Anti-LDS Critic: "All" does not mean Always mean "All"

In 1 Corinthians 13:7, Christians are told to believe “all things.” What are “all things”? . . . Bible readers need to be careful when the word “all” is in the biblical text. “All” needs to be kept in the immediate context. Clearly, “all” should be restricted to the context of the passage and not be understood to encompass all spiritual things or all physical things. (Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon [Livermore, Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006], 54)

 

The Titles of God in Missionary Training Manual For Use in Jewish Proselyting Program

  

God (Jewish names for). The Jewish people believe in only one God; however, because of the sacredness they attach to the direct use of God’s name, many Hebrews substitute names have been developed. Most Jews believe that the original Hebrew name for God consists of the four basic Hebrew letters YHVH.

 

Although the vowel sounds used in the Hebrew language were traditional in everyday ancient speech, they were not part of the written alphabet. So even today, the Jews are not sure of the correct pronunciation of YHVH. In about 700 C.E., to preserve the language (especially with regard to the Holy Scriptures), a group of Jewish scribes, called Masorites, introduced a series of small dots, dashes, and other symbolic marks to be used over, under, and between the letters of words. These little marks did not become new letters in the alphabet, but represented the vowel sounds to be used in pronunciation. Because of its sacredness, the name YHVH anciently could be spoken only by the high priest in the Jerusalem Temple during very solemn religious services. Perhaps due to reverence of infrequent usage, the Masorites did not attempt to provide vowel sounds for YHVH.

 

In English, YHVH is pronounced “Yahweh,” or “Yahveh.” The pronunciation “Jehovah” first appeared in 1516 in Christian bibles. It is believed to be of German origin and was arrived at by arbitrarily taking the vowel sounds from “Adonai” and inserting them between the letters YHVH. The Jews believe this pronunciation to be incorrect. The King James translators usually interpreted YHVH as “Lord.”

 

The Jews do not associate YHVH with the name of the Messiah.

 

The Jews believe that many of the scriptural names used to designate God identify him by referring to his divine attributes rather than his actual person. Jewish tradition also indicates that using the plural form of these names for God magnifies his majesty. (They do not conceive of a Godhead or council of the Gods as do the Latter-day Saints.) Some of the attribute names Jews use when referring to God are as follows:

 

Adonai (ah-doe-noy): “My Lords,” refers to God’s greatness and power.

 

Adoshem (ah-do-shem) from “the Name”: The term “the Name” refers to the sacredness of God’s name.

 

Elohim (El-o-heem): “the Gods,” refers to God’s infinite justice and mercy.

 

YHVH. Some Jews believe that this extremely sacred word is not necessarily the literal name of God, but actually means “the essence of God’s Being,” which cannot be comprehended by ordinary man.

 

There are other terms the Jews use to refer to God. Some of the more common of these are:

 

Bore Olam (bor-oh-lahm) The Creator of the World

 

Kedosh Yisrael (Keh-dosh yis-rah-ale): Holy One of Israel

 

Ha-makom (hah-mah0kohm): The Omnipresent Place

 

En Sof (ayn-sohf): Infinite one

 

Due to the great reverence the Jewish people feel when referring to God, they will often write the word without using the middle letter: G-d. This spelling is somewhat symbolic of the word YHVH without the vowel sounds.

 

Before we consider it strange for people to have more than one way to refer to their God, we should remember the following various ways in which we practice a similar custom:

 

God

Elohim

God the Father

Our Eternal Heavenly Father

Our Heavenly Father

Our father who art in heaven

Father (Missionary Training Manual For Use in Jewish Proselyting Program [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1978, 1979], 21-22)

 

"Elohim" as Defined in Missionary Training Manual For Use in Jewish Proselyting Program

  

Elohim (el-o-heem) Hebrew: “gods.” The term, which is plural, is also used for Adonai and Jehovah. Latter-day Saints use the term as the exalted name-title of God the Father. (Missionary Training Manual For Use in Jewish Proselyting Program [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1978, 1979], 20)

 

The Importance of Studying, not Relying upon the Spirit, Merely, in Missionary Training Manual For Use in Jewish Proselyting Program

  

To all who will labor among Judah, this Missionary Training Manual is an essential part of the proselyting program for the Jewish people. It is not intended to be memorized, but is designed to help you understand to be memorized, but is designed to help you understand your Jewish neighbors and those things that shape their lives today. The information in this manual, together with prayer and the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord, will help you teach effectively without offense.

 

You should thoroughly familiarize yourself with this manual before you attempt to present your message to Jewish people. (Missionary Training Manual For Use in Jewish Proselyting Program [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1978, 1979], iii)

 

J. Patout Burns and Paula Fredriksen on Augustine's Novel Interpretation and Misreading of Romans 5:12

  

Because God’s justice prevented the damnation of anyone who was innocent of all sin, Augustine inferred a new interpretation of Romans 5:12: all his offspring had sinned in Adam; they came into the world bearing not only his mortality, ignorance, and concupiscence, but also the guilt and condemnation of that original sin. The perverted desires which derive from Adam, moreover, are themselves in violation of the foundational command to love God fully and would inevitably eventuate in choices which violate the love of neighbor. From this doctrine of original sin, Augustine concluded not only that humans need God’s forgiveness but that in their fallen state they have no power to avoid sin, to will and perform good actions which would justly merit a reward from God. Even the apparently virtuous actions of the pagans and schismatic Christians could not be just and good, because God did not acknowledge and reward them as such. Augustine added another argument against the claims of Pelagius and his adherents outside Africa, that grace facilitates the use of the natural power for moral good but does not confer that capacity upon humans. If anyone could be saved through a capacity for good which survived the fall of human nature, he observed, then the death of Christ—at least in that one case—would be in vain and unnecessary (nat. et gr. 2.2). Instead he insisted that because the church’s sacraments were necessary for salvation, the grace which they mediate was both essential and beyond the capacity of fallen nature. The North African episcopate promptly confirmed these teachings in regional councils and vigorously sustained them against all opposition and hesitation. (J. Patout Burns, "Grace," in Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999], 393-94)

 

In the contest with Pelagius, and eventually with Julian of Eclanum, Augustine came to privilege other Pauline texts. Most notoriously, he repeatedly invoked Romans 5:12, with the Western misreading of Paul’s eph’ ho as in quo, “in whom,” that is, in Adam, in support of his idea of the seminal transmission of original sin. But his ideas on the vitiated will and humanity’s radical dependence on grace well precede the Pelagian controversy, and by 411 were independent of any one verse in Paul. (Paula Fredriksen, “Paul,” in ibid., 624)

 

Carolyn Osiek on Baptismal Regeneration and Posthumous Salvation in Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9.16.1-4

 In the Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9.16.1-4, we read the following:

 

1 Explain to me a little further, sir, I said. What is it that you desire? he asked. Why, sir, I said, did these stones ascend out of the pit, and be applied to the building of the tower, after having borne these spirits?

2 They were obliged, he answered, to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God.

3 Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For," he continued, before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life.

4 The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God."

 

Commenting on the theology of water baptism and posthumous salvation contained in this passage Carolyn Osiek wrote that

 

The association of passing through water with entering the kingdom of God (v. 2) and receiving the seal (σφραγις) is unmistakably a reference to baptism, more explicit than the original allusion in Vis. 3.3.5. The language of death and life is similar to Pauline language, but is not exactly the same: here, death is the pre-baptismal state, not the dying process that is symbolically enacted in the course of baptism. This passage is so consciously talking about baptism that it introduces the image of going down into the water dead in order to come up alive (v. 4), even though there is no mention in the parable of stones descending into the water, only being taken out. The absolute necessity of baptism is implicit here, and these verses, without saying so, present a good argument in favor of baptism in the name of the dead, apparently already an act of piety in first-century Corinth. Here, though, it is actually deceased Christian preachers who accomplish this task. (Carolyn Osiek, The Shepherd of Hermas [Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999], 238)

 

Catholic apologist John Martignoni on the Essential/Nonessential Distinction of Doctrines made by many Protestants

  

. . . I have oftentimes heard people who belong to various Protestant denominations essentially admit that their church teacher error. Oh, they don’t say it directly, but what they do say is something along these lines: “I don’t necessarily believe my church gets everything right, but I know they get the essentials right.”

 

That’s just another way of saying, “My church teaches error, but it only teaches error in matters that are nonessential.” In other words, what these folks have done is found an excuse—a justification—that allows them to be comfortable in a church that they know is not infallible and is not authoritative and which they recognize could well be, and probably is, wrong in one or more of its doctrines and teachings.

 

You see, they divide the body of Christian doctrine into essential doctrines and nonessential doctrines. The essential doctrines are those that have to do directly with how one is saved. The nonessential doctrines are those that do not bear directly on one’s salvation.

 

There are, however, a few problems with this division of doctrine into essential and nonessential. The first question I ask someone who makes this kind of doctrinal distinction is this: Where in the Bible does it say anything about essential versus nonessential doctrines? I have yet to get an answer. Does the Bible anywhere say anything that might give us a clue as to whether there are essential versus nonessential doctrines? I think it does. Matthew 5:18, Jesus says, “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” And from verse 19, “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” Here we see Jesus concerned with every iota, every dot of the law, and He says that no one should relax even the least of the commandments. That seems to cast a bit of doubt on this whole essential and nonessential thing. . . . The second question I ask is: Who is it exactly that gets to decide what is an essential or a nonessential doctrine? Again, there is nothing in the Bible that talks about essential and nonessential doctrines. There is no table anywhere in the Bible that lists out the essential doctrines on one side of the page and the nonessential doctrines on the other side of the page. So, who is it exactly that is deciding what qualifies as essential and what doesn’t?

 

This is a very important question, because what if a doctrine is incorrectly classified? For example, is infant baptism an essential doctrine or a nonessential doctrine? Most Protestants I have come across would classify it as nonessential, because most Protestants I have encountered—whether they be Baptist, Evangelical, non-denominational, or otherwise—believe Baptism is merely a symbolic gesture. They do not believe one is born again or regenerated through Baptism. Most of them do not believe that Baptism is essential for salvation. Most of them do not, therefore, baptize their babies. No need to.

 

But there are Protestant faith traditions that believe, as do Catholics, that one is indeed born again through Baptism and that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Therefore, they baptize their babies so that those babies will be cleansed of Original sin and be born again into Christ.

 

O, is infant Baptism an essential or nonessential doctrine? Well, if the “Baptism is symbolic” folks are right, I guess it would be nonessential. But if the “Baptism is necessary for salvation” folks are right, then it is indeed essential. You wouldn’t want your baby to die without being baptized if Baptism is necessary for one to enter the Kingdom of God (John 3:3-5), would you? Essential or nonessential? Which is right? How do you know? . . . Another question I ask in this regard has to do with Matthew 4:4. After Jesus is baptized, He goes into the desert for forty days. There He is tempted by Satan. In one of His responses to Satan’s temptations, Christ says, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Man shall live by every one of God’s words. Now Protestants believe, as do Catholics, that every word of Scripture is one of God’s words. And it is from Scripture, and Scripture alone, that Protestant doctrines come, according to Protestants. So, my question is this: Given what Jesus says in Matthew 4:4, which of God’s words are essential and which are nonessential? Which part of the Bible is essential and which part is nonessential? . . . all of this essential doctrine versus nonessential doctrine nonsense is simply a way for folks to get around the fact that they are in a church or a denomination that has a body of beliefs that contain . . . man-made teachings that