Notes taken from Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology

The following are noted taken from:

 

Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994, 2002)

 

As background: I read the 1994 printing of this book back in late-2005 when I was 18. Since then, I have studied theology and related fields in depth, both at university and personally, and have been blogging on theology since August 2014. I thought it would be interesting to re-read this book almost 18 year on.

 

Inerrancy Versus Completeness

 

Evangelical theology regarding the Bible does beyond inerrancy, and beyond issues associated with human communication to a belief that the written Word of God is complete.

 

This view denies that God could have more instruction to give Man. It also rejects the distinct possibility that Men have lost some of the precious Word of God revealed to them through the ages. Finally, it rejects the possibility that God revealed Himself to groups outside the Middle East who also made a record of His communications. Evangelicals assert that everything God has ever said, or will ever say, is contained within the current canon accepted as the Protestant Bible.

 

Evangelicals would probably have rejected this view had they lived in the time of Christ and been told by the scribes that the Old Testament contains lal God had revealed or ever will reveal to Man. It is incongruous, therefore, for them to accept it now. If inerrancy includes completeness, one must ask when the scriptures became complete. Was not the Pentateuch complete when it was revealed to Moses? What about the writings of the other Old Testament prophets? Were they not complete, i.e., inerrant before the time of Christ?

 

To be inerrant, God’s word need not contain everything He ever said, or ever will say. It is complete only in the sense that it contains the entire message He intended for the audience to whom it was revealed at the time. The Bible is not a single work. It was not combined into one book until 367 A.D., long after the original autographa were gone. The word “Bible” derives from the Greek biblia, a plural word meaning “little books.” The word itself implies an anthology of inspired works.

 

Protestant Bibles published today (e.g., the KJV) are a collection of the available sacred writings considered accurate and reliable by the majority of early Church scholars. Vast schisms have arisen based on disagreement in this area given Joseph Smith’s statement that “the Songs of Solomon are not inspired writings.” The very nature of the Bible implies it is not complete.

 

The Evangelical notion of completeness is also undermined by the fact that some books, originally part of inspired literature appear to have been lost (see Appendix B). What if the lost Books of Enoch were found today, not the apocryphal version common in many libraries, but the one from which Jude quotes in Jude 14-15? What about the first epistle of Jude (Jude 3), or the epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)? What about the book of the prophet from whom Matthew quotes in Matthew 2:23? Would these texts be excluded from the canon if they were found today? Archaeological research is unearthing new texts every day. What does this do to Evangelical notions of biblical completeness?

 

If the canon of Scripture is not complete in the sense Evangelicals assert, it follows that additional works could be added, if satisfactorily authenticated. That is why Mormons accept certain additional volumes as scripture. Their reverence for these works do not and should not distract in any way from their reverence for the Bible. (Further information on this subject is provided in Appendix B.)

 

As to the accuracy of the Bible, no implication arises from an assumption that the canon is not complete. Lost scripture merely proves that God has revealed some things that Man has unwittingly failed to preserve. It should come as no surprise that Men have been so fallible. The addition of new scripture, on the other hand, only shows that Men continue to need revelation from God, a conclusion that will shock no one familiar with Man’s intemperate tendencies.

 

But despite the occasional failure of Men to safeguard sacred writings and their need for additional guidance on a continuing basis, Mormons are confident God has preserved in the existing text of the Bible the important truths, the good tidings He published to the Jews and the early Church. (Strictly speaking, the Bible contains only the words God intended to make public. There are references therein to more esoteric information, the revelation of which OGd has restricted [e.g., 2 Cor. 12:34; Deut. 29:29]) That confidence can be held without also embracing the unbiblical notion that the canon of scripture is full or that inerrancy demands an end to revelation from God. (pp. 28-29)

 

[Matt 5:18]

 

Evangelical theology denies the possibility that any of God’s revelations to man has ever been lost. Their position is stated thus:

 

To say that there are scriptures missing is to claim that Christ lied when He said, ‘Til heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18) (Trivanovich, Speaking the Truth in Love, 13)

 

This analysis presents a grossly flawed interpretation of Matthew 5;18, which has nothing to do with the canon of scripture. The Bible was not even compiled at the time the Gospel of Matthew was written. Matthew 5:18 relates to “the law,” the Law of Moses, and Christ’s fulfillment thereof. The Law of Moses was contained in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. Thus, if the Evangelical position on Matthew 5:18 were correct, it would require them to limit their scriptures to the Pentateuch (a view that may have been adopted by the ancient Sadducees and certainly by the Samaritans). 

 

What Christ says in Matthew 5:18 is that not one dot of an “i” or cross of a “t” in the Law of Moses would be changed until it was all fulfilled by Him. Far from teaching that the Law would never change, it is implicit in this statement that the law would “pass” once it was fulfilled. The Law of Moses was fulfilled by Christ, and did pass away (Heb. 7:18).

 

The Evangelical interpretation of Matthew 5:18 is based on an assumption not specifically identified in their exegesis, namely that the word “scripture” is the same as the word “law” in that verse. That interpretation can be tested using the hermeneutic device of substitution. The passage should have the same meaning if the word “scripture” is substituted for the word “law” in the text. In fact, however, such a substitution changes the word “law” in the text. In fact, however, such a substitution changes the entire meaning of the passage. Clearly, Matthew 5;18 does not teach that there have been no lost scriptures, and cannot be used as a basis for that thesis. (p. 281)

 

[on soul sleep]

The proof-text used to support this belief is Ecclesiastes 9:5 (NASB: “but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten”; see also Eccles. 9:10). Their reliance on this passage, however, is misplaced. It is part of a discourse examining the viewpoint of Men “under the sun” (Eccles. 9:3), and reflects the attitude of the natural world that knows nothing of God. It is a description of death from the viewpoint of the worldly man. It does not reflect the true state of the dead. (p. 57)

 

[on Christology]

 

. . . Mormons teach that God created the heavens and the earth by forming the planets,  the sun, and the stars out of formless matter. Even the spirits of Men were formed out of existing components. Before being formed into spirits, Men existed as intelligences (Abraham 3:22-23 in the Pearl of Great Price). Even intelligences were not created out of nothing but are eternal in nature (D&C 93:29)

 

Thus, it is a distinctive precept of Mormon theology that, before His creation as the firstborn of the Father, Christ existed from all eternity, His form being that of a perfect intelligence. In a very real and significant way, He was, therefore, “uncreate.” His “creation” as the Son of God only meant His eternal nature as an intelligence took on the form of the spirit Son of God. The Bible attests that Christ is immutable, or unchanging, but it only makes such statements in relation to His basic character. This is a reassuring and powerful testimony of Christ, and one that does not force Him into immobile stasis.

 

While Mormons believe that all Men have an eternal element in their nature (their intelligences have also existed from all eternity), they believe that all Men, save Christ alone, have to change their basic character to some degree in order to be in the perfect image of God. No such change appears to have been necessary for Christ. Though He learned from the father (John 5:20), He has always been the perfect example of the Father’s Love (cf. John 5:19). Thus, only the form of His existence has changed (Phil. 2:6-8). God revealed to Men in the flesh, He has remained perfect and unchanged in that perfection throughout all eternity. (pp. 68-69)

 

The Virgin Birth. Because of this biblical teaching. Mormons are accused of denying the virgin birth of Christ, but that is a mistaken notion. Mormons emphatically believe in the virgin birth (see, 1 Nephi 11:18-20; and Alma 7:10).  The fact that Christ was the literal, physical Son of God the Father, as reported in Luke 1:31-35, does not require that His conception occurred by other than immaculate means.

 

It certainly does not require that God the father had sexual relations with Mary. (An opposing view has been expressed by some LDS leaders while teaching the LDS belief that Jesus is the literal son of God. That view has never been adopted by the LDS Church, and contradicts Isaiah 7;14 and 1 Nephi 11:20) In this day, when artificial insemination has become a commonplace reality, Men cannot hold to the argument that God’s only means of causing Mary’s pregnancy was physical intercourse.

 

Isaiah, speaking of Christ’s mortal birth, said “a virgin shall conceive” (Isa. 7:14, emphasis added). The language of this passage implies that Mary did conceive in normal human fashion, but that the conception of Christ was accomplished in a way that left Mary a virgin. 1 Nephi 11:18-20, describes Mary as a virgin after the Christ Child was born to her (consistent with Matt. 1:25).

 

Luke reported the angel’s promise to Mary that she would conceive in her womb (Luke 1:31). When she asked how this could be done, seeing she was a virgin, it is obvious her intent was to remain a virgin (Luke 1:34). The angel responded, “the power of the Highest [meaning the Father] shall overshadow thee” (Luke 1:35). The Greek word translated “overshadow” is episkiazо̄. This word was used in Luke 9:34-35 to describe the effect of the cloud, from which the Father spoke, unseen, to Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration. To Mary, it implied that her conception would involve the most gentle and noninstrusive contact imaginable leaving her a virgin. With that explanation, Mary agreed to bear the child of God (Luke 1:38).

 

The immaculate impregnation of a virgin is an accomplishment that can be duplicated by scientists today. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Father was capable of accomplishing the same feat without the intimacy involved in any form of sexual contact.

 

Though the Holy Ghost was involved in Christ’s conception, apparently as a facilitator in some unrevealed manner (“the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, . . .”, Luke 1:35). Mormons aver that Jesus is the literal Son of the Father, “the Highest” (NASB: “the Most High”), not the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:35).

 

The assertion by some Evangelicals that the Holy Ghost is the father of Jesus, rather than God the Father, is refuted by dozens of passages in the New Testament in which Jesus and God the Father refer to each other as “Son” and “Father.” All Men are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), but Paul spoke literally of Christ when he said, “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9, emphasis added). (pp. 102-3)

[On John 1:18 JST, etc]

 

A key word used in these passages is the preposition “of” that appears in the phrase “of God.” John 6:46 uses the preposition para, which the KJV translates “of” and the NASB translates “from.” John 8:47 uses the Greek preposition ek, which both versions render “of.” Para indicates close proximity, and in the context of verbs of origination, it means “to be from someone.” Ek indicates origin from something with which there has been a close connection. It can be translated “from, of or by.” There is no valid reason, outside of theological preference, to give these prepositions, a different meaning in this context. Para Theou, for example, is used in John 1:6 in reference to John the Baptist.

 

Another key word is “he,” translated “the One” in the NASB as if it were intended to refer only to Christ. But the subject (“he” or “the One”) doesn’t appear in the Greek text of John 6:46 at all. It must be assumed from the construction of the phrase, o hon para tou Theou. O and tou are forms of the definite article “the.” Hon is comparative, and means “as, like as, even as, according as, in the same manner as, etc.” The subject of the clause is left to be assumed by the reader. This suggests a broad designation one that would incorporate the reader as well as all Men. There is no valid reason to assume the clause refers exclusively to Christ. Thus the KJV is truer to the Greek, where “he” could be translated word hon broadens its application to all who are “like as” Christ. (p. 92 n. 36)

 

[on 1 Pet 3:21]

 

The parenthetical phrase in this verse has presented significant problems for Evangelical exegetes. They erroneously claim that the statement, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,” means that Man is not saved by water baptism. They arrive at this conclusion by assuming that “the filth of the flesh” refers to fleshly sins and “the putting away” refers to water baptism. Thus, Evangelicals could render the passage: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not water baptism, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,).”

 

This interpretation is profoundly flawed. It assumes the very concept Peter intended to prove–that water baptism washes away sins–then arrives at a contrary conclusion. To assert that “the putting away of the filth of the flesh” means water baptism, one must accept the idea that water baptism does, in fact, “[put] away” fleshly sins. To do that, and at the same time disclaim the efficacy of water baptism for that very purpose, is a fear of logic that would only be comfortable for a Hellenist. If one assumes that water baptism is the washing away (“the putting away”) of sins (“the filth of the flesh”), one must also acknowledge that it is the saving ordinance Peter referred to in this verse.

 

Actually, the phrase “putting away of the filth of the flesh” in this context is not a reference to water baptism, but should be taken literally as washing dirty form the body. The phrase, “the answer of a good conscience toward God” is Peter’s allusion to water baptism. What the parenthetical phrase means is that baptism is not the same as taking a bath, it is the answer of the new convert to God’s call for Men to commit to Him and obtain a good, or clean, conscience.

 

Evangelicals say that “the answer of a good conscience toward God” means the baptism of fire, or the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Peter’s remarks in Acts 2:38 make it clear that the gift of the Holy Ghost. But Peter’s remarks in Acts 2:38 make it clear that the gift of the Holy Ghost is an answer from God to the baptized believer. That is, the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost is God’s answer, or reward, to Men who have sought a good conscience, and were cleansed by baptism for the remission of sins. It was not Man’s answer “toward” God.

 

The NASB translation of 1 Peter 3:21 makes this point clear:

 

And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

The ordinance of water baptism is an appeal by men to God for a good (or clean) conscience, washed free of sin and prepared to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, the baptism of fire. Peter states that this ordinance “now saves you . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (emphasis added). (pp. 200-1)

 

[on Matt 22:23-30]

 

This passage describes a confrontation between Christ and a group of Sadducees–members of a sect who did not believe in the literal resurrection of the body. The Sadducees did not come to Christ to seek understanding. They came to confront Him with a situation they thought would demonstrate the foolishness of His teachings and vindicate their own belief that there is no resurrection. They concocted a clever trap by carefully drafting a hypothetical question based on what they knew to be a teaching of Christ.

 

The question they chose would not have served their purpose if Christ had not been teaching eternal marriage. They assumed Christ would say that each marriage in their story continued after the resurrection. If His answer had been consistent with their meager understanding of eternal marriage, it would have proved that Christ’s teachings result in a state of intolerable confusion. God is not the author of confusion but of order (see, e.g., 1 Chron. 15:12-14; 2 Chron. 29:35). They hoped Christ would be caught in this trap.

 

If Christ had not been teaching eternal marriage, their question would not have fitted into their plot. It would simply have allowed Christ to bear further testimony of the resurrection. From the parenthetical reference to the Sadducees’ disbelief in the resurrection (Matt. 22:23), it is obvious they would not have wanted that. Hence, it is clear that Christ taught eternal marriage, and the Sadducees knew He did.

 

In fact, just three chapters earlier Matthew recorded Christ’s teachings on eternal marriage. There He addressed the Pharisees in response to their question about divorce. In Matthew 19:3-6 (NASB, see also Mark 10:2-9) it reads:

 

And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?”
And he answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,

“and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’?

“Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

 

God joined Adam and Eve when they were immortal (Gen. 2:18-25), and He commanded no man to part them. Would that same God later separate them himself? Certainly not! That was the point of Christ’s instruction (especially verse 6). What God does remains forever (Eccl. 3:14). Christ’s message was that the joining of husband and wife was ordained of God, and was meant to be eternal.

 

The Pharisees, who believed they could divorce their wives on the flimsiest of grounds, were rebuked by this teaching, and obviously reported Christ’s teachings to the Sadducees, with whom they disagreed as to the resurrection. The Sadducees saw in this an opportunity to discredit Christ on both doctrines (resurrection and eternal marriage). This explains why the Pharisees came together on this occasion with the Sadducees.

 

What then does Christ’s response to the Sadducees’ mean? Christ contradicted the Sadducees’ assumptions in verses 29 and 30, but the implications of His contradiction are not as broad as Evangelicals assume. He did not deny eternal marriage. He said that the specific marriages identified in this question were not eternal (verse 30: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage,” emphasis added). This is particularly clear from the book of Tobit, still in Catholic Bibles, which contains a story describing the very circumstances posed by the Sadducees. So what was it about the marriages in this example that differed from the marriage of Adam and Eve cited by Christ in Matthew 19?

 

The basis for the Sadduccee’s error was that they did not understand (1) “the Scriptures,” or (2) “the power of God” (Matt. 22:29). Lack of scriptural knowledge is evidenced by their failure to note that Adam and Eve’s marriage had been performed by God, and would therefore “be forever” (Eccl. 3:14). They also failed to note that the purpose of marriage to the brother of a deceased spouse was only to raise up a mortal posterity for the deceased spouse (Deut. 25:5-6). One would not expect, therefore, that any of the subsequent marriages would last after the first brother and his wife were restored to each other in the resurrection. This is evident from the version of this example that appears in the Book of Tobit, with which they should have been familiar. Finally, they failed to note that God’s laws are spiritual (Rom. 7;14), and no spiritual purpose would be served by a marriage performed by God if it could not continue after the resurrection.

 

In Matthew 16:19, just a few chapters before Christ taught the Pharisees about eternal marriage, He explained that the power of God includes the power to bind on earth and have it bound in heaven. Such authority (or “power”) is needed to ensure that an earthly marriage is contractually binding in the eternal realm. As Christ noted, the Sadducees knew nothing of this power, and their question failed to mention its use in connection with any of the marriages. Hence, none of them would be binding in Heaven.

 

Christ did not contradict Himself, nor change His mind between Matthew 19 and Matthew 22. What His answer to the Sadducees demonstrates is that through “the power of God,” marital relationships are maintained in an orderly manner in heaven. This answer completely frustrated the Sadducees’ trap.

 

The most important aspect of the message of Matthew 22:23-30, however, was not the way in Christ foiled the Sadducees, but the implications of His answer to them. Marriages performed under Man’s authority alone, as in the Sadducees’ example, will not remain in effect after the resurrection. The power of God must be used to bind men and women in order for their marriages to last forever. Those who are not married by such authority, like the men and women in the Sadducees’ example, remains as the angels in heaven–messengers only, separate and single forever.

 

This interpretation of Matthew 22 is consistent with Paul’s teachings on the subject (1 Cor. 11;11, emphasis added): “Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” The phrase “in the Lord” refers to Man’s ultimate state of rest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Paul says that in that realm, the relationship of men and women is the same as that of Adam and Eve, who, in their immortal state, were joined by God as one flesh. As in Eden, the creation of such a relationship requires the power of God, specifically the power given by Christ to Peter in Matthew 16:19. For those who are bound by that power, unlike those in the Sadducees' example, Heaven will include the promise of continued marital bliss, and with it, parenthood. (pp. 127-30)