The Doctrine and Covenants versus Pelagianism

For those who charge "Mormonism" with an unbiblical "works-righteousness" soteriology, I would suggest one read an early revelation of the Prophet Joseph Smith (dated July 1828):

And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of the faiths, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the meirts of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen. (D&C 3:20; emphasis added)

Yes, Latter-day Saints reject Sola Fide, and for good reason--it is false (cf. James 2:22-24; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26; 2 Cor 5:10; John 5:24-29, etc). However, that is not the same as holding to a legalistic soteriology, though that is the false dichotomy many (typically, Evangelical Protestant) critics engage in.

Subordinationist Christology in Paul and John

Often, one will hear that the epistles of Paul and the Gospel of John are Trinitarian in their Christology. Popular works on the Trinity, such as Robert Morey’s The Trinity: Evidences and Issues will argue in favour of this position. Notwithstanding, much of modern biblical scholarship refutes such notions (e.g., James McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context and John's Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology).

Phil 2:9, part of the Carmen Christi (vv.5-11) states that “God also hath highly exalted [Christ], and given him a name which is above every name.” Here, we read that the Father gave to Christ, on the moment of his exaltation of the Son, a name above every other name (Yahweh). This shows that the son did not possess this name until his exaltation, showing the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father; also, it speaks of Christ being “exalted,” which is nonsense in light of much of Trinitarian theologies that state that Jesus was not void of his deity, but instead decided to voluntary “shield” it to most people (in effect, ridding Phil 2:5-11 of the concept of kenosis, self-emptying, and instead, perverting the Christology of the text to speak of an endusasthai or a “clothing up”). Furthermore, we know that this name could not be “Jesus,” as He possessed this name prior to his exaltation.

This can also be seen in John 17:11-12:

And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one. While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. (NRSV)

In the above pericope, using prolepsis (cf. v.22), Christ speaks of how the Father “gave” him the Father’s name (Yahweh); it was not something Christ intrinsically possessed until after his exaltation.

Even after his exaltation, the telos of the all glory and honour Christ receives is that of the further glorification of the Father:

That at the name of Jesus ever knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-10 [emphasis added]; cf. 1 Cor 15:22-28)

One should also point out the term, sometimes translated as “exploited” in Phil 2:6 αρπαγμος. Again, this points to something that Jesus did not have, as its predominant meaning in Koine Greek literature means “to plunder” or “to steal.” Notice how Louw-Nida define the term in their work, Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed.:

ἁρπάζω ; ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m ; ἁρπαγή, ῆς f: to forcefully take something away from someone else, often with the implication of a sudden attack - 'to rob, to carry off, to plunder, to forcefully seize.' ἁρπάζω: πῶς δύναταί τις εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ καὶ τὰ σκεύη αὐτοῦ ἁρπάσαι 'no one can break into a strong man's house and carry off his belongings' Mt 12.29 . . . ἁρπαγμός, οῦ m: that which is to be held on to forcibly - 'something to hold by force, something to be forcibly retained.'

Such a Christology, apart from being reflected throughout the New Testament, can also be seen in the revelations of Joseph Smith, such as D&C 93:16-17:

And I, John, bear record that he received a fullness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

Brief note on the use of αδελφος in the Greek New Testament

In a previous post, I discussed the identity of the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus, arguing for what has been labelled the "Helvidian view" (that they were biological sons and daughters of Mary and Joseph; being the biological [half-] brothers of Jesus). In that post, I briefly discussed the exegetical problems of the Hieronymian view (that they are the cousins/near-relatives of Jesus but not uterine siblings).

Another problem with this approach to the terms αδελφος and αδελφη is that they are used in verses where words meaning "kinsman" are also used, differentiating the two terms with respect to their meaning. Consider the following:

Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, not thy brethren (αδελφος), neither thy kinsmen (συγγενις), nor thy rich neighbours: lets they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee. (Luke 14:12)

You will be betrayed even by parents, and brethren (αδελφος), and kinsfolks (συγγενις), and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. (Luke 21:16)

One may be tempted to point to Rom 9:3, but the term αδελφος is being used in a sociological sense, not a biological/familial sense.

Universal Atonement in the Early Church

In spite of recent revisionist attempts to portray Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption) as being the theology of the early Church[1], the evidence for Christ dying for all men, not just individuals within all ethnic groups, is all over the literature of both Scripture and early Christianity. As one representative example, take Eusebius of Caesarea in his “Oration on the Thirtieth Anniversary of Constantine’s Reign” (Migne, Patrologia Graeca: 20, 1315-51, translated by Hugo Rahner, Church and State in Early Christianity [Ignatius, 1992], p. 126):

[God the Father’s] pre-existent, only begotten Word, he who is in all, before all, and after all, intercedes with him for the salvation of all.

Christ died for all men and intercedes for all men, not just a select few based on an arbitrary decision in the eternal past by God just to display his justice while actively (or passively; there is an internal debate within Calvinism about this) reprobating the rest of humanity. Such is not biblical, but Satanical (cf. Gal 1:6-9).

[1] For a thorough refutation of Reformed understandings of Christ’s atonement, see Darrin W. Snyder Belousek, Atonement, Justice and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012).

Was Paul married?

Phil 4:3 reads:

And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

The Greek term translated as “true yokefellow” is γνησιε συζυγε. There has been some debate throughout the centuries if this is a reference to Paul’s wife.

Another relevant pericope would be 1 Cor 7:7-8:

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But ever man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

While attempting to defend the apostolic origins of priestly celibacy, Jesuit scholar Christian Cochini in his The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy (Ignatius, 1990), admits that there are some early Christian authors who accepted that Paul was at one time married based on these verses. For instance, Cochini writes (p. 75):

 The word συζυγος (literally, yoke mate) is used at times in the Greek language to describe the wife; certain authors during the patristic times deducted from that Paul had been married.
 Clement of Alexandria († ca. 215) seems to have been the first to have adopted such an interpretation. He does not doubt that Paul had been married and sees a proof of it in Phil 4:3: “Will they [the Encratites] also reject the apostles? Indeed, Peter and Philip had children. Philip even gave his daughters [in marriage] to men. And Paul does not hesitate in an epistle to greet his woman companion, whom he did not take along with him for the good of the ministry” (Stromata, III, 6).
 Methodius of Olympia (cf. 240) sees in 1 Cor 7:7-8 a clear reference to Paul’s widowhood: “Here, too, he [Paul] stresses his preference for continence; he gave himself as a signal example to invite all his listeners to follow him in this state of life, by teaching them that it is better for one who had been married to an only wife then to remain alone, as he bound himself to do so.” (Le Banquet, XII, 82-83)

Was Paul married? We will never know for sure, but there are strong implicit evidences for Paul being married (and perhaps widowed prior to composing 1 Corinthians).

Louis Bouyer on the Office of “Priest” (Sacredos) in the Early Church

In a previous post, I discussed some of the biblical evidences in favour of an ordained, ministerial priesthood in the New Testament, as well as some common objections thereto (also see this post). With respect to the evidence from early Christianity, the late Catholic scholar, Louis Bouyer, discussed some of the issues that are sometimes brought up by critics of such a perspective (e.g. RPC Hanson, Christian Priesthood Examined). Under an excursus entitled, “Presbyter et Sacerdos” (Latin: Elder and Priest), we read the following:

If, as we have seen for Christian antiquity, the whole body of the Church, including the faithful laity, must be associated with the priesthood of Christ, particularly in the Eucharistic celebration, what must be thought of the application to the pastoral ministry, first of the bishops and then of the “presbyters,” their associates, of the sacerdotal expressions? In fact, today in the Catholic (or Orthodox) Church, when we say “priest,” we think immediately of sacredos, rather than presbyter.

We must point out that, since subapostolic times, we see assimilation between the function of the bishop, presiding over the Eucharistic sunaxis, and that of the “high priest” of the Old covenant. As the simple presbyters, associated with the bishops, gradually replaced the in this function, this expression of a sacerdotal character par excellence was also applied to their own ministry. The matter must be considered perfectly legitimate if we observe that the pastoral function in the Church of the bishop and the presbyter, to the extent that the latter is called by the bishop to share in his function, is a ministry of Christ, of his presence as head in the midst of his body, to all generations everywhere.

By union with and participation in Christ, all are priests in the Church in one sense, in the unity of their common attachment to Christ by the ministry that he instituted to this end in the apostles. The ecclesiastical ministry as a ministry of the Head—of his presence as Head in the midst of his body, to continue to gather it in this unity of the Spirit, of whom Jesus alone is the source, and thus allow it to participate in Christ’s sacerdotal action—is therefore, properly, the ministry of the priesthood of Jesus. As with all the gifts of Jesus to his Church, the ministry of this priesthood exists only to permit everyone to participate in it in unity.

Separated from their legitimate pastors (i.e., those in the apostolic successions), as we have explained, the baptised faithful are incapable of being brought together in a Church which is that of Christ so as to exercise in it, as members of his body, the priesthood, which remains forever his.

This does not mean that God cannot occasionally make use of an irregular ministry to communicate his graces (just as he can, on occasion, dispense with every sacrament, even baptism). But this could not rescind the fact that a break with the apostolic succession implies that the Church of Christ can no longer be assembled locally, that his body, both mystical and Eucharistic, has no longer any objective, real presence among us and, therefore, that his priesthood is no longer the object of common participation by the faithful in a Eu-charist which would be truly his . . . The idea of a “presbyteral succession,” which could palliate defect of the apostolic succession, seems to us in radical contradiction with the very nature of the presbyterate: that is, and can only be, representation of a local community of the Church to the ministry sent by Christ to his body, which alone, for this reason, can be the object of a succession. This succession is, in effect, only a succession in the sending: of the Father to the Son, of the Son to the preeminent apostles, of these apostles to the bishop, whom priests do not succeed (any more than they succeed one another) but are associated with in each generation.

Source: Louis Bouyer, The Church of God: Body of Christ and Temple of the Spirit (Ignatius, 2011), 596-97.

For Further Reading:

Albert Cardinal Vanhoye, Old Testament Priests and the New Priest According to the New Testament (Gracewing Publishing, 2009)--discusses the solid biblical foundation for a New Testament Priesthood. Vanhoye is an expert in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and interacts with much of the alleged "proof-texts" that are said to preclude anyone holding the Priesthood apart from Jesus Christ Himself.

John A. Tvedtnes, Joseph Smith and the Ancient World (Forthcoming; should be coming out in 2015)--will have a discussion on the early Christian evidences for the Priesthood.

John Taylor on the Prophet Joseph Smith

It is no secret that Latter-day Saints have a special respect to the Prophet Joseph Smith. We believe that it was through Joseph Smith that the Lord restored the true Gospel and Priesthood authority, as well as being given the gift to translate ancient scriptures, most notably the Book of Mormon, and receive numerous revelations, many of which are canonised in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Furthermore, because of the teachings given to him about temple work and the restoration for work of the dead, as shocking as it is to outsiders, it is true as D&C 135:3 states, with only the exception of Christ Himself, Joseph Smith has done more for the salvation of man.

In an uncanonised revelation to John Taylor, the third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we read the following about the Prophet:

Behold, I raised up my servant Joseph Smith to introduce my Gospel, and to build up my Church and establish my Kingdom on the earth; and I gave unto him wisdom and knowledge and revelation, and intelligence pertaining to the past, the present, and the future, even to that extent which was not known among men; and I endowed him with power from on high, and conferred upon him the Priesthood of Aaron, and also the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which is after the order of the Son of God, even the holiest of all, and after the power of an endless life, and administered forever in this world and the world to come. He was called and ordained to this office before the world was. He was called by me, and empowered by me, and sustained by me to introduce and establish my Church and Kingdom upon the earth; and to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator to my Church and Kingdom; and to be a King and Ruler over Israel.

Source: Revelation to John Taylor, June 27, 1882, John Taylor Papers, LDS Church Archives, cited by John A. Tvedtnes, Organize my Kingdom: A History of Restored Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Cornerstone, 2000), 13.

Some critics claim that LDS theology holds that Joseph Smith is of greater importance than Jesus Christ. Apart from being a bald-face lie, it is also easily disproven. One group that has made this claim is Reachout Trust, a group that was founded by the late Doug Harris. To see the exchanges they had with informed LDS apologists, and how easily their “arguments” falter upon close examination, see this link on the SHIELDS Website.