For the Month of May ("Mary Month"): Read a book on "Mormon Mariology"

Tomorrow is the beginning of May. This is a month that is often dedicated in Catholic circles to Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

I would urge my fellow Latter-day Saints to study Mariology and discuss/debate it with their Catholic friends for many reasons, including it being a wonderful opportunity to discuss the Marian Dogmas--the greatest proofs against Rome being the true Church. It will lead to a wonderful opportunity to get a Catholic to consider the truth-claims of the Restored Gospel and accept true Mariology.

I have written a book on the topic which I have put online as a free PDF download:

Behold the Mother of My Lord: Towards a Mormon Mariology (2017)

I know I have some informed Catholics who follow this blog. In case you are wondering: yes, I would be more than happy to debate an informed Catholic apologist on Mariology, such as the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity. One can contact me at IrishLDS87ATgmailDOTcom

The Use of Wisdom 2 in Matthew 27:39-43

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha-- There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correct. (D&C 91:1)

Unlike many Protestants, Latter-day Saints have no issue with there being inspired (θεόπνευστος, to borrow from 2 Tim 3:16) portions of the Apocrypha (“Deuterocanonical” books as our RC friends call them) based on D&C 91. For that reason, we would have no issue with much of the following from Catholic apologist Gary Michuta who argues that Matthew 27:39-43 is dependent, not just upon Psa 22, but the Wisdom of Solomon:

Mathew 27:39-43

And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, ‘You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the king of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, ‘I am the Son of God (Matt. 27:39-43).”

Wisdom 2:17-22

“Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries (Wis. 2:17-22)

In the Mathew passage, many modern bibles will direct the reader to the Suffering Servant passage in Psalm 22:7-8, which reads,

All who see me mock at me, they make mouths at me, they wag their heads; “he committed his cause to the Lord; let him deliver him, let him rescue him, for he delights in him.”

Bibles that include the deuterocanon will likely provide a second cross-reference to Wisdom 2:17-18. No one would deny that the two texts have a certain affinity with one another. For example, both Psalms 22:8-9 and Wisdom 2:17-18 speak about God rescuing the just man who places his trust in him (Matthew 27:43, Wisdom 2:17018, and Psalm 22:8 [LXX] all use the same Greek word for rescue). However, the taunts of the chief priests, scribes, and elders in Matthew 27:43 suggest something more specific; Christ is being mocked not merely for being “loved by God” (as a comparison to Psalm 22:7-8 would suggest), but specifically because he “said ‘I am the Son of God.’” Notice how Wisdom 2:17 takes the truthful claim to be the “Son of God” as a condition for God’s deliverance:

For if the just one be the Son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.

This is the only passage in the Old Testament that expresses a direct expectation that the true Son of God would be rescued and delivered from persecution by mockers and detractors; and it is precisely Christ’s claim of divine sonship that led the Jewish leaders in Matthew 27:43 to express their feigned expectation of such a rescue. Given this close interconnection, it is not surprising to find Protestant sources recognizing this dependency on Wisdom in Matthew 27:41-43. What, if anything, however, does this usage tell us about the inspired status of Wisdom?

First, the elders must have understood the book of Wisdom to be an authoritative, perhaps even predictive, sacred text; otherwise, their taunt would have been meaningless, perhaps even blasphemous, since it would then have amounted to a demand for a miraculous rescue that God never promised. Only a recognized inspired text would have given these words power and avoided blasphemous presumption.

Second, the chief priests, scribes, and elders must have had a reasonable expectation that those present would recognize their citation of Wisdom 2:17-18; otherwise, their words would have been lost on their hearers. Third, Matthew’s inclusion of these words in his Gospel narrative indicates that he saw them as having some significance for Jewish Christian readers, seeing perhaps, as the apostle Paul did, Christ’s ultimate rescue in the Resurrection as a vindication or demonstration of his divine sonship (Wisdom 2:17-18 cf. Romans 1:4) Finally, Matthew apparently expected his readers to know this text as well and accept it as a genuine prophecy. From earliest times, Christians used Wisdom 2:17-18 as a genuine prophecy of Christ’s passion.

There is something stronger than an allusion or even a quote here; Matthew is employing Wisdom in this text (or rather the Jewish elders are employing Wisdom, and Matthew records it). It suggests that Matthew, the chief priests, scribes, and elders, as well as their hearers and readers, understood this text to be prophetic. Yet despite the significance of this employment, by Matthew and others, this reference to the inspired book of Wisdom has been systematically omitted from most Protestant bibles. (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger [2d ed.; El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2017], 51-53; cf. Mario Lopez ["Matt1618"], "Wisdom 2:12-20: Prophecy Fulfilled in Jesus Christ"))

In a scholarly commentary on Matthew by a Protestant, we read the following about Matthew’s possible use of Wisdom:

In the larger context of the mockery, the addition of the Son-of-God clause to the material echoing Ps. 22:9 produces something which has a striking similarity to Wis. 2:13, 16–20:

He claims to have knowledge of God and names himself a child (παῖδα) of [the] Lord.… He pretends falsely that God is his Father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is a Son of God, he will come to his aid and rescue him from the hand of his opponents. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may know his forbearance and make trial of his patient endurance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, there will be a visitation [of God] for him (αὐτοῦ ἐπισκοπή).

The fit is so good that surely this material was in Matthew’s mind as he wrote. If so, Matthew will expect his readers to understand how benighted the attitude of the opponents of the righteous man of the book of Wisdom is and will be shown to be as the book unfolds (The very next verse in Wis. 2:21 says, ‘They were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them’). Matthew will be seeing the present scene of mocking very much in relation to the coming vindication, first in the events of 27:45–54 and then in the resurrection. (John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text [New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005], 1199-1200)

I do not believe Latter-day Saints should, as some Protestants are wont to do, have a knee-jerk reaction and reject such. In my opinion, Matthew is employing both Psa 22 and Wisdom 2 as prophecies that are being fulfilled in some way in Matt 27.

For a book-length discussion of the Apocrypha from an LDS perspective, see:

Jared W. Ludlow, Exploring the Apocrypha from a Latter-day Saint Perspective (Springville, Utah: CFI, 2018)

Jeff Lindsay has a short review of this book at:

A Valuable LDS Resource for Learning from the Apocrypha

Rhyne R. Putman on the Development of Doctrine within Protestantism and the Credo- vs. Paedo-baptism debate

In a volume attempting to outline various ways a Protestant who holds to Sola Scriptura can also hold to the development of doctrine, Rhyne R. Putman wrote the following about how infant baptism, even within this framework, would not be a true doctrinal development:

The Practice of the Church: Baptism

Another interesting case for doctrinal continuity is the practice of paedobaptism (i.e., the baptism of infants). This is not the place to rehearse traditional arguments for or against paedobaptism, which have been explored with detail and skill elsewhere. Those within my own Baptist tradition characteristically reject paedobaptism (e.g., the baptism of infants) in favor of credobaptism (i.e., the baptism of adult believers or converts) because the former practice lacks explicit mention in the New Testament. However, is such an argument from silence convincing? As we have seen, doctrine often develops by making explicit that which is implicit in the text, by faithfully practicing the illocutionary acts of Scripture in new settings and situations. So, can paedobaptism represent appropriate development faithful to the judgments of Scripture, or does this practice model an appeal to ecclesial tradition as additional material authority in development? Further analysis of this issue is required.

Thiselton briefly addresses the debate between Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Aland on the nature of “household” baptism formulae in the New Testament but withholds his own opinion on the matter, implying that the significance of the baptism is more important than its mode or proper subjects. Jeremias argues that paedobaptism was a practice in the New Testament and in the early church. Aland, on the other hand, argues that credobaptism is normative in the New Testament and standard practice for the first two centuries of Christianity. Following the pattern of his treatment of other doctrines, Thiselton does not offer a conclusive statement about the meaning of baptism (Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, 512-14; cf. 536-38).

On the other hand, Vanhoozer considers baptism an important participatory act in the theo-drama but is ambiguous regarding its mode, administration, and proper subjects:

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper . . . are communicative actions, less speech-acts than acts that speak . . . Baptism marks our entry into the church, our regeneration, and purification from sin . . . Baptism enacts our solidarity with Jesus’ own death and resurrection: in baptism we participate in being buried with Jesus (united in death) and in being raised with Jesus (united in life) . . . [The sacraments] are able to draw us into the pattern of Jesus’ own communicative action. (Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, 75, italics mine)

Vanhoozer makes no clear-cut case for paedobaptism or credobaptism, but it is likely that the Presbyterian theologian would seem to favor paedobaptism and make a case for it within the covenantal framework he sketches in his theo-dramatic model of doctrine. Neither Thiselton nor Vanhoozer shows plainly, or for that matter, attempts to show, how the practice of paedobaptism in their respective faith traditions is an appropriate development grounded in the unique authority of Scripture.

Notably, one using Yeago and Vanhoozer’s normative model of discerning the pattern of judgments in Scripture and enacting their practice in new settings probably could make arguments for both positions. Advocates of traditional arguments for paedobaptism seem to rely on making canonical judgments consistent with (ipse-identity) but not the same as (idem-sameness) the covenantal practice of circumcision. The first two steps of Yeago and Vanhoozer’s approach are addressed successfully here. These arguments for paedobaptism (1) rightly identify the divine dramatis personae of canonical judgments regarding baptism, (2) rightly identify the plot or canonical significance of baptism: unity with Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom. 6:5-11).

The question remains: Is the practice of paedobaptism a fitting response to biblical illocutionary acts regarding baptism? In other words, what response (or perlocutionary act) to their description of baptism do biblical writers expect their readers to make? John the Baptist asks Jesus about the propriety of his request to baptize him. Only Matthew tells his readers of Jesus’ response and motive in baptism: to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). Jesus did not need baptism because he was a sinner needing forgiveness but allowed John to baptize him in order that he might demonstrate obedience and show public solidarity with Israel and the people of God. Paul seems to stress continuity between the public performance of baptism and an ongoing, volitional reckoning of oneness as dead to sin (Rom. 6:11). In both cases, baptism appears to be a public act of self-commitment, something impossible for a non-cognizant infant to do. Credobaptism appears a better fir with the description of baptism as communicative action that enacts solidarity with Christ. Baptism is a public performance of declaring allegiance, an enacted, enfleshed confession. In brief, the development of paedobaptist doctrine appears to focus on the wrong set of canonical judgments, or misconstrue them all together. This doctrine also may have developed in order to justify the practices of later Christian tradition, in which case the focus of authority has shifted. (Rhyne R. Putman, In Defense of Doctrine: Evangelicalism, Theology, and Scripture [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015], 362-65)

While he is correct in rejecting infant baptism, Putman's analysis is retarded due to his acceptance of Sola Scriptura. For a full-length critique, see:

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

On Matthew and "to fulfil all righteousness," see:

Nathan Eubank on the meaning of "Fulfil All Righteousness" and Implications for Baptism and Righteousness

Putman, apart from holding to the false doctrine of sola Scriptura also holds to a blasphemous view of the effects of baptism--he rejects baptismal regeneration. For some articles addressing this, be sure to see:

Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7

Jerome D. Quinn on Titus 3:5 and Baptismal Regeneration

Chad Pierce on the Salvific Efficacy of Water Baptism

Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration (cf. Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration? and. Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?)

Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Paul S. Williamson on Baptismal Regeneration in Ephesians

Andrew Lincoln on Paul's Theology of Water Baptism in Ephesians 5:26

J. Paul Sampley on Baptismal Regeneration and Ephesians 5:25-27 

On the related issue of imputed righteousness (which informs a lot of the errant arguments against baptismal regeneration and other doctrines), see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Elder Kyle S. McKay on Our Reliance on God in LDS Soteriology

In the April 2020 issue of the Ensign, we read the following from Elder Kyle S. McKay of the Seventy, showing the Christo-centric nature of LDS soteriology and how, contra many misinformed critics, our theology is not raw works righteousness, etc:

Reliant on God

Here we should pause and acknowledge that this mighty change of which we speak is wrought in us; it is not wrought by us. We are capable of repenting, changing our conduct, our attitudes, even our desires and beliefs, but it is beyond our power and capacity to change our nature. For this mighty change, we are wholly reliant on Almighty God. It is He who graciously purifies our hearts and changes our nature “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23). His invitation is constant and sure: “Repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal [you]” (3 Nephi 18:32; emphasis added).

The effect of being healed from sinfulness is that we become “changed from [our] carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness … becoming his sons and daughters; And thus [we] become new creatures” (Mosiah 27:25, 26). Our countenances radiate the Light of Christ. Moreover, the scriptures tell us that “whosoever is born of God sinneth not” (1 John 5:18). This is so, not because we are incapable of sinning, but because it is now our nature not to sin. That is a mighty change, indeed.

It should be remembered that experiencing a mighty change of heart is a process over time, not a point in time. The change is usually gradual, sometimes incrementally imperceptible, but it is real, it is powerful, and it is necessary.

If you have not yet experienced such a mighty change, I would ask of you: Have you repented and received a remission of your sins? Do you study the holy scriptures? Do you fast and pray often, that you may wax firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ? Do you have faith enough to trust the Lord with all your heart? Are you standing steadfastly in that faith? Do you watch your thoughts, words, and deeds and observe the commandments of God? If you do these things, you will always rejoice and be filled with the love of God and always retain a remission of your sins. And if you stay in remission, you will be healed, cured, and changed!

Jesus Christ has power to cleanse us from our sins and also cure us of our sinfulness. He is mighty to save, and to that end, He is mighty to change. If we will yield our hearts to Him, exercising faith by making all the changes we are capable of making, He will exercise His power in us to bring about this mighty change of heart (see Alma 5:14). (A Mighty Change of Heart)

Heinrich Heppe on Necessity, God's Decree, Sin and Reprobation in Reformed Theology

Reformed theologians and apologists often engage in gymnastics when, on one hand, they argue that God, in the eternal past, decreed all things (including their secondary causes) that would take place and yet, God is not the author of sin. In the following from the work of Heinrich Heppe (1820-1879), originally published in 1861, shows how Calvinists speak from both sides of their mouth on this issue as well as the related issue of reprobation:

13.—Since therefore all evil takes place contra voluntatem mandntem (counter to the enjoining will), but absolutely nothing praetor voluntatem efficientem and efficaciter permittentem (outwith the efficient and effectually permissive will) of God, everything that takes place is necessitated by God, not necessitate coactionis but necessitate hypothetica and consequentiae. God, not necessitate coactionis but necessitate hypothetica and consequentiae. Everything ensues as ordered on the hypothesis decreti divini, so that the divine decree abolishes neither the freedom of personal creatures (who always do self-determinedly what God determined should be done), nor, as regards causa secunda, the contingency of things (which latter ceases to be contingency solely in relation to he divine counsel).

WOLLEB 19: “The necessity of God’s decrees does not do away with freedom in rational creatures”;--reason: “because it is not a necessity of compulsion but one of immutability. As regards the divine decree Adam’s fall took place of necessity. Yet meanwhile Adam sinned freely, being neither ordered nor forced nor impelled by God, having in fact been most severely admonished not to sin. Nor does it (the necessity of the decrees) do away with contingency in second causes. Many things are contingent as regards second causes, which occur necessarily as regards God’s counsel.”—BEZA (Op. I. p. 1-2): “Nothing happens anyhow or without God’s most righteous decree, although God is not the author of or sharer in any sin at all. But His power and His goodness are so great and so incomprehensible, that at a time when He applies the devil or wicked men in achieving some work, whom He afterwards justly punishes, He Himself none the less effects His holy work well and justly.—These things do not hinder but rather establish second and intermediate causes, by which all things happen. When from eternity God decreed whatever was to happen at definite moments, He at the same time also decreed the manner and way which He wished it thus to take place; to such extent, that even if some flaw is discovered in a second cause, it yet implies no flaw or fault in God’s eternal counsel.”—BEZA (Op. III, p. 408): “We must therefore know that as God, as the first and supreme Mover, determined one and all what things were to happen with that most wise and excellent will of His, He also created of more than one kind the mediate causes, by means of which He determined the occurrence of the things which He resolved upon. Thus it is necessary to place the beginning and true efficient cause of human actions, so far as they are human, in the actual will of men, so far of course as men act spontaneously and of their own motion. But so far as they execute their work by their own inner strength, so that God does through them what He has determined, this work is to be regarded as not human but divine, the beginning of which is the general will of God in question; so that it is a twofold work that looked like a single one, and each of them is to be measured by the diverse nature of the principium.”

DANAEUS (Christ. Isag. 54): “The second condition and quality of God’s providence is, that it imposes inevitable necessity upon things, but not, however, force or compulsion. For things which occur by God’s providence are ordained by His will and decree, and accordingly happen by necessity. For God’s will is unchangeable, nor can it be hindered in any way. But this necessity differs from force and compulsion, as we already warned you. (55): Although whatever happens to us happens necessarily, since it happens by God’s providence, the things we do are not done by us against our will and consent. So although whatever we do we do it necessarily according as God’s providence has decreed it to be done, yet we do not therefore do them under compulsion and against our will and consent, so far as regards the principles of the action in us. They are also our actions. We eat and drink of necessity but not unwillingly, because by the inward movement of our minds we choose it so to happen to us. But though this necessity is inevitable, so far as it is held to depend on and to have been constituted by God’s providence; yet so far as this same necessity is in our wills, as viewed in that principium of action which we have within us, it is a spontaneous act. Consequently, away with the sophistic distinction foisted by them between God’s permission and His decree or will. Since whatever is done by God’s permission is also done by His will, it is likewise done by His decree also.” (Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer [trans. G.T. Thomson; London: The Wakeman Trust, 2000], 144-45, emphasis in bold added)

B—REPROBATION

22.—The other side of God’s predestinating decree is the rejection of those, on whom God will not have mercy. “Reprobation is the decree of God, by which out of the mere good pleasure of His will He has resolved to leave fixed men, whom He does not elect, in the mass of corruption and piling up sins on sins and, when they have been hardened by His just judgment to visit them with eternal punishments, in order to display the glory of His righteousness” (HEIDEGGER V, 54). Or: “(Reprobation is) that by which God has resolved to leave certain men whom He has not elected in the mass of corruption and to condemn them eternally because of sin” (RUSSEN, VI, 16). That there really is such an eternal and unalterable reprobation of individual men is clear from H. Scripture . . .If there were no reprobation, absurdities would have to be inferred, which would contradict essential truths of faith . . . 23.—Essentially reprobation includes two elements, praeteritio or the denial of grace not due, and praedamnatio or the appointment of punishment due. For God resolved (1) as absolute Lord of His creation to pass over in His redeeming grace a part of fallen mankind which really merited damnation because of its guilt of sin, and (2) as the righteous judge of all His rational creatures to deal with them according to law and righteousness.—WOLLEB 23: “In order to the teaching of reprobation two acts are laid down: the denial of grace not due, called praeteritio and the appointment of due punishment, called praedamnatio”.—KECKERMANN 308: “Reprobation is God’s decree for leaving certain men in sin and for damning them eternally on account of sin. Reprobation comprises a double act. The first act is God’s purpose to abandon certain men and leave them to themselves; this act is absolute, depending on the sole and absolute arbitrium of God.—Act No. 2—is the purpose to damn on account of sins; this act is not absolute, but involves respect to the state of sin.—310: It is rightly said that we are saved because of election; but it cannot with equal fitness be said that certain are damned because of reprobation. Election is the positive principum of salvation, but reprobation strictly speaking is not a principle but the removal of a principle. Nor can it be said strictly that men were ordained from eternity to damnation, unless with this addition: on account of sin” . . . 24.—God is not bound to give His redeeming grace to any man: all have fallen away from Him and are liable to eternal death. Hence when God refuses His grace to some men, He does what He might do to all according to His righteousness; He bestows no mercy on them, he denies them communion with the Redeemer and effectual calling to him and punishes them with increasing hardness and blindness. Thus the reason of their damnation is neither the sinfulness of their condemnation foreseen by God nor their eternal rejection. Otherwise, since they are all alike sinful, God would have had to damn them all; and whilst of course for the elect election is the positive ground of their salvation, for the damned rejection is only the withholding of the ground of salvation, but not the ground of damnation itself. That consists purely and solely in the sinfulness of the rejected, while rejection itself has its sole ground in the absolute will of God, who fulfils His decree of reprobation by means of a completely just damnatio. (Ibid., 178-79, 180-81, emphasis in bold added)

For a full discussion of the many problems of Reformed theology, see:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Heinrich Heppe (1820-1879) on the Intercession of Christ

I have discussed how Christ’s resurrection and intercessory work refute the naïve Protestant understanding of τετελεσται (“it is finished” in John 19:30. For a fuller discussion, see:

 Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

Note the following from 1861 by Reformed theologian Heinrich Heppe where in his discussion of Christ's intercession, inevitably speaks of it affecting the salvation (albeit, of the elect merely), and if it was not for Christ's intercession the elect would be damned:

30.—After his exaltation Christ exercises the high-priestly office. In continuation of the intercession offered to the Father in his immolation of himself, he appears before the Father as he who has consummated the sacrifice for the guilt of the world; and in virtue of the satisfaction accepted by the Father he mediates and effects the appropriation of his merit by the elect, as a gift of grace to be lavished by the Father, he protects and advances the faithful in the enjoyment of the salvation of grace, and he offers their prayers to the Father: this is why the faithful may call upon the Father only in the name of Christ.—LEIDEN SYNOPSIS (XXVI, 48): “Christ’s intercession is the function by which, placing himself in the heavenly holy place, he importunes from God the Father in our name both His mercy and the remission of sins obtained by the merit of his expiatory sacrifice and its riches and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, by which we are daily made readier and readier for all the duties of obedience and ευχαριστια”.—MARESIUS (X, 53): “Intercession means that by which after the expiatory oblation he stands before God the Father to represent the efficacy of his oblation and to obtain thereby the application of the redemption secured for us, the grace of the Holy Spirit and the hearing of our prayers.—Relying upon this intercession of the one Christ, true Christians ask nothing of the Father except in the Son’s name.”—a DIEST (207): “The intercession is twofold, the one humble in the state of exinanition, the other glorious, which is Christ’s compearance in heaven before the Father in the state of exaltation”.—BEZA (I, 659): “He intercedes (1) by the perpetual vigour of his integrity and obedience which appeases the Father in our favour, (2) next, since we cannot duly approach the Father except in his name, by always intervening between us and the Father as a midway conciliator, whereby whatever we offer is pleasing to the Father. But as for some who talk moonshine about Christ’s supplication and his casting Himself at the Father’s knees, it is an empty lie of those fellows who cannot distinguish Christ weak from Christ glorious, heavenly things from earthly” [sic]—TURRETIN (XIV, xv, 13): “This intercession is made—rather in things than in words by the representation of his death in heaven.”

Essentially therefore Christ’s intercession is the vigor of his redemptive work in eternity, in virtue of the abiding “personal union” of the λογος with the assumed humanity, and in virtue of the abiding validity of the “obedience” afforded by him, and, in fact, so far as Christ’s mediation is considered in relation to the connection between the individual elect person and the father . . . 31.—Further this intercession of Christ can only hold for those who according to the Father’s eternal counsel of grace are assumed into the eternal covenant of grace and for whom therefore the Son has given his eternal sponsio.—HEIDEGGER (XIX, 95): “Therefore the intercession and interpellation of Christ the high priest, who has entered heaven and compears before the Father’s face with his own blood shed for us, accomplishes this for those for whom he offered himself unto death to the Father and did die” . . . This intercession or intervention consists moreover of three parts: (1) Christ brought his own propitiatory offering into the very holy-place of heaven, to sanctify it for us, and there he appears before the ace of God on our behalf Heb. 9.23-24 (It was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. Or Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, not to appear before the face of God for us); (2) by his burning will and desire as he had done before on earth Jn. 17.11, 15, 24 (And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to Thee . . . Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one even as we are.—I pray not that thou shouldest take them from the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one.—Father, that which thou hast given me, I will that where I am, there they also may be with me; that they may behold my Glory, which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world), so also in heaven with the Father he demands the application of the power and efficacy of his death to us for salvation, as may be seen in Zech. 1.12 (O Lord of hosts, how long will thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these three score and ten years?) Jn. 14.16 (And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever) also Ac. 2.33 (Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the H. Ghost, he hath poured forth this which ye see and hear). In short by his merit and longing he renders our prayers poured forth in his name pleasing and acceptable to God the Father Jn. 14.6, 13 (I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me—whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son) I Jn. 2.1-2 (My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye may not sin. And if any man sin, we have an Advocate (Comforter) with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the whole world.)”.

16.—Otherwise [i.e. failing this intercession and demand] even the elect with their sins would have had to become liable to eternal damnation. (Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer [trans. G.T. Thomson; London: The Wakeman Trust, 2000], 479-80, 481, 506-7, emphasis added)

Reformed Theologian Henrich Heppe vs. the naive view that "all works are as menstrual rags" before God

In the following from Reformed theologian Heinrich Heppe (1820-1879), from 1861, refutes the naïve “all works are as menstrual rags” belief among many (not all!) Protestants:

23.—And yet for the regenerate the doing of good works is a duty.—HEIDEGGER (XXIII, 60): “Good works are no less necessary than actual sanctifications.”

24.—Why? Because the regenerate can do wors which are not good bonitate graduum, i.e., perfectly good, but which are good bonitate essentiali, i.e., essentially good. As right faith, however weak it may be, is yet real faith, so the works which the Christian does with believing heart, be they never so defective, are yet really works of faith and are therefore essentially good and well-pleasing to God.

BRAUN (I, iii, 11, 5): “Works are called good or of a perfect goodness, and of a perfection essential or  graduated (graduum). Those works are said to have goodness or essential perfection, which are done (a) according to God’s command, (b) out of a heart purified by faith, and (c) for the glory of God, i.e., those which fulfil the three conditions of which we have just been speaking. These are not found in the unregenerate, but in the regenerate only. Works which are good or perfect in goodness or in a perfection of degrees, are those in which the three conditions are found in perfection, where nothing is done except as prescribed in the law of God; out of a heart which has been perfectly purified by perfect faith and which acts solely for the glory of God. In this sense only the blessed in heaven emit good works, not believers on earth.—6: None the less works of the regenerate may be called virtues and good works. Not because they are good by goodness of degree, but by essential goodness; so that, although they are not perfectly good, they are yet truly good, as heat in the fourth degree is true heat no less than in the eighth, although not so strong. As therefore our faith however imperfect is none the less faith if it be sincere, so too with our works which proceed from it. In one word, our works are pleasing to God in the same sense in which we ourselves are pleading to Him. We are pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ; then so are our works.”

25.—The purposes of good works ae the following. By them the Christian should above all glorify God, whose gracious Spirit effects the good works in him; he should next by them offer God thanks for grace received, attest his faith before the world, assure himself thereby of his position in grace and further the edification of his neighbour. In fact even for the attainment of everlasting life the performance of good works is necessary.

URSIN (Explic. Catech., pp. 314-315, conf. p. 307): The causae impulsivae of good works are: “(1) regeneration, necessarily involving justification; (2) gratitude for redemption; (3) making God famous; (4) confirmation of our faith and election, and (5) a good example y which others may become profitable to Christ.” (Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer [trans. G.T. Thomson; London: The Wakeman Trust, 2000], 578-79)

On Isa 64:6 itself, as well as the role of works in salvation, be sure to see, for e.g.:

Review of Can Our Works Save Us? Refuting Sola Fide

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

Are Good Works Always "Filthy/Menstrual Rags"? Not According to John Calvin

Does LDS Theology Confuse the Relationship Between Justification and Sanctification?

Reformed Protestant Apologist on God "Relenting" in the Book of Jonah

Notwithstanding the overall effort to be driven more by a desire not to concede any ground to those who hold to contingent foreknowledge, the conditional nature of prophecy and the like, the following from an Evangelical apologist about God “relenting” in the book of Jonah is rather insightful:

God Relented

Following the Ninevites’ repentance and petitions to God for mercy in response to Jonah’s message, the narrative informs us of God’s response to the Ninevites. “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented [wayyināhem] of the disaster [‘al-hārā‘āh] that he had said he would do [’asher dibber la‘asôt] to them, and he did not do it” (Jonah 3:10). This statement clearly alludes to the statement in Exodus regarding God’s response to Moses’ intercession for the Israelites: “And the LORD relented [wayyināhem] from the disaster [‘al-hārā‘āh] that he had spoken of bringing [’asher dibber la‘asôt] on his people” (Exod. 32:14, cf. 32:12). The allusion adds even further confirmation that the account in Jonah 3 is deliberately comparing the sparing of Nineveh from judgment to the sparing of Israel from judgment in the wilderness

The verb for “relent” used in both passages, nāham, is sometimes translated “repent” or “be sorry.” In these and other passages God is the subject of this verb (Gen. 6:6-7; Judg. 2:18; 1 Sam. 15:11, 35; 2 Sam. 24:16; 1 Chron. 21:15; Ps. 106:45; Jer. 15:6; 18:8, 10; 20:16; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13, 14; Amos 7:3, 6; Zech. 8:14; on the other hand, see Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Ps. 110:4; Jer. 4:28; Ezek. 24:14). From these texts arises the disputed question as to whether God can literally regret or be sorry for doing something, or can “repent” of doing or of intending to do something. The dispute results from confusing words with concepts. God can be the subject of the verb nāham, but that verb has varying connotations depending on context. In most of the texts in which God is the subject of the verb, the point is that God can and does, when he sees fit, do otherwise than what he had previously stated. Such statements do not mean that God “changed his mind” (an inaccurate translation used in some versions) or that he was caught by surprise by people’s actions and so forced to abandon or change his plans. Rather, they mean that God can and does take into consideration what his creatures do and responds to them appropriately and as he sees fit. If God could not do this, he would not be personal.

God’s action of sparing the Ninevites clearly shows that he understood his message to them through Jonah as giving them an opportunity to repent. (Robert M. Bowman, Jonah's Alleged False Prophecy, pp. 8-9)

For more, be sure to read the discussion of the contingent nature of prophecies at:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology (Jonah is far from the only example of this, and the contingent nature of biblical prophecy, etc)

Richard A. Diehl on the Lack of Skeletal Remains of the Olmecs

Responding to an Evangelical Protestant who said that "In truth it is scientifically *impossible* for the events in the BOM to have taken place without leaving massive amounts of residual debris behind at Hill Cumora[h]!", LDS apologist D. Charles Pyle wrote:

Spoken like one who is ignorant of what archaeology represents and of what happens to remains that are left unburied. Alkaline and Acidic soils, together with exposure for air can result in bone tissue being turned to dust in only a few years. It is hardly likely that the Lamanites would have left the weapons without picking through them. In such a case, the likelihood of finding remains under those conditions is slim. Additionally, one must know where to look. Look in the wrong place and find nothing. (source)

That this was probably the case for the final battle at Cumorah (Mormon 6) can be seen from the earlier Olmec civilization and the lack of skeletal remains thereof. As one scholar of the Olmecs wrote:

Virtually no Olmec skeletons in the acid tropical soils of Olman, the portion of southern Veracruz and Tabasco occupied by the Olemcs, thus their physical appearance remains a mystery. (Richard A. Diehl, The Olmecs: America’s First Civilization [London: Thames and Hudson, 2004], 13)

Joshua Berman on the Fallacies of Some Modern Practitioners of Higher Criticism

While I embrace Higher Criticism as a useful tool, many who employ such a method, due to an acceptance of full-blown naturalism, often exaggerate the “problems” within the text of the Old Testament. Joshua Berman has discussed some of the logical fallacies many higher critics engage in. Consider the following:

Creating false doublets and false dichotomies:

. . . the two-source theory is foisted upon the text; it produces dichotomies and doublets that are of its own creation and not inherent in the text. One such “imaginary” difficulty and contrived doublet concerns the source of the deluge. For source critics, the P version claims that God allowed the waters of the depths and the heavens to flood the earth (Gen. 7:11; 8:2). The difference and distinction between the two founts of the deluge are presented as if they are mutually exclusive.

