Keith A. Mathison, "Christianity and Van Tillianism"

Keith A. Mathison, author of The Shape of Sola Scriptura, has a great article discussing the problems of the apologetics and theology of Cornelius van Till, including his piss-poor understanding of the Trinity:

 

Christianity and Van Tillianism

 

 While it is a lengthy article, it shows that, even from a Reformed Protestant perspective, Van Till's apologetic is very problematic.

On the issue of Reformed presuppositionalism, see the podcast episode I did with Joseph Lawal:

Episode 18: Joseph Lawal (LDSPhilosophy) on the Problems with Presuppositional Apologetics

Stanley L. Jaki on ברא bara

  

. . . if such a long and explicitly qualified use of creation was needed to let it carry the meaning of creation out of nothing, it may seem unlikely that a verb, bara, can take on a very special meaning (divine action, different as it may be from creation out of nothing) only when it is used in two (Kal and Nifil) of its dozen tenses. Moreover, of the forty or so cases when bara occurs in the Old Testament, it is used to denote in five cases a purely human action. That of those five cases only three are absolutely incontrovertible will surprise only those who are unaware of the difficulties concerning the transmission of Hebrew biblical texts while still in manuscript form. Uncertain, indeed, are the readings of bara in 1 Sam 2:23 and Ez 21:24. In the former passage, Eli asks his sons “Why are you doing such things?,” that is, having sexual relations with the women, serving at the entrance of the tent housing the Ark of the Covenant. In the latter, Ezekiel reports the Lord’s command to him “to make for yourself two roads over which the sword of the king of Babylon can come.”

 

Of the three other and certain readings, the ones in the book of Joshua (17:15, 18) refer to the tense Piel to the cutting down of trees. The connotation is so human as to appear distasteful in those ecologically sensitive times. On being faced with what today would be called a problem of overpopulation, Joshua decides against the ecology. He does so on divine instruction which tells him to send people up to the mountains and clear them of forests. One could only wish that the translators had the courage to evoke the basic meaning of bara by speaking not of the clearing of forests but the hacking down of trees.

 

In Ez 23:47 we see the prophet use bara to denote a gruesomely human action, prompted as it could be by Yahweh’s utter displeasure with idolatry. According to the prophet, Yahweh ordered that an assembly be convoked and enjoined “to hack to pieces with their swords” those who had committed adultery with two lewd women, Oholah and Oholibah. Concerning the meaning of bara in this context it makes no difference whether those two women are to be taken in a real or symbolic sense.

 

It would seem significant that both in the book of Ezechiel, certainly a post-exilic product, and in the book of Joshua, a product quite possibly some seven hundred years older, one is confronted with a very human connotation of bara, a verb which exegetes love to raise a quasi-divine pedestal. The significance remains intact whether one takes Genesis 1 for a Mosaic document, or for a post-Davidic composition, or even for a post-Exilic one, the latter being the most likely case. In all these cases the taking of bara for an exclusively divine action, let alone for taking it for creation out of nothing, can only be done if one overlooks those three uses of it that span more than half a millennium.

 

The verb bara basically means “to split” and “to slash,” or an action which conveys that something is divided and that the action is done swiftly. God, of course, can, unlike humans perform such an act with utter effortlessness on an immensely vaster scale than the greatest within human fact. In the overwhelming number of its Old-Testament uses bara conveys the notion that God dis something with marvelous ease and speed. (Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages [2d ed.; Edinburgh: Real View Books, 1998], 6-8, emphasis in bold added)

 

Stanley L. Jaki on רֵאשִׁית bereshit

  

The very first word of the Hebrew Bible, bereshit, usually translated as “in the beginning,” has no strict parallel there. For this reason alone it has been a source of linguistic or grammatical puzzles, apart from other puzzles as well. From the viewpoint of grammar, bereshit is an anomaly. Only by making trained comparisons with some very rare and not entirely identical expressions can one justify its translation, on the basis of grammar alone, as “in the beginning.” By rules of Hebrew grammar, bereshit should be followed by a noun, or at least an infinitive, and convey thereby the meaning of the beginning of something or of an action. But the next word, bara (created), is in the third personal case of the simple past tense. Yet it was the rabbis’ unanimous conviction, unbroken until the twelfth century, that bereshit should be translated as “in the beginning,” a sort of an adverb standing majestically alone. Up to that time the conviction was also unanimous that the Masoretes could be trusted when in the sixth century that vocalized the entire Hebrew Scriptures and specified the pronunciation of the four consonants brsht as bereshit.

 

On the basis of grammar lone, Claude Tresmontant would be justified, for instance, in rendering bereshit as “in a certain beginning” (C. Tresmontant, Etude de métaphysique biblique [Paris: Gabalda, 1955], p. 72). More convincingly could grammar be invoked for taking bereshit for the object of a possessive case, or “in the beginning of God’s creating the heaven and the earth, the earth was without form and void . . . .” This would be equivalent to a simple temporal subclause, “when God made the heaven and the earth . . . “ But then it would be impossible not to sense that there had already been something on hand when God started his work of creation.

 

In other words, on the basis of grammar alone, Genesis 1:1 would suggest that God was a mere fashioner of things already existing rather than their Creator. Such a suggestion was emphatically resisted throughout orthodox. Christian tradition from its very start. Less inform and formal was the resistance of Jewish interpreters. In fact, . . .when in early medieval times some Jewish interpreters of Genesis 1 took the view that God had merely fashioned the world, they did so for reasons other than grammatical. Being possessed with a particular notion about the mutual ordering of the elements, they adopted a quasi-scientific perspective which invited concordism. Disputes about what to do with bereshit have been connected from the start with concordism, this chief pitfall of all interpretations of Genesis 1 through the ages. (Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages [2d ed.; Edinburgh: Real View Books, 1998], 2-3, emphasis in bold added)

 

Stanley L. Jaki on the Prohibition of Images of God and God being "pure spirit"

In his work on the reception history of Genesis 1, Stanley L. Jaki wrote that

 

The very prohibition of making any image of God was a powerful reminder that God was pure spirit. (Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages [2d ed.; Edinburgh: Real View Books, 1998], 27; by 'pure spirit', Jaki, a Catholic, means immaterial spirit)

