Theological Debates within Catholicism and Rome being a "blueprint to anarchy"

While discussing the theological idea of “Limbo,” two traditionalist Catholic apologists wrote:

Erroneous in Theology: A doctrine that does not directly contradict a revealed truth, but involves logical consequences that are at variance with that has been revealed is “theological erroneous” (proposition theologice erronea). For example, the denial of a theological conclusion is qualified as erroneous. One might place the rejection of Limbo of the children (limbus infantium) in this category, since the denial of this doctrine can logically lead to the rejection of defined doctrines. (John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors [Winona, Minn.: St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, 2015], 178, emphasis in original)

In a footnote for the above, the authors wrote:

For example, the Council of Florence teaches the following: “We define also that . . . the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (Denz., 693). Limbo is the outer fringe of “hell.” It is commonly believed to be a place of natural happiness, with only the “punishment” being the pain of loss (deprivation of the Beatific Vision). I one denies the existence of Limbo, he is either forced to hold that unbaptized infants who die in original sin go to the hell of the damned, or else he is forced to reject the above teaching which states that “those who die in original sin only go straightaway to hell”—that is “Limbo.” The doctrine of Limbo is a theological conclusion that reconciles the justice and mercy of God. (Ibid., 178 n. 15, emphasis in original)

However, in the eyes of most Catholics, Benedict XVI forever shot down the idea of Limbo, and that it was “only” a theological idea, notwithstanding the teachings of theologians as well as Florence, one of the 21 General Councils of Catholicism. It appears the debate still rages on in some conservative Catholic circles.

This struck me as interesting as Catholic apologists often claim that, when one embraces Rome and her claims to authority, such will help settle theological disputes. However, Catholics are theological divided on many topics, the status of Limbo being one. Another is whether Purgatory is a place and/or a condition. Some modern Catholics (e.g., Tim Staples) have been pushing the idea that Purgatory is more of a “condition” than a place where one experiences pains similar to those of hell, albeit, for a finite period of time to purge venial sins and the temporary punishments staining one’s soul. However, the question is not really a novelty. Writing in the early 20^th century, one Jesuit priest and scholar wrote:

As to the nature of the punishment inflicted in purgatory, there is no dogmatic teaching of the Church on the subject, but the more common teaching of theologians is that I consists in the endurance of fire. In this sense the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. III.15) may be interpreted: “He himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” It is a well-grounded opinion of some leading Catholic theologians that the purgatorial suffering far exceeds in severity any of the sufferings of this life. It is natural that in the next life God should be doubly rigorous in dealing with those who have been less diligent in this life in atoning for their transgressions. (M.P. Hill, The Catholic’s Ready Answer: A Popular Vindication of Christian Beliefs and Practices Against the Attacks of Modern Critics [New York: Benziger Brothers, 1915], 383)

As Salza and Sisco correctly noted:

Due to the imperfection of the human condition, it is possible for there to be material divisions within the Church in doctrine or government due to an error of fact. (True or False Pope? 46)

Here is a brief listing (off the top of my head) of major theological debates within Catholicism today:

The status of the Novus Ordo Mass: it is valid? is it is licit?

Was Vatican II incorrect in its teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism?

Do Muslims worship the same God as Catholics?

The exact meaning of "outside the Church, not salvation."

The parameters of "invincible ignorance."

Are canonisations infallible? And if so, is the new process of canonisations, introduced by John Paul II infallible, too? If not, and if John Paul II or any other person canonised in this new process are not in heaven, is it sinful to (erroneously) act for their heavenly intercession? As Salza and Siscoe (p. 379) write (they argue for the infallibility of canonisations under the old process but questoin the new in their book):

[A]ccording to the teaching of the Church’s theologians, the Church also speaks infallibly on other matters, which fall into the category of secondary objects of infallibility. These include (a) theological conclusions (i.e., inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is immediately revealed, while the other is a truth known by natural reason), (b) dogmatic facts, (c) universal disciplines, and the (d) canonization of saints. These secondary objects of infallibility are not believed with Divine and Catholic Faith, but with Ecclesiastical Faith, which is faith in the infallible Church teaching (but not in God revealing).

The parameters of "baptism of desire."

The nature of predestination (e.g., Augustinianism vs. Thomism vs. Congruism vs. Molinism--these, and others are accepted in the Catholic tradition, notwithstanding their theological differences)

Whether Dei Verbum from Vatican II teaches that Scripture is infallible in all respects, for our salvation, or only infallible with respect to texts dealing with our salvation (i.e., only passages that are soteriological in nature)?

The exact definition of "tradition" as well as the relationship of Scripture to "tradition."

The debate as to whether the Bible is "materially" sufficient.

The debate as to whether Mary's role as co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and advocate should be elevated to a dogma.

Theistic evolution vs. various theories of creationism (OEC; YEC) within Catholicism

Which (if any) biblical passages have been infallibly interpreted

How many infallible papal statements, pre and post 1870, have there been (e.g., whether John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis [1994] was infallible)

I am not saying there are theological debates within the LDS Church and that we are free of such; however the above, and many others, puts the lie to the popular claim that, if one embraces Roman Catholicism, such debates are unheard of--instead, embracing Roman Catholicism is a "blueprint to anarchy," to borrow from Patrick Madrid.

