormon, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural, and his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months. (Quite unlike the semiliterate Joseph Smith, Strang was well read. He had been an editor and lawyer before his involvement with Mormonism.) Perhaps most strikingly, unlike the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, at least some of Strang’s witnesses later denied their testimonies.
The contrasts work very much in Joseph Smith’s favor.






Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

D&C 40, God's Contingent Foreknowledge, and Divine Temporality

In D&C 40:1-3, we read the following:

Behold, verily I say unto you, that the heart of my servant James Covill was right before me, for he covenanted with me that he would obey my word. And he received the word with gladness, but straightway Satan tempted him; and the fear of persecution and the cares of the world caused him to reject the word. Wherefore he broke my covenant, and it remaineth with me to do with him as seemeth me good. Amen.

What is rather interesting about this revelation is that it supports (1) contingent foreknowledge of God and (2) that God is not atemporal (exists in an “eternal now”) but instead exists in what is called "Divine Temporality."

That God reveals Himself as having contingent foreknowledge can be clearly seen in the fact that, while James Covill was faithful, God deemed him to be “right before [God],” and yet, due to his free-will actions, God changed his opinion of Covill. That this shows that God is not “atemporal” is proven by the fact that there is a genuine “before” and “after” in the thoughts and actions of God.

A good biblical example paralleling this pertains to the sons of Eli and God, as a result of their sinful behaviour, abrogating the “eternal promise” he made to them:

Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever (Heb: עוֹלָם LXX:αἰών): but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. (1 Sam 2:30)

Such also parallels other texts showing the contingent nature of God's foreknowledge in the Doctrine and Covenants (e.g., see D&C 103:31-34 and God's Contingent Foreknowledge). See also the section “The Bible is both God-centered and Man-centered” in my paper An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology


For more on the timelessness of God and the problems thereof, see R.T. Mullins, The End of the Timeless God (Oxford University Press, 2016).








Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Thursday, December 28, 2017

J.J. Andrew on the Nature of Jesus' Humanity

I do apologise for not posting too much in recent days. The good news, however, is that I have finished the final draft of my book on the theology of the Priesthood in the LDS Church:

"After the Order of the Son of God": The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood.

For those who wish to provide a front cover for the book, I am willing to take your entries. You can send them to IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom.

In a post, The Reality of Christ’s Humanity: Was it possible for Jesus Christ to sin? I briefly discussed that Jesus could have sinned and did not have an "immaculate" nature, and ended by quoting the following from President Howard W. Hunter:

It is important to remember that Jesus was capable of sinning, that he could have succumbed, that the plan of life and salvation could have been foiled, but that he remained true. Had there been no possibility of his yielding to the enticement of Satan, there would have been no real test, no genuine victory in the result. If he had been stripped of the faculty to sin, he would have been stripped of his very agency. It was he who had come to safeguard and ensure the agency of man. He had to retain the capacity and ability to sin had he willed so to do. (Howard W. Hunter, The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997], 4)

I read the following from J.J. Andrew, a Christadelphian theologian from the 19th century. While one would disagree with his rejection of the personal pre-existence of Jesus (as a Christadelphian, he held to a Socinian Christology), among other things (e.g., the somewhat polemical language in the following), he hit the nail on the head on the nature of Jesus in the following portion of his work on Jesus:

Jesus not immaculate

Had he been of a nature superior to that of man’s such as the angelic, he could not have fulfilled what was requisite in a perfect atoning sacrifice; he could not have been “in all points tempted like as we are” (Heb. 4, 15); he could have not “tasted DEATH for ever man” (Heb 2, 9); he could not have become “perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2, 10); and God could not, through him, have “condemned sin in the flesh”—(Rom. 8, 3). Hence Paul says “IN ALL THINGS it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people”—(Heb. 2, 17). Accordingly, “Jesus was made a little lower than the angels” (v. 9), and subject to the same law of death as all other descendants of Adam. This is comprised in the statement that he was “like unto his brethren in all things”. To meet the requirements of Eternal wisdom, it was necessary that the same nature which had transgressed should suffer the penalty of death in the person of one who was sinless.


