Tuesday, March 31, 2020

Christopher Fisher vs. the Reformed Abuse of Genesis 50:20


Gen 50:20 is one of the most common "proof-texts" for compatibilism. I have discussed this text at:


In an article examining common texts used to support such a doctrine, Christopher Fisher wrote the following about Gen 50:19-20:

Gen 50:19 Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God?
Gen 50:20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive.

This text shows that God repurposed the evil of Joseph’s brothers. It would be strange to say that God needed to force the brothers to be evil to get Joseph to Egypt. Couldn’t God have just asked Joseph to walk? Couldn’t God just have then ordained Pharaoh to accept Joseph into his court? Here is one of an infinitely number of scenarios which skips the entire part of Joseph’s brothers being evil:

God ordains Joseph to walk to Egypt.
God ordains Pharaoh to see Joseph and appoint him as a ruler.

No evil necessary. But this verse (instead of showing God making irrelevant events to effect His will) shows God’s planning to effect His will in spite of human evil. God uses evil actions for good. Nowhere in the text states that God “ordained” that the brothers sin.

For anyone to take this text as saying: “God forced the brothers to be evil to Joseph in order to place Joseph in a good place” makes God into a strange being, using weird methods to do things that could be done much easier without ordaining people into evil. It is unnatural.

 For more on the problems of Calvinism, see:


Walt Heyer: Former Transgender "Woman" and other Resources Answering the Transgender Movement

Because the hashtag "TransDayOfVisibility" is trending today on twitter wherein transgenderism (a mental illness) is being celebrated, I think it is apropos to post the following videos from Walt Heyer, a former transgender, who has dedicated his life to warning  people of this dangerous movement

62: Transgenderism, Part One—with former trans Walt Heyer (1/4)



The Candace Owens Show: Walt Heyer




Walt Heyer - Transgenderism: The Consequences



Dr. Ryan T. Anderson is the author of an excellent book:

When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement (Encounter Books, 2018)

Anderson was interviewed about the book by "Franciscan University Presents":

Franciscan University Presents: The Transgender Moment














The Holy Spirit as a Person in Latter-day Saint Theology and the Greek Grammar of John 14:26 and 15:26

Eryl Davies, a Reformed Protestant and critic of the Church, wrote the following about the Holy Spirit in in Latter-day Saint theology:

Mormons regard the Holy Spirit in impersonal terms, frequently referring to him as ‘it’ . . .  (Eryl Davies, Truth Under Attack: Cults and Contemporary Religions [Durham: Evangelical Press, 1990], 106)

Davies, to “prove” that the Holy Spirit is a person, according to the Bible, quotes John 15:26 (cf. 14:26, 16:8, 13).

Firstly, it should be noted that Latter-day Saints do believe that the Holy Spirit is a person and often refer to the Spirit as “him.” While “it” is sometimes used of the Spirit, such comes from the KJV and other translations, such as:

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. (Rom 8:26)

That the Holy Spirit is a person in LDS theology can be seen in the entry for Holy Spirit in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

The Holy Spirit is a term often used to refer to the Holy Ghost. In such cases the Holy Spirit is a personage. Ghost is an Old English word meaning spirit. The scriptures use this term to designate the third member of the Godhead (Alma 11:44) and to speak of the Spirit's power to testify (Alma 7:16), to grant knowledge (Alma 5:46; D&C 76:116), to persuade (Mosiah 3:19), to indicate remission of sins (D&C 55:1), and to sanctify (Alma 5:54).

Under the entry for Holy Ghost, we further read:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a spirit son of God the Father . . . Joseph Smith also stated that an "everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator" (T[eachings of the]P[rophet]J[oseph]S[mith], p. 190).

In the Book of Mormon, that the Spirit is a person is explicitly taught in 1 Nephi 11. In vv. 1-11, for example, we read:

For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot. And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou? And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw. And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken? And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father. And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired. And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God. And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow. And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all. And he said unto me: What desirest thou? And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof-- for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

The rest of the chapter contains further texts explicitly presenting the Spirit as a person.

Another potent text is that of 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.