John Gee on Abraham Presenting Sarah as his Sister

Abraham was instructed by God to refer to his wife, Sarah, as his sister (Abraham 2:22-25). This takes advantage of an ambiguity in the Egyptian language: the Egyptian word for wife (hime) means only wife, but the Egyptian word for sister (sone) means both sister and wife. Thus, the term that Abraham used was not false, but ambiguous. It was also necessary: since numerous Egyptian texts discuss how pharaohs could take any woman that they fancied and would put the husband to death if the woman was married, this advice saved Abraham’s life.

God was willing to save Abraham’s life on more than one occasion. Doing so fulfilled part of the covenant that God had made with him. (John Gee. An Introduction to the Book of Abraham [Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Centre, Brigham Young University, 2017], 102, italics in original)

Elisha and the Two Bears

The following video is Michael Heiser's discussion of Elisha and the two bears (2 Kgs 2:23-25), one of the more "odd" narratives in the Old Testament that, when examined in the light of the Ancient Near East (e.g., sacred cosmology) makes much more sense:

Michael Heiser - Elisha and the Two Bears (2 Kings 2:23-25)

Baptismal Regeneration, Transformative Justification, and the Odes of Solomon

In my article Transformative Justification and the Odes of Solomon, I refuted the claim by some Protestants that the Odes of Solomon teaches forensic justification, instead, showing that it teaches the doctrine of transformative justification.

The Odes of Solomon also is a witness of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would entail transformative, not merely declarative, justification. As one scholar, writing on the Odes of Solomon and its theology of water baptism noted:

The Odes of Solomon

The Odes of Solomon have so much of Orthodox Christianity about them that their author, if he was not himself in the same church as Ignatius and Polycarp, must but lately have left it What he has to say of baptism is so extensive that only the most salient passages can here be considered for the value that they have in helping prove the continued use of the Name at baptism in the early 2^nd century, to which time the Odes belong. Of these passages, the most important are 15.8 and 29.5-7:

“I have put on incorruption through His name; and have put off corruption by His grace.”

“He justified them by His grace. For I believed in the Lord’s Christ: and it appeared to me that He is the Lord; and He showed me His sign: and He led me by His light, and gave me the rod of His power.”

It hardly needs pointing out that the putting on of Christ, in virtue of whose resurrection Christians hope for incorruption, took place at baptism, according to the Pauline teaching of Galatians 3.26. The second passage emphasizes the fact that belief in Christ as Lord was required at the time when the sign, seal, or enlightenment of baptism was received. The giving of the rod at baptism is perhaps reminiscent of the allegory of Hermas in Sim. 8.I, though the rods are green and have to be kept so by the Christians, whereas here the ode continues with words about the power and victory which the rod gives. As the idea of power predominates, it will be more probable that the writer of the Odes was thinking of the rod of Christ, such as it is described in the Apocalypse 12.5 and 19.15, being given into the hands of the one who is baptized, so that in his faith he may have the victory which overcomes the world.

The picture that is drawn of Christ in Ode 28.11-13 is that of one who gave to mortals the saving water of baptism:

“They came round Me like mad dogs who ignorantly attack their masters; their thought is corrupt and their understanding perverted. But I was carrying waters in My right hand, and their bitterness I endured by My sweetness.”

Christ portrays Himself as the man with the pitcher, exactly as He was described by Tertullian (de bapt. 19) . . . There is another Ode where baptism in the Name is alluded to, in a context which the editors have found puzzling. In 25.11, after many images have been used to express thanks for deliverance, the author says:

“I became the Lord’s own, by the name of the Lord, and was justified by His gentleness.”

The Harnack-Flemming version rendered the verse: “Ich bin dem Herrn zu eigen geworden, im Namen hes Herrn,” following the Syriac, though Bernard took up a suggestion of Rendel Harris and read: “I became admirable . . . “ Obviously, unless one has in the background some idea of baptism in the Name, the phrase as it stood in the Syriac was rather mystifying. The preceding verses of the Ode are sufficiently clear about the baptismal reference of the whole, and this Bernard has very well brought out, e.g. in his note on verse 8, but he pressed over this concluding verse rather summarily. The “gentleness of the Lord” reminds one of the saying in Titus 3:4-5, about the χρηστότης καὶ φιλανθρωπία of our savior who according to His mercy saved us by the bath of regeneration. (Joseph Crehan, Early Christian Baptism and the Creed: A Study in Ante-Nicene Theology [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1950], 52-54)

 Instead of being an early witness of Reformation theology, the Odes of Solomon are an early witness of (1) baptismal regeneration and (2) transformative justification.

George Wesley Buchanan on "seeing God"

With respect to the promise that the pure in heart will see God (Matt 5:8), one scholar wrote:

The promise that anyone would ever see God seems strange in the light of other biblical testimony. 1 Jn. 4:12 said that no man had ever seen God. Israelites were warned to stay back from Mt. Sinai, with its smoke and fire, lest they should look and perish (Ex. 19:16-21). Moses was told that no one could see the Lord’s face and live (Ex. 33:20), even though the Lord’s presence would go with his people (Ex. 33:14). Nevertheless, after the commandments had been given, Moses, together with Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went apart from the people and saw the God of Israel (ויראו את אלהי ישׂראל). They saw God and ate and drank (‎ויחזו את־האלהים ויאכלו וישׁתו, Ex. 24:9-11). This took place at the festival at the top of the mountain covered with a cloud (Ex. 24:15-16). Moses also reminded the Lord that he was seen face to face (עין בעין נראה) and that his cloud stood over his people and that the Lord went before them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (Num. 14:14). Isaiah was in the temple when the place was filled with smoke and he there saw the Lord (ואראה את־אדני, Isa. 6:1). Those who lived in the temple (i.e. the priests) were required to walk blamelessly in certain specified ways (Ps. 15:1-5). He who ascended the hill of the Lord was required to have clean hands and a pure heart (Ps. 24:3-4). Rabbis understood the passage, “Because in a cloud (‎‎כי בענן) I will be seen (אראה) on the ark cover” (Lev. 16:2), to refer to the cloud of smoke made by incense offered by the priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Holy of Holies. The incense was to be offered in such a way that the priest’s vision there would always be blurred by the smoke lest he “see God” improperly (Sifra 81b; JYoma I, V, 39a-39b; see also Ex. R. 34:1; RH 31a; Mekita Shirata 10:24-43). Philo insisted that even when he entered the holy of holies, the high priest could not see anything (Spec. I.72; cf. Ebr. 136; Gig. 52; Leg. 306). J.Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati, 1951), 60-6, said, “It cannot be denied that the primitive notion was that the tabernacle, and later on the temple in Jerusalem, were the residences of God on earth and that the Holy of Holies within the temple was especially the place where He dwelt, and the ark-cover with the two Cherubim being, so to speak, His throne. The Rabbis often sought to suppress or modify these primitive beliefs, or at least, to remove from them the crude anthropomorphic elements, but they were not always successful. These primitive beliefs were retained by the people and echoes of them are found in the Talmud and in the Midrashim.” It seems then, that the experience in which Isaiah saw the Lord in the temple with the smoke and the fire was a situation much like that of the priests offering sacrifice and like that in which Ezekiel saw the likeness of the glory of the Lord in the temple (Ez. 10:1-2). Ezekiel said the throne held one whose appearance was like a man (אדם, 1:26). Both experiences were related to smoky, fiery situations in the temple, somewhat like that at Mt. Sinai when the leaders saw the God of Israel while the mountain was covered in a cloud (Ex. 24:9-16), and also the description of the Lord who was seen in the pillar of cloud [smoke] and fire caused by the burning fire at the tent of meeting (Num. 14:14).

After the wilderness wandering, the place where God could be seen was in the temple and there only by those who had clean hands and pure hearts. In Mt. 5:8, then, those who had pure hearts were promised that they could see God (τον θεον οψονται). In context of the OT promises that were expected to be fulfilled, the beatitude probably meant that those who had pure hearts would live to worship in the temple, where they, like Isaiah and the priests, could see God. (George Wesley Buchanan, The Consequences of the Covenant [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970], 74-75 n. 10, emphasis added)

So in the words of Jesus and the theology of the Old and New Testament, not only is there a belief that God is embodied and can be seen (something later Rabbis attempted to subvert), but also a promise that the “pure in heart” will see God, like Isaiah, in a physical temple. If all temple worship were annulled with the death and resurrection of Jesus, such does not make sense, unless temple worship and liturgies were part-and-parcel of the New Covenant as Latter-day Saint theology teaches.

Michael Kruger on What It Means That the Bible Is Self-Authenticating

Reformed scholar Michael Kruger was asked about the "self-authenticating" nature of the Bible, an essential building block for Sola Scriptura and the formal sufficiency of the Bible:

Michael Kruger on What It Means That the Bible Is Self-Authenticating

For a solid refutation of the doctrine that Kruger is trying to ram into this, Sola Scriptura, as well as a discussion of the incredibly subjective epistemology Protestants are forced to engage in, see my book

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (an online version can be found here)

The Myth of Papal Primacy and the Celebration of Easter

Catholic scholar and apologist Scott Hahn wrote the following about the early Christian celebration of Easter:

It was the first Christian holiday to be observed each year. We don’t know when that custom began, but we see the first evidence of it very early in the second century—and the Fathers of that time insisted that their tradition went back to the Apostles. The Christian rite was not a seder but rather a reading of the story of Jesus’ Passion and resurrection, interspersed with preaching and conferral of the sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation (Chrismation), and Eucharist . . . Many Christians in the East kept the custom-which they attributed to the Apostle John—of observing the Resurrection on the date of the Passover each year. Since Passover falls on the fourteenth day of the Hebrew month of Nisan, these Christians were called Quartodecimans, which literally means “Fourteeners.”

