Blake Ostler on God's Contingent Foreknowledge

As many know I am an Open Theist. While it is a minority view within the Latter-day Saint tradition, there is a growing recognition among LDS that this is the best model of God's foreknowledge and I know many who are either Open Theists or open minded to this view.

For a good discussion of God's contingent foreknowledge, here is a recent episode of the Exploring Mormon Thought podcast series from Blake Ostler:

016-The Attributes of God Ch 10 - God's Contingent Foreknowledge

The importance of true doctrine

While I disagree (to put it lightly) with the theology of the author quoted below and his conclusions as to what constitutes true Christian doctrine, I agree with him about the importance about ascertaining true doctrine and its implications:

Doctrine is particularly important because a sound proclamation of the gospel of salvation depends on an accurate understanding of what the gospel is, what salvation is, and how salvation is received (Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Tim. 4:16). Nothing less than our eternal future depends on it. I do not mean to imply that we must all become theologians and experts on every fine point of doctrine to be saved. But the church as a whole must take great care that it faithfully proclaims the true gospel, and every Christian has a stake in the matter. I will have more to say on this point a little later.

It is true that some doctrinal issues are less important than others. One of the most crucial functions of Christian theology, and one of the most neglected, is to sort out the really important—the essential—from the less important and even the irrelevant (see Rom. 14).

Thus, handled properly, doctrine is very relevant to human life, and pursuit of sound doctrine should therefore be the concern of every person at least to some extent . . . Doctrine enables us to develop a realistic view of the world and of ourselves, without which we are doomed to ineffectual living (Matt. 22:23-33; Rom. 12:3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4). Doctrine can protect us from believing falsehoods which upset people’s faith or lead to destructive behaviour (1 Tim. 4:1-6; 2 Tim. 2:18; Titus 1:11). Doctrine also prepares us to minister to others (Eph. 4:11-12).(Robert M. Bowman, Jr. Orthodoxy and Heresy: A Biblical Guide to Doctrinal Discernment [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1995] 16, 17)

Stephen D. Ricks on "Prayer with Uplifted Hands"

I just watched this presentation by Dr. Stephen D. Ricks. I am sure many followers of this blog will find it to be an interesting topic:

Stephen D. Ricks on "Prayer with Uplifted Hands"

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone (2000/2009)

Robert Sungenis wrote a volume entitled Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice (1st ed: 2000; 2d ed: 2009 [the author has put the second edition online here for free]) which is perhaps the best attempt, using both the Bible and the Patristic texts, to support the Roman Catholic dogmas relating to the Eucharist, viz. the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and transubstantiation. As a result, I have interacted with Sungenis' arguments a number of times on this blog. Here is a listing of blog posts addressing, directly or indirectly, the arguments Sungenis forwards in this text:

"This is my Body": Proof of Transubstantiation?

Malachi 1:11--A Prophecy of the Eucharistic Sacrifice?

"Remembrance" and the Eucharist: Does Αναμνησις mean "memorial sacrifice"? (cf. Instances where μνημόσυνον is used to Denote a "Memorial Sacrifice")

Ivor Davidson on the early Christian understanding of "remembrance" in the Eucharist

Malachi 1:11 and the Fragments from the Writings of Irenaeus

τρωγω in John 6: Proof of Transubstantiation?

1 Corinthians 11:26 and the Theology of the Eucharist

Max Thurian on αναμνησις in the Last Supper Narratives

Was Christ's Blood Shed at the Last Supper?

The Eucharist in the Didache

Eating and drinking Christ's body and blood: Proof of Transubstantiation in John 6?

More on the "interpretive ειμι" and the Last Supper Accounts

Use of "sacrifice" in Didache 14:1-3 and the Eucharist

Did Origen teach Transubstantiation?

Origen vs. the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6

Origen's Ignorance of the Eucharist being the Propitiatory Sacrifice offered by New Covenant Priests

Exegetical Notes on John 6:54

1 Corinthians 10:16 and the "communion" with the body and blood of Jesus

The Last Supper was not a Propitiatory Sacrifice

Another note on the use of the present participle in the Last Supper Accounts

Does Hebrews 9:23 support the Mass as a Propitiatory Sacrifice? (cf. Joseph Pohle on the question of whether Christ Offers Sacrifices in Heaven and J. Ramsey Michaels on the use of "sacrifices" in Hebrews 9:23)

Irenaeus of Lyons vs. Transubstantiation

The "body" in 1 Corinthians 11:28-30 and the Eucharist

2 Samuel 23:17, Transubstantiation, and Exegetical Consistency

Moulton-Milligan on τρωγω

The use of ειμι in 1 Corinthians 10:4

Jesus not correcting the audience in John 6: Proof of Transubstantiation?

Keith Mathison on the Language of the Last Supper and the Nature of a "Sacrament"

Answering a technical argument for Concomitance (cf. Ian Christopher Levy on Defenders of Concomitance vs. Patristic Authors and Ancient Traditions and Nathan Mitchell on the Debate as to when Consecration Took Place and the Development of Concomitance)

Is Jesus' Command to Drink His Blood in John 6 to be taken Literally as it is Only Commanded Once?

Evidence that Ignatius Held a Mystical/Symbolic View of the Eucharist

Luke 22:19 and the use of the present participle διδομενον

Joseph Pohle on the Differences Between the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Cross

E.M.B. Green on the Early Christian Application of Sacrificial Language to the Eucharist

Athenagoras' Ignorance of the Concept of the Eucharist Being a Propitiatory Sacrifice

The Understanding of "Remembrance" in Some Early Christian Liturgical Texts

"Coexistence" (Consubstantiation) and Medieval Eucharistic Theories

Patristic Evidence Favouring the Epiclesis being when the Eucharistic Transformation Takes Place

Peter Martyr Vermigli, "Treatise on the Sacrament of the Eucharist" (1549) vs. Appeals to Phenomenological Language to Explain 1 Corinthians 11:26-27

Peter Martyr Vermigli, "Treatise on the Sacrament of the Eucharist" (1549) on Augustine's Eucharistic Theology

Peter Martyr Vermigli, "A Disputation on the Sacrament of the Eucharist" (1549) on the Patristic Use of "Symbol"/"Figure" for the Eucharist

The status of the Journal of Discourses

Commenting on the non-canonical status of the 26-volume Journal of Discourses, B.H. Roberts wrote the following:

Relative to these sermons [Journal of Discourses] I must tell you they represent the individual views of the speakers, and the Church is not responsible for their teachings. Our authorized Church works are the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. In the Church very wide latitude is given to individual belief and opinion, each man being responsible for his views and not the Church; the Church is only responsible for that which she sanctions and approves through the formal actions of her councils. So it may be that errors will be found in the sermons of men, and that in their over zeal unwise expressions will escape them, for all of which the Church is not responsible. (Letter written November 4, 1887, London, Millennial Star 49. 48 [November 28, 1887]; comment in square brackets added)

What about the preface to volume 8 of the JOD that claims they "deservedly ranks at one of the standard works of the Church"? This was ably answered by D. Charles Pyle in his review of the book, Questions to Ask your Mormon Friend:

What did the author of the preface actually mean by this statement? The term standard work has several meanings. One of the meanings is “a work of recognized excellence.” Another is “a work that serves as a basis of weight, measure, value, comparison, or judgment.” A third meaning, closely related to the second, is “a work that is officially approved" (Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, 1991 ed., s.v. “standard works,” especially definitions 21, 22, and 26.) The Journal of Discourses was considered a standard work by some in the sense that it was of recognized excellence?it contained the words of God to mankind and to his servants, as well as commentary on the meaning of the scriptures. At no time, however, was the series considered the same as the official standard works, nor was it ever presented to the general Church body for its acceptance as Church doctrine. Joseph Smith even said, “the hymn book, as a new edition, containing a greater variety of hymns, will be shortly published or printed in this place, which I think will be a standard work" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 164), Yet at no time did he ever regard the hymn book as a fundamental source of truth nor as having equal value to the scriptures.

In spite of their status of not being canonical/binding, they do contain a wealth of information (I myself own the entire set in print format). One can read them online here.

Jeremy Runnells and Anti-Mormon Bravado

Jeremy Runnells wrote the following on my friend, Tarik LaCour's facebook page:

(I am the one who clicked the "laughing" response--"deluded" is the nicest way of summing up his "response")

I am more than happy to link to the relevant pages and let the reader who has intellectual integrity and does not suffer, as Runnells does, from the Dunning-Kruger effect, Runnell's pieces as well as responses thereto and see that Runnells' arguments are often without any merit (exegetical/scholarly/historical) at all:

One can read Runnells' CES Letter and "responses" here.

FairMormon, Response to "Letter to a CES Director" and "Debunking FAIR's Debunking"

Brian Hales, The CES Letter A Closer Look (youtube)

Letter to a CES Director: A Closer Look

Kevin Christensen, Image is Everything: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

Michael R. Ash, Bamboozled by the "CES Letter"

I have been making a page on this blog of Tarik LaCour's responses (featuring some guest posts by Stephen Smoot and Brian Hales) here.

Links to other online responses

Finally, one of Runnell's fans asked "If Jeremy Runnells is so unlearned, unsophisticated in his approach and his material old news, then why do so many apologists and alleged scholars of the FAIR variety spend SO much time to going after him and his CES Letter?"

The answer is rather simple: the CES Letter is popular. Using that "logic," because proponents of macro-evolution have responded many times to Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, for instance, there must be something valid to the arguments of Hovind, Ham, and other proponents of young-earth creationism, right? No, it is due to popularity due to the large level of ignorance of their fans who repeat their arguments and show little to no intellectual integrity by researching the issues themselves. Personally, I wish more informed critics of "Mormonism" were more popular (e.g., The New Mormon Challenge and more sophisicated works) while the CES Letter and other low-hanging fruit were not as popular, but c'est la vie.

The Corporeal God in Christadelphian Theology

While not a tenet of faith (e.g., it does not appear as a doctrine to be affirmed in the Birmingham Amended [and Unamended] Statement of Faith), many Christadelphians have speculated that God the Father is corporeal, similar to the Latter-day Saint perspective.

Robert Roberts (1839-1898), one of the two "pioneers" of the movement, wrote the following in Christendom Astray:

[T]he Father of all is a person who exists in the central "HEAVEN OF HEAVENS" as He exists nowhere else. By His Spirit in immensely-filling diffusion, He is everywhere present in the sense of holding and knowing, and being conscious of creation to its utmost bounds; but in His proper person, all-glorious, beyond human power to conceive, He dwells in heaven . . . the Scriptures quoted plainly teach that the Father is a tangible person, in whom all the powers of the Universe converge.

C.C. Walker (1856-1940), a former editor of The Christadelphian, the flagship magazine of the movement which was established by Robert Roberts, wrote the following on p. 48 of his work, Rome and the Christadelphians (1923), a reply to a Roman Catholic author, J.W. Poynter (emphasis added):

"THERE IS A SPIRITUAL BODY."

Stephen's dying prayer is quite in harmony with the foregoing. The meaning of the prophetic words of Psalm xxxi. 5 : " Into thy hands I commit my spirit." found with but little variation in the mouths of both Jesus and Stephen as they died, is obvious from the case of Jesus himself. God raised Jesus from the dead, and gave him life, preserving his body from corruption. The phrase (to pneuma mou) does not mean " my immortal soul.'" Mr. Poynter says, " We may remark that this common New Testament word for the soul (to pneuma ; Latin, spiritus) is the last conceivable word for a body—even an undying one ! " In this, however, Mr. Poynter is doubly mistaken : (1) To pneuma is '' the spirit," and is not " the common word for the soul " at all; (2) Pneuma, Latin spiritus, most undoubtedly stands for the " undying bodies " of the Lord Jesus and the angels. Jesus became " a quickening spirit " (1 Cor. xv. 45) (pneuma zoopoioun), and as such possessed " flesh and bones " (Luke xxiv. 39). Again it is written of the angels, " What maketh his angels spirits ? " (pneumata) (Heb. i. 7). "Are they not all ministering spirits ? " (verse 14). Jacob wrestled with one of these " ministering spirits," and bore very distinct bodily evidence of the bodily nature of the encounter (Gen. xxxii. 24, 25). " There is a natural (soulical) body (soma psuchikon); and there is a spiritual body (soma pneumatikon) " (1 Cor. xv. 44). Mr. Poynter must look again. In the Bible nobody is found without a body.

For more, see:

The Personality of God and “God is a Spirit” (Jn. 4:24) by Duncan Heaster

God is Corporeal which references many Christadelphian sources