(Of course, I am sure that some will appeal to Lecture on Faith no. 5. Firstly, this was written before D&C 130:22, and was more than likely authored, not by Joseph Smith, but Sidney Rigdon, as shown by Noel B. Reynolds here. For more on the Lectures on Faith, see the resources here).

Notwithstanding, John 15:26 and other like-texts where the masculine pronoun “he” is used of the Spirit (πνευμα) is not meaningful biblical evidence that Holy Spirit is a person. Daniel Wallace, a leading Greek grammarian and defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy, critiquing fellow Trinitarians who endorsed the view that the personality of the Spirit is grammaticized in John 14:26 and 15:6, wrote:

. . . . . . πνευμα is appositional to a masculine noun, rather than the subject of the verb. The gender of εκεινος thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of πνευμα. The antecedent of εκεινος, in each case, is παρακλητος, not πνευμα . . . it should be evident that the masculine demonstrative pronoun, εκεινος, stands in relation to ο παραλκητος, not to το πνευμα. In 14:26, the noun clause--"the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name"--is in apposition to ο παραλκητος. How do we know that το πνευμα is the appositive rather than ο παραλκητος? Because it follows ο παραλκητος. Appositives function routinely as a clarifying capacity and thus naturally follow the substantive they are clarifying. The appositional clause here can therefore be regarded as parenthetical: "The Counselor (the Holy Spirit whom [ο] the Father will send in my name) will teach you all things . . ." Furthermore, appositional clauses can normally be removed from a sentence without destroying the structure of the sentence. In this case, the verse makes good sense as follows: "The Counselor will teach you all things and will remind you all that I told you." The rules of concord actually expect εκεινος rather than εκεινο, since the true antecedent is παρακλητος. This, this verse should be omitted from the roster of philological proofs of the Spirit's personality.

In 15:26, the situation is similar: the appositional clause headed by το πνευμα is parenthetical: "Whenever the Counselor comes (the Spirit of truth who is coming from the Father), he will testify concerning me." This appositional clause could be removed without affecting the structure of the sentence: "Whenever the Counselor comes he (εκεινος) will testify concerning me." Although Morris argues that πνευμα is the antecedent of εκεινος, based on proximity, this is hardly an adequate basis, both because ο παρακλητος agrees in gender with εκεινος and because πνευμα is appositional rather than being the subject of the sentence. As Mayes argues, "That a referent which is not in concord, but a few words nearer in the text, should be chosen over a noun which agrees strictly and gives just as good sense is nearly indefensible. Pronominal referents by no means have to be the nearest noun . . . It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that theology has unduly influenced (perhaps unconsciously) the grammatical analysis of this verse (as well as the others involved)." If we applied the proximity principle in John 6:71, the result would be that Jesus, not Judas, was the Lord's betrayer (ουτος γαρ εμελλεν παραδιδοναι αυτον, εις εκ των δωδεκα ["for he was about to betray him, one of the twelve"])! Further, the reason for the masculine pleonastic pronoun is that it is resumptive, and as such it is intended to reach back to the masculine noun, παραλκητος. Indeed, one of the major uses of icci.voc in John is to refer back past the immediately preceding word, phrase, or clause to the true antecedent. (Daniel B. Wallace, "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit," Bulletin for Biblical Research 13.1 [2003]:97-125, here, pp. 105, 106-8)


 Wallace’s concluding statements are enlightening:

There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds. This does not mean that in the NT the Spirit is a thing, any more than in the OT the Spirit ( רוּחַ —a feminine noun) is a female! Grammatical gender is just that: grammatical. The conventions of language do not necessarily correspond to reality . . . One implication of these considerations is this: There is often a tacit assumption by scholars that the Spirit's distinct personality was fully recognized in the early apostolic period. Too often, such a viewpoint is subconsciously filtered through Chalcedonian lenses. This certainly raises some questions that can be addressed here only in part: We are not arguing that the distinct personality and deity of the Spirit are foreign to the NT, but rather that there is progressive revelation within the NT, just as there is between the Testaments . . . In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the  grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit's personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course, but I am arguing that we need to ground our beliefs on a more solid foundation. (Ibid., 122, 125)

