Stephen Smoot, "An Open Letter To William Lane Craig"

My friend Stephen Smoot has just posted an open letter to Dr. William Lane Craig over some of his many ignorant comments about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

An Open Letter To William Lane Craig

For a previous scholarly "beat-down" of Craig's (and Paul Copan's) work against "Mormonism" and in favour of creation ex nihilo, be sure to pursue Blake Ostler's Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought. Craig is correct about one thing--he is clearly not an expert on Mormonism, and it shows.

Joseph Méléze Modrzejewski on the Jewish Temple at Elephantine

The existence of a Jewish temple in Elephantine in the fifth century BCE strikes us today as an anomaly, which historians have terms “predeuteronomic” or “paradeuteronomic,” since it appears as an infringement on the Deuteronomic principle of the unity of worship. The temple at Elephantine was founded either before the reforms of Josiah (622 BCE), which proclaimed this principle, or afterwards, in reaction to it. The choice depends on the date we accept for its inauguration: either the reign of Manasseh in the idle of the seventh century BCE, or a period comprising the reign of Jehoiakim (609-598 BCE) and the fall of the kingdom of Judah (587 BCE) . . .The leaders of post-exilic Judaism, seeing to unify the communities of Jerusalem and Babylon under the authority of the high priest, wished to extend it to the Egyptian colony. This is to be considered either a preparatory or an executory measure, according to the date assigned to Ezra’s mission, a matter on which historians differ. (Joseph Méléze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian [trans. Robert Cornman; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995], 36, 39)

Ernst Käsemann on Baptism and the Spirit in Acts 8 and 10

Some critics of baptismal regeneration sometimes appeal to Acts 8:14ff and 10:44ff as “proof-texts” to support a symbolic understanding of water baptism, and that it does not affect salvation. Firstly, such ignores the evidence from Acts 2:38 and other like-texts that explicitly teach that, through the instrumentality of water baptism, one receives a remission of one’s past sins (see, for e.g., Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer and Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation; cf. Acts 10:47, Cornelius, and Baptismal Regeneration; Does Cornelius Help Refute Baptismal Regeneration?; Was Cornelius Converted Before Acts 10?).

Commenting on this rather naïve reading of such texts, Ernst Käsemann wrote against those who would try to drive a wedge between the water baptism (and thus its salvific efficacy) and the receipt of the Holy Spirit:

Frequent attempt have been made to combat the idea of a necessary connexion between baptism and the Spirit by appealing to these passages, but this is a quite unjustifiable procedure. True, it is easy to be misled by the picture painted in 8.16f. and particularly by the μονον βεβαπτισμενοι in 8.16 which is so strikingly reminiscent  of the expression ‘knowing only the baptism of John’ in 18.25 and which seems even more unlikely. For, quite apart from the significance of baptism for primitive Christianity, the sub-apostolic era and the rise of early Catholicism saw an increase rather than a decrease in the value placed upon the sacrament of baptism. If then, in spite of this, a write can venture to use phraseology such as that of 8.16, he must have overwhelming reason for doing so. These reasons are not far to seek. Philip has begun upon the evangelization of Samaria on his own initiative and without express authorization, and has been highly successful. The result of his efforts has been the emergence of a church almost entirely independent of Jerusalem. In the eyes of later Christendom this is an intolerable state of affairs, threatening to disrupt the unity of the Church. Solidarity must be shown with the claims to primacy which have certainly put forward in Jerusalem by this time. Peter and John must therefore be portrayed as going to Samaria to visit the community which has come into existence there and to receive it into the fellowship of the apostolic Church. Only so can the Samaritans, and, father ton in the book, the Ephesians, receive the Spirit, who is accessible solely within the boundaries of the apostolic fellowship. The turn of phrase ‘only baptized’ thus becomes intelligible. The Church of a later day could not admit the existence in the sacred past of primitive Christian free-lances and communities resting on any other than apostolic authority: because otherwise it would have granted letters to patient to the Gnostics and other heretics by whom it was being menanced. Generally speaking, Acts is silent on the subject of this threat, although we know from the Pauline epistles how early it made itself felt throughout Hellenistic Christendom. It is one of the basic convictions of Luke’s day that schisms and heresy had been unknown in the very earliest days of Christianity.  The whole plan of Acts is conditioned by this view. Only in one passage, which certainly receives unusual emphasis, does Luke fail to uphold this otherwise strictly observed convention. In Paul’s farewell speech delivered, according to Acts 20.17ff., in Miletus, the Apostle can be reported as referring to the dangers and difficulties of his own time and contrasting with them the ideal of the Una sancta, the integrity of which is guaranteed by the teaching office of the Church resting upon the apostolic succession. For all practical purposes Luke’s general picture is shaped by this presupposition, which can be illustrated by the narratives of the Hellenists, of the conversion of Paul and Cornelius, of the emergence of Barnabas in Antioch and of the apostolic Council. These narratives are the pillars of Luke’s historical edifice. 8.14ff. must also be placed in this context. The password ‘Una sancta’ remained ineffectual unless it could be deduced from the history, or rather, read back into it. There could only be a place in the reconstructed past for free-lance evangelists like Philip or free-lance apostles like Paul if they had at least retrospectively received the apostolic blessing and had been legitimatized by Jerusalem. Luke was faced with the necessity either of admitting Philip’s administration of baptism to be fully valid and thus acknowledging the existence of an independent ecclesiastical structure in Samaria or of maintain at all costs the unity of the apostolic fellowship by stigmatizing Philip’s baptism as defective; he chose the latter course. The Samaritans are therefore described as ‘only baptized’ and their real incorporation into the Church is ascribed to the apostolic laying-on of hands. Thus the shape of 8.14ff, is determined by a dogmatic theory

10.14ff. presents us with a similar case. Cornelius and his circle receive the Spirit prior to their baptism and this serves naturally to emphasize the ruling theme of their narrative, namely that it is not man but God who has initiated the Gentile mission with continual signs and leadings and even in the face of apostolic reluctance. He maintains the initiative by sending the Spirit before baptism and thus giving his sanction to the action of the Church which for her part immediately opens her doors to the Gentile world and, by apostolic command, baptizes the representative of this world. Once again, therefore, what we have before us is not the report of an historical happening designed to prove the possibility of separating baptism and the bestowal of the Spirit, or at least of deriving a wedge between them. The passage is orientated in the direction of the whole Lucan interest and goes back to Luke the writer or, even more, to Luke the theologian who is concerned by this means to hammer yet again into the heads of his hearers: ‘This is the will of God.’ (Ernst Käsemann, “The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus” in Essays on New Testament Themes [trans. W.J. Montague; London: SCM Press, 1964], 136-48, here, pp. 144-46)

Charles L. Feinberg on the Salvific Benefits of the Resurrection of Jesus

In my essay Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30 I show how that the resurrection of Jesus Christ has salvific efficacy as well as his on-going High Priestly intercession, and that the popular Protestant interpretation of John 19:30 and the meaning of τετελεσται is without any meaningful exegetical merit. In an essay on Paul’s theology of the death and resurrection of Christ, Protestant Charles L. Feinberg discussed many of the benefits of the resurrection of Jesus Christ which shows that the naïve reading of John 19:30 to be, simply put, bogus, including the following:

[Christ’s] resurrection makes it possible for the believer to enjoy experiential sanctification. Through the death of Christ positional sanctification was effected for all believers; through the resurrection [experiential] sanctification was made possible. In His death, Christ died not only for sin, but He died to sin as well. He made it possible for believers to have dominion over the power of sin. As Paul discussed in Romans 5 the benefits of salvation and the federal headship of the old creation and that of the new, he concluded, “But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20). Then he asked whether this grace of God is to be a license for believers to do whatever they please and to continue in sin. His answer in 6:4-5 was, in essence, “We have been crucified with Christ and are dead to sin; we have been resurrected with Him to walk in newness of life” . . . Jesus’ resurrection guarantees the believer’s justification. Many are of the opinion that Christ was raised from the dead to accomplish justification for the believer. IT is more correct to speak of the Resurrection as the guarantee of the justification Christ wrought by His death. The resurrection of Christ proves beyond a doubt that God has accepted His death for humankind as the full satisfaction of His claims for human justification. Christ “was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of [lit., ‘on account of’] our justification” (Rom. 4:25). Just as Christ was delivered up on account of people’s offenses, because they had grievously offended the holiness of God, just so was He raised to show that His death had fully and completely availed for believers and that now they stand in the presence of God the Father justified from all things . . . another important result of Christ’s resurrection is His priestly work. When Christ as High Priest offered Himself up on the cross as the sacrifice for sins, He effected forgiveness and justification, but He did not complete His high priestly work. There remained yet His work as Advocate and Intercessor. “And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). When a believer falls into sin, Satan, the ever-ready accuser of believers (Rev. 12:10), accuses him of sin before the Father. Then Christ, the believer’s great Advocate and Helper, sets forth the propitiation for his sins that He has made and gains the believer’s acquittal (Confession, of course, restores fellowship, which is lost through the believer’s sin). Paul did not write of the advocacy of Christ, but he did speak of His intercessory work: “Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us” (Rom. 8:34). And Hebrew 7:25 states, “He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” Christ, ever praying and interceding for the believer—what a reassuring and comforting thought. (Charles L. Feinberg, “Pauline Theology Relative to the Death and Resurrection of Christ” in Roy B. Zuck, ed. Vital Christology Issues: Examining Contemporary and Classic Concerns [Vital Issues Series; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1997], 144-58, here, pp. 153, 154, 156)

Edward Robinson on the Alleged Discrepancies in Some of the Elements of the Empty Tomb Accounts

The following is from an Evangelical Protestant attempting to harmonise the Gospels’ accounts of the events of Easter Sunday. Do note that, in attempting to harmonise the purported contradictions between the accounts they sound like a typical Latter-day Saint apologist when we defend the alleged discrepancies in the various accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision. Also, note that many Evangelicals, while accepting the following apologetic, would never accept LDS apologetic works on the First Vision and/or purported contradictions between the Bible and Book of Mormon, even if the responses are better (showing a blatant double-standard):

The Number of Women

Matthew mentioned Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1). Mark referred to Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1). Luke wrote of Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and others with them (Luke 24:10). John spoke of Mary Magdalene alone and said nothing of any other (John 20:1). The first three Evangelists are in accord with respect to the two Marys but no further, while John differed from them all. Is there a discrepancy here?

No. Though John, in narrating circumstances with which he was personally connected, saw fit to mention Mary Magdalene, it does not at all follow that others were not present. Nor did Matthew, writing only of the two Marys, mean to exclude the presence of others. Indeed the very words John put into the mouth of Mary Magdalene (ουκ οιδαμεν, “we do not know,” John 20:2) presuppose the fact that others had gone with her to the tomb. That there was something with respect to Mary Magdalene that gave her a peculiar prominence in these transactions may be inferred from the fact that not only did John mention her alone, but also the other Evangelists named her first.

This parallels that of the demoniacs of Gardara and the blind men at Jericho; in both cases Matthew wrote of two persons, while Mar and Luke mentioned only one (Matt. 8:28; 20:30; Mark 5:2; 10:46; Luke 8:27; 18:35). Something peculiar in the station or character of one of the persons rendered him in each case more prominent and led the other two Evangelists to speak of him particularly. But their language was not exclusive nor is there in it anything that contradicts the statements of Matthew . . .

The Arrival at the Sepulcher

According to Mark, Luke, and John, the women, on reaching the tomb, found the great stone with which it had been closed already rolled away. Matthew, on the other hand, after narrating that the women went out to see the sepulchre, proceeded to mention the earthquake, the descent of the angel, his rolling away the stone and sitting on it, and the terror of the watch, as if all these things took place in the presence of the women. Such at least is the usual force of ιδου. The angel too (Matt. 28:4) addressed the women as if he were still sitting on the stone that had been rolled away.

The apparent discrepancy, if any, arises simply from Matthew’s brevity in omitting to state in full what his own narrative presupposes. According to verse 6, Christ was already risen, and therefore the earthquake and its accompaniments must have taken place earlier, to which the sacred writer returned in his narration. And though Matthew did not say the women entered the sepulchre, yet in verse 8 he spoke of them going out of it (εξελθουσαι) so that their interview with the angel took place not outside the sepulcer but in it, as narrated by the other Evangelists. When therefore the angel said to them, “Come, see the place where He was lying” (v. 6), this was not spoken outside the tomb to induce them to enter but within the sepulchre, just as in Mark 16:6.

The Vision of Angels in the Sepulcher

Of this John wrote nothing. Matthew and Mark referred to one angel; Luke referred to two. Mark said he was writing; Luke spoke of them as standing (επεστησαν). This difference in respect to numbers is parallel to the case of the women. The other alleged difficulty as to the position of the angel also vanishes when επεστησαν in Luke 24:4 is understood in its appropriate and acknowledged meaning “to appear suddenly” without reference to its etymology.

Some diversity also exists in the language addressed to the women by the angels. Matthew and Mark recorded the angels’ charge to tell the disciples to depart into Galilee (Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:7). In Luke this is not referred to, but the women were reminded of the Lord’s declaration that He would rise again on the third day. Neither of the Evangelists here professed to report all that was said by the angels, and so there is no room for contradiction. (Edward Robinson, “The Resurrection and Ascension of Christ” in Roy B. Zuck, ed. Vital Christology Issues: Examining Contemporary and Classic Concerns [Vital Issues Series; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1997], 121-43, here, pp. 126-28)

Was Jesus Abandoned by God on the Cross?

Some have tried to empty the cry of Jesus on the cross in Matt 27:46/Mark 15:34 (a quote from Psa 22:1) as not being a cry of dereliction and his being abandoned by God. Some argue that, as the Psa 22 ends up with the deliverance of the supplicant, Jesus’ quoting the opening line is really him, not being abandoned, but invoking the entirety of the psalm, and in reality, this is a cry of triumph. However, this is, frankly, silly. As Charles Cranfield in his commentary on Mark noted:

Various attempts have been made to get rid of its offence: e.g., it has been suggested that Jesus had the whole psalm in mind and that therefore the saying was really an expression of faith cut short by physical weakness which prevented him from quoting more; or that Jesus felt forsaken but was not really forsaken. But such softening explanations are unsatisfactory. Rather is the cry to be understood in the light of Mark 14:36, 2 Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13. The burden of the world’s sin, his complete self-identification with sinners, involved not merely a felt, but a real, abandonment by his Father. It is in the cry of dereliction that the full horror of man’s sin stands revealed. But the cry also marks the lowest depth of the hiddenness of the Son of God—and so the triumphant τετελεσται of John 19:30 is, paradoxically, its true interpretation. When this depth has been reached, the victory had been won. (Cranfield, Mark, pp. 458-9)

Sharing Some Bad News With Over-Confident Anti-Mormon Evangelicals About the Quality of their Materials

If this is honestly the best anti-LDS can come up, the game is over for them.

In a blatant example of anti-Mormon chest-thumping, one unpleasant Evangelical apologist wrote the following, affirming that Evangelical Protestant criticisms of LDS theology and Scripture are becoming more and more sophisticated:

[T]he false scriptures, doctrines, and rites of the LDS religion will not be safe from scrutiny. Evangelical work in this field is in fact getting even better, as one can see from the publication earlier this year of Sharing the Good News with Mormons, a collection of essays offering practical, informative strategies for doing just what the title indicates. (source; one wonders if he still thinks his "Temple of Solomon" 'argument' falls under this category)

Elsewhere, the same author wrote:

Johnson, Eric, and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons: Practical Strategies for Getting the Conversation Started. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2018. Not only is this one of the very best Christian books on Mormonism, it presents many excellent ways of defending Christian faith applicable in other contexts. Intended for general readers. (source)

To see why this is laughable, and that the book he endorses, Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018) is a joke, see my refutation of the chapter addressing imputed righteousness by John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach” (pp. 273-81, 339):

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

To see some silly arguments from Johnson, see:

Answering An Illogical Attempt to Refute the Claim LDS are "Christian" and an Appeal to Jeremiah 17:9

For other essays that are relevant, see, for e.g.:

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

Top 17 Reasons Bill McKeever Doesn't Understand the Latter-day Saint Faith

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology