Monday, March 30, 2020

Baptismal Regeneration and Different "Causes"

A lot of Protestant criticisms of baptismal regeneration is caused, not just be a lack of meaning biblical exegesis (e.g., Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation), but also an ignorance of the difference between meritorious, instrumental, and other causes. Such is exemplified by the likes of James White who thinks 1 Pet 1:18-19 is a valid "proof-text" against the doctrine.

Here is a brief description of these causes:

Final cause: the purpose or aim of an action or the end (telos) toward which a thing naturally develops.

Efficient cause: an agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change

Formal cause: the pattern which determines the form taken by something

Meritorious cause: the foundation

Instrumental cause: the means/instrument through which the action is brought about; it exercises its influence chiefly according to the form and intention of the principal efficient cause

To give a non-theological example of how some of these causes work together (and are not mutually exclusive), take a small child taking a shower:

Meritorious cause: Paying of the water bill (by the child's parents)

Efficient cause: The payer (parent)/the water

Instrumental: the child turning the taps/faucet

Formal: The child being cleansed of dirt

To translate this into the salvific efficacy of water baptism:

Meritorious cause: the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ

Efficient cause: the Spirit operating through the physical water

Instrumental cause: water baptism

Formal cause: the baptised person being regenerated and receiving a remission of their sins

Final cause: the glorification of God in the salvation of souls

Much of the "either-or" arguments against baptismal regeneration (e.g., "either it is the blood of Christ or water baptism!"), apart from being a false dichotomy, is easily answered once one understands the different causes and how they work together; it is not "either-or." This is also why critics of baptismal regeneration who try to salvage belief in its sacramental quality miss the boat when they write the following as if proponents of baptismal regeneration would take issue:

When I speak of baptism as a “means of grace,” I simply mean to affirm that, in this rite, it is not only the humans involved who are active (whether that be the baptized or the church) but that we can also expect God to act. (Terrance L. Tiessen, “The church in God’s program of salvation: A Baptist perspective,” in David G. Barker, Michael A.G. Haykin, and Barry H. Howson, eds. Ecclesia Semper Reformanda Est: A Festschrift on Ecclesiology in Honor of Stanley K. Fowler [Ontario: Joshua Press, 2016], 91-113, here, p. 107)





The Pre-Augustinian View of the Fate of Unbaptized Infants


In a publication addressing the fate of unbaptized infants from a conservative Roman Catholic, we read the following:

The Pre-Augustinian View

There weren’t many fathers in the Pre-Augustinian period who addressed the subject of unbaptized infants and their eternal destiny. Some speak about infants in relation to Adam’s sin and others speak of infant baptism, but no treatise was specifically written on the destiny of unbaptized infants. From what we do know, we can surmise Western fathers prior to Augustine generally believed unbaptized infants do not suffer in the hell of the damned. (Michael Lofton, Is My Baby in Hell? Hope for Parents of Unbaptized Infants [West Monroe, La.: Reason and Theology Publications, 2020], 17)

In the entry under "Limbo" in volume ix of the Catholic Encylopedia, Patrick J. Toner, in 1910, wrote the following about the pre-Augustinian understanding of the fate of unbaptized infants:

II. LIMBUS INFANTIUM

The New Testament contains no definite statement of a positive kind regarding the lot of those who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt. But, by insisting on the absolute necessity of being "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" (John 3:5) for entry into the kingdom of Heaven (see "Baptism," subtitle Necessity of Baptism), Christ clearly enough implies that men are born into this world in a state of sin, and St. Paul's teaching to the same effect is quite explicit (Rom. 5:12 sqq). On the other hand, it is clear form Scripture and Catholic tradition that the means of regeneration provided for this life do not remain available after death, so that those dying unregenerate are eternally excluded from the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision (John 9:4, Luke 12:40, 16:19 sqq, II Cor. 5:10; see also "Apocatastasis"). The question therefore arises as to what, in the absence of a clear positive revelation on the subject, we ought in conformity with Catholic principles to believe regarding the eternal lot of such persons. Now it may confidently be said that, as the result of centuries of speculation on the subject, we ought to believe that these souls enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness; and this is what Catholics usually mean when they speak of the limbus infantium, the "children's limbo."

The best way of justifying the above statement is to give a brief sketch of the history of Catholic opinion on the subject. We shall try to do so by selecting the particular and pertinent facts from the general history of Catholic speculation regarding the Fall and original sin, but it is only right to observe that a fairly full knowledge of this general history is required for a proper appreciation of these facts.

1. Pre-Augustinian Tradition

There is no evidence to prove that any Greek or Latin Father before St. Augustine ever taught that original sin of itself involved any severer penalty after death than exclusion from the beatific vision, and this, by the Greek Fathers at least, was always regarded as being strictly supernatural. Explicit references to the subject are rare, but for the Greek Fathers generally the statement of St. Gregory of Nazianzus may be taken as representative:

It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished. [Orat., xl, 23]

Thus, according to Gregory, for children dying without baptism, and excluded for want of the "seal" from the "honor" or gratuitous favor of seeing God face to face, an intermediate or neutral state is admissible, which, unlike that of the personally wicked, is free from positive punishment. And, for the West, Tertullian opposes infant baptism on the ground that infants are innocent, while St. Ambrose explains that original sin is rather an inclination to evil than guilt in the strict sense, and that it need occasion no fear at the day of judgement; and the Ambrosiater teaches that the "second death," which means condemnation to the hell of torment of the damned, is not incurred by Adam's sin, but by our own. This was undoubtedly the general tradition before St. Augustine's time.



James F. McGrath on The Mandaeans

The Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) vs. Reformed Theology


In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs believers in how to pray:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Matt 6:9-13 [see here for a discussion of the doxology of v. 13])

This is significant as it is a text that is nonsense in light of Reformed theology. How so? If the Lord's Prayer were reflective of Reformed theology, instead of asking for forgiveness of present or future sins, Jesus should have instructed his followers to pray "thank you or having forgiven all my sins," as, in Reformed theology, at the moment of one’s justification, even one’s then-future sins are forgiven (any sins committed after justification might result in “fatherly discipline” but will still have been forgiven). Indeed, as Bryan Cross pointed out:

Either

(1) The Lord's Prayer is not perfectly theologically accurate as a prayer for those who know the gospel, because it implies that their sins have not all been forgiven, when in fact their sins (past, present, and future) were all forgiven at the moment of their initial justification. Therefore the Lord's Prayer should either be improved or not prayed by those who know the gospel.

Or

(2) The Lord's Prayer is perfectly theologically accurate as a prayer to be prayed for those who know the gospel, because our sins (committed after our initial justification) are forgiven on a regular basis through our prayers and use of the means of grace, and so Christ's work on the cross is repeatedly applied to us throughout our lives for the forgiveness of our sins.

If Reformed Christians accept (2), then it seems to me that they are not so different from Catholics [RB: or Latter-day Saints] in that respect. (Taken from p. 54 of Robert Sungenis, Discussion with Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary and other Protestants on David’s Justification in Romans 4:5-8)

Such is borne out in v. 12, where the Christians' forgiving others is said to be like/as (ὡς  [BDAG: "gives the reason for an action as one who, because" in reference to Matt 6:12]) God forgiving the Christian; in other words, God will forgive a Christian (who, in the Reformed view, has been once-for-all forensically justified and has even his then-future sins forgiven [!]) upon the contingency of their forgiving those who have offended them. Such is nonsensical in light of Reformed soteriology, notwithstanding the mental and exegetical gymnastics apologists for this theology engage in. Furthermore, such is part-and-parcel of both Latter-day Saint soteriology (cf. D&C 74:7-14) and the rest of Jesus' teachings, such as the  Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matt 18:23-35). For a fuller discussion, see:


The Lord’s Prayer, as recorded in Matt 6:9-13 is just another of those “un-Protestant” biblical verses, such as 1 Cor 3:15 and even Paul’s use of David as a model of re-justification in Rom 4:5-8.

Further Reading





Sunday, March 29, 2020

Christopher Fisher on Acts 4:27-28


Commenting on Acts 4:27-28, a common “proof-text” for Reformed theology, Christopher Fisher wrote:

Act 4:27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together
Act 4:28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

What was “determined before to be done”? Did it require Pilate, Herod, the Gentiles (Romans), or the Jews? If one of those actors were missing, would God’s determined plans have failed? The text does not assume that the plan operated any differently than God’s plan to use the Assyrians. No fatalism necessary. We learn from Jesus that the crucifixion did not have to happen! That God used people to enact His plan is testimony to His power, not fatalism.
This is just another case of God using the motivations of people to make His plans come true.
If Pilate or Herod had repented, Ezekiel 18 states very clearly that God would repent of judgment against them:

Eze 18:21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
Eze 18:22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live.

If the Jews or the Gentiles repented, Jeremiah 18 makes it clear that God likewise would not do what He thought He was going to do to them. The message is very consistent throughout the Bible: people do not have to be evil. If they repent, then God repents. (APOLOGETICS THURSDAY – VERSES ON GOD ORDAINING FREE ACTS)

In his the crucifixion was not a fixed event, referenced above, we read the following:

Jesus, himself, believed the crucifixion was not a fixed event. Here is Jesus praying:

Mat 26:39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

And later:

Mat 26:42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”

Jesus did not want to die on the cross and petitioned God to change God’s plan. Jesus sought to find out if God was “willing” to change His plan. Jesus, in this text, both appears to not know exactly God’s overarching plan or if his own request would be granted.

Jesus was under the clear impression that there was a possibility that God would choose a different plan. Jesus was not stuck in a fixed event mindset. Jesus did not believe the crucifixion was predestined in the Calvinist sense of the word. This is even after Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection (Joh 2:19). It seems that Jesus wanted his own prophecy to fail.

We also learn from this that Jesus even believed that God would allow God’s own will to be superseded by Jesus’. This would not be unlike the several times that God chose Moses’ mercy over God’s own plans to destroy Israel. Sometimes although God has other plans, He will adopt the plans of those He loves. Jesus was ensuring that God did not do that in this particular case. God should only change His plans if that is what God wills. That is why he adds: “not as I will, but as You will.”

Jesus earlier stated specifically that he has the free will to chose death:

Joh 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
Joh 10:18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”

Elsewhere, Jesus again shows that the event was not fixed:

Mat 26:52 But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Mat 26:53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

In Matthew, Jesus is quick to point out that God has the power to deliver Jesus from crucifixion and alter the scriptural fulfillment. Jesus knew that all he had to do was ask for the slightest help and God would change His plans, save Jesus, and Jesus could live. Jesus, when making this statement to his disciples, is pointing out that he is willingly allowing the Roman authorities to capture him. The Roman authorities can only do so, because God did not stop them. Jesus emphasizes this point straight to the faces of the Romans:

Joh 19:10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
Joh 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Jesus, here, is stressing a few points. The Romans only have captured Jesus because God allowed them to do so (this is the same concept as when Jesus stated that he could call on twelve legions of angels). And, the deliverers have the greater sin. Jesus is pointing out culpability. The deliverers could have chosen to not deliver Jesus. The Romans were not particularly knowledgeable or intent on capturing Jesus themselves. The Sadducees orchestrated Roman involvement and Jesus’ arrest. The Sadducees then have the greater guilt. The Romans have the lesser guilt. God forced no person’s actions, they could have done otherwise, and everyone will be judged based on their level of involvement.

So, God allowed Jesus to be captured, tortured, and crucified. God could have saved Jesus, but did not. Does that make God evil? The answer is simple: Jesus chose his suicide mission voluntarily. If a military general asks for volunteers to lead an assault, the general may know they will all die. The general has a purpose (maybe taking a town) and may even have the power to spare those troops (pretend he can just level the city with a nuke). But sometimes there are objectives that would be lost with more forcible avenues (such as nuking a prized factory or bridge). The general can allow the troops to volunteer for the suicide mission (even having the power to stop it), but that does not make the general culpable for the deaths. The enemy is culpable. They are the ones with guns, choosing to fire, and not choosing to surrender. The general has even less culpability if those who chose the suicide mission could ask the general at any time to cancel the mission.

God was not going to force the crucifixion at all costs. We see that from Jesus. Instead, God had a plan. Plenty of evil people willingly played into God’s plan. And Jesus, on his own volition, chose to partake in this plan. The plan could have been modified or canceled by Jesus as any time. And God forced no human to take part. They were all to be judged based on their own levels of involvement.

For a thorough treatment of Psa 139:16, another common “proof-text,” see Fisher’s articles:




Athenagoras: "The One God" being one-to-one equivalent of the Person of the Father


Athenagoras (133-190) was a second century early Church Father. His A Plea for the Christians is an important text, being a strong witness against the veneration of images/icons and the apologetic that the veneration is given to the "heavenly prototype" they represent was rubbished by him (see Athenagoras vs. Second Nicea and Trent on the Veneration of Images and the Persons they Represent). Additionally, for Athenagoras, "the one God" was numerically identical to the singular person of the Father, not the Trinity (cf. A Triad of Early Christians Against the Trinity Being an Apostolic Belief). Commenting on his theology, Alvan Lamson wrote:

ATHENAGORAS

Athenagoras, a learned Athenian, also flourished during the latter part of the second century. That he was ever, as has been asserted, connected with the celebrated Catechetical School of Alexandria, is not probable. He was an Athenian by birth, but of his personal history nothing is known. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome mentions his name. He wrote an Apology for Christians in the time of Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus, and was also the author of a treatise on the Resurrection, both of which are preserved. He was equally careful, with the writers above quoted, to preserve the supremacy of the Father, and seems to have entertained similar views of the nature and rank of the Son.

“The Son of God,” he says, “is the Logos (Reason) of the Father in idea and operation.” “Through it all things were made.” “The Son of God is the understanding and reason of the Father.” “God from the beginning being eternal reason, and in himself the Logos (Reason), being always rational” (Legat., c. 10. See also c. 16). The attribute reason, or wisdom, was eternal, but not the Son as a personal being. Of him it could be said, “The Lord created me the beginning of his ways to his works.” Athenagoras, with the other Fathers, made a distinction. The supremacy of the Father, who was invisible, impassible, and who, himself “unbegotten and eternal,” created all things by his Logos, or Reason (it has been made a question, indeed, whether Athenagoras believed that the Divine Logos or Reason, became permanently hypostazied in the Son; or in speaking of the creation used the word in the older platonic sense as meaning the reason, power, or wisdom of God in action. He says in one place, “God is in himself all things,--light unapproachable, the perfect world, spirit, power, logos.” Justin Martyr, however, could have used the same language, and we think, some obscure expressions which look the other way notwithstanding, that Athenagoras agreed with him and with the early Fathers generally, in assigning separate personality, or self-subsistence to the Son as the begotten Logos, Reason, of the Father. See Martini, Versuch, etc., p. 55), who was not infringed.

The Holy Spirit Athenagoras describes as something flowing out from God, as rays flow from the sun, and are re-absorbed, that is, not a person, but an influence (Το ενεργουν τοις εκφωνουσι προφητικως αγιον πνευμα απορροιαν ειναι φαμεν του θεου, απορρεον και επαωοφερομενον ως ακτινα ηλιου.—Legat., c. 10; comp. c. 24). (Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries: Or, Notices of the Lives and Opinions of the Early Fathers, with Special reference to The Doctrine of the Trinity; Illustrating Its Late Origin and Gradual Formation [rev ed.; Boston: Horace B. Fuller, 1873], 100-1)

Here are chapters 10, 16, and 24 of his Plea that Lamson referenced:

Chapter X.--The Christians Worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being--I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say "His Logos"], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (νοῦς καὶ λόγος) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [λογικός]); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. "The Lord," it says, "made me, the beginning of His ways to His works." The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and appointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all. (A Plea for the Christians [ANF: 2:133-34])

Chapter XVI.--The Christians Do Not Worship the Universe.

Beautiful without doubt is the world, excelling, as well in its magnitude as in the arrangement of its parts, both those in the oblique circle and those about the north, and also in its spherical form. Yet it is not this, but its Artificer, that we must worship. For when any of your subjects come to you, they do not neglect to pay their homage to you, their rulers and lords, from whom they will obtain whatever they need, and address themselves to the magnificence of your palace; but, if they chance to come upon the royal residence, they bestow a passing glance of admiration on its beautiful structure: but it is to you yourselves that they show honour, as being "all in all." You sovereigns, indeed, rear and adorn your palaces for yourselves; but the world was not created because God needed it; for God is Himself everything to Himself,--light unapproachable, a perfect world, spirit, power, reason. If, therefore, the world is an instrument in tune, and moving in well-measured time, I adore the Being who gave its harmony, and strikes its notes, and sings the accordant strain, and not the instrument. For at the musical contests the adjudicators do not pass by the lute-players and crown the lutes. Whether, then, as Plato says, the world be a product of divine art, I admire its beauty, and adore the Artificer; or whether it be His essence and body, as the Peripatetics affirm, we do not neglect to adore God, who is the cause of the motion of the body, and descend "to the poor and weak elements," adoring in the impassible air (as they term it), passible matter; or, if any one apprehends the several parts of the world to be powers of God, we do not approach and do homage to the powers, but their Maker and Lord. I do not ask of matter what it has not to give, nor passing God by do I pay homage to the elements, which can do nothing more than what they were bidden; for, although they are beautiful to look upon, by reason of the art of their Framer, yet they still have the nature of matter. And to this view Plato also bears testimony; "for," says he, "that which is called heaven and earth has received many blessings from the Father, but yet partakes of body; hence it cannot possibly be free from change." If, therefore, while I admire the heavens and the elements in respect of their art, I do not worship them as gods, knowing that the law of dissolution is upon them, how can I call those objects gods of which I know the makers to be men? Attend, I beg, to a few words on this subject. (ANF 2:136)

Chapter XXIV.--Concerning the Angels and Giants.

What need is there, in speaking to you who have searched into every department of knowledge, to mention the poets, or to examine opinions of another kind? Let it suffice to say thus much. If the poets and philosophers did not acknowledge that there is one God, and concerning these gods were not of opinion, some that they are demons, others that they are matter, and others that they once were men,--there might be some show of reason for our being harassed as we are, since we employ language which makes a distinction between God and matter, and the natures of the two. For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence,--the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire; so also do we apprehend the existence of other powers, which exercise dominion about matter, and by means of it, and one in particular, which is hostile to God: not that anything is really opposed to God, like strife to friendship, according to Empedocles, and night to day, according to the appearing and disappearing of the stars (for even if anything had placed itself in opposition to God, it would have ceased to exist, its structure being destroyed by the power and might of God), but that to the good that is in God, which belongs of necessity to Him, and co-exists with Him, as colour with body, without which it has no existence (not as being part of it, but as an attendant property co-existing with it, united and blended, just as it is natural for fire to be yellow and the ether dark blue),--to the good that is in God, I say, the spirit which is about matter, who was created by God, just as the other angels were created by Him, and entrusted with the control of matter and the forms of matter, is opposed. For this is the office of the angels,--to exercise providence for God over the things created and ordered by Him; so that God may have the universal and general providence of the whole, while the particular parts are provided for by the angels appointed over them. Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power; and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them by you, and others faithless), so is it among the angels. Some, free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which He had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them: namely, this ruler of matter and its various forms, and others of those who were placed about this first firmament (you know that we say nothing without witnesses, but state the things which have been declared by the prophets); these fell into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh, and he became negligent and wicked in the management of the things entrusted to him. Of these lovers of virgins, therefore, were begotten those who are called giants. And if something has been said by the poets, too, about the giants, be not surprised at this: worldly wisdom and divine differ as much from each other as truth and plausibility: the one is of heaven and the other of earth; and indeed, according to the prince of matter,--

"We know we oft speak lies that look like truths." (ANF 2:141-42)

 Further Reading



The April 2020 New Era's Affirmation of the use of a Seer Stone in a Hat to Translate the Plates


In the April 2020 issue of the New Era (aimed at the youth of the church), there is a short article How did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon? In it, there is an affirmation of Joseph's use of a seer stone in a hat:

Another instrument Joseph used was a “seer stone” that he would look into, often by placing it in a hat. Joseph had found this stone earlier and had used it to find hidden or lost things. He used both the interpreters and the seer stone as he translated, always relying on the inspiration of heaven.

I am sure this will “trigger” people like Jonathan Neville and the Stoddards who dogmatically reject this historical fact.

Blog Archive