Why is this so significant? We are told by Protestants that Sola and Tota Scriptura has to be embraced; if not, the so-called theological walls break down and all sorts of heresies will be embraced as true (they [rightfully] appeal to the Marian Dogmas within Catholicism as the consequence of accepting a false teaching authority). However, we are also told that the personality of the Holy Spirit, which is an integral part of the doctrine of the Trinity, is an essential belief one must hold to—if not, one is a heretic. However, using the framework of Sola and Tota Scriptura, as Wallace shows, there is no good biblical proof of the personality of the Spirit. Where does this leave the Trinitarian who holds to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? They must reject the personality of the Spirit, and therefore, embrace a form of bi-theism, with the Spirit being the operational presence of the Father and/or the Son, not a third person or they must hold to the claim that the biblical authors were very, very sloppy, not enunciating clearly an essential doctrine for salvation (which would also be a rejection of the so-called perspicuity or clearness of the Bible), or alternatively, go down the route Wallace has in the past, and that the earliest New Testament authors did not believe the Spirit to be a person—Wallace appealed to 1 Cor 8;4-6 in an interview with former Jehovah’s Witnesses (accessible here) as proof Paul did not hold to the personality of the Spirit. Unitarian apologist, Jaco Van Zyl, hit the head on the nail when he wrote:

Wallace admits here what very few Trinitarians are willing to say, especially Dr James White (who argues for a fully developed Trinity doctrine as early as 36 C.E.), namely that Paul and the other NT writers of his time “did not understand the Trinity.” To him 1 Corinthians 8:6 gives an indication of a “primitive binitarian viewpoint.” These admissions are certainly not free from rather serious implications which will be discussed below . . .For Wallace to admit that NT writers did not understand the Trinity implies that later Fourth- and Fifth-Century Christians discerned and believed what “inspired” bible writers failed to believe. This argument is therefore no different from the claims made by the very ones Wallace and others are trying to help since the Jehovah’s Witnesses also proclaim that Jesus and the apostles didn’t know that Jesus would return in 1914 C.E., or that the first Christians did not know that the “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9 would be a second class of Christians gathered since 1935 with a different hope than the literal 144 000 anointed class of Revelation 14, etc.; there is absolutely no difference in argumentation. At least it can be safely said, considering Wallace’s admission, that the first Christians did not believe in the Trinity formulated in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries – that who and what God was to them was different from who God was to these first Christians. The implications of this admission are rather significant.

Ultimately, this route makes the apostle Paul and other early New Testament authors and believers heretics by the standards of modern Trinitarians, and are condemned under the same anathema the Judaizers were condemned with (Gal 1:6-9). Wallace and others are in an unenviable position.

This is not to deny that there are texts that can be used to support the personality of the Holy Spirit, such as Acts 13:1-2, but they are no as explicit as many Trinitarians believe them to be, and such is very problematic to those who claim that one can only believe, at least to the position of a core doctrine/dogma, if it can only be found explicitly, not merely implicitly, in the biblical texts.

Fortunately, as Latter-day Saints reject the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (in all its variations) (see Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura), accepting, to the level of a defined doctrine if you will, the Holy Spirit as a person, is not problematic at all.

Protestant Apologist Eryl Davies' Attempt to Prove Sola Scriptura


Today I read the following book by a Reformed Protestant apologist and “counter-cult” activist:

Eryl Davies, Truth Under Attack: Cults and Contemporary Religions (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1990)

As with so many works by Protestants, the attempt to defend Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of the Reformation, was weak and void of any meaningful attempt at exegesis. Do not take my word for it. Here are his attempts to (lamely) defend this doctrine.

