Donald W. Parry on the importance of the Old Testament

  

The Old Testament was the Savior’s Bible, the one He read and cited during mortality. The Old Testament was 9and still is) a magnificent, exceptional set of scriptural texts. It is singular and unparalleled. Why? Because it is:

 

·       “The first testament of Christ” (M. Russell Ballard, “The Miracle of the Holy Bible,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2007, 82).

·       A significant handbook on the Savior’s Atonement.

·       The foundational document designed to prepare the world for the Savior’s coming in the flesh, when He would die for us.

·       A record that contains hundred of symbols that reveal Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

·       A record that presents scores of prophecies of Jesus Christ and His divine mission.

 

In short, the Old Testament is a scriptural work that reveals the Lord as the Savior, Redeemer, and great Atoner. When Jesus Christ commanded, “Search the scriptures; . . . they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39), He was referring to the Old Testament. (Donald W. Parry, "The Atonement of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament," Liahona [April 2022])

 

Ulisses Soares on "Remembrance"

  

The word remember appears hundreds of times in the scriptures. In ancient Israel, remember was used in many instances to help the Lord’s people to remember what He had done for them in times past. It was even more commonly used in the context of covenants the Lord made with His people.

 

The children of Israel, like many today, had a difficult time remembering the Lord and His commandments, and because of their forgetfulness, they often suffered painful consequences. That is one of the reasons the Lord used the word remember. For example, the journey to Israel from Egypt began with a commandment to “remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the Lord brought you out of this place” (Exodus 13:3).

 

The English word remember comes from the Latin word memor and means “to be mindful of.” In this context, the word remember means to have in mind or to be able to bring to one’s mind an awareness of someone or something that one has been, known, or experienced in the past. There is a strong correlation between the motion felt and the resulting memory. In the Hebrew context, the word remember involves a knowledge that is accompanied by appropriate action. Thus, doing is an essential part of remembering.

 

The more we remember the Lord, the more power we will have to say on the correct path, doing what He expects of us. In this sense, when we partake of the sacrament, we witness unto God, the Eternal Father, that we will remember the Savior in our minds and in our hearts at all times and in all places. We promise that we will keep in our hearts vivid emotions and feelings of gratitude for His sacrifice, his love, and His gifts for us. We also promise that we will act upon these memories, feelings, and emotions. (Ulisses Soares, “Always Remember Him,” Liahona [April 2022])

 

Further Reading

 

""Remembrance" and the Eucharist: Does the use of αναμνησις (“remembrance”) mean that the Eucharist itself is a "memorial sacrifice"?," in “Do This in Memory of Me”: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of Roman Catholic Dogmatic Teachings Concerning the Eucharist and Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 55-70 (for those who want a PDF, drop me an email at ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom)

Jamin Hübner vs. Traditional Protestant Views on Plenary Inspiration and the Canon

Jamin Hübner is a former friend and student of James White, as well as a former contributor to Alpha and Omega Ministries’ blog. In 2020, he wrote a book, Deconstructing Evangelism. There are some arguments against inerrancy of the original autographs and Sola Scriptura.

 

With more study, bigger and bigger holes appeared in what was supposed to be a seamless fabric of unquestionable truths. I was taught and encouraged to teach students in “Intro to Bible” that the Apocrypha simply isn’t “in the Bible,” and that no “biblical author” ever cites it “on the same level.” But this, too, was just a defensive caricature. The biblical authors didn’t really have a sense of canon like we do—who did in fact, cite and/or reference from the Apocryphal works precisely on the same level as our “scripture” [35]. 2 Timothy 3:16 was supposed to amount to verbal plenary inspiration, but in actuality was an extremely mild statement, defining “God-breathed” as “useful,” etc. And in constructing all of our constructions about the Bible, why wouldn’t we “let the text speak for itself,” instead of forcing a 19^th-20^th century bibliology into two verses in the NT regarding the whole topic of inspiration? [36] Can we really determine what a book is before even reading it as a whole ? Presuppositional apologetics has its contributions against Modernism (e.g., exposing prejudices against religion). But this whole idea of being right in various opinions, just by definition, is no better than the JW that comes to my door and simply says “because God said so,” which we all know is functionally synonymous with “because I say so” [37]. In any case, the credibility of conservative biblicism continued to crumble in front of the most basic questions.

 

[35] In particular, see Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols (New York: T&T Clark, 2017), who was taken Roger Beckwith et al. to task on this for about a quarter century now. Similarly, see the extensive table on Paul’s quotations and use of apocrypha in Timothy Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013).

 

[36] And it did no good to “adopt Jesus’ own perspective on the Bible,” as that line too was wrought with countless problems, anachronisms, and readings of verses that were novel and/or incredulous.

