Trinitarian Christology vs. Jesus’ Faith

To admit that Jesus had faith in God during mortality causes all sorts of problems for Trinitarian Christology. Notice the following argument:

God doesn't have faith

Jesus had faith

Therefore, Jesus and God are not numerically identical.

That this is accepted by most defenders of the Trinity can be seen in how they try to argue that Jesus did not have faith in God during the incarnation; for example, Aquinas (1225-1274), in his Summa Theologica, wrote the following:

I answer that, As was said above (II-II, 1, 4), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God's Essence fully, as will be made clear (34, 1). Hence there could be no faith in Him.

There are many problems with this, not the least is that it goes against the clear teachings of Hebrews that (1) Christ was human in all things except being sinful and (2) that Christ is our forerunner:

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Heb 2:16-18)

Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. (Heb 6:19-20)

Again, Trinitarians are in the unenviable position of having to defend a dogma against both logic and scripture.

Isabel in the Book of Mormon

I have interacted with some of Richard Packham’s arguments in his online paper, “A Linguist Looks at Mormonism: Notes on Linguistic Problems in Mormonism” (searching on “Packham” will bring up a few results on this blog). In this post, I will discuss his argument under the heading, “Isabel the Harlot”:

The Book of Mormon mentions a harlot named Isabel (Alma 39:3). "Isabel" is a name that only came into use in France and Italy during the late Middle Ages.   How could it occur in the Book of Mormon during Alma's life?

Being rather frank, this argument is unbecoming of someone who (allegedly) knows Hebrew. The name appears in the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew underlining "Jezebel" in the KJV is אִיזֶבֶל. The KJV transliterates the letter yod (י) as “j,” which is common (e.g., Jesiah; Jesaiah; Joshua), though the more proper transliteration would be “I” (e.g., Isaiah; Ishmael); furthermore, the letter zayin (ז) can be transliterated as “s”; indeed, the Hebrew can be transliterated as 'izebel, similar to how it appears in the Book of Mormon. Packham’s claims notwithstanding, there is no issue with the appearance of “Isabel” in the Book of Mormon.

Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura, and the Personality of the Holy Spirit

Daniel Wallace, a leading Greek grammarian and a Reformed Protestant, has an insightful article entitled, "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13/1 (2003), pp. 97-125 (online here).

What is interesting is that, notwithstanding Wallace’s Trinitarianism, he admits that the grammar of the New Testament does not prove the personality of the Holy Spirit, although this is the most common approach to proving the personality of the Spirit. I would recommend the entire article (even though it is a bit technical if one does not know biblical Greek), but some of Wallace’s concluding statements are enlightening:

There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds. This does not mean that in the NT the Spirit is a thing, any more than in the OT the Spirit ( רוּחַ —a feminine noun) is a female! Grammatical gender is just that: grammatical. The conventions of language do not necessarily correspond to reality . . . One implication of these considerations is this: There is often a tacit assumption by scholars that the Spirit's distinct personality was fully recognized in the early apostolic period. Too often, such a viewpoint is subconsciously filtered through Chalcedonian lenses. This certainly raises some questions that can be addressed here only in part: We are not arguing that the distinct personality and deity of the Spirit are foreign to the NT, but rather that there is progressive revelation within the NT, just as there is between the Testaments . . . In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the  grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit's personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course, but I am arguing that we need to ground our beliefs on a more solid foundation.

Why is this so significant? We are told by Protestants that Sola and Tota Scriptura has to be embraced; if not, the so-called theological walls break down and all sorts of heresies will be embraced as true (they [rightfully] appeal to the Marian Dogmas within Catholicism as the consequence of accepting a false teaching authority). However, we are also told that the personality of the Holy Spirit, which is an integral part of the doctrine of the Trinity, is an essential belief one must hold to—if not, one is a heretic. However, using the framework of Sola and Tota Scriptura, as Wallace shows, there is no good biblical proof of the personality of the Spirit. Where does this leave the Trinitarian who holds to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? They must reject the personality of the Spirit, and therefore, embrace a form of bi-theism, with the Spirit being the operational presence of the Father and/or the Son, not a third person or they must hold to the claim that the biblical authors were very, very sloppy, not enunciating clearly an essential doctrine for salvation (which would also be a rejection of the so-called perspicuity or clearness of the Bible), or alternatively, go down the route Wallace has in the past, and that the earliest New Testament authors did not believe the Spirit to be a person—Wallace appealed to 1 Cor 8;4-6 in an interview with former Jehovah’s Witnesses (accessible here) as proof Paul did not hold to the personality of the Spirit. Unitarian apologist, Jaco Van Zyl, hit the head on the nail when he wrote:

Wallace admits here what very few Trinitarians are willing to say, especially Dr James White (who argues for a fully developed Trinity doctrine as early as 36 C.E.), namely that Paul and the other NT writers of his time “did not understand the Trinity.” To him 1 Corinthians 8:6 gives an indication of a “primitive binitarian viewpoint.” These admissions are certainly not free from rather serious implications which will be discussed below . . .For Wallace to admit that NT writers did not understand the Trinity implies that later Fourth- and Fifth-Century Christians discerned and believed what “inspired” bible writers failed to believe. This argument is therefore no different from the claims made by the very ones Wallace and others are trying to help since the Jehovah’s Witnesses also proclaim that Jesus and the apostles didn’t know that Jesus would return in 1914 C.E., or that the first Christians did not know that the “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9 would be a second class of Christians gathered since 1935 with a different hope than the literal 144 000 anointed class of Revelation 14, etc.; there is absolutely no difference in argumentation. At least it can be safely said, considering Wallace’s admission, that the first Christians did not believe in the Trinity formulated in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries – that who and what God was to them was different from who God was to these first Christians. The implications of this admission are rather significant.

Ultimately, this route makes the apostle Paul and other early New Testament authors and believers heretics by the standards of modern Trinitarians, and are condemned under the same anathema the Judaizers were condemned with (Gal 1:6-9). Wallace and others are in an unenviable position.

Fortunately, Latter-day Saints, not being bound under the false doctrines of Sola and Tota Scriptura, embrace other authorities, including D&C 130:22 which teaches the personality of the Holy Spirit. Unlike Trinitarians who are Protestants, and as a result, do not privilege, for instance, the Council of Constantinople (AD 381) as Catholicism does that teaches the personality of the Holy Spirit, Latter-day Saints can consistently affirm a belief on the Holy Spirit as a third person of the Godhead. This should give our Evangelical critics some pause, as they are clearly in a theological dilemma.

(Of course, I am sure that some will appeal to Lecture on Faith no. 5. Firstly, this was written before D&C 130:22, and was more than likely authored, not by Joseph Smith, but Sidney Rigdon, as shown by Noel B. Reynolds here. For more on the Lectures on Faith, see the resources here).

Philip Blosser, Philosophical and Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura

The following essay by Catholic philosopher, Philip Blosser, initially appeared in Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 1997). It shows many of the deficiencies of the formal doctrine of Protestantism.

The "Mormon Jesus" being a "Spirit Brother" of Satan--what the Bible really says

In Job 1:6, we read the following:

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

In this text, Satan is presented as being among the “Sons of God” (בני האלהים) This can be seen in the verb יצב (to take [their] stand/position”) and that Satan is said to be in their “midst,” that is, he belongs among their ranks, clearly demonstrating that the theology of Job holds to a “Satan” who has real, ontological existence, in contradistinction to some Christadelphian interpretation of the "Satan" texts in Job. When one examines the phrase, “among them” (KJV), one finds that the Hebrew is a phrase consisting of the prefixed preposition (בְּ) meaning “in/among” and (תָּוֶךְ). When one examines the other instances of this phrase in the Hebrew Bible, it denotes someone being a member of a group, not independent thereof (e.g., Exo 28:33; Lev 17:8, 10, 13; Num 1:47; 5:3; 15:26, 29, etc.); indeed, commentators such as David J.A. Clines states that the phrase regularly denotes membership of the group in question (See Clines, Job 1-20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 1989], 19). The bare term תָּוֶךְ also denotes membership, not independence, of the group in question (cf. Gen 23:10; 40:20; 2 Kgs 4:13).