In the chapter responding to Roman Catholicism, we read:

What the Bible teaches

1. The sixty-six canonical books of the Bible are a sufficient revelation of God to man and sufficient for all matters of faith and conduct (cf. 2 Timothy 3:15-16; Luke 16:29; Acts 17:11).
2. Whenever the Lord Jesus spoke of tradition, he condemned it and warned his people against it (see Matthew 15:3, 6, 9; Mark 7:8-9, 13; cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18-19).
3. The church both in the Old and New Testaments submitted itself to the Word of God proclaimed by the prophets and apostles. (p. 33)

Responding to Unitarian churches, the following “proof-texts” are used to support Sola Scriptura:

‘To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to his word, it is because there is no light in them’ (Isaiah 8:20, AV).
‘Thy word is truth’ (John 17:17)
‘Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe’ (1 Corinthians 1:20-21).
‘Bu a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised’ (1 Corinthians 2:14). (p. 76)

In his chapter on the Latter-day Saints, these “proof-texts” are offered:

‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
‘But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ (2 Peter 1:20-21; cf. Revelation 22:18-19). (p. 104)

In a chapter attempting to defend the Reformed Protestant understanding of the authority of the Bible, the author commits the common “the ‘Word of God’ is one-to-one equivalent to ‘the Bible’” fallacy:

The Bible is no ordinary book; in fact, it is described as ‘the Word of God’ (1 Thessalonians 2:13) or ‘thy Word’ (John 17:17). This is the only book which we can safely trust and use .. . Our Lord Jesus is an example to us in this respect to the authority of God’s Word by telling his enemy three times, ‘It is written’ (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10). Altogether, the Lord used the phrase, ‘It is written’ on another fifteen occasions, particularly when answering people’s questions. For the Lord Jesus Christ, the words and teachings of Scripture settled all these questions. Similarly, God’s Word alone should determine what we believe and how we live . . . the Bible is ‘the living and abiding Word of God’ (1 Peter 1:23). Quoting Isaiah 40:7-8, Peter tells us, ‘All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flowers fall off, but the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ The Bible never changes and will always remain the only true and relevant Word of God. (pp. 259-60, 261; notice how “Scripture,” for Davies, is exhausted by “the Bible”; on prophets changing their written words and the words of prior prophets, see Biblical Prophets Changing their Words and the Words of Previous Prophets; I will note that, in the above, 1 Thess 2:13, in context, refers to the oral tradition as being as inspired as the written word, contradicting his naïve “all tradition is false” argument!)

All these arguments and proof-texts have been answered in great detail in my book-length study and refutation of this doctrine:


I will let people read Davies' attempt to defend this doctrine and my response to Sola Scriptura and see who engages in exegesis and who relies upon bald assertion and eisegesis.

If Protestant apologists wish to be taken seriously, and genuinely want non-Protestants to consider their theology, they should try to engage in meaningful exegesis of the relevant texts, not make fallacious arguments (thinking “Word of God” is synonymous with “the Bible”) and that texts such as 2 Tim 3:16-17 and Rev 22:18-19 are meaningful texts in support of the formal sufficiency of the Bible. It also explains, in part, why so many anti-Mormons who are also Protestants are unwilling to have a moderated public debate where they defend Sola Scriptura--they know they would lose badly against an informed opponent.

I. Howard Marshall on Luke 13:1



There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. (Luke 13:1)

Commenting on this verse, I. Howard Marshall wrote:

(1) ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ (2:38 note) serves to link with the preceding incident. πάρειμι* can mean ‘to be present’ (Acts 10:33), but may also mean ‘to arrive’ (Acts 10:21; 12:20; 17:6; 24:19*; Diodorus Siculus 17:2, cited by Creed, 180). The impression is that messengers have arrived from Jerusalem bringing news of the latest incident there (J. Blinzler*, 25); ἀπαγγέλλω has the sense ‘to bring news of something fresh’ (7:18; Gn. 26:32; Est. 6:2; 1 Mac. 14:21). The situation reported concerns certain Galileans—the number, unspecified, need have been no more than a couple (Easton, 213)—who had been offering sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem. The occasion could have been Passover, the only time when the laity slaughtered their own animals (Jeremias, Words, 207 n. 4), and the incident involved the killing of the men while they were sacrificing. Thus Pilate could be said to mix (μίγνυμι, Mt. 27:34; Rev. 8:7; 15:2**) their blood with that of their sacrifices (cf. SB II, 193). The expression need not be taken literally, but could simply be a gruesome metaphor for the two events taking place simultaneously. A number of events to which allusion is possibly being made are discussed by J. Blinzler*, 32–37. These include: 1. the affair of the ensigns in Jos. Bel. 2:169–174; Ant. 18:55–59, but this took place in Caesarea in AD 26; 2. the tumults associated with the building of an aqueduct (Jos. Bel. 2:175–177; Ant. 18:60–62), but this incident involved the murder of Judaeans with cudgels outside the temple; 3. an attack on some Samaritans (Jos. Ant. 18:85–87), but this took place in AD 36; 4. the slaughter of about 3,000 Jews offering Passover sacrifices by Archelaus in 4 BC (Jos. Bel. 2:8–13; Ant. 17:213–218). This incident, however, took place some thirty years earlier and was committed by a different ruler; moreover, the murder of 3,000 men would not bear comparison with an accident to 18. It is wisest to conclude that the event is not attested from secular sources. This, however, is no argument against its historicity, since Josephus’ account of Pilate’s career is very incomplete (cf. Philo, Leg. 299–305). Pilate would have been in Jerusalem at Passover time, and the Galileans had a reputation for rebelliousness. The suggestion that Zealots were involved (O. Cullmann, The State in the NT, London, 1957, 14) lacks proof. (I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster Press, 1978], 553)



Monday, March 30, 2020

Answering an Apologetic for Sola Fide Based on Abraham's Good Works



When James reads the story of Abraham, he does not sip past Abraham’s faith in God’s promises or ignore the status that God granted Abraham through his faith. Abraham really did believe that God’s promises were true and God really did count Abraham as righteous and therefore a part of His covenant people (Gen 15:6). The moment he believed God’s promises, Abraham’s status before God was “righteous.” But this righteous status had to be “fulfilled.” If Abraham claimed to believe God but failed to obey Him, then he would have proven that his faith was fake and that his justification was a scam. (Chris Bruno, Paul vs James: What We've Been Missing in the Faith and Works Debate [Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2019], 105)

The problem with this attempted reconciliation of Reformed theology with the Bible’s teachings about Abraham and his justification is that it is utter nonsense. Responding to a similar apologetic by R.C. Sproul, Robert Sungenis wrote the following devastating refutation of this argument:

First, we must object that appealing to God’s omniscience is not the way the Scripture argues the case for a specific individual’s justification. Although it undergirds its handling of justification from a general predestinarian perspective (cf. Rm 8:29-30), Scripture argues its case with regard to named individuals, e.g., Abraham, preponderantly and specifically in temporal terms. In other words, Scripture is not in the habit of naming individuals who are predestined to justification, let alone attempt to secure that justification by an appeal to what God already knows the individual will do. Second, if we follow Sproul’s argumentation to its logical conclusion, it simply proves too much, and ends up nullifying his hypothesis. For example, taking the argument back one step we could say that it was not really necessary for God to draw out even the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15:6, since by his omniscience God would have known all along that Abraham was going to have true faith. If Sproul can use divine omniscience to explain why it was not necessary for Abraham to perform works for God, then, to be fair, Sproul should allow the use of divine omniscience to explain why God really doesn’t need to draw out the faith from Abraham in Genesis 15:6. In the end, argumentation appealing to God’s omniscience is a double-edged sword and does nothing to advance the discussion. If the omniscience argument is used, everything about Abraham, including his act of faith, is superfluous. We all accept that from the very beginning God already foreknows how things will turn out, but that is not the basis from which Paul and James defend their respective doctrines of justification. Neither Paul nor James appeals to divine omniscience to argue his case, rather, they confine themselves to the temporal and chronological account of the Genesis record. Granted, Paul’s argument in Romans 4 hinges on Abraham’s having true faith prior to his circumcision (Romans 4:10-11). The text, however, is absolutely silent about how we know it was true faith other than its appeal to the spiritual disposition of Abraham himself. It does not appeal to God’s omniscience prior to the event. In fact, Scripture often makes a concerted effort to avoid appealing to divine omniscience to explain the actions of God or man (E.g., Gn 6:6; Ex 32:9-14; 33:3-5, Jh 3:10, et al.)

