One of the problems in accusations that Joseph Smith and his family were
engaged in “magic” is the failure of critics (e.g., D. Michael Quinn) from
providing a meaningful distinction between “magic” and “religion.” Often it
boils down to “what I do is religion; what you do is magic.” On this, see John Gee's review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (rev ed; 1998):
In the following,
one Evangelical, in an attempt to distinguish between “magic” and “religion”
ends up arguing that the concept of ex opere
operato is “magic”:
Answering that
question is admittedly complicated by the fact that there is no consensus among
scholars at to the definition of magic. The difficulty is compounded if one
seeks a definition that might apply to diverse cultures and eras, as can be
seen, for example, from the articles on primitive, Gaeco-Roman, European,
Islamic, and Asian magic in The
Encyclopedia of Religion (Mircea Eliade, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religion [New York: Macmillan, 1987], 9:81-115)
. . . in biblical religion God has the freedom to deny or to approve a request
however well or poorly presented, in
magic the desired result comes automatically as long as the proper procedure is carried out
to the letter; failure is always due to some mistake or imperfection in the
process used by the practitioner (cf. Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Israel [Winnona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997], 122-25). Thus, magic is a legitimate category or
term even if it is difficult to articulate a perfectly precise definition. (Robert
M. Bowman Jr., Jesus’ Resurrection and
Joseph’s Visions: Examining the Foundations of Christianity and Mormonism [Tampa,
Fla.: DeWard Publishing Company, 2020], 177, 178)
Such is informed, at least in part, by the author’s (false) Calvinistic theology.
Furthermore, he would have to argue that the sacramental theology of Roman
Catholicism and other groups to be “magic,” as
much of Catholic sacramental theology is based on the concept of ex opere
operato and the
very loose concept of “doing what the Church intends” to affect the sacrament
(e.g., the Mass). Such would also apply to various Protestants who believe in baptismal regeneration and other aspects of a higher sacramental theology than Bowman's theology.
If he wishes to be consistent, I await Bowman to announce that he thinks
Roman Catholicism is based on “magic,” a group that, notwithstanding his
theological differences with, he considers to be “Christian” in a narrow
understanding (e.g., p. 11), not broad understanding, of the term, according to his book.
Interestingly,
John Calvin, notwithstanding his views on the sacrament, believed the devil
could administer a valid baptism as long as it was done during the correct
formula (wording), a position he stated a few times during his lifetime. For
example, in his commentary to Amos 5:25 (composed around 1557), he wrote:
Now then we see that the Prophets speak in
various ways of Israel: when they regard the people, they say, that they were
perfidious, that they were apostates, who had immediately from the beginning
departed from the true and legitimate worship of God: but when they commend the
grace of God, they say, that the true worship of God shone among them, that
though the whole multitude had become perverted, yet the Lord approved of what
he had commanded. So it is with Baptism; it is a sacred and immutable testimony
of the grace of God, though it were administered by the devil, though all who
may partake of it were ungodly and polluted as to their own persons. Baptism
ever retains its own character, and is never contaminated by the vices of men.
The same must be said of sacrifices.
Something
similar appears in his comments to John 4:2 (written around 1553):
Though Jesus
himself baptized not. He gives the designation of Christ’s Baptism to that which he
conferred by the hands of other, in order to inform us that Baptism ought not
to be estimated by the person of the minister, but that its power depends
entirely on its Author, in whose name, and by whose authority, it is conferred.
Hence we derive a remarkable consolation, when we know that our baptism has no
less efficacy to wash and renew us, than if it had been given by the hand of
the Son of God. Nor can it be doubted that, so long as he lived in the world,
he abstained from the outward administration of the sign, for the express
purpose of testifying to all ages, that Baptism loses nothing of its value when
it is administered by a mortal man. In short, not only does Christ baptize
inwardly by his Spirit, but the very symbol which we receive from a mortal man
ought to be viewed by us in the same light as if Christ himself displayed his
hand from heaven, and stretched it out to us. Now if the Baptism administered
by a man is Christ’s Baptism, it will not cease to be Christ’s Baptism whoever
be the minister. And this is sufficient for refuting the Anabaptists, who
maintain that, when the minister is a wicked man, the baptism is also vitiated,
and, by means of this absurdity, disturb the Church; as Augustine has very properly
employed the same argument against the Donatists.
I wonder if
Bowman will accuse Calvin of advocating “magic”?
On the topic of the Mass, be sure to see my articles addressing the biblical and patristic texts said to support the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation:Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)