The importance of this truth is made evident by the apostle John’s injunction in his first epistle:--“Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, if not of God; and this is the spirit of antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come”—(1 Jno. 4:2-3). The Romish church makes void this truth, by affirming that the flesh of Jesus was immaculate and different from that of all other men; thereby identifying itself as the “antichrists”. Nearly all Protestant churches follow in the same strain, through in a more modified degree; thus providing that they are the daughters of the Romish “Mother of Harlots”; while a third class teach that Jesus Christ was born under precisely the same conditions as Adam before the Fall,--free from all effects of Edenic sin. Each of these dogmas nullifies the New Testament truth that Jesus Christ was “made like unto this brethren in ALL THINGS”; and came in “THE SAME” flesh. (John James Andrew, The Real Christ [London: “The Dawn” Book Supply, 1948], 90-91, italics and capitalisation in original)


On how Latter-day Saint theology allows for one to affirm the true full humanity of Jesus and his personal pre-existence, see:

The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence


Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme


Wednesday, December 27, 2017

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology now on Amazon



My book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology has just been released on Amazon.com:

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology

It is perhaps the most in-depth discussion of Mariology by a Latter-day Saint author that I am familiar with. Here is the table of contents to whet your appetite:

Chapter 1: Towards a Mormon Mariology
Chapter 2: The Immaculate Conception: Does the Bible Teach it?
Chapter 3: The Immaculate Conception: Is it found in early Christianity?
Chapter 4: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Chapter 5: The Bodily Assumption of Mary
Chapter 6: Devotions and Apparitions
Appendix 1: Latter-day Saints and Religious Images
Appendix 2: The Virginal Conception in Latter-day Saint Theology
Appendix 3: Virgin or Young Lady? An Examination of Isaiah 7:14 and 2 Nephi 17:14
Selected Bibliography on Mariology


I hope to have "After the Order of the Son of God": The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood published in early 2018.





Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Ryan Mullins – In Defense of Divine Temporality

Dale Tuggy just posted the audio of a recent presentation by Ryan Mullins:

Ryan Mullins – In Defense of Divine Temporality

Mullins is the author of an excellent book on this issue that I highly recommend:

The End of the Timeless God (Oxford University Press, 2016)

Tuggy previously interviewed Mullins before addressing this issue:





Enjoy!





Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Cover for "Behold the Mother of My Lord" and another book announcement

Happy St. Stephen's Day (or "Boxing Day" for those in the UK).

Two announcements: My book, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology is in the final stages of editing and should be sent to the publisher in the next few days. Here is the cover:






I have also edited my notes on the LDS Priesthoods, and that will soon be published as a book, too. The tentative title as of this post is:

"After the Order of the Son of God": The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood

In many respects, it will be the follow-up volume to Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura.

Here is the table of contents:

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Biblical Evidence for an Ordained, Ministerial Priesthood in the New Covenant from the Last Supper Accounts

Chapter 2: Are Melchizedek and Jesus the Same Person?

Chapter 3: Hebrews 7:12 and the Aaronic Priesthood

Chapter 4: Does 1 Peter 2:4-10 teach the “Priesthood of All Believers”?

Chapter 5: Insights into John 20:23, Christology, and the Confessing of Sins

Chapter 6: Galatians 1:1 and the Ordination of Paul to the Apostleship

Chapter 7: James 5:14-15 in Early Christianity

Chapter 8: Does Luke 9:49-50 refute the need for a New Covenant Priesthood?

Chapter 9: The Authority of the Church in the New Testament

Chapter 10: Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

Chapter 11: The Rending of the Temple Veil, the Need for a Mediator, and the On-going Importance of Temple Worship After the Crucifixion

Chapter 12: Refuting a Criticism of the Latter-day Saint Interpretation of Malachi 4:5-6

Chapter 13: “Elias” as a “forerunner” in LDS Scripture

Chapter 14: Old Testament Practices and Mormonism

Chapter 15: Revelation 21:14—Evidence against LDS Ecclesiology?

Chapter 16: A Note on the Meaning of “Priest” and "Priesthood" in the Early Restored Church

Chapter 17: Responding to a Critic of Brigham Young being Joseph Smith's Proper Successor

Chapter 18: Joseph Smith seeing God the Father Before the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood









Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Monday, December 25, 2017

Update on my book on Mariology

I hope those who read my blog are having a wonderful Christmas!