In the end, Sproul’s argumentation destroys itself. It not only makes Abraham’s works superfluous, it also makes his faith superfluous since Sproul must admit it was inevitable that Abraham would manifest both faith and works in his life. We must insist that theologians not appeal to the incomprehensible attributes of God in an effort to explain the enigmas of their theology, especially when Scripture chooses to explain them in very ordinary ways. Scripture explains Abraham’s faith and works on a purely phenomenological level. Genesis 22:12 makes this clear when it describes Abraham as ready and willing to plunge the knife into his son Isaac. The angel of the Lord, speaking for God, says: “Do not do anything to the child. Now I know that you fear God because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” The angel’s temporal analysis of this event is clear and unambiguous. It is only when Abraham actually performs the act of raising the knife that God makes absolute his knowledge of Abraham’s intentions. The necessity in Gn 22:10 of Abraham’s raising the knife is just as absolute as the necessity in Genesis 15:6 of Abraham’s believing. In fact, Gn 15:6 comes back to haunt Sproul in another way. For if God sees in Abraham’s heart the faith he exhibited in Gn 15:6, and from this knows that Abraham is a firm believer, why should God have to peer again into Abraham’s heart in Genesis 22? Hence we must insist that while God certainly maintains the divine prerogative of foreknowledge, he nevertheless in creating a temporal world has also determined to shape the course of history coincident with the events occurring in the temporal world (This area of theology touches upon what is known as “secondary” or “contingent” causality in the realm of God’s dealing with men). Though this is a mystery, we cannot side with one dimension of God’s attributes at the expense of others to give ourselves a palatable answer to anomalies in our theology or in Scripture. The point in fact is that James, when speaking of Abraham, uses the same word, justification, that Paul uses. Appealing to God’s omniscience to allow oneself to change the definition of justification between Paul and James is something Scripture never does and never even remotely teaches us to do. Scripture presents and understands doctrinal propositions concerning justification at face value, and thus that is the way we should analyse and teach them.

Another problem, and probably the most dangerous one, with appealing to God’s omniscience in such cases is that the reciprocal of that appeal leads the individual to think that it may not be necessary for him to do good works because “God knows my heart.” If we conclude that Abraham’s works were not really necessary because God knew he was already faithful and that he would have done the works in any case, the temptation is very great to view ourselves in the same light. It is exactly this kind of thinking, however, that James warns us against. We cannot “think” we have faith and then ignore a brother or sister in desperate need (Jm 2:15), claiming that “God already knows my heart.” Within that context, James specifies the necessity for Abraham to act on his faith, as well as the necessity for God to be a witness to that act. Nowhere does James entertain the notion that it was not really necessary for Abraham to perform his act in front of God, nor does Abraham, or any other biblical character, ever appeal to God’s foreknowledge of his heart in an effort to spare himself the necessity of work. No example of this is more profound than that of the Lord Jesus himself, who prayed at Gethsemane that the cup of God’s wrath might pass from him. Jesus did not appeal to God’s omniscience of his faithful heart. He understood that he had to accomplish the work of the atonement and without it there would have been no salvation. The Scripture treats the works of Abraham in the same way — without them there could have been no justification. The works have a specific causal and ontological necessity in regard to justification. In fact, God knows that we know that he knows our heart, yet insists that we perform the deed that he desires. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing Inc., 2009], 212-15)



A Recent Attempt to Defend Sola Fide in Paul and James


This evening I read the following book:

Chris Bruno, Paul vs James: What We've Been Missing in the Faith and Works Debate (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2019)

Notwithstanding being endorsed by many of the modern “heavy-hitters” in Reformed theology (e.g., Douglas Moo), it is one of the worst books on soteriology I have read. Its treatment of justification, imputation, and other topics often is simply “preaching to the [Calvinistic] choir.” For example, when discussing “imputation,” there is no discussion of λογιζομαι/ חשׂב. On this, be sure to see my 7-part series examining λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the Greek New Testament:










I will reproduce some of the relevant quotations from the book followed by links addressing the particular topic:

The Justification of Abraham and Gen 15:6 and Related Texts

Whatever else he had thought about God’s promises to this point, Abraham’s trust in God is evident in Genesis 15. Whether this text is describing what had happened at some earlier point in Genesis 12-14 or what happened in that very moment, the point is the same. (p. 69; note how, without realising it, Bruno opens himself up to the charge of believing Abraham had “saving faith” prior to Gen 15:6[!])

Genesis 15 describes Abraham’s justification, when God declared him righteous. (p. 70)

As he continues to explain God’s great gif of justification in Romans 4, Paul turns again to the example of Abraham . . . Through his faith, Abraham received the status “righteous,” as does everyone else who believes God’s promises through the Messiah Jesus . . .(p. 96)

The moment he believed God’s promises, Abraham’s status before God was “righteous” . . . Paul, like James, was reading Genesis 15:6 faithfully. Abraham was declared righteous through faith . . . We are declared righteous before God through faith, not works. (pp. 105, 106)

Justification is God’s declaration in His “courtroom” that we have the status “righteous” . . . We are united to Christ by faith, so we receive the status that He has won: righteous before God. The implication of our union with Christ is that His righteous status is counted as our own. This imputation is the “already” of justification. (pp. 110, 111)

Justification is forensic as it denotes one’s status, not one’s moral state. (p. 114)

The best known justification passage outside of Romans and Galatians is probably 2 Corinthians 5:21 . . . Christ takes our sin, and we receive the very righteousness of God. He took the status “sinner” to pay for our sins, and we are given the status “righteous” because we are joined to Him by faith. (pp. 97-98)




The Justification vs. Vindication Understanding of Jas 2

In verse 25, James says that Rahab was justified the same way that Abraham was. By putting a prostitute alongside Abraham, the father of Israel, James beautifully reminds us that any sinner who repents and truly believes is justified. Any repentant sinner is able to demonstrate her faith and righteous status with Spirit-empowered good works. While there may be many reasons why James includes this example with Abraham. Douglas Moo is right to see that these examples teach us “that anyone is capable of acting on his or her faith—whether a patriarch or a prostitute” (Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 143). This is far from a works-based righteousness.

When James asserts that “a person is justified by works” in verse 24, he is looking forward to the same final declaration or “vindication” in the days of judgment that we saw Jesus speaking about in Matthew 7. (pp. 84-85)



If Reformed apologists want to be taken seriously on justification and related issues, they will have to do a much better job than this volume.

For a refutation of the other pillar of Protestantism, Sola Scriptura, see:

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

The Feint and Ambush Tactics in the Book of Mormon



Now when we saw that the Lamanites began to grow uneasy on this wise, we were desirous to bring a stratagem into effect upon them; therefore Antipus ordered that I should march forth with my little sons to a neighboring city, as if we were carrying provisions to a neighboring city. And we were to march near the city of Antiparah, as if we were going to the city beyond, in the borders by the seashore. And it came to pass that we did march forth, as if with our provisions, to go to that city. (Alma 56:30-32)

The feints and ambushes employed in the Book of Mormon is reflected in the Aztecs. While Book of Mormon times/lands do not correspond to the Aztecs, it does show that the author(s) of the Book of Mormon could describe precisely the feints/ambush tactics that Aztec armies later used to great effect:

AMBUSHES

Ambushes were among the most successful and skillfully executed of the Aztec tactical maneuvers. They included simple attacks at physical disabling times and locations, such as at narrow mountain passages, where the advantage lay overwhelmingly with the attacker or from seemingly deserted houses. The most spectacular ambushes, however, were executed in battle and involved use of a feint in which the Aztec forces retreated as if the enemy were winning the struggle. If the feint was executed convincingly, the enemy advanced to press home its advantage. Once the enemy forces had been drawn into a compromised position, the Aztecs turned on them with additional troops, attacked them from behind, or used these troops to cut off from tactical and logistical support.

One feint described many times in the historical accounts involved the use of foxholes and cover During the war with Tecuantepec, King Axayacatl advanced at the front of his army. When the opponents attacked, he fell back to a place where his soldiers were hidden by straw, whereupon they attacked and won. In the war against the Huaxtecs, King Moteuczomah Ilhuicamina formed his units and attacked, before feigning a retreat. This drew the Huaxtecs forward until two thousand armed cuahchicqueh and otontin warriors, camouflaged with grass, arose and destroyed them. The same basic tactic was used in many other wars. In the war against Tolocan (Toluca), King Axayacatl and eight of his generals concealed themselves in straw-covered holes in the ground. When the Aztec army retreated past their location, they leaped out, killed the Toloca lords, and routed the army.

Although disobedient rulers were sometimes killed, political assassination before battle was not a significant factor in Mesoamerican warfare. But in battle the ruler was a legitimate target, since his death could shorten the battle and the war. (Ross Hassig, Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control [The Civilization of the American Indian Series 188; Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988], 103)



The Anti-Intellectual Approach to Exegesis by Some Traditionalist Catholics Who Privilege the Vulgate


Timothy Flanders, a traditional Catholic who converted from Eastern Orthodoxy (and prior to that, Protestantism) wrote the following which highlights how the Vulgate tends to take a priority over textual criticism, exegesis, and other important sciences:

The Importance of the Vulgate: Doctrine

As we discuss why every word of Holy Writ matters, this becomes particularly acute when we look at the Vulgate of St. Jerome. This will have a significant impact on our discussion of Catholic English Bible translations. There have been a number of Catholic doctrines which have been based on texts from the Latin Vulgate which do not appear in modern Catholic Bibles based on the Masoretic Hebrew or Protestant Biblical scholarship . . . Galatians 5:22 also enumerates the fruits of the Holy Spirit based on a Latin variant, counting twelve: charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. This is the list enumerated and explained by St. Thomas in I-II q70. But this appears to be an early commentary in the Latin Text, as this list of twelve does not exist in the Greek manuscripts, which only have nine. The modern Catholic English translations all reduce the number to nine. Thus it might be concluded that the whole Latin Tradition was wrong about the number of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. But this is only possible if we assert that inspiration is restricted to the Text of the Holy Bible, and not the oral Tradition that governs it. Here we see how the oral Tradition and the original text overlap. Both must be accepted with piety. (Timothy S. Flanders, Introduction to the Holy Bible for Traditional Catholics: A Beginner's Guide to Reading the Scriptures for Spiritual Profit [Our Lady of Victory Press, 2019], 259, 261, emphasis added)

Not only does this show the priority of the Vulgate among many Catholics, it also means that this (purportedly apostolic) oral tradition seeped into the text of the Latin text of the New Testament (not the Greek!), expanding the number of virtues from 9 to 12.

We see this (ahistorical and anti-intellectual) approach with respect to Rom 5:12 and Original Sin:

But perhaps the most fundamental doctrine which is obscured today is Original Sin. St. Augustine drew evidence for this doctrine from a variant of Romans v. 12:

Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

Propterea sicut per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum intravit, et per paccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt.

The Council of Trent in its Fifth Session then issued an anathema of the dogma of Original Sin based explicitly on this passage:

If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers’ wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.

But the Protestants could read this anathema and laugh. They knew the Greek could be translated this way:

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned (Catholic RSV 2006).

The Greek manuscripts all have eph’ ho which means “upon whom” or “in asmuch as.” It was translated into Latin as two variants: eo quod (because of) or in quo (in whom). St. Augustine obviously had the latter variant in the manuscripts he used, which was then confirmed by Trent. (Ibid., 262-64)

Flanders then offers this conclusion. Do note that if a Latter-day Saint or some other non-Catholic were to say something like this, the Catholic would claim that such is “anti-intellectual” and even “cultic”:

But an over-emphasis on the “original text” can be used by heretics in this case to undermine Augustine and Trent. Did Augustine err because he was not consulting the Greek? Of course not. This verse, like every verse of the Scriptures, is governed by the oral Tradition. It “is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.” (Ibid., 264)