In the West, however, the Church always marked the feast on the Sunday after Passover (unless Passover felt on a Sunday), thus emphasizing the importance of the Lord’s Day as the day of the Resurrection.

The popes in the West threatened the churches in the East with excommunication. Bishops (notably Polycarp and Irenaeus), in turn, made pleas for mutual tolerance. And both customs coexisted uneasily for centuries. But Passover mattered too much at the Church ultimately could not live with the strain. In 325 the Council of Nicea settled the matter definitely by imposing the Sunday observance of Pascha on the whole Church. (Scott W. Hahn, The Fourth Cup: Unveiling the Mystery of the Last Supper and the Cross [New York: Image, 2018], 158-60)

The mention of Polycarp and Roman Bishop Ani shows that Polycarp did not know of papal primacy in his interaction with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome. As Eusebius wrote:

And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect.1 And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.24.16-17)

Polycarp rejected the practice of Anicetus but he also tried to persuade Anicetus of his theological view. Such is contrary to the teachings of various councsil of Catholicism, including the Council of Lyons II from 1274:

466 [DS 861] Also this same holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power over the universal Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff. And just as to defend the truth of Faith she is held before all other things, so if any questions shall arise regarding faith they ought to be defined by her judgment. And to her anyone burdened with affairs pertaining to the ecclesiastical world can appeal; and in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical examination, recourse can be had to her judgment, and all churches are subject to her; their prelates give obedience and reverence to her. In her, moreover, such a plentitude of power rests that she receives the other churches to a share of her solicitude, of which many patriarchal churches the same Roman Church has honored in a special way by different privileges—its own prerogative always being observed and preserved both in general Councils and in other places.

Polycarp's attitude also contracts the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium. In section 25 of this text, we read that:

[R]eligious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

To get around the implications of Polycarp and his dispute with Anicetus, Catholic apologists are forced to argue from silence and question-begging, as seen in the following:

Polycarp, able bishop of Smyrna, tried to urge the latter usage on Rome but Anicetus remained steadfast to the custom that had begun with Peter. Great controversy was waged between bishop and pope but the pope did not make it a question of papal authority and the bishop had the good sense not to suggest or cause a schismatic break. The argument was to continue until finally settled, in favor of the Western Church [Rome], at the Council of Nicea. (John Farrow, Pageant of the Popes, p. 20 as cited by Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], p. 155 n. 15)

More on the Importance of Mariology: Pius IX and Ubi Primum (1849)

In his 1849 papal encyclical (5 years before his dogmatizing of the Immaculate Conception), Pius IX wrote the following in Ubi Primum:

From our earliest years nothing has ever been closer to Our heart than devotion-filial, profound, and wholehearted-to the most blessed Virgin Mary. Always have We endeavored to do everything that would redound to the greater glory of the Blessed Virgin, promote her honor, and encourage devotion to her. Accordingly, from the very beginning of Our supreme pontificate We have most fervently directed Our energies and Our thoughts to this matter of such great importance. Nor have We failed, through humble and fervent prayers, to beg almighty God to enlighten Our mind with the light of His grace in order that We might know what We should do in this matter.

Great indeed is Our trust in Mary. The resplendent glory of her merits, far exceeding all the choirs of angels, elevates her to the very steps of the throne of God. Her foot has crushed the head of Satan. Set up between Christ and His Church, Mary, ever lovable and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin.

And likewise in our own day, Mary, with the ever merciful affection so characteristic of her maternal heart, wishes, through her efficacious intercession with God, to deliver her children from the sad and grief-laden troubles, from the tribulations, the anxiety, the difficulties, and the punishments of God’s anger which afflict the world because of the sins of men. Wishing to restrain and to dispel the violent hurricane of evils which, as We lament from the bottom of Our heart, are everywhere afflicting the Church, Mary desires to transform Our sadness into joy. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.

Again and again, when one examines Roman Catholic Mariology from reputable sources (popes; informed theologians and apologists; accepted devotional tools and approved apparitions), one sees over and over again that Mariology, far from being a far-off doctrine that is not important, is an area of theology where one must strive to be correct in, and that, if one deviates from sound Mariology, one will end up with the false (and even blasphemous) teachings one finds in this and other sources.

For more, be sure to check out my book-length discussion of Mariology:

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology

Dwight Longenecker on the Bodily Assumption of Mary

In their debate book on Mary, Dwight Longenecker (former Anglican who converted to Catholicism) and David Gustafson (Protestant) had an interesting exchange on the “apostolicity” of the Bodily Assumption of Mary:

What It Means to Be “Apostolic”

Dwight: This reveals a different understanding of what it means to be an apostolic church. We believe that the apostolic deposit of faith is just that—a deposit or down payment. It is the essential core from which the full understanding of the faith may grow. It’s true that the Assumption isn’t taught by Jesus or the apostles, but then neither is the idea that there would one day be such a thing as a New Testament. That the apostles’ teaching should be gathered into a fixed canon that was actually on the same level as the Old Testament was a valid development by the apostolic church.