Just an update for those who are curious. I have (finally) put together my notes on the topic of Mariology. The tentative title is Behold, the Mother of My Lord: Towards a "Mormon Mariology". It is currently 100 pages and 40,000+ words. I hope to see it published in early 2018.

Here is the current table of contents:

Chapter 1: Towards a Mormon Mariology
Chapter 2: The Immaculate Conception: Does the Bible Teach it?
Chapter 3: The Immaculate Conception: Is it found in early Christianity?
Chapter 4: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Chapter 5: The Bodily Assumption of Mary
Chapter 6: Devotions and Apparitions
Appendix 1: Latter-day Saints and Religious Images
Appendix 2: The Virginal Conception in Latter-day Saint Theology
Appendix 3: Virgin or Young Lady? An Examination of Isaiah 7:14 and 2 Nephi 17:14
Selected Bibliography on Mariology






Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Alma 5:50-52 and the Personality of the Holy Spirit

There are a number of places in the Book of Mormon where the Holy Spirit is presented, in non-poetical contexts, as being a person (I stress “non-poetical” as many try to relegate possible texts affirming the personality of the Spirit in the New Testament as a result of poetical personification). One such text is Alma 5:50-52:

Yea, thus saith the Spirit: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, for the kingdom of heaven is soon at hand; yea, the Son of God cometh in his glory, in his might, majesty, power, and dominion. Yea, my beloved brethren, I say unto you, that the Spirit saith: Behold the glory of the King of all the earth; and also the King of heaven shall very soon shine forth among all the children of men. And also the Spirit saith unto me, yea, crieth unto me with a mighty voice, saying: Go forth and say unto this people-- Repent, for except ye repent ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, the Spirit saith: Behold, the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire, yea, a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire. Behold, and remember, the Holy One hath spoken it.

In these texts, personality is ascribed to the Holy Spirit (how can a non-person or a mere personification speak?) Such is reminiscent of Acts 13:1-2 in the New Testament (discussed here) wherein Luke clearly presents the Holy Spirit, not as being personal merely, but a personality.


Of course, the most explicit witness of the personality of the Holy Spirit in the Book of Mormon is that of 1 Nephi 11 (see David Bokovoy, “Thou Knowest That I Believe”: Invoking The Spirit of the Lord as Council Witness in 1 Nephi 11), but Alma 5:50-52 further strengthens the case that Joseph Smith's theology was not binitarian from the beginnings of "Mormonism" and that the personality of the Holy Spirit is part-and-parcel of early Latter-day Saint theology.



Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Sunday, December 24, 2017

Happy Christmas!

"Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:6-11 | NRSV).



Happy Christmas to all my readers!



Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme

Saturday, December 23, 2017

Mark E. Koltko-Rivera, The Mysteries of Freemasonry

Today I read a collection of essays by Mark E. Koltko-Rivera, a Latter-day Saint and Freemason:

The Mysteries of Freemasonry: Essays on Masonic History, Symbolism, the Esoteric, and the Future of Freemasonry (The School of Freemasonry Books, 2017).

It was an interesting collection of essays on Masonry addressing various issues (e.g., the Morgan affair in 1826 New York; the purported relationship between the LDS Endowment and Freemasonry; Freemasonic symbols, etc).

Kolkto-Rivera has a number of presentations on youtube addressing Masonry, too, including:

Masonic Initiation Rituals and Mormon Temple Ceremonies by Mark Koltko Rivera




The Resurgence of Freemasonry: A Lecture with Grand Historian R.W. Mark E. Koltko-Rivera, Ph.D.




Enjoy!




Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme










Thomas Oord and Gregory Boyd Interviewed on Creation Ex Nihilo and Open Theism

The following interviews with Thomas Oord and Gregory Boyd, two leading proponents of Open Theism, are rather informative. Latter-day Saints will enjoy the discussion of the importance of free-will in God's plan, as well as Oord's rejection of creatio ex nihilo (cf. my review of Oord's book, Creation Made Free: Creation Made Free and Blake Ostler's article A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought):

EP171 Oord on Essential Kenosis and Creation Ex Nihilo







EP207 Greg Boyd on Open Theism









Support this blog:

Paypal


Gofundme