 

Contra Jaki, there is an ‘image’ of God in the Bible, and that is humanity who is the ‘cult image’ of God according to the theology of Genesis 1:26-27. On this, see the exegesis of this passage at:

 

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

 

On the issue of images/icons, see the listing of articles at:

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

 

Brigham Young (September 23, 1847): The Enemies of the Church are "ignorant & darksome"

  

B. Young. I feel to bless you in the name of the Lord. We are kicked & cuffed by our enemies. There are great & glorious things in store for the faithful & the Saints can see them by the Spirit. We have an eye on futurity after dissolution for our bodies, then is the time for man to enjoy; that’s what we are Mormons for; all Creation is again us now, but all Israel will know who are their friends. They are now ignorant & darksome, [but] we shall approximate to the Station from which we have fallen; even the Elders of Israel can swallow up all the religion in the world & yet they have not peeped into the things of futurity. There never was a Company of men on the face of the Earth from Enoch ‘till now that have gone on as easily as we have. Moses could not find them even in Israel. There is nothing so obnoxious to an Holy Being as a nasty, little, petulant, fault finding Spirit. It has been said of old, all the world is a Goose & a man is a fool who has not some picking of the Feathers. I ask, can an honest man go & live in the world? No! They would fleece him of all he has. Every man must have benevolence & do as you would be done by & I know by the God of Abram, Isaac & Jacob that that people is destined to be rich. I never have put my hand to any thing since I’ve been in the Church but I’ve prospered. All the men in this Camp know more than they practice. Many manifest a heedless careless Spirit. Every man’s interest is the temporal & spiritual salvation to the Four Quarters of the Earth. I have an interest for all of you. I want you all to have an interest one for another. No man was more sorry than I was when Joseph was taken away. The Savior & the Apostles were plagued with dishonest men same as we are. He then blest the brethren in the name of the Lord. (Thomas Bullock, Journal entry for September 23, 1847, in The Pioneer Camp of the Saints: The 1846 and 1847 Mormon Trail Journals of Thomas Bullock, ed. Will Bagley [Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier 1; Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997, 2022], 294-95, emphasis added)

 

Interesting Incident Recorded by Thomas Bullock, October 25, 1846

  

Sunday 25 October 1846—Still encamped on the West side of Soap Creek. Joseph Knight, George Wardle, and John Rushton were to unload the Captain’s Wagon in order to fetch corn. Knight had to call on the Camp to assist him to empty it. McFate, Green, Meeks, and Corbett making cow jokes all day, Wardle and Bennett making bows in [the] afternoon, 5 yokes were completed. Whitehead and Lytle blacksmith all day. Berkelow hunting. A warm day, large clouds floating in the air. I was baking, carrying water, nursing, organizing Harmon and Wilson, hunting cows &c &c. My Wife washing, altho’ so very sick that she had to leave the wash tub to vomit, and when spreading her clothes on the ground to dry, had to lie full length on the prairie, and had to go and wash again, receiving no assistance from any one, altho’ single women and women with only one child were on each side of our Wagon. About four o’clock in the evening a man was purchasing goods from the brethren. Sister Savary let the Bishop have six plates, which he sold to the man for forty eight cents. Brother Samuel Savary returned to the Camp from hunting his cattle and commenced abusing his Wife with his tongue. She then told him, to “get them again then.” He went to the Bishop to get them and was very near being the means of causing the man, not trading [to quite trading], nor of our getting corn for our cattle. The Captain returned with the Bishop to Savary’s Wagon. After some words, Savary said he would not take six bits for his plates, [as] he thought more of his plates than his Wife and such like expressions. When the Captain said he would give Savary a dollar for his Wife, Savary agreed. The Captain offered it to him, [and] Savary said “give it to my Woman.” He did so, [and] she accepted it. The Captain then went for the Clerk to make out the writings. When they got to Savary’s Wagon, Savary said he would “not sign any paper [as] he considered he was an honorable man, his word was his bond, he did not repent of his bargain” and many similar expressions. The Captain then went to the Wagon, began conversing with Sister Savary, when brother Savary went up to him and said “you have no business talking with my woman.” Captain Allen replied “You have no Woman, you have sold her, I have bought her and shall claim her in time and thro’ all Eternity.” Savary then ordered Captain Allen away several times, became very abusive in his language to the Captain. For proof of this, call George B. Gardiner, Solomon Wixom, Thomas Bullock, Stephen Perry, and Jesse P. Harmon. (Thomas Bullock, Journal entry for October 25, 1846, in The Pioneer Camp of the Saints: The 1846 and 1847 Mormon Trail Journals of Thomas Bullock, ed. Will Bagley [Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier 1; Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997, 2022], 85-86, emphasis in bold added)

 

Brigham Young (July 28, 1847) Teaching the Plurality of Wives and Encouraging Marrying "Wives of every tribe of Indians"

The following comes from Thomas Bullock, Journal entry for July 28, 1847, in The Pioneer Camp of the Saints: The 1846 and 1847 Mormon Trail Journals of Thomas Bullock, ed. Will Bagley (Kingdom in the West: The Mormons and the American Frontier 1; Norman, Okla.: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997, 2022), 243-44, emphasis in bold added:

 

President Young then addressed the brethren on the order of building the City, its regulation for cleanliness & being supplied with pure Water, his determination of having order and righteousness in all things. He stated Joseph Smith’s views of coming to this valley—that he would have still been alive, if the Twelve had been in Nauvoo when he recrossed the River from Montrose to Nauvoo. He reviewed the driving of the Saints from place to place & stated the only way that Governor Boggs, General Clark & Lucas, & the leaders of the Missouri mob could have been saved; but now will be eternally damned. [19] [Young] also damned President Polk—stated the numerous petitions to all the Governors & Presidents, all refusing aid. That when the Saints were driven from Illinois, Polk’s tyranny in drafting out 500 men to form a Battalion, in order that the women & the children might perish on the Prairies. In case he had refused their enlisting. Missouri was ready with 3000 men, to have swept the Saints out of existence on attempting to cross the Missouri River. [20] He next made a discourse on the duties of men and women, that men should find out & then do the will of the Lord & the women should observe and do the Will of their husbands. It is their duty to rear the children from their birth until they are old enough to go under a master. He stated the objections of some men to the plurality of Wives and that the Elders would marry Wives of every tribe of Indians, and showed how the Lamanites would become a White & delightsome people & how our descendants may live to the age of a tree & be visited & hold communion with the Angels; & bring in the Millennium. [21] He hoped to live to lead forth the armies of Israel to execute the judgments & justice on the persecuting Gentiles & that no officer of the United States should ever dictate him in this valley, or he would hang them on a gibbet as a warning to others. He showed the spot where the Ensign would be hoisted & never have any commerce with any nation, but be Independent of all. If we want any thing we cannot get here, let the Elders of Israel gather it when they are on Missions preaching the Gospel. He made a most powerful & impressive discourse & did not conclude until 5 minutes past 10 when he dismissed the Meeting. [22]

