The Glory of God's Body, Romans 1, and Brigham Young

And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Rom 1:23)

Some critics of LDS theology have appealed to this text to refute the belief that God the Father is embodied. There are problems with this, not the least is that we know that Jesus, at the time of writing, was embodied, remaining the "God-Man" in the Christology of our Trinitarian opponents, so if this refutes the Father being embodied, it refutes Jesus being corporeal in heaven at the time of the writing of Romans (as well as now) ipso facto. Additionally, in LDS theology, the Father (and the Son) has a glorified, incorruptible body and nature as opposed to corruptible, mortal men. Nothing in this passage, as understood contextually, and with proper understanding of Mormon theology, proves to be problematic. Further, Paul was condemning the pagans and those who are evil who exchanged God and His glory for things that aren’t real like idols (Psa 106:20; Jer 2:11). Their futile speculations were showing the pre-eminence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the culmination of God’s glory. He wasn’t teaching God’s alleged omnipresence or non-materiality which wouldn’t even make sense in the context of Rom 1:23. For more on this text, see:

Leon Morris and Joseph Fitzmyer on Romans 1:23

Interestingly, we see something similar to this from Brigham Young. In a sermon dated June 18, 1865, he was recorded as having said that:

We bear the image of our earthly parents in their fallen state, but by obedience to the gospel of salvation, and the renovating influences of the Holy Ghost, and the holy resurrection, we shall put on the image of the heavenly, in beauty, glory, power and goodness. Jesus Christ was so like His Father that on one occasion in answer to a request, "Show us the Father," He said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." The strongest testimony that can be borne to the minds of men is the testimony of the Father concerning the Son, and the testimony of the Son concerning the Father, by the power of the revelations of the Spirit, which every man who is born of woman possesses more or less, and which, if mankind would listen to it, would lead them to the knowledge of God, and ultimately, assisted by the ordinances of the gospel, into His presence. (JOD 11:123)

For further reading on the biblical evidence for divine embodiment, see, for e.g.:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

George Q. Cannon on the Necessity of Being a Discerning Reader

And let me here say, we should be exceedingly careful in the selection of books that we put in the hands of our children. And there is one thing that I would have said last night, had time permitted, to those engaged in these associations, that is, to teach the children not to accept that which they read in a book as true, because it is printed; but to teach them to weigh for themselves, to examine for themselves, and test for themselves the statements which may be made upon any and every subject that may be brought to their attention through the medium of books, whether scientific or otherwise. The danger in indiscriminate reading on the part of young people lies in this: their impressions are vivid, and if what they read be incorrect; if, in point of fact, what they read is based on unsound premises and be entirely wrong, but it is presented in an agreeable taking and specious manner, they are apt to accept it as being true. (JOD 22:274 | April 5, 1881)

The "Word" in John 1: The Person of Jesus, not the "Idea" of Jesus

Some proponents of Socinian Christology (e.g., Christadelphians) argue that the “word” in John 1 is not the person of Jesus but the creative force of the Father who becomes “embodied” in the person of Jesus. While popular among apologists for such a theology, it is problematic. The following comes from Harry Whittaker, himself a Christadelphian, in his Studies in the Gospels, no. 13: The Word (John 1:1-5):

1. This interpretation of the Word has to fall back for support on such remote passages as Ps. 147:15, 18 and 107:20, Pr. 8:22, 23. These, and no others. John's own usage-and this should prevail-is quite different. It should be very evident from this list that in the New Testament the normal meaning of logos is word. To insist on any other is precarious. Yet the commonly-heard interpretation of John 1:1 calls for confident dependence on a remote and very occasional meaning of logos: "reason, purpose, intent . . .

2. "The Word was with God". The vague (and pointless!) significance attached to this phrase gives no value whatever, or else a wrong value, to the Greek preposition "with".

3. It is necessary to insist on the reading: "all things were made by it (the impersonal divine Purpose) . . . That which hath been made was life in it . . .", and so on. Logically, until one comes to "the Word was made flesh" in v. 14, there can be no allusion to the personal Jesus, and "life in It (the Purpose)" is a poor insipid substitute for "life in Christ", the normal New Testament expression everywhere else.

4. The reference in v. 6, 7 to John the Baptist require that v. 7 should also allude to Jesus the Man, not to Jesus the Idea. Verses 11, 12 similarly require to be read with reference to Jesus the Man. How then does verse 14 "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" come in as indicating the climax of Divine Revelation, when clear references have already been made to Jesus to Man . . .

The Word is Jesus

Thus, John refers to The Word in three other places, and in each case his allusion is to Jesus the Man. “His name is called the Word of God” (Rev. 19:13). “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 Jn. 1:1); that is, they heard his preaching, they saw his miracles, they looked upon him crucified, and they handled him when risen from the dead (Lk. 24:39). “Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw” (Rev. 1:2). Even this passage, which at first sight seems to require a different meaning for “the word of God” lines up with the others when it is realised that this is the first of a series of triads which meet the reader in Revelation 1 (compare verses 4b, 5a, 7). In fact, “the testimony of Jesus and all things that he saw” is the exact equivalent of 1 John 1:2.

The tentative conclusion concerning “the Word” in John 1:1 would therefore appear to be that it means Jesus the Man, and not Jesus the Idea or Purpose.

Elsewhere, in the notes for the chapter, Whittaker wrote:

The Word. The use of Logos as a title for Jesus is not restricted to the writings of John. Besides Mk. 1:1,2; Lk. 1:1,2 there are also:Heb.4:12;Rom. 10:8; 1 Pet. l:23;Jas. 1: 18; Acts 19: 20.

There is certainly no reference to Greek philosophy or any form of Gnosticism, such is unthinkable in the writings of a man like John. If there were, what connection would this prologue have with the rest of the gospel? John’s gospel is Jewish through and through (see Study 14).This fact is decisive.

John Lighfoot suggests a parallel with Targum usage; e.g. “And Moses brought forth the people (at Sinai) to meet the Word of the Lord” (Ex. 19:17). And in Gen. 26:3, for “I will be with thee”, Targum has: “My Word shall be thy help”; and many such examples. Can it be doubted that in such passages allusion is intended to the angel of the Lord? In these places the rabbis had no use for a vague divine “Purpose”.

James F. White on Luther's Baptismal Piety

Luther’s Baptismal Piety

Luther’s greatest contribution in the area of baptism is one that his descendants still have not fully appropriated, although there are some signs this is changing. Luther has what we may call a baptismal spirituality or, to use the traditional Protestant term, baptismal piety. For Luther, baptism eloquently fulfills his vision of a sacrament as a promise accompanied by a sign.

In “The Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism,” Luther declares “there is no greater comfort on earth” than baptism (Blessed Sacrament of Baptism, in Luther’s Works, vol. 36, p. 73). Baptism remains as a lifelong assurance that “I am baptized, and through my baptism God, who cannot lie, has bound himself in a covenant with me” (Ibid., p. 36). Baptism is a way of life, abiding in the knowledge that one’s sins are forgiven. It is “so great, gracious, and full of comfort, we should . . . ceaselessly, joyfully, and from the heart thank, praise, and honor God for it” (Ibid., p. 42). The Christian life is a “continual remembrance of this promise made to us in baptism” (Babylonian Captivity, in Luther’s Works, vol. 36, p. 59). For centuries, Lutheran fonts were placed at the front of the church to remind worshipers of their baptism.

The Christian life is lived in the aftermath of baptism, and this event remains a lifelong comfort or consolation. Luther could find the courage to live through each day by reminding himself that he was baptized. When sin or conscience weights us down, “we must retort, ‘But I am baptized’” (The Large Catechism, in The Book of Concord, trans. Theodore G. Tappert [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959], p. 442). So the “Christian life is nothing else than a daily Baptism” (Ibid., p. 445). Penance is simply a return to baptism. Above all, baptism is the reassurance that we belong to God and that God’s action in baptizing us is a promise effective for the rest of our lives.

But baptism does imply the presence of faith, and this was to lead to problems. Early on, Luther simply asserted that “infants are aided by the faith of others, namely, those who bring them for baptism” (Babylonian Captivity, in Luther’s Works, vol. 36, p. 73). Later on, he asserted that “we pray God to grant him [the child] faith. But we do not baptize him on that account, but solely on the command of God” (Large Catechism, in Book of Concord, p. 444). Luther is not troubled by the problem of finding faith in an infant.

Baptism is intimately connected with the forgiveness of sin for Luther. Throughout life, penance is a return to baptism. Penance is not the second plank after shipwreck (sin) for the ship of baptism is still afloat and we may return to it again and again. Therefore the Christian life is one long living out of one’s baptism, to which one can return with hope and confidence.

Baptism was also directed related to the death and resurrection of Christ. For this reason, as we have seen, Luther prefers the sign-act of immersion. But in his baptismal rites of 1523 there is an even more cosmic dimension. For the central theological statement of the rite, he assembled his famous flood prayer, which relates God’s use of water in cleansing the world through Noah and the ark, the deliverance of the Jews from slavery through the Red Sea, and the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan. Water serves now for “a rich and full washing away of sins” (“Order of Baptism,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 53, p. 97).

Baptism was so much a summation of the gospel that Luther found it necessary to produce his “Order of Baptism” in German in 1523, preceding by three years the publication of his German Mass. His baptismal rite contains most of the medieval ceremonies even though he declares them unnecessary. Three years later, he published “The Oder of Baptism Newly Revised.” Gone are some of the purity ceremonies such as blowing on the child, giving of salt, one exorcism, the anointing of the ears, and the two anointings of the head. Most of these ceremonies have biblical roots—blowing refers to the Holy Spirit, as does salt; the effetha, touching the ears and mouth (Mark 7:34), to hearing and speaking the Word; the candle to Matthew 25:1-3; the garment to Galatians 3:27. Both of Luther’s rites are emphatically for children, the Gospel reading being Mark 10:13-16: “People were bringing little children to him.” There are several parallels in these two rites to the changes in ceremonies in the Roman Ritual before and after Vatican II. In our time, the flood prayer has been widely admired and imitated in other churches. (James F. White, The Sacraments in Protestant Practice and Faith [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992], 34-35, emphasis in bold added. See also “The Relation of Baptism to Faith,” pp. 35-41, documenting Luther’s debates with Zwingli et al. vis-à-vis the efficacy of baptism)

Dale Moody vs. The Abuse of the Gospel and Epistles of John by Eternal Security Advocates

Commenting on the eisegesis of the Gospel and Epistles of John by proponents of Eternal Security, Dale Moody wrote that they:

 . . . really misinterpret the Johannine passages by reading them through the colored glasses of tradition. The Johannine writings do have a great emphasis on God’s preservation of those who abide in Christ, but one may cease to abide in Christ. In their game of theological chess the trick question is often put: “can a person be unborn?” John 3:3-8 is usually in mind. They would never say that a friend who died “got unborn.” The trick question grew up by ignoring the plain statement in 1 John 5:16 which teaches that it is possible for a Christian brother to die a spiritual death. This is not a case like 1 Corinthians 11:30. Death in 1 John 5:16 has the same meaning as in 3:14. It should be noted that John 3:16 speaks of those who do not perish as those who continue to believe. The Greek tense behind believeth is present linear, not past and punctiliar.

The next move is almost sure to be John 5:24, which speaks of those who believe as passing from spiritual death to eternal life so that they will not come into judgment, but again it must be pointed out that 1 John 5:16 says one can pass from eternal life back into death (cf. 1 Jn. 5:11-13). They work with the false assumption that the adjective “eternal” is an adverb as if it says the brother eternally has life. It is the life that is eternal, no one’s possession of it. Eternal life is the life of God in Christ the son of God, and this life is lost when one departs from Christ (cf. Jn. 5:26). Eternal life is possible only in the Son of God.

The third move is to John 6:37 where it is said: “All that the Father gives me will come to me and him who comes to me I will not cast out.” True! Those who come or keep on coming will not be cast out, but Judas was given to Jesus by the Father, yet he became the son of perdition (John 17:12). That is precisely the teaching of John 6. After the threefold promise that he will at the last day raise up those given by the Father (6:39, 40, 44), “many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (6:66). Simon Peter then speaks for those who did not go away, for to do so would forfeit eternal life, and Judas is singled out as one among the Twelve who was to go back into perdition (6:67-71). The whole of John 6 is built on the model of the Israelites who got all the way to Kadesh-barnea and turned back to perish in the wilderness. That is why there is the frequent reference to murmuring against Christ (Jn 6:41, 43, 61; cf. 1 Cor. 10:10 based on Exod. 16:7, 8, 9, 12; Num. 14:27; 17:5, 10).

Eternal life is the life of those who continue to follow Jesus. No one can retain eternal life who turns away from Jesus. John 10:28 is frequently used as a security blanket by those who ignore many of the New Testament warnings about going back or falling away, but a literal translation of 10:27-28, all of the sentence, hardly needs explanation, for it is a promise to those who continue to follow Jesus. Not for a moment do I doubt this literal translation: “My sheep keep on hearing my voice, and I keep on knowing them, and they keep on following me: and I keep on giving them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.” Some read the passage as if it says: “My sheep heard my voice, and I knew them, and they followed me, and I gave to them eternal life.” The verbs are present linear, indicating continuous action by the sheep and by the Shepherd, not the punctiliar fallacy of the past tense.