David: You have chosen a very illuminating point of comparison: the Assumption compared to the existence of an inspired New Testament canon. For the latter notion, we can cite Jesus’ promises that the apostles would be supernaturally guided into the truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 16:12-13), the apostles’ claims to having received that promised Spirit (in passages too numerous to cite), the importance that the apostles attached to their own writings (e.g., Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27; 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:14; Rev. 22:7, 18-19), and Peter’s express characterization of Paul’s writings as “Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). One who interprets these passages (as we do) to indicate that apostolic writings are divinely inspired Scriptures might conceivably be wrongly interpreting them, but he is definitely interpreting them. Which apostolic teachings are being interpreted (rightly or wrongly) to yield the doctrine of the Assumption? None.

Dwight: On the contrary. The Assumption develops naturally from the apostolic teachings on the true nature of Jesus Christ the God-man, the subsequent fullness of grace that his mother enjoyed, and her status as the second Eve. It also develops from the apostolic teachings on eschatology, especially the “woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head” in Revelation 12. The queenly glory of Mary indicates the royal glory of Christ that is shared with all the redeemed (Rom. 8:17; James 2:5). (Dwight Longenecker and David Gustafson, Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate [Herefordshire, U.K.: Gracewing, 2003], 130-31, emphasis added)

Longenecker is simply dead-wrong in his attempt to read a Marian interpretation into the “woman” in Rev 12. For more, see, for example:

Refuting Taylor Marshall on the Bodily Assumption of Mary

Stephen Benko on early Christian Interpretations of the "Woman" in Revelation 12

The "woman" in Revelation 12 giving birth: Proof of a Marian Interpretation?

Gustafson did a good job at also refuting Longenecker’s attempt to parallel the New Testament canon with the Bodily Assumption of Mary. Such is a desperate attempt to find any shred of plausibility to this man-made dogma, although it is popular. For example, On his Website, Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong wrote the following:

At the time the Marian doctrines were developing, so were things like the canon of Scripture and Christology and the Trinity. If those things could develop many centuries after Christ, why is it objectionable for the Marian doctrines or eucharistic theology to also do so? The Church decided what was a true development and what wasn’t.

Tim Staples, in his dreadful, poorly-researched book on Mary, raised a similar "objection" to the critic of the Assumption of Mary:

The Church existed for decades before the Gospels were written, but that did not mean the Christians of these early years did not have the Faith. (Behold your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers, 2014], 217)

Ignoring the a priori assumption that modern Catholicism is one to one equivalent to the ancient Church (it is not), is the canon and the development of the Marian dogmas really the same? They are not. How so? While it is true that the canon of the New Testament was debated (e.g., the book of Revelation's "canonicity" was debated for many centuries in certain quarters), we actually have manuscript evidence of the books of the New Testament; to see a listing of the earliest NT texts, see Philip Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (2d ed.; Tyndale House Publishers, 2001). However, with respect to beliefs such as the Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, we have --NOTHING-- in the earliest centuries of these beliefs (see here for a discussion of the Immaculate Conception; on the Assumption, see Stephen Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption [Oxford, 2003]).

Furthermore, there are hints in the Gospel that Jesus expected at least some of his actions and teachings would be committed to writing. In Matt 26:13, speaking of the woman who anointed Him, Jesus Himself said:

Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

It seems strange that Jesus would expect the apostles to preach this anointing as part of their oral proclamation of the Gospel; it would seem to be more realistic to interpret this verse as teaching that Jesus understood that the record of this anointing would be made available as part of a larger written volume discussing various incidents in His life.

With that being said, Longenecker and I agree completely in that Jesus and the apostles did not teach the Bodily Assumption of Mary. Alongside the Shoemaker volume referenced above, I would also suggest one pursue chapter 5, “The Bodily Assumption of Mary” (pp. 139-56) of my book on Mary, Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology.

Note on John 21:5 and the use of παιδίον

John 21:5 in the KJV reads:

Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.

The term translated as "children" is the παιδια, the plural of παιδίον. Some translations (e.g., Young's Literal Translation) opts for "lads" instead of "children." In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Raymond E. Brown translates the text as:

“Lads,” he called to them, “you haven’t caught anything to eat, have you?” “No,” they answered.

Commenting on the meaning of παιδια, Brown wrote:

5. “Lads.” This is the plural of paidion (a diminutive noun from pais, “boy”; . . .) Only here in the Gopsel is it employed as an address to the disciple [but] there is a similar use of teknion (a diminutive noun from teknon, “child”). Sometimes Teknion is considered a more tender term than paidion; but the two words are seemingly interchangeable in I John ii 12 and 14, where both are kept distinct from neaniskos, “young man” . . .  we have settled for Bernard’s contention (II, 696) that paidion has a colloquial touch in the present scene. As Bernard inimitably phrases it, “. . . we might say ‘My boy,’ or ‘lads,’ if calling to a knot of strangers of a lower social class.” (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel of John [xiii-xxi] [AB 29A; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1970], 1070, italics in original, bold added for emphasis)

While I disagree with much of his Christology, Duncan Heaster, a leading Christadelphian apologist, offered the following reason for the use of such a colloquialism which I think is a strong possibility:

Why use this colloquial term straight after His resurrection, something akin to ‘Hey guys!’, when this was not His usual way of addressing them? Surely it was to underline to them that things hadn’t changed in one sense, even if they had in others; He was still the same Jesus. The Lord was recognized by the Emmaus disciples in the way that He broke the bread. How He broke a loaf of bread open with His hands after His resurrection reflected the same basic style and mannerism which He had employed before His death. Not only the body language but the Lord's choice of words and expressions was similar both before and after His passion. He uses the question "Whom are you looking for?" at the beginning of His ministry (Jn. 1:38), just before His death (Jn. 18:4) and also after His resurrection (Jn. 20:15). And the words of the risen Lord as recorded in Revelation are shot through with allusion to the words He used in His mortal life, as also recorded by John. (Duncan Heaster, The Real Christ [South Croydon, U.K.: Carelinks Publishing, 2009], 211-12, emphasis in original)

Slideshow: Does the Bible teach Forensic Justification?

A few weeks ago I decided to create some slides interacting with, and refuting, common arguments used to support the Reformed understanding of justification. I have put the slides online; one can download them here. I also created a video (15 seconds for each slide, though one can speed up or slow down the speed of the video on youtube) and put it on youtube if one wishes to go through them through that medium:

Sola Fide Presentation: Does the Bible teach Forensic Justification?

Clothing Imagery in Isaiah 61:9-10 vs. Imputation

Isa 61:9-10 reads as follows:

Their descendants shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge that they are a people whom the Lord has blessed. I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (NRSV)

Notice how the people of God are said to be "clothed with the garments of salvation" and "covered with the robe of righteousness." While some, mainly Calvinists, may latch onto the last description as evidence that clothing imagery supports the conception of a forensic imputation of righteousness, one's possession of salvation is not reputation merely but a reality, with such clothing imagery serving the role of an outward sign of an inward reality.

Such mirrors the use of clothing imagery to describe, not the reputed merely, but the intrinsic righteousness of Yahweh:

The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he had girded himself; the world also is stablished, that is cannot be moved. (Psa 93:1)

Bless the Lord, O my soul. O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. (Psa 104:1)

For more on this topic, see:

Does clothing imagery support imputation?

Transformative Justification in the Odes of Solomon

D&C 138:51 and Clothing Imagery

Martha Himmelfarb on Clothing Imagery and Transformation in 2 and 3 Enoch

The "woman" in Revelation 12 giving birth: Proof of a Marian Interpretation?

A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne; and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that there she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred sixty days. (Rev 12:1-6, NRSV)

The most commonly cited biblical “proof-text” for the bodily assumption of Mary, elevated to the position of a de fide dogma in 1950 by Pius XII, is the woman clothed in glory in Rev 12. I have discussed the bodily assumption and Rev 12 a number of times in this blog, such as Refuting Taylor Marshall on the Bodily Assumption of Mary as well as chapter 5 of my book Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology, pp. 139-56.

Some have argued that, as the woman gives birth to the Messiah, ipso facto, this is Mary, not a corporate personality, the latter being the earliest interpretation of the woman in Rev 12.

While this might, at first blush, seem like a good argument for a Marian interpretation, the problem is that such ignores the Old Testament background of the imagery. In the Old Testament, Israel/Zion/the people of God (a corporate personality, not a specific individual) is said to have “seed”; be pregnant and give birth in great travail, and other elements one finds within Rev 12. Consider the following (all taken from the NRSV):

Like a woman with child, who writhes and cries out in her pangs when she is near her time, so were we because of you, O Lord. (Isa 26:17)

Sing, O barren one who did not bear; burst into song and shout, you who have not been in labor! For the children of the desolate woman will be more than the children of her that is married, says the Lord. (Isa 54:1)

Their descendants shall be known among the nations, and their offspring among the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge that they are a people whom the Lord has blessed. I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being shall exult in my God; for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (Isa 61:9-10)

I will bring forth descendants from Jacob, and from Judah inheritors of my mountains; my chosen shall inherit it, and my servants shall settle there . . . They shall not labor in vain, or bear children for calamity; for they shall be offspring blessed by the Lord--and their descendants as well. (Isa 65:9, 23)

Before she wsa in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she delivered a son. Who has heard of such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be delivered in one moment? Yet as soon as Zion was in labor she delivered her children . . . Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who lover her; rejoice with her in joy, all you who mourn over her . . . For thus says the Lord: I will extend prosperity to her like a river, and the wealth of the nations like an overflowing stream; and you shall nurse and be carried on her arm, and dandled on her knees. (Isa 66:7-8, 10, 12)

Writhe and groan, O daughter Zion, like a woman in labor; for now you shall go forth from the city and camp in the open country; you shall go to Babylon. There you shall be rescued, there the Lord will redeem you from the hands of your enemies. (Mic 4:10)

Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in labor has brought forth; then the rest of his kindred shall return to the people of Israel. (Mic 5:3 NRS)

Such a concept if picked up the apostle Paul in Gal 4:26:

But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother.

This is also picked up by those at Qumran. 1QHa XI, 7-12 (the Hodayot [Thanksgiving Psalms]) reads as follows:

7. you have [sav]ed [my] life, [for] they regard me [as a reproach and a deris]ion and make [my] life like a ship on the depths of the sea

8. and like a city fortified before[ the enemy]. I was in distress like a woman giving birth to her firstborn, when pangs

9. and painful labor have come upon her womb opening, causing spasms in the crucible of the pregnant woman. For children come to the womb opening of death,

10. and she who is pregnant with a manchild is convulsed by her labor pains. For in the breakers of death she delivers a male, and in the cords of Sheol there bursts forth

11. from the crucible of the pregnant woman a wonderful counselor with his power, and the manchild is delivered

from the breakers by the one who is pregnant with him. All

12. wombs hasten, and there are severe labor pains at their births and shuddering for those pregnant with them. And so at his birth all (these) pains come upon (Eileen M. Schuller and Carol A. Newsom, The Hodayot (Thanksgiving Psalms): A Study Edition of 1QH^a  [Early Judaism and Its Literature; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012], 35, 37)

Therefore, there is nothing problematic with one holding that the woman represents a corporate personality in light of the fact that she is said to give birth to the Messiah.

Cyril Richardson on the occasion of 1 Clement

Commenting on the occasion for the writing of 1 Clement, Cyril Richardson wrote the following which refutes the popular claim that Clement of Rome used his papal authority and primacy to intervene in the dispute at Corinth:

[T]here is no evidence that Corinth applied to Rome for a judgment in the matter. Rome's intervention is to be explained from other factors. It was nothing extraordinary for leaders of one church to send a letter of advice and warning to another congregation. The apostolic prerogative exercised by Paul had set a wide precedent which was followed by the author of the seven letters in the Revelation, by Ignatius, Polycarp, by Dionysius of Corinth, by Serapion, and by many others. Each Christian community seems to have felt a sufficient sense of responsibility for the others so that is leaders could admonish them with solicitude . . . Corinth, moreover, by being a natural halt on the route between Rome and the East would be in constant touch with the imperial city. (Early Church Fathers, ed. Cyril C. Richardson [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006], 35-36, emphasis added)

This would agree even with Roman Catholic apologists who, while abusing 1 Clement to support papal primacy, that “There is no evidence of an appeal by the Corinthian Church to Rom for help” (Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], p. 125 n. 23). Such also agrees with the following from Michael Kruger:

[T]here are no indications that any one bishop/church was in a position of authority over another bishop/church in a different locale. For example, while the author of 1 Clement makes his appeal to the church at Corinth regarding the improper removal of presbyters, there is no indication that the church has any jurisdictional authority over the latter. 1 Clement is not crafted as a directive but instead is designed to persuade—a common reason why letters were written between churches in this period. As Chadwick observes: ‘while each local church felt itself to be self-sufficient . . . yet the independence and autonomy of this local community is limited by the mutual care of the local churches must have for each other’ (H. Chadwick, ‘The Role of the Christian Bishop in Ancient Society’, Protocol of the Colloquy of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture 35 [1980], 1-14, at 1). (Michael J. Kruger, Christianity at the Crossroads: How the Second Century Shaped the Future of the Church [London: SPCK, 2017], 92)

Edward Denny’s comments on 1 Clement from his 1912 Papalism is essential reading, too.

It is not just Catholics who are guilty of abusing 1 Clement; many Protestants (e.g., James White; William Webster; Matthew Paulson) abuse it to support Sola Fide. For a refutation, see, for example:

No, 1 Clement does not teach Sola Fide

Forthcoming Birthday in March and Ways to Support the Research for this Blog

As some know, my birthday will be 16 March (I will be turning 31). I do not expect anything to come out of this, but just thought I would do it as I have seen it on youtube and a few other places where followers/fans of blogs and youtube pages help celebrate birthdays of creators, etc. For those who wish to send me something, one can send a book or two my way. My Amazon wish lists can be accessed here:

Xmas/Birthday

Christology

Eschatology

Hebrew/Greek Resources

Mariology

Mormon Texts

Wish List #1

Wish List #2

Alternatively, one can send an Amazon voucher my way (my email is IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom [posting it nice and early as a guarantee that if anyone feels generous, the volume[s] will arrive well in time!])

As always, one can also make a contribution via Paypal or Gofundme as well as purchase my books on Amazon:

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

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology

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

John L. Sorenson Refutes Michael D. Coe on the Book of Mormon and the New World

In April 2011, John Dehlin interviewed Dr. Michael D. Coe which featured Coe's long-standing arguments against the Book of Mormon, which revealed that, even to this day, Coe remains rather ignorant of the text of the Book of Mormon and other issues.

John L. Sorenson, author of works such as An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (1985) and Mormon's Codex: An Ancient American Book (2013) wrote a fine response to Coe's claims that was published by The Interpreter Foundation. I am posting this as Coe's interview with Dehlin has been making the rounds on facebook recently:

An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Coe

Jimmy Akin, Answering Arguments for Eternal Security

I have addressed and refuted eternal security/perseverance of the Saints many times on this blog, including some of the common "proof-texts" used to support this doctrine:

Does John 6:39 teach Eternal Security?

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

Does John 10:28-29 teach Eternal Security?

Does 1 John 5:13 teach Eternal Security? (cf. Latter-day Saints and the Assurance of Salvation and The Insecurity of the Believer in Reformed Theology)

Does Revelation 17:8 teach Eternal Security?

Soteriological Insights from selected texts from 1-3 John and Revelation

Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, has a very good article on his Website:

Answering Arguments for Eternal Security

One rather appreciated how he did a good job at refuting the claim that, unless you believe in eternal security (and often Calvinists will throw in monergism into this, too), you hold to a man-centered theology that robs God of any glory. While the entire article should be read, I will quote those sections:

God-Centered or Man-Centered?

Prejudicial language also occurs when advocates of eternal security characterize their position as offering a “God-centered gospel” and conditional salvation as offering a “man-centered gospel.”

The idea is that, if God prevents the believer from losing his salvation, that puts the emphasis on God, but if we can lose our salvation through our actions, that puts emphasis on man.

Making it sound like you are God-centered and those who disagree with you are man-centered is rhetorically slick, but it’s just more prejudicial language.

Ironically, the name “perseverance of the saints” is man-centered. It describes what the saints must do: persevere. That’s why some Calvinists prefer the name “preservation of the saints,” since it focuses on God’s preserving action.

However, both eternal and conditional security acknowledge that both God and man have a role in salvation. God gives us his grace, and man responds, at least by making an act of saving faith. Eternal security advocates thus don’t reject man’s role. They simply ignore it for rhetorical purposes when making the “God-centered vs. man-centered” claim.

Further, since all acknowledge that God’s grace is indispensible and must precede man’s response, both positions are fundamentally God-centered.

What happens after initial salvation, and whether it can be lost, must be decided by looking at the biblical evidence, not simply by which position sounds like it’s attributing more to God.

The prejudicial nature of the “God-centered” language can be seen by applying it in a different context—say, to the problem of evil. One could say it would be more “God-centered” to attribute evil directly to God, so that he would be the author of all evil, even moral evil. By contrast, it could sound “man-centered” to attribute moral evil not to God’s divine choices but to man’s creaturely choices.

On the rhetorical level this might sound like it’s glorifying God, but it would be charging the all-holy God with moral evil—with sin! Thus the fact something may superficially sound like it’s more glorifying to God is not a test of which position is true.

And, as before, the language is reversible. One could argue that if God can create free will in man, such that man may freely accept or reject salvation, then this brings more glory to God than the view God can’t create such free will. Conditional security thus can be framed as more God-glorifying because of what it says about God’s creative power.

God Glorifying Himself

Advocates of eternal security often argue that God saves people to bring himself glory and say a person losing salvation would not bring him glory. It would represent divine failure.

But what about the case of those who are never saved—people who lived and died without responding to God’s initiative of grace? If one too closely identifies the salvation of souls with God’s glory then those never saved would represent cases of divine failure as well.

The logical alternative is to say that the never-saved also bring glory to God, not by being examples of his mercy upon the repentant but of his justice upon the unrepentant.

However, if this is the case then it means God brings himself glory even in the case of someone who is not saved, and if that’s true then God also could bring himself glory through someone who is initially saved and who then loses salvation.

Such a case would serve to illustrate both God’s mercy and his justice—as well as his creative power by giving that person free will.

Ultimately, all of God’s actions bring him glory, and he seems to have chosen to glorify himself by creating and permitting a wide variety of things in the world. He thus may choose to glorify himself by saving some, by allowing some never to be saved, and by allowing some to switch between these states.

Divine Failure?

Sometimes advocates of eternal security argue that if God is the perfect savior, if he is omnipotent, then he should be able to save those he chooses. He cannot fail.

This begs the question of whether God intends to bring everyone who experiences initial salvation to final salvation.

If God intends to allow people who experience initial salvation to freely choose to change their mind, to return to sin, and to fall from grace then such people do not represent divine failure.

It is only if you presuppose that God intends to cause all believers to persevere to the end that their failure to do so would represent divine failure—but that is assuming the thing that needs to be proved.

I have addressed these and other presuppositions underlying Reformed theology at length, including my article:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Akin’s colleague at Catholic Answers, Trent Horn, debated James White back in January 2017 at the G3 Conference on this doctrine. In my view, Horn won the debate, 6-4 if not 7-3. While I strongly disagree with Horn on the topic of “Mormonism,” he is a very skilled Catholic apologist (one should read his The Case for Catholicism [Ignatius Press, 2017] to understand how informed Catholics defend their theology [and LDS will appreciate somethings in the book, including his very sound discussion of baptismal regeneration]) and he is simply brilliant in the realm of pro-life issues:

Trent Horn vs. Dr. James R. White - Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? (Full Debate)

On James White and eternal security, I wrote an article refuting White's (and John Owen's) incredibly eisegetical and lame approach to Heb 10:29 which he has used for many years now, and even trotted out in this debate (which Horn destroyed him on):

James White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29