 

[19] Young referred to generals John B. Clark and Samuel D. Lucas of the Missouri militia, and to Governor Lilburn Boggs, all participants in the 1838 Mormon War. Young probably suggested that the men could have escaped damnation only by forfeiting their lives.

 

[20] The Mormon leader believed Senator Thomas Hart Benton had struck a deal with President Polk to permit the annihilation of the Saints if they refused to serve in the Mexican War—an allegation for which there is no evidence.

 

[21] This sentence encapsulates the Millennial role of the American Indian in LDS belief, which would have enduring consequences in Mormon-Indian relations in Utah Territory. The phrase “white and delightsome” is from the Book of Mormon, but the LDS church has removed it from recent printings.

 

[22] Young’s vision of the apocalypse would have dramatic consequences in 1857, when the Mormons challenged the authority of the federal government and raised a U.S. Army expedition ordered to Utah by President James Buchanan to enforce federal law.

Excerpts from Gregory Steven Dundas, Explaining Mormonism (2022)

  

I will not pretend to have found compelling answers for all of my questions regarding the Book of Mormon. But after all, it is rare that a lawyer can hope to build an absolutely airtight case. There are almost always unanswered questions—at least a few loose ends. But I do claim that compelling overall case can be made that Joseph Smith’s story of the book’s origin—no matter how implausible it may seem at first blush—is in fact the most plausible account.

 

Indeed, I view the very concreteness of the Book of Mormon as the most solid piece of physical evidence for the reality of Mormonism. If it were not for the Book of Mormon, it would be easy to conclude that Joseph Smith was merely another religious visionary who experiences some type of mystical encounters with angels, but which have no connection with reality. But the Book of Mormon takes the story out of the realm of the vague and mystical and places it dead square in the real world. (Gregory Steven Dundas, Explaining Mormonism: A Believing Skeptic’s Guide to the Latter-day Saint Worldview [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2022], 197)

 

But what would happen the next morning when he went to fetch the plates? He could have dug up the entire hill and never would have found anything. At that point he might have had second thoughts about his dream and decided that it was a mere dream after all and dropped the whole matter. Or, if he had a particularly strong conviction that the dream was truly from God, he might have reimagined it in his own mind, concluding that perhaps God would reveal the content of the plates to him if he were able to return to his trance. He might then have been able to draft a few pages of some type of divine message and then present it to others as a divine revelation to the world.

 

But Joseph did nothing of this kind. Instead, he claimed that he went to the hill and actually found the plates, but that the angel forbade him from taking them out for several years. That might sound at first like a clever ploy on Joseph’s part to avoid having to produce the goods, yet at the culmination of the four years he went with his wife, Emma, to the hill and retrieved the plates. The translation process initially went very slowly. Joseph spent most of his time in gainful employment and had very little time to devote to the plates, although at the beginning he had to keep thieves from stealing the plates. He and Emma were finally forced to move to Harmony, Pennsylvania to avoid the aggressive treasure seekers. For months he translated only in fits and starts, preoccupied as he was by the need to earn a living. At first he used his wife as a scribe to write out his dictation, and later an associate named Martin Harris. After more than a year of effort with only limited results, a schoolteacher named Oliver Cowdery moved into the area and began working as Joseph’s full-time scribe. From that point the process took a huge leap forward, and nearly the entire book was completed in a period of two to three months. Although exactness is impossible to achieve, a reasonable reconstruction of the actual time of translation shows the whole process of translating a book of over 500 pages (the original edition had 590 pages) and over 250,000 words took place during 63 working days. The book was then printed and published, much to the scorn of many of his neighbors. (Ibid., 199-200)

 

Another oddity is that Joseph did not shy away from revealing his own divine reprimands. On one occasion, before he actually took possession of the plates, he reported that Moroni told him that he had not been sufficiently engaged in the Lord’s work. Afterwards he described this as “the severest chastisement I ever had in my life” (HOTC 1:18). (Ibid., 201)

 

Steven C. Harper on the Failure of the United Firm (Order)

  

The United Firm (Order) did not ultimately work as intended. That is not God’s fault. It is the fault of free agents. It worked when Saints chose to keep their covenants and were not overwhelmed by their enemies. When it stopped working the Lord ended it in 1834 with the revelation in section 104. People who equate or conflate the law of consecration with the Unite Firm (Order) will conclude that the Lord ended the law. That is a little like saying that if NASA ceased operations, the law of rocket propulsion would cease to exist. They would not. The firm was an organization, not a divine law. It only ever had eleven members. They were commanded to live the law of consecration, and they covenanted to do so, but that was no more than what the Saints were expected to do (see D&C 42:29-35; 70:10). Ending the United Firm did not end the law of consecration. (Steven C. Harper, Let’s Talk About The Law of Consecration [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022], 62)

 

Bruno, Swick, and Literski on the Masonic Sign of Distress

Taken from Cheryl L. Bruno, Joe Steve Swick III, and Nicholas S. Literski, Method Infinite: Freemasonry and the Mormon Restoration (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2022), 403-5

 

The Masonic Grand Hailing sing of Distress was taught to nineteenth-century brethren of the Craft in the Master Mason Degree. The sign was given “by raising both hands and arms to the elbows, perpendicularly, one on each side of the head, the elbows forming a square.” The words “O Lord, my God! is there no help for the widow’s son?” were taken spoken, as the hands were solemnly lowered. The phrase is reportedly what King Solomon said when he learned of Hiram Abiff’s murder. [51] Freemasons of the day took an obligation that “should I ever see that sign given or the word accompanying it, and the person who gave it, appearing to be in distress, I will fly to his relief at the risk of my life.” [52]

 

Smith’s close associates clearly imputed Masonic intentions to his last spoken words. John D. Lee, secretary of the Council of Fifty, left an embellished later account which included the entire phrase from the ritual: “Joseph left the door, . . . and cried out, ‘Oh Lord my God, is there no help for the widows’ son!’ as he sprang from the window, pierced with several balls.” [53] Likewise, Zina D. H. Young, a member of the Quorum of the Anointed, later president of the Relief Society, and one of Smith’s plural wives, proclaimed:

 

I am the daughter of a master mason! I am the widow of a master mason, who, when leaping from the window of Carthage jail pierced with bullets, made the masonic sign of distress; but, gentlemen (addressing the representatives of the press that were present), those signs were not heeded except by the God of heaven. That man, the Prophet of the Almighty, was massacred without mercy! Sisters, this is the first time in my life that I have dared to give utterance to this fact, but I thought I could trust my soul to say it on this occasion; and I say it now in the fear of Israel’s God, and I say it in the presence of these gentlemen, and I wish my voice could be heard by the whole brotherhood of masons throughout our proud land. [54]

 

Thus, the men and women surrounding Smith were unanimous on this point. With apparent pride in his standing as a Freemason, they called the Masons in the crowd of assassins to task for failing to come to his aid.

 

Another possibility why Smith might have given the Masonic call is suggested by a closer look at the legend behind the distress call in William Morgan’s 1826 exposé. There, the brother representing King Solomon is told at the grave by Hiram Abiff that his body has been searched carefully for the Master’s word and nothing has been discovered but “a feint resemblance of the letter G! that is not the Master’s word nor a key to it. I fear the Master’s word is forever lost!” He repeats this phrase three times, and upon the third repetition adds the words, “O Lord my God, is there no help for the widow’s son?” [55] Perhaps Smith, in the final moments of his life, feared that the “Master’s word was forever lost”—that the Temple ordinances in their unfinished state, and the Mormon lodges in their current clandestine condition, would not be sufficient to bring to pass the restoration he had envisioned.

 

As mentioned, some modern Latter-day Saints, uncomfortable with the Masonic associations of this phrase, construe Smith’s exclamation as a prayer. This interpretation is not completely at odds with a Masonic view of the Grand Hailing sign. Every Masonic obligation ends with a plea, “SO help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.” The Grand Hailing cry can thus be given as a way to alert God to a man’s distress when no human ear is there to hear.

 

Inside the jail, Willard Richards, a Freemason himself dragged John Taylor to safety in another room and concealed him under a mattress. Not completely sure that the Smith brothers were dead, he elevated his hands three times and exclaimed, “Oh Lord, my God, spare Thy servants!” [56] Both Richards and Smith, in their hour of extremity, turned to Masonically inspired ritual to express their deepest longings.

 

[51] William Morgan, Illustrations of Masonry by One of the Fraternity Who has Devoted Thirty Years to the Subject, 69.

 

[52] Morgan, 67.

 

[53] John D. Lee, Mormonism Unveiled: Or The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee; (Written by Himself), 153.

 

[54] Zina D. H. Young, “Woman’s Mass Meeting, Salt Lake Theater, Nov. 16, 1878,” 98.

 

[55] Morgan, Illustrations of Masonry, 75.

 

[56] B. H. Roberts, The Life of John Taylor: Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 140.

 

Bruno, Swick, and Literski on Joseph Smith's Involvement in Masonry Not due to Social and/or Political Networking

From Cheryl L. Bruno, Joe Steve Swick III, and Nicholas S. Literski, Method Infinite: Freemasonry and the Mormon Restoration (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2022), xvii

 

 

Some writers have attempted to explain Smith’s involvement in Masonry as a nineteenth-century equivalent of social and political networking. [20] However, to allege that he became a Mason in order to court social connections or political power is defamatory. In his petition to receive the degrees of Freemasonry, Smith would have submitted a written statement that he had no mercenary motive for entering the Fraternity. [21] Thus, to claim that “Joseph Smith and his brethren sought membership in the Masonic lodge” because they “desired the prestige, protection, and power such an alliance should have guaranteed” is to argue against the integrity of the Prophet and his companions. [22] Furthermore, the proceedings of the Nauvoo Lodge under Smith’s direction demonstrate his unmitigated lack of concern for making friends and cementing alliances among local Freemasons. Still, this reasoning has been accepted among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the present day.

 

[20 David John Buerger, “The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony,” 87-99.

 

[21] “The subscriber, residing in the City of Nauvoo, State of Illinois, of lawful age, and by occupation, a [unreadable], begs leave to state that, unbiased by friends, and uninfluenced by mercenary motives, he freely and voluntarily offers himself as a candidate for the mysteries of Masonry, and the he is prompted to solict this privilege by a favourable opinion conceived of the Institution, a desire of knowledge, and a sincere wish of being serviceable to his fellow creatures. Should his petition be granted, he will cheerfully conform to all the ancient established usages and customs of the Fraternity.” See the 1840 Petition of Stephen A. Douglas to Springfield Lodge No. 26 of Free and Accepted Masons, reproduced in Everett R. Turnbull, The Rise and Progress of Freemasonry in Illinois, 1783-1952, illustration facing page 240.

 

[22] McGavin, Mormonism and Masonry, 13.