Obviously, those who follow Jesus will not perish, but what about those disciples who “drew back and no longer went about with him?” The allegory on Jesus as the Vine and the Father as the Vinedresser in John 15:1-11 answers that question: “Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away . . . If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned” (15:2, 6). Surely one will not appeal to some passage like 1 Corinthians 3:15 to prove the words in the Gospel of John mean nothing more than the loss of reward by a saved person, yet that is just what is done to defend the dogmatic theory of eternal security, which is never mentioned in the New Testament. It would hardly make sense for Jesus to say he taught his disciples to keep them from “falling away” (16:1) if it were not possible for them to fall away.

In the Letters of John the strong emphasis in the Gospel of John on God’s preservation of believers who abide in Christ is continued, but there is still the possibility of mortal sin (1 Jn. 5:16). 1 John 2:19 is also used as a security blanket to cover all cases that depart from following Jesus and the Christian fellowship. It is often read as if it says the antichrists “went out from us” because “they never were of us,” but the Greek would also allow for the interpretation and translation that they “went out from us because they were no longer of us.” In fact, that is the interpretation A.T. Robertson gives to the passage. IT is true that one does not continue in sin as long as the seed (sperma) of God abides in him (1 Jn 3:9), but the words of Jesus must remain in him (cf. Jn. 15:7) (The Letters of John, p. 111). (Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981], 356-57, emphasis in bold added)

With respect to A.T. Robertson, here is his comments on 1 John 2:19:

From us (εξ ημων) --of us (εξ ημων). The same idiom, εξ and the ablative case (ημων), but in different senses to correspond with ἐξῆλθαν (they went out from our membership) and ουκ ησαν (they were not of us in spirit and life). For ex in the sense of origin see John 17:15 , for εξ in the sense of likeness, John 17:14 . For if they had been of us (ει γαρ εξ ημων ησαν). Condition of second class with ει and imperfect tense (no aorist for ειμι). They would have continued (μεμενηκεισαν αν). Past perfect of μενω, to remain, without augment, with αν in apodosis of second-class condition. With us (μεθ ημων). In fellowship, for which see μετα in John 1:3 . They had lost the inner fellowship and then apparently voluntarily broke the outward. But they went (αλλ). Ellipsis of the verb ἐξῆλθαν above, a common habit (ellipse) in John s Gospel ( 1:8 ; 9:3 ; 13:18 ; 15:25 ). That they might be made manifest (ινα πανερωθωσιν). Purpose clause with ινα and the first aorist passive subjunctive of πανεροω, for which verb see John 21:1 ; Colossians 3:4 . See 2 Corinthians 3:3 for the personal construction with οτι as here. They all are not (ουκ εισιν παντε). Not just some, but all, as in 2 Corinthians 2:21 ; 2 Corinthians 3:5 . These antichrists are thus revealed in their true light.

On 1 Cor 3:15, a text referenced in passing by Moody, see:

 1 Corinthians 3:15: A Very un-Protestant Biblical Verse

The Witness of God the Holy Spirit

Here is a quick quiz to critics of “Mormonism” and the LDS understanding of a testimony. Who wrote the following?

The witness of God the Holy Spirit

If our Christian assurance rests primarily on the finished work of God the Son, who died for our sins, and secondarily on the word of God the Father, who promises salvation to those who trust in Christ crucified, its third ground is the witness—both internal and external—of God the Holy Spirit.

Consider his inward witness first. The wisdom of mistrusting our feelings has already been mentioned. Because they fluctuate, they are an unreliable guide to our spiritual state. Yet feelings have a place in our Christian assurance—not the fickle flutters of a shallow emotion, but the steady increase of a deepening conviction. Of this the New Testament speaks. It is the work of the indwelling Spirit. We sometimes over-emphasize his work of pricking our conscience and convicting us of sin. He certainly does this. But it is also his gracious work to pacify our consciences, calm our fears, and counter out doubts with his gentle reassurance.

Paul alludes twice in his Letter to the Romans to this inward work of the Spirit. In Romans 5:5 he writes that ‘God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us’, and in Romans 8:16 that ‘the Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children’, especially when he prompts us to cry ‘Abba, Father’ (verse 15). Do we sometimes become profoundly aware that God has set his love upon us, that the old tension and friction between him and us has given place to reconciliation, and that his arms enfold and uphold us? It is the witness of the Spirit Do we sense in prayer that we are in right relationship with God, that his smile is upon us, that he is our Father and we are his children? Again, it is the witness of the Spirit. He ports God’s love into our hearts and he makes God’s fatherhood a reality to us. Sometimes his witness is quiet and undemonstrative. At other times, as Christian people in different ages and cultures have testified, it can become an overwhelming experience of his presence and mercy.

I know some will think it is a LDS Church leader; some might think it is a LDS manual for missionaries or investigators; perhaps you think it comes from FAIRMormon or another LDS apologetics group. Well, no, sorry. It comes from a work of a well respected Protestant scholar and theologian:

John Stott, Christian Basics: A Handbook of Beginnings, Beliefs and Behaviour (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1991), 32-33, emphasis added.

For many similar quotes about the internal witness of the Spirit from Protestant works, see:

Protestant Fideism: A Primer

Protestant Fideism Part 2: The "Testimonies" of Evangelical Anti-Mormons: Nothing but Subjective Feelings

Two Evangelical Protestant Scholars Sounding Very "Mormon" on the Spirit and Knowledge of the Canon

Trent Horn on Augustine's Sermon 131 and "Roma locuta est causa finita est"

Catholic apologist Trent Horn authored an interesting book examining many of the common sayings that are (mis)attributed to figures such as Augustine, Ignatius of Loyola, and Pope Francis. In his discussion of Augustine’s Sermon 131, he does a good job at refuting the common claim Augustine said in this sermon, “Rome as spoken, the case is closed!”:

The Case is Closed?

In 415, a regional synod of bishops in Africa condemned the teachings of Pelagius’s disciple Caelestius. The regional Council of Carthage also condemned Caelestius, and Pope Innocent III confirmed this decision. Pelagius and Caelestius, however, refused to accept the councils’ condemnation and made a direct appeal to the pope. But Pope Innocent I died in 417, before he received their appeal, so the matter fell into the hands of his successor, Pope Zosimus.

Zosimus personally met with Caelestius, and after receiving letters from both men that claimed they still accepted the teachings of the Catholic Church, Zosimus reversed their excommunications. However, both letters were dishonest and hid the men’s true heretical theologies. Pelagius and Caelestius simply wanted their excommunications lifted so they could spread their heresies throughout the Church. Caelestius in particular, wanted the pope to overrule letters the bishop of Constantinople sent warning churches in Greece and western Asia about his teachings. Philip Schaff, a Protestant writer who is very critical of the Catholic Church, admits an act of deception occurred: “[Augustine] opposed Pope Zosimus, when, deceived by Pelagius, he declared him sound in the faith” (Philip Shaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1 [1877; New York: Cosimo Books, 2007], 175).

Augustine, along with the other African bishops who were more familiar with these heretics, realized that the pope had been duped. They urged Zosimus to reconsider his ruling, and Augustine commented on the matter in his 131st sermon: “Already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts [reports] have come. The cause is finished [Latin: causa finite est]; would that the error also be finished!”

What he meant was that two African councils, one in Carthage and another in Mileve, sent decisions on the Pelagian heresy to Pope Innocent. Rescripts (or reports) from the pope came back that unequivocally condemned Pelagianism and confirmed the excommunication of Pelagius and Caelestius. However, the pope did leave room for the men to return to the Faith if they were to “recover from the snares of the devil.” This corresponds to other times in Church history when heretics and notorious sinners repented and were restored to communion with the Church before their deaths.

Pope Zosimus did not contradict Church teaching because he did not define Pelagianism to be orthodox. Instead, he chose to lift an ecclesial punishment that seemed to have been meted out unfairly. But once Pope Zosimus was made aware of Pelagius’s and Caelestius’s deceptions, he reversed his decision and reinstated the men’s justly deserved punishments.

It’s true Augustine did not say “Rome has spoken,” but he did say the Apostolic See, or the bishop of Rome, had given reports on the Pelagian matter. “Rome has spoken, the case is closed” became a paraphrase for “The Apostolic See has issued reports, the case is closed.” Augustine did say “Causa finite est” because the cause of Pelagianism was finished when the bishop of Rome confirmed the decisions of the African councils that had condemned it. The matter only continued because, unlike heresies, people can repent, and so the issue of receiving Pelagius and Caelestius back into the Church still had to be resolved.

While this episode demonstrates the unique authority of the Church and the bishop of Rome, I don’t recommend citing it as evidence of Augustine’s belief in the Church’s authority. In doing so, one runs the risk of turning the discussion into a debate about what Augustine “actually said” and getting bogged down in historical minutiae. Instead, I recommend sharing Augustine’s reply to the heretic Manichaeus, when he said, “I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Trent Horn, What the Saints Never Said: Pious Misquotes and the Subtle Heresies They Teach You [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2018], 82-84)