Furthermore, the "Satan" in Job 1:6, in Hebrew, is not just the bare term (שָׂטָן), meaning an "adversary," which, in and of itself, can denote anyone who opposes another, whether divine or not (e.g., the angel of the Lord is referred to as an adversary or שָׂטָן in Num 22:22), but is coupled with the definite article (השטן), “the satan,” which denotes the supernatural tempter (cf. Zech 3:2); one should compare this with similar Greek locutions in the LXX and NT such as such as ο σατανας (Sirach 21:27; Matt 12:26; Mark 3:26; 4:15; Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:31; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; Rom 16:20; 1 cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:11; 11:14; 1 Thess 2:18; 2 Thess 2:9; 1 Tim 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7); ο διαβολος (Matt 4:1,5,8,11; 13:39; 25:41; Luke 4:2,3,6,13; 8:12; John 8:44; 13:2; Acts 10:38; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1 Tim 3:6, 7; 2 Tim 2:26; Heb 2:14; James 4:7; 1 John 3:8, 10; Jude 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:10) and ο πειραζω (Matt 4:3; 1 Thess 3:5), all denoting the external, supernatural tempter in most of Christian theologies (some small groups denying a supernatural Satan notwithstanding).

Why is this significant? One popular charge is that Latter-day Saints believe that Jesus and Satan are “brothers.” Left on its own, it is shocking and seen as blasphemous. However, leaving this on its own, with no explanation, is “yellow journalism.”

In Latter-day Saint Christology Christ has existed for all eternity; many critics claim that LDS theology is reflective of Arianism or some other Christology, but that is a non sequitur. D&C 93:21 and other texts affirm that Christ has existed eternally. Notice the “high Christology” of the following two passages from uniquely LDS scriptural texts (more could be reproduced):

And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he [Christ] is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Alma 11:39)

I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. (D&C 19:1)

In LDS theology, properly stated (and not the caricature one finds in works such as The God Makers and other presentations thereof) states we all pre-existed as the spirit sons and daughters of God. In that sense, we are all brothers/sisters of Jesus. However, Job 1:6 proves, unless one is a Christadelphian or some other similar group, “the Satan” is one of the “sons of God,” that is, a member of the heavenly court, one of whom was Yahweh. Note Deut 32:7-9 from the NRSV, reflecting the Qumran reading (see this blog post reproducing what a recent scholarly commentary has to say about this important pericope):

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods; the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share.

While much more could be said, it should be noted that, as with so many beliefs, it is Latter-day Saint theology, not Evangelical theology, that is supported by biblical exegesis.

Asa and 1 Kings 15:14

But the high places were not taken away. Nevertheless the heart of Asa was true to the Lord all his days. (1 Kgs 15:14 [NRSV])

This verse shows, as do the verses discussed here, that one can be seen as "right" and having a "perfect heart" (to borrow the KJV's verbiage) and *not* be sinlessly perfect. In the case of Asa, although the "high places" (places often associated with idolatrous worship) were not removed during his reign as king, his "heart" was perfect or "true" to Yahweh all his days. This is another refutation of the "all-or-nothing" hermeneutical lens Evangelicals approach both biblical and Latter-day Saint soteriology.

Thomas Farrar on New Testament Satanology and Demonology

I recently came across a Website from a former Christadelphian, Thomas Farrar, and his papers on New Testament teachings on "Satan" and "demons," refuting the arguments of Jonathan Burke ("Fortigurn" on certain LDS discussion groups); Duncan Heaster and other Christadelphian authors who deny the ontological existence of Satan. His papers on this issue can be found here.