 

Brigham Young (February 18, 1855) and the LDS Church being the only true religion and Church

  

Why should we have enemies? "Why is it," say our objectors, "that you cannot mingle and mix in society like other religious denominations?" It has been seen that the people would not permit us to dwell in their midst in peace. We have been universally driven by illegal force, by mobs, murderers, and assassins, as unworthy of having a place amongst the abodes of civilized man, until, as a last resort, we found peace in these distant valleys. It is because our religion is the only true one. It is because we have the only true authority, upon the face of the whole earth, to administer in the ordinances of the Gospel. It is because the keys of this dispensation were committed by messengers sent from the Celestial world unto Joseph Smith, and are now held on the earth by this people. It is because Christ and Lucifer are enemies, and cannot be made friends; and Lucifer, knowing that we have this Priesthood, this power, this authority, seeks our overthrow. (Brigham Young, February 18, 1855 | JOD 2:177)

 

Did Joseph Smith Teach Polygamy? Live Debate + Q&A

 

Did Joseph Smith Teach Polygamy? Live Debate + Q&A

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 22: Brian Hales on the Book of Mormon

 

Episode 22: Brian Hales on the Book of Mormon

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 21: Spencer Kraus on the Song of Solomon

 

Episode 21: Spencer Kraus on the Song of Solomon

Joseph F. Smith's "An Authoritative Declaration" (April 1918) Concerning the Church being the Only True Church

During the April 1918 General Conference, President Joseph F. Smith, as part a talk, presented the following declaration concerning the Church being the only true Church (cf. D&C 1:30):

 

AN AUTHORITATIVE DECLARATION.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is no partisan Church. It is not a sect. It is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is the only one today existing in the world that can and does legitimately bear the name of Jesus Christ and his divine authority. I make this declaration in all simplicity and honesty before you and before all the world, bitter as the truth may seem to those who are opposed and who have no reason for that opposition. It is nevertheless true and will remain true until He who has a right to rule among the nations of the earth and among the individual children of God throughout the world shall come and take the reins of government and receive the bride that shall be prepared for the coming of the Bridegroom.

 

Many of our great writers have recently been querying and wondering where the divine authority exists today to command in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, so that it will be in effect and acceptable at the throne of the Eternal Father. I will announce here and now, presumptuous as it may seem to be to those who know not the truth, that the divine authority of Almighty God, to speak in the name of the Father and of the Son, is here in the midst of these everlasting hills, in the midst of this intermountain region, and it will abide and will continue, for God is its source and God is the power by which it has been maintained against all opposition in the world up to the present, and by which it will continue to progress and grow and increase on the earth until it shall cover the earth from sea to sea. This is my testimony to you, my brethren and sisters, and I have a fulness of joy and of satisfaction in being able to declare this without regard to or fear of all the adversaries of the truth. (Joseph F. Smith, April 6, 1918, in Conference Report, April 1918, 52-53)

 

Oliver B. Huntington's Report of Joseph Smith's Prediction Concerning Robert Thompson

In History of the Life of Oliver B. Huntington, 1878-1900, p. 10 (excerpts from the 2nd half of vol. 2 of his diary), we read the following prediction from Joseph Smith concerning Robert Thompson:

 

Robert Thompson was a faithful just clerk for Joseph Smith the Prophet in Nauvoo and had been in his office steady near for quite 2 years. Joseph said to Brother Thompson one day, "Robert, I want you to go and get on a buss (bing) go and get drunk and have a good spree; if you don't, you will die."

 

Robert did not do it. He was very pious exemplary man and never guilty of such an impropriety as he thought that to be. In less than two weeks he was dead and buried.

 

While I believe FAIR to be correct in noting that this is late (40 years after the purported event), and if Joseph did say this he may have been joking, we do have a tradition of a prediction from Joseph Smith and its fulfillment in Huntington’s report.

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

 

B. H. Roberts Foundation (MormonR), "Joseph Smith and Alcohol" (and primary sources)

 

Mike Ash, Up In Smoke: A Response to the Tanners’ Criticism of the Word of Wisdom

Church News Editorial (May 5, 1962) Addressing "Hot Drinks"

In a periodical in the Church News, "Being Sensible and Factual," published in Deseret News (May 5, 1962), we read the following concerning “hot drinks”:

 

Periodically a wave of extreme ideas is noted pertaining to the Word of Wisdom. It seems that there are some who never quite understand that the Lord avoids extremes in his teachings, and that it is well for us to do likewise.

 

Certainly there is always safety in staying with the revealed word of God, without trying to add to it.

 

One of the latest efforts to justify drinking coffee is the current propaganda that drinking cocoa or chocolate is against the Word of Wisdom and that cocoa is supposed to contain even more caffeine than does coffee.

 

It is difficult to understand why some individuals seem to enjoy shocking people with extreme statements, or why they enjoy being the center of attraction so much that they are willing to set forth untruths as though they were facts.

 

What are the facts with respect to cocoa, coffee and caffeine?

 

For years Good Housekeeping Magazine has maintained a high standard of integrity. Its information is carefully worked out and stated so that all who read may understand.

 

In its "Question Box" some time ago, the following appeared.

 

"QUESTION: Does cocoa contain more caffein[e] than does coffee?

 

"ANSWER: No. Though cocoa and chocolate contain theobromine, a stimulant similar to caffeine, as well as some caffeine, the total is considerably less than in coffee.

 

"Average strength coffee contains approximately 0.397 grain of caffeine in a fluid ounce (two table-spoonfuls); cocoa, 0.01 grain of caffeine and 0.027 grain of theobromine in a fluid ounce."

 

THE FACTS then completely dispel any notion that cocoa or chocolate is as harmful as coffee. Persons who say that those drinking hot chocolate are breaking the Word of Wisdom as effectively as if they drank coffee do not state the truth.

 

The fact is also that in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith "hot drinks" as mentioned in the Word of Wisdom were officially interpreted by the leading brethren of that day to mean tea and coffee.

 

Those who make these claims about cocoa and chocolate do so on their own responsibility, and obviously without knowing the facts in the matter.

 

When interviewing for temple recommends, for instance, or for advancement in the priesthood, or for baptism, or for any other purpose, bishops never inquire as to whether a person drinks cocoa or eats chocolate candy. If the use of cocoa and chocolate were against the doctrine of the Church such inquiry would be made, but it is not.

 

Further Reading:

 

B. H. Roberts Foundation (MormonR), "Joseph Smith and Alcohol" (and primary sources)

 

Mike Ash, Up In Smoke: A Response to the Tanners’ Criticism of the Word of Wisdom

John H. Glines' September 16, 1846 letter to Heber C. Kimball and "the new and everlasting Covenant" not being Eternal Marriage or Plural Marriage

John H. Glines, in his letter to Heber C. Kimball dated September 16, 1846, began the communication thusly (emphasis added)

 

Dear Friend and Br in the new and everlasting Covenant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to you I feel due to write and communicate to you the news of this Batallion and also the condition in which I am placed at present . . . 

 

This shows that the “new and everlasting Covenant” is not one-to-one equivalent to eternal marriage, let alone plural marriage.

Leo's Letter to Leo Augustus (Letter 162)

In Letter 162, Pope St. Leo wrote the following, addressing Leo Augustus (the then-Roman Emperor):

 

Although, therefore, I am very confident of the piety of your heart in all things, and perceive that through the Spirit of God dwelling in you, you are sufficiently instructed, nor can any error delude your faith, yet I will endeavour to follow your bidding so far as to send certain of my brothers to represent my person before you, and to set forth what the Apostolic rule of Faith is, although, as I have said, it is well known to you, in all things making it clear and certain that they are not in any way to be reckoned among catholics, who do not accept the definitions of the venerable Synod of Nicaea or the ordinances of the holy Council of Chalcedon, inasmuch as it is evident the holy decrees of both proceed from the Evangelical and Apostolical source, and whatever is not of Christ's watering is like a snake-poisoned draught. Your Majesty should understand beforehand, most venerable Emperor, that those whom I undertake to send will come from the Apostolic See, not to fight with the enemies of the Faith nor to strive against any, because of matters already settled as it has pleased God both at Nicaea and at Chalcedon we dare not enter upon any discussion, as if what so great an authority has fixed by the Holy Spirit were doubtful or weak. (Letter 162.3, NPNF² 12:105)

 

Here is the Latin from Migne:

 

If this was said by Augustus to Leo, it would be a favourite proof-text for papal infallibility in the first millennium; however, the Pontiff said this about the Emperor! It shows one must be cautious against proof-texting patristics when it comes to the Roman Pontiff (and yes, other issues, too, including LDS approaches to patristics and theosis).

Excerpt of Brigham Young's April 6, 1853 Discourse as Published in the Journal of Discourses and Transcription taken from George D. Watt's Shorthand

To demonstrate the importance of checking the transcription of the shorthand accounts of Brigham Young’s sermons, compare how the following portion of his April 6, 1853 sermon reads in the Journal of Discourses and in LaJean Carruth’s transcription of the pitman shorthand account of George D. Watt:

 

Wait patiently, brethren, until it is done, and put forth your hands willingly to finish it. I know what it will be. I am not a visionary man, neither am I given much to prophesying. When I want any of that done I call on brother Heber—he is my Prophet, he loves to prophesy, and I love to hear him. I scarcely ever say much about revelations, or visions, but suffice it to say, five years ago last July I was here, and saw in the Spirit the Temple not ten feet from where we have laid the Chief Corner Stone. I have not inquired what kind of a Temple we should build. Why? Because it was represented before me. I have never looked upon that ground, but the vision of it was there. I see it as plainly as if it was in reality before me. Wait until it is done. I will say, however, that it will have six towers, to begin with, instead of one. Now do not any of you apostatize because it will have six towers, and Joseph only built one. It is easier for us to build sixteen, than it was for him to build one. The time will come when there will be one in the centre of Temples we shall build, and, on the top, groves and fish ponds. But we shall not see them here, at present. (JOD 1:132-33)

 

wait until is done put forth your hand to finish it I know what it will be I not much of a nature to have visions or revelations not much given to prophesying when I want any of that done I call upon Brother Heber he is my prophet he loves to prophesy I love to have him I hardly ever say much about revelations or visions suffice it to say 5 years ago last July I saw here the temple corner stone not ten feet from where we lay the stone I have not inquired what kind of temple should have why because there before me I never looked at that ground but what the vision of it is before me I see it just as plain as if I lived to see it wait until it is done you are instructed about it it will have 6 towers to begin with instead do not any of you apostatize because have six towers and Joseph only built one easier for us to build 16 than it was for him to build one I will say the time will come be one in center of sacred temple [believe?] a grove and fish ponds on those temples but we shall not see them here. ("Brigham Young, 6 April 1853 Cornerstone Laying, Salt Lake Temple," transcribed by LaJean P. Carruth)

 

Examples of the Reformed Interpretation of Isaiah 45:7, Ezekiel 14:3-11, John 17:12, and 1 Peter 2:8 to Support Reprobation

As most critics of the Church who are theists come from a Reformed/Calvinistic perspective, I think it would be useful to see how they interpret various Old and New Testaments to support their theology (here, the doctrine of reprobation). The quotes that follow come from Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty (2022).

 

For a thorough refutation of Reformed theology, see, for e.g.

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

 

Reformed understanding of Isa 45:7:

 

Many texts speak of God’s control over catastrophe in general, stemming from the weather to war. Isaiah 45:7 says about God: “The one forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.” The prophet Isaiah is not saying that God merely fashions an already evil situation for his otherwise good purposes; rather, he uses the word “to create” בָּרָא. On a linguistic level, “The root bârâ’ emphasizes the initiation of the object” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament [Chicago: Moody, 2004], 1:127). One cannot conclude that God is merely fixing a problem, but in some measure he is causing it to exist. In fact, this is the same term used in Genesis 1:1 to refer to God’s creation of the world. It is not merely reshaping old material but creating something that has not existed. (Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty: Recovering a Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2022], 187-88)

 

Reformed understanding of Ezek 14:3-11 (note: the author believes this to be normative not merely an instance of divine judgment):

 

. . . God explained an important truth to Ezekiel concerning true prophets:

 

Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their hearts and have put right before their faces the stumbling block of their iniquity. Should I be consulted by them at all? Therefore, speak to them and tell them, “Thus says the Lord GOD, ‘Any man of the house of Israel who sets up his idols in his heart, puts right before his face the stumbling block of his iniquity, and then comes to the prophet, I the LORD will be brought to give him an answer in the matter in view of the multitude of his idols, in order to lay hold of the hearts of the house of Israel who are estranged from Me through all their idols.’” Therefore say to the house of Israel, “Thus says the Lord God, ‘Repent and turn away from your idols and turn your faces away from all your abominations.’” (Ezek. 14:3-6)

 

In other words, if an Israelite asked a prophet for spiritual insight concerning Jerusalem’s future, all the while secretly harboring sin in his heart, he would not cooperate by proving a positive word for them—that is, if he were a true prophet. After all, no true prophet would ever coddle an idolater’s feigned devotion to God. Instead, he would rebuke the inquirer for his hypocrisy, and call him to repentance. People like Ezekiel would expose the inquirer’s sin and not give them the lie they wanted.

 

On the other hand, God explained how false prophets would respond to these inquirers:

 

But if the prophet is persuaded so that he speaks a word, it is I, the LORD, who have persuaded that prophet; and I will stretch out My hand against him and eliminate him from among My people Israel. And they will bear the punishment for their wrongdoing; as the wrongdoing of the inquirer is, so the wrongdoing of the prophet will be, in order that the house of Israel may no longer stray from Me and no longer defile themselves with all their offenses. So they will be My people, and I shall be their God,” declares the Lord GOD. (Ezek. 14:9-11)

 

Here, God explained that if an Israelite approached a prophet in feigned devotion, and the prophet was convinced or persuaded to give him the soothing lie that he wanted, both the false prophet and the one who inquired of him would suffer judgment. Nevertheless, don’t miss this vital detail in the passage: “If the prophet is persuaded so that he speaks a word, it is I, the LORD, who have persuaded that prophet” (Ezek. 14:9, emphasis mine).

 

In other words, God said he would persuade false prophets to lie to those who sought prophetic counsel while treasuring idols in their hearts. God would give the false prophet a ministry opportunity that would bring about both the prophet’s and the hearer’s own condemnation. He would be the one enticing false prophets to give the people what they wanted. . . . . Some might try to resolve this by saying that the Hebrew word for “persuade” doesn’t actually mean what we understand it to mean in English. However, underlying the verb “persuade” is the Hebrew word pathah, which means “to allure or deceive.” . . . Lexically, then, the semantic range and use of the word enforces, rather than refutes, a straightforward understanding of the word. “Persuade” means “persuade.” (Ibid., 267-68, 269)

 

On the Reformed understanding of John 17:12 and Judas being “the son of perdition”:

 

A son of perdition is someone born to be lost; implying that destruction is the ultimate purpose for decreeing and executing reprobation (in this case, specific to Judas). In other words, the ultimate purpose of Judas’s life was destruction. Judas’s betrayal of Christ was always part of God’s plan—it was ordained before the foundation of the world. This is why Jesus says in John 6:70, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” (Ibid., 250-51)

 

Reformed interpretation of 1 Pet 2:8:

 

First Peter 2:8 provides a helpful statement explaining the relationship between the truth and the reprobate’s preordination to condemnation: “A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE’; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.” A more literal Greek translation reads, “and the stone of stumbling and a rock of offense for they stumble because they disobey the word as they were appointed to do.” Commentators have very divided opinions as to the nature of the “appointment.” The question commentators try to resolve is, “What is the antecedent of ο in the phrase εις ο και ετεθησαν?” Some take it to be απειθουντες (“disobedience”), while others take it to beπροσκοπτουσιν (“stumbling”). Those who appeal to προσκοπτουσιν (“stumbling”) do so on the basis of various proofs. Some propose that disobedience is not preordained, yet stumbling is. Their proposal results in making “stumbling” a mere consequence or penalty for disobedience. According to such an interpretation, God ordains punishment (stumbling) but not the crime (disobedience). Beyond the fact that it would be illogical for God to ordain the effect (the punishment of stumbling) without ordaining the cause (the crime of disobedience), it is difficult to see what difference such a view makes. After all, stumbling is a form of disobedience. These proposals do not alleviate the involvement of God in anyway.

 

One simply cannot ignore the reality that this text presents God as ordaining people to disobedience. With the pronoun being nearer to the relative clause, it makes little sense to jump over the clause and connect the pronoun with stumbling to the exclusion of disobedience. Further, stumbling is a form of disobedience. The fact that God ordains people to punishment is indicated by the word ετεθησαν because God has ordained people unto a rejection of his Word resulting in their damnation. The stone of stumbling is none other than Jesus Christ and the truth that he is Savior. They were appointed to stumble upon him, to reject salvation by faith in him. Condemnation was their appointment and Christ was the means of sealing their fate.

 

The fact that the truth provokes in the non-elect a response of rejection, by divine appointment, unmistakably indicates that it is a means of reprobation. Theologians have recognized this for a long time. Charles Spurgeon illustrates, “The same sun which melts wax hardens clay; and the same Gospel which melts some person to repentance hardens others in their sins” (The Lesson of the Almond Tree”). Michael Horton states, “The same word that is faith0producing and life-generating for some is for others an occasion to become more resolute in unbelief” (For Calvinism, 69). Ultimately, Peter explains that the Gospel is inherently scandalous for an additional reason often overlooked: the same message has drastically different outcomes on the elect and the non-elect, based on God’s foreordained intention. (Ibid., 256-58)

 

Peter Sammons on God's Role in Reprobation

  

In summary, reprobation is a matter of God’s eternal, unconditional decree regarding the destiny of the non-elect. This unconditional decree is divisible into two elements, a negative element and a positive element. The negative element is known as preterition, whereby God chooses to exclude the non-elect from election unto salvation; to reject them and to leave them to justice. The positive element of God’s decree is known as precondemnation. This is God’s active decision before time began, and the non-elect would be held accountable for all their actions; that there would be no mercy or forgiveness given to them but rather that they would be held accountable to his holiness and justice.

 

Distinct from the decree of reprobation (which is resigned to eternity past) is the execution of reprobation (which occurs in time and space). The execution of God’s decree can also be subdivided into two elements: causality and condemnation. The first, causality is enveloped in the concept pf compatibilism. This refers to the compatibility between the human will and God’s sovereign eternal plan. These two concepts are so compatible that God’s decree is executed in such a manner that the creature always does what is in his heart to do, what he wills to do, leaving him willfully responsible. With regard to evil, God always being it to pass through secondary means. This brings about the second element of the execution of the decree of reprobation, condemnation, which involves man’s culpability and therefore worthiness of condemnation. Condemnation is the act God goes through with holding humans accountable for their sins; and the just consequence of this is damnation.

 

Based on the aforementioned components of reprobation, it is inaccurate to say that God reprobates humans to hell without any further qualification. This simplistic manner of speaking disregards many essential elements to a proper understanding of reprobation, which in turn lends itself to the false caricature of hyper-Calvinism. When careful attention is not given to the teaching of reprobation, the errors of hyper-Calvinism can easily creep in. But with proper considerations given, it is easy to address common objections to the doctrine of reprobation—most are founded on a false understanding of what it actually teaches. (Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty: Recovering a Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2022], 142-43)

 

Against the common appeal to God just “permitting” the condemnation of the reprobate (non-elect), Sammons notes that

 

Ultimately, permissive language is inadequate to explain God’s relationship to explain God’s relationship to evil in the world. It simply does not alleviate any of the “problems” people have with God’s relationship to evil. To present divine permission as the answer to the question of theodicy actually creates more problems than it solves. It either introduces a force outside of God from which he permits evil to proceed, or it undermines the will of God. (Ibid., 158)

 

The Reformed confessions are consistent in maintaining that God in his sovereignty, ordains everything that comes to pass, and God’s sovereignty itself is what establishes men’s responsibility as secondary causes. (Ibid., 216)

 

Examples of Reformed Theologians Explicating Regeneration Precedes Faith in their Ordo Salutis

In his book, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty (2022), Peter Sammons teaches that

 

. . . the Reformed position affirms that God regenerates the heart and will; which precedes and products faith. (Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty: Recovering a Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2022], 87)

 

In support of this understanding of the ordo salutis, Sammons provides the following helpful footnote quoting leading Reformed authors:

 

“The Reformed view . . . teaches that before a person can choose Christ . . . he must be born again . . . one does not first believe and then become reborn . . . A cardinal doctrine of Reformed theology is the maxim, “Regeneration precedes faith.” (R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1986), 10, 72. “A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, but he believes in Christ because has been regenerated.” Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (1930; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), 55. “Regeneration logically must initiate faith.” John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 62. “When Christ called to Lazarus to come out of the grave, Lazarus had no life in him so that he could hear, sit up, and emerge. There was not a flicker of life in him. If he was to be able to hear Jesus calling him and go to Him, then Jesus would have to make him alive. Jesus resurrected him and then Lazarus could respond. [Similarly,] the unsaved, the unregenerate, is spiritually dead (Eph. 2). He is unable to ask for help unless God changes his heart of stone into a heart of flesh, and makes him alive spiritually (Eph. 2:5). Then, once he is born again, he can for the first time turn to Jesus, expressing sorrow for his sins and asking Jesus to save him.” Edwin H. Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972), 18-19. “Abraham Kuyper observed that, prior to regeneration, a sinner ‘has all the passive properties belonging to a corpse. . . . [Therefore] every effort to claim for the sinner the minutest co-operation in this first grace destroys the gospel, severs the artery of the Christian confession and is anti-scriptural in the highest degree.’ Like a spiritual corpse, he is unable to make a single move toward God, think a right thought about God, or even respond to God—unless God first brings this spiritually dead corpse to life.” James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 74. (Ibid., 87 n. 9)

 

Steven A. Cramer (LDS) mirroring the language of Alma 24

  

First comes our reconciliation to the Lord wherein, by our very best efforts (works) we do all that we can to obey while manifesting (and admitting to both God and ourselves) our need for a power that is higher and stronger than our own. Then, when Christ judges that we have adequately paid the price by doing “all things that lie in our power,” his grace will be applied, and the union of our works with his grace will bear fruit in the successful completion of our task. (Steven A. Cramer, Great Shall Be Your Joy: Receiving the Power of our Savior’s Love [Springville, Utah: Cedar Fort, Incorporated, 1983], 9)

 

This should be compared with Alma 24:11-16:

 

And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain--Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren. Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins. And the great God has had mercy on us, and made these things known unto us that we might not perish; yea, and he has made these things known unto us beforehand, because he loveth our souls as well as he loveth our children; therefore, in his mercy he doth visit us by his angels, that the plan of salvation might be made known unto us as well as unto future generations. Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby. And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved.

 

Peter Sammons (Reformed) on Emotion being an Important (though not ultimate) Contributor for the Establishment of Doctrine

  

. . . God’s Word—not history, emotions, logic, or philosophy—is the ultimate authority on this subject. God’s Word is not contrary to the history of God’s church. It is not detached from human emotion, not independent of the rules of logic and philosophy. However, these are not the chief contributors to the following conclusions. Scripture alone is the final authority for any doctrine’s establishment. (Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty: Recovering a Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2022], 17, emphasis in bold added)

 

Further Reading:

Personal Divine Revelation and the Knowledge the Bible is the Word of God and/or one is "Saved" in the Protestant Traditions

Peter Sammons and the Reformed View of the Damnation of Infants

  

In modern times parents neglect gospel teaching to their children. They assume that their child is innocent, harmless, and therefore undeserving of divine judgment. But parents ought to be warned this sort of thinking could be very dangerous because the Bible does not give a clear-cut age of accountability. This is not to say that all infants go to hell, but it ought to be a warning that if a child is old enough to be saved then they are most certainly old enough to be damned.

 

There are many children who are saved at the ages of five, seven, or eleven, and therefore it is safe to say that if these same children had not been saved then they would have been damned because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). (Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty: Recovering a Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2022], 44-45)

 

Examples of Reformed Theologians being Uncomfortable with their Theology

 Joel R. Beeke in the endorsements for the book, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty (2022) wrote that

 

The doctrine of reprobation is always under attack from those who would limit God’s sovereignty by humanity’s liberty. Reprobation is a difficult teaching, to be sure, but to reject it ultimately unravels the whole fabric of salvation by grace alone.

 

John MacArthur, speaking of predestination, in the “Foreword” to the same work noted that

 

This doctrine is the most emotionally difficult truth to believe. On the other hand, the absolute sovereign will and purpose of God is the basis of all saving faith. It is his total control over everything that encompasses eternal salvation and eternal reprobation. His glory is manifest in both and we can only worship him fully when we acknowledge the reality of both. (John MacArthur, “Foreword,” in Peter Sammons, Reprobation and God’s Sovereignty: Recovering a Biblical Doctrine [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Academic, 2022], 9)