Logically, of course, there is no reason why the deluge could not have emanated from both rainclouds and heavenly and earthly wellsprings. There is no contradiction between the two. Moreover, the notion of divine deluge stemming from these two sources is a common trope. In fact, consider the sources of the deluge in the Mesopotamian account of the flood story, which is caused both by rainfall and opened dikes:

I gazed upon the appearance of the storm,
The storm was rightful to behold! . . .
A black cloud rose up from the horizon,
Inside [the cloud] was thundering . . .
Erregal tore out the dike posts,
Ninurta came and brought with him the dikes. (Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh Epic [XI:98-103])

Divine deluges that stem from both from cloud rain and from the well springs of the earth are a familiar trope in the Tanakh (Ps. 77:17-18; Prov. 3:20). Moreover, the Genesis Flood account mentions these two founts together in two places (Gen. 7:11-12; 8:2). However, were source critics to adopt a reading whereby the Genesis Flood derived both from cloud rain and from other wellsprings together, it would no longer be possible to bisect the text into two accounts. Source critics must ignore the attested trope in the Mesopotamian version of the flood story and the other biblical source of divine deluge from rain and from other well-springs, so that each of the putative versions of the story will have a flood unto itself. When critics separate the founts of the deluge, they do so not because the theory solves a problem in the text; rather a problem in the theory gives rise to an unnecessary and forced distinction in the text. (Joshua Berman, Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith [Jerusalem and New Milford, Conn.: Maggid Books, 2020], 112-13)

Non-sequiturs

Consider the Masoretic Text’s version of Genesis 7:15-16: “[The animals] came unto Noah, unto the ark, two by two, from all of the living creatures. They were male and female of all creatures, as Elokim had commanded him. And Hashem closed him in.” The final phrase of verse 16, “And Hashem closed him in,” follows directly from the previous elements in verses 13-16. Noah and his family enters the ark, the animals enter the ark, and, to conclude, Hashem “shuts the hatch” as it were, and closes Noah in. However, in the putative non-P source, the following text is hypothesized: “(7:10) And after seven days, the waters of the deluge were on the earth. (7:12) The rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights” (7:16b) and Hashem shut him in.” Source critics splice the text in this fashion because verse 16b refers to God as Hashem, and thus must be assigned to the non-P source, which they reckon refers to God exclusively as Hashem. However, this reading is deficient on two grounds. In the first place, it creates a non-sequitur as it implies that it had been raining already for forty days and forty nights before God enclosed the ark (Note that the vayiktol form of the verb vayisgor, cannot have the connotation of the past perfect, “had closed in”)! Secondly, it removes verse 16b, the notice of God shutting in Noah, from the simple context of the verses in which it is organically found in the Genesis text, following the embarking of Noah, his family, and the animals. (Ibid., 113-14; note: “Hashem” [the name] is the term used by modern Jews as a substitute for uttering/writing YHWH)

Applying modern literary expectations to ancient texts

Berman has the following engaging footnote:

A further methodological flaw of source criticism is worthy of note here. Source critics believe that simply by looking at the text they can identify the inconsistencies and fissures that are the keys to recovering and recreating the putative source of the Torah. They assume that our notions of literary unity and what constitutes and inconsistency in the text are universal and obvious. But they are not. Consider the biblical criticism of one of Islam’s most celebrated theologians, Ibn Hazm the Andalusian, who lived in Cordoba in the eleventh century. He hated Jews and hated Judaism, writing a one-hundred-page critique of Genesis in which he demonstrated that it could not possibly have been written by Moses alone and must have had multiple authors, owing to all of the inconsistencies in it. Although Ibn Hazm identifies many of the inconsistencies flagged by modern scholars, repetitions do not bother him in the least. Two accounts of Creation, two times Noah boards, the arks, etc.—these are textual phenomena that Ibn Hazm never flags as signs of multiple authorship. It is no coincidence; medieval Islamic literature revels and delights in repetition of all sorts. From this we can clearly see that canons of literary unity are not universal but culturally dependent. Our modern, Western notions of consistency are actually those of Aristotle. Can we be certain that the authors of biblical Israel shared our Aristotelian notions of what a consistent text looks like? Put differently, the burden of proof falls upon source critics to demonstrate that they are truly bear of all the keys necessary to identify inconsistencies in the ancient text. (Ibid., 118-19 n. 11)

Joshua Berman on Unrealistic Battle Numbers in the Book of Chronicles

As with other ancient documents, the Book of Mormon’s discussion of number of participants in battles seem to be often exaggerated. My friend Stephen Smoot has two useful blog posts addressing this issue:

Why the Book of Mormon’s Battle Numbers Don’t Add Up (And Why That’s Evidence for its Authenticity)

A Postscript on Book of Mormon Battle Numbers

Joshua Berman, a Jewish Rabbi and Biblical scholar, wrote that, with respect to numbers in the Tanakh:

Throughout the writings of the ancient Near East we find that numbers are often unrealistically large, especially when reported in a military context, such as army size or the detail of booty taken from an enemy. (Joshua Berman, Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith [Jerusalem and New Milford, Conn.: Maggid Books, 2020], 29)

Berman, as one of his examples discusses the armies of Judah in the book of Chronicles:

In the second book of Chronicles, we find troop figures for the armies of many of the kings of Judah. Concerning the first four of these kings, these figures are listed over six chapters. The army of Rehoboam, we are told, numbered 180,000 (II Chr. 11:1). The army of his son, Abijah, numbered 400,000 (II Chr. 13:3). The army of Asa was comprised of two units: one numbered 300,000 and the other numbered 280,000. Finally, the armies of Jehoshaphat, his son, consisted of five units. Those units numbered 300,000; 280,000; 200,000; 2000,000; and 180,000 men (II Chr. 17:14-18). These numbers are all quite large and cannot conform to any realistic picture of what we know about life in the Land of Israel at the time. In fact, the armies of Jehoshaphat total over one million soldiers! When we look at these numbers a little more closely, though, we see two trends. One is that some of the numbers are what we would term large round numbers—200,000, 300,000, and 400,000. The other numbers we might term semi-rounded figures—180,000 and 280,000, each of which appears twice. Put differently, the figures that are “semi-rounded,” of which there are four, all end with eighty thousand. That seems a bit odd. After all, if the armies are presented as rounded to the nearest ten thousand, one would not expect that all four examples of armies that are not rounded to the nearest hundred thousand all happen to round to eighty thousand. For all of these reasons, it is difficult to read these figures as reflective of quantitative realities.

One perspective scholar has recently discerned a clear pattern that points to the meaning inherent in these numbers. The sum of Jehoshaphat’s armies totals 1,160,000. This figure is exactly double the size of his father Asa’s armies. The figure is also exactly equivalent to the sum of all the armies of the three kings of Judah who preceded him, recorded above (19). The narrative of Second Chronicles casts Jehoshaphat as the most righteous of the kings of Judah—more so than any of his predecessors, or those that immediately followed him. The author of Chronicles uses troop numbers to convey that idea in keeping with an ancient convention of employing non-realistic numbers As a reward for his righteousness, Jehoshaphat commanded not only the largest army but, rhetorically speaking, an army so large that it doubled the size of his father’s armies and equalled the total of all those who preceded him. Put differently, the book of Chronicles depicts troop numbers not to convey reality but to convey meaning. There are many other numerical figures in the book of Chronicles that do not seem realistic and which we cannot as of yet explain in symbolic terms. However, the observation that Jehoshaphat’s armies equaled the total of his predecessors surely cannot be coincidental. It represents a literary use of numbers in a way that is not intuitive for us today. (Ibid., 29-30)

David L Petersen on "sun of righteousness" in Malachi 4:2

Commenting on the phrase "sun of righteousness" (שֶׁמֶשׁ צְדָקָה) in Mal 4:2 (Heb. 3:20), David L Petersen noted the following:

. . . unlike the oven (v. 1), the sun may also illumine a scene and induce certain forms of behavior. However, the poet does much more than refer to the general power of the sun. The language is both conceptual and graphic: “a sun of righteousness . . .with healing in its wings.” How may the sun be related to righteousness and what does it mean to speak of a winged sun? Fortunately, it is possible to proffer answers for both these questions. First, Othmar Keel has collected abundant examples of a winged sun disk in the artifactual remains of both ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt (O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, New York, 1978, 27-30). Throughout the ancient Near East, the upper tier of the universe could be represented by a circle or disk, which has wings on either side. The disk surely symbolizes the sun, and the wings symbolize the heavenly vault or sky, or possibly the rays of the sun. The wings symbolize the heavenly vault or sky, or possibly the rays of the sun. The wings signify not so much the movement of the sun through the sky but rather the sheltering presence of the firmament, which held back the heavenly ocean. Moreover, the winged sun disk could serve as an icon for the Mesopotamian god associated with the sun, Shamash. This last connection helps answer the second question, which involves the significance of “righteousness.” Shamash served as the god associated with the principles of law, namely, the distributive principles of justice and the principles of beneficence, “righteousness” (in Akkadian, mešarum and kittum respectively). Hence, it is altogether proper to think of the sun as signifying righteousness (the more so since this “sun of righteousness” is to shine on the righteous, v. 18).

These notions were not foreign to Israel. There is mounting evidence that Yahweh was venerated using solar imagery in ancient Israel, particularly with the rise of monarchy. The notion of the sun shining may symbolize the effect of the deity functioning as ruler. Compare the analogical description of the human king in 2 Sam. 23:3-4: “One who rules over people justly, ruling in the fear of God, he shines on them . . . “ (It is striking that in both 2 Sam. 23:4 and in Mal. 3:13-21 [3:13-18; 4:1-3] “fear” is prominent.) The accompanying notion of health is emblematic of the well-being associated with a king ruling properly; compare Isa. 58:8, another late prophetic text that links light, health, and righteousness. (David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi [Old Testament Library; London: SCM Press, 1995], 225)