 

[37] Sometimes during this period a JWitness came to my door not long after I had watched the film, The Island, and it left a profound impact on me. I realized, to be fair and to truly “know,” I had to genuinely believe and live like I could be that person, stuck in a self-referring world, a “cult,” or whatever, and not know it. It was an uncomfortable, higher level of skepticism that, while I wouldn’t obsess over (as many post-fundamentalists and post-Christians do), couldn’t ignore, either.

(Jamin Andreas Hübner, Deconstructing Evangelicalism: A Letter to a Friend and a Professor’s Guide to Escaping Fundamentalist Christianity [Rapids City, N.Dak.: Hills Publishing Group, 2020], 74-75)

 

In response to John Piper’s A Peculiar Glory, we read that Piper’s books contains

 

the more typical errors and misleading arguments characteristic of this shamelessly fundamentalist perspective, such as the idea that:

 

1. Christianity in general should see (and has always seen) the canon in terms of binary categories (inspired/non-inspired) when in fact the canon has always had a common core with blurred edges—including today throughout global Christianity.

 

2. There is a single autographic text, as if biblical authors sat down and wrote on version of a book that was then transmitted through the ages, when in fact this concept can apply neither to most biblical writings because of their developmental origination (e.g., Psalms, Proverbs, and others are compilations that underwent adaptation, revision, integration, expansion, etc. over time), nor to many NT writings (where authors often keep a copy for themselves, revised another for a particular congregation, sized with a copy down to fit a scroll, etc.), so that speaking of “the original Bible” makes as much sense as saying “the original internet” or “the original Wikipedia.”

 

3. 2 Timothy 3:16 teaches verbal plenary inspiration of the original autographs, when in fact (a) the text is extremely mild in its claims, defining “God-breathed” in terms of making one “wise for salvation” and equipping the person of God for “every good work”, and (b) “scripture” likely refers to the Septuagint (a translation) and not to the Hebrew text at all.

 

4. “Verbal plenary inspiration” is simply the default Protestant (even Christian) bibliology, when in fact there are entire Christian and evangelical denominations that do not hold this view, and Reformed theologians such as Herman Bavinck who intentionally distanced themselves from this rigid perspective (touted by his American friend B. B. Warfield) in favor of “organic inspiration” or “genetic-synthetic” bibliology.

 

5. The idea that Jude wasn’t quoting 1 Enoch (Jude 14-15) as “scripture” or “authoritatively,” when there’s no reason to believe (except preconceived bias) that he is doing anything different.

 

In addition to these and other elementary problems, there are the typical unanswered questions that readers are bound to have, such as:

 

1. If verbal inspiration and words—as opposed to the messages and meaning of the Bible—are so important, why do Jesus and the early church feel free to create their own unique readings that comprise a mixture of the LXX and Hebrew text? (E.g., Mark 7:6-7; Luke 4:17-18; John 1:23; Acts 15:16-18; Rom 2:24; 9:33; 10:20-21; 14:11; Heb 10:5-7, etc.)

 

2. If verbal plenary inspiration and words—as opposed to the message and meaning of the Bible—are so important, why it is continually repeated to being significant that textual variation doesn’t affect essential Christian doctrines? This is significant for Christians who don’t adhere to verbal plenary inspiration, not for those who do. (Piper seems unaware of the possibility that words/wording only matter to the extent that they affect meaning, as opposed to having independent divine value regardless of their functioning in sentences and semantics).

 

3. Why is it significant that the New Testament writers don’t quote from and allude to Apocryphal writings when (a) they actually do (E.g. Sir 4:1 in Mark 20:19 alongside Deut 5 and Ex 20; Sir 17:26 in 2 Tim 2:19-20 alongside Num 16; Wis 14:22-31 in Rom 1:24-32; Wis 2:23-24 in Rom 5:12-21; Ascension of Isaiah 11:34 or Elijah Apocalypse in 1 Cor 2:9; 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14; 1 Enoch in 2 Pet 2:4 and 3:6; Wis 7:25-26 in Heb 1:3) and (b) they won’t quote from many other canonical books as well (e.g., Judges, Ruth, Esther, Ezra, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Song of Solomon, Lamentations)? (Ibid., 146-48)

 

With respect to Bavinck, Hübner quotes the following on ibid., 147 n. 7:

 

[The Bible is] a living whole, not abstract but organic. It is not given to use simply to parrot its exact words and phrases but so that we, drawing from the entire organism of Scripture, as free and thoughtful children, think God’s thoughts after him . . . Taking the text of Scripture seriously as the Word of God does mean that we do not read it atomistically, as though each word or letter by itself has its own divine meaning. Words are included in thoughts and vowels in words . . . not every text or passage or book is equally close to the circle of faith’s center. Not all of the books of the Bible are of equal value.” Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. John Vriend, abridged (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 17, 106.

 

John Calvin: God "still occasionally raises [up prophets and apostles] when the necessity of the times requires"

  

4. Those who preside over the government of the Church, according to the institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first, Apostles; secondly, Prophets; thirdly, Evangelists; fourthly, Pastors; and, lastly, Teachers (Eph. 4:11). Of these, only the two last have an ordinary office in the Church. The Lord raised up the other three at the beginning of his kingdom, and still occasionally raises them up when the necessity of the times requires.  (Institutes, 4.3.4)

 

Gavin Ortlund (Protestant) on how to Rank Doctrines in Terms of Importance

  

There are all kinds of ways to distinguish doctrines. In this book I suggest four basic categories. We could explore subcategories as well, but this fourfold ranking should help as a starting point:

 

·       First-rank doctrines are essential to the gospel itself.

·       Second-rank doctrines are urgent for the health and practice of the church such that they frequently cause Christians to separate at the level of local church, denomination, and /or ministry.

·       Third-rank doctrines are important to Christian theology, but not enough to justify separation or division among Christians.

·       Fourth-rank doctrines are unimportant to our gospel witness and ministry collaboration.

 

In this book I consider the Trinity, for example, to be a first-rank doctrine, baptism a second-rank doctrines, and the millennium a third-rank doctrine . . . I suggest two overlapping but distinguishable reasons why we should fight for first-rank doctrines:

 

·       Some first-rank doctrines are worth fighting for because they mark a fault line between the gospel and a rival ideology, religion, or worldview (as with the virgin birth)

·       Some first-rank doctrines are worth fighting for because they constitute a material point of the gospel (as with justification).

 

More simply: some first-rank doctrines are needed to defend the gospel, and others to proclaim the gospel. Without them the gospel is either vulnerable or incomplete. . . .

 

Ranking Different Doctrines

 

How do we determine how to rank the importance of any particular doctrine? Erik Thoennes offers a helpful list of criteria:

 

1.     Biblical clarity

2.     Relevance to the character of God

3.     Relevance to the essence of the gospel

4.     Biblical frequency and significance (how often in Scripture it is taught, and what weight Scripture places upon it)

5.     Effects on other doctrines

6.     Consensus among Christians (past and present)

7.     Effect on personal and church life

8.     Current cultural pressure to deny a teaching of Scripture (Erik Thoennes, Life’s Biggest Questions: What the Bible Says about the Things That Matter Most [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011], 35-37)

 

A noticeable feature of Thoennes’s criteria is the recurring interest in the overall effect of a doctrine—on the doctrine of God (2), and on the gospel (3), and on other doctrines (5), on the life of the church and individual Christians (7), and so forth. This relates to an important theme of this book: that theological triage is not primarily an intellectual exercise but a practical one. Theological wisdom does not consider doctrines in the abstract, concerned mainly with technical correctness. Instead, it considers doctrines in their “real life” influence on actual people and situations and churches. . . . We must also remember that criteria such as those in Thoennes’s list function in a cumulative, general way. It is possible for a doctrine to be a first-rank doctrine without necessarily meeting all eight criteria. For instance, the virgin birth is referenced in only a few biblical passages (criterion 4), and yet it qualifies as a first-rank doctrine. (Gavin Ortlund, Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2020], 18-19, 75-77)

 

Orson F. Whitney's Involvement in a Miraculous Healing (April 1877)

  

It was April 8, 1877, when I left Columbia for Elyria, having received from President Grow the necessary permission. Arriving at my destination, I walked three miles into the country, to the farm where dwelt the Franks. They were not aware of my coming, but had been praying that an Elder of the Church might be led that way, several of their neighbors, with whom Sister Frink had conversed, having expressed a desire to hear more of the Gospel, and hear it with from the lips of a "Mormon" missionary. I was the only one in that part of the country.

 

No sooner had I arrived than Sister Frink, with characteristic zeal, proposed a meeting at her home, a meeting to which she would invite all the neighbors, that I might preach to them. Remembering my wretched failure at Strasburg, and fearing a possible repetition of that humiliating experience, I was anything but delighted with her suggestion. I fear, I was almost terrified. Never had I addressed an audience for more than five or ten minutes at a time, and then only in the way of "breaking ice" for the principal speaker or testifying to what he had told. How was I to fill up a whole evening, all by myself?

 

In my extreme anxiety I proposed sending for Brother Musser, who was then in Philadelphia. But this, of course, was impracticable, and Sister Frink soon shamed me out of the notion. Laughing heartily—almost heartlessly, I thought—she said: "You're a pretty missionary—sent out to preach, and afraid to open your mouth!" Again I was stung, and again benefited by the stinging. I resolved to trust in the Lord and do my little best.

 

The Lord did not forsake me. What I said that that meeting, which was duly held, I hardly know. I have a dim recollection of presenting the first principles of the Gospel, and testifying and blessings. I was wonderfully helped this time. My thoughts came like a flood, almost faster than I could utter them, and the Holy Spirit, which I had humbly invoked, gave me a freedom and a fluency as surprising to me as it was to my friends.

 

But the climax was not complete. On the other side of the country road passing the farm-house where I was staying, stood the residence of Truman Frink's brother, a bitter anti-"Mormon," who had been heard to say that if one of our Elders crossed his threshold he would kick him into the street. Being crippled with rheumatism, he might have found it difficult to do much kicking; but that he had all the will to carry out his threat, I did not doubt. His wife, Margaret Frink, was an excellent woman, childless by him, but by a former husband the mother of several daughters, all married. The eldest, a widow with one child, shared her mother's home.

 

Mrs. Frink had been confined to her room with an attack of neuralgia, which for many weeks had caused her intense pain. Her daughter had learned, through Sister Frink, that faith-healing was practiced by the Latter-day Saints, and had heard me testify that the miraculous "signs" promised by the Savior to "follow them that believe," were manifested now the same as in days of old. She, therefore invited me to come and bless her mother, that she might be healed. Sister "Angie" seconded the suggestion—if, indeed, she did not originate it—and again I was all but paralyzed at the prospect.

 

Eli Frank's ugly threat, of which I had been told, did not figure very much in my calculations. Rather was it the fear, that notwithstanding my recent success in speaking, there might be another "notable exception" in "the case of Elder Whitney," were he to have the temerity to attempt the working of a miracle. That the sick were healed by faith, I verily believed, but I had never seen it done. Would the necessary faith be present, doubting as I did my worthiness to be an instrument of Providence in such a case? That was the problem. The possible consequences of a failure, as imagination pictured them—the probability of being mobbed and driven from the neighborhood as an impostor, if the healing were attempted and not consummated, came vividly, fearsomely before me.

 

Never did I feel so helpless—or so humble. I besought the Lord with all my soul to stand by me in this critical hour, to perfect my faith, and use me, if He could consistently, as an instrument for showing forth his merciful power upon the afflicted one. I then consecrated, as best I could, some olive oil provided by Sister Frink, and went with her and her husband to Mrs. Frink's abode.

 

It was evening and the family were all at home. The daughter met us at the door, and ushered us into her mother's apartment, on the right of a hall-way leading through the house, with rooms on either side. We had heard, as we entered, men's gruff voices and loud laughter in a room to the left; and presently Eli Frink thrust his head through a rear doorway, glanced around suspiciously, and then retired without uttering a word.

 

Mrs. Frink, with her head bandaged, was sitting up, but still suffering much pain. Laying my hands upon her head, which I had previously anointed, I proceeded to bless her. Scarcely had I begun, when a power fell upon me that I had never felt before, nor gave I ever felt it since in the same degree. It was a warm glow in my thread and breast—not painful, but powerful, almost preventing utterance, and it rain like liquid flame to the very tips of my fingers. The effect was instant. "Thank God!" said the sufferer, "the pain has gone." Sister Angie almost shouted, "Glory to God!" As for me, I was so overcome by a sense of gratitude for this signal manifestation of divine favor, that I sank into a chair and burst into tears. The date of this incident was the 24th of April. (Orson F. Whitney, Through Memory's Halls: The Life Story of Orson F. Whitney As Told By Himself [Independence, Miss.: Zion's Printing and Publishing Company, 1930], 85-87)

 

Eastern Orthodox Priest's Report on Superstitious Practices Concerning Icons among the Peasantry (1853)

  

Village Priests’ Reports on Religious Practices of the Peasantry (1853)

 

“Peasant Rituals,” trans. Carol Apollonio Flath, in Russian Women, 1698-1917: Experience and Expression, an Anthology of Sources, ed. Robin Bisha, Jehanne Gheith, Christine Holden, and William Wagner (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002), 236-41. Used by permission of Indiana University Press. Some explanatory notes draw from notes in this edition.

 

Here a parish priest describes what he considers remnants of pagan practices in his parish—practices he dismisses as superstition.

 

When a village is threatened with an epidemic (for example, the recent cholera), several old maids—elderly, unmarried women known for their Christian way of life—will meet at night and walk together in a circle around the village, carrying an icon and lighted candles in their hands and singing religious songs. (Bryn Geffert and Theofanis G. Stavrou, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: The Essential Texts [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016], 325)

 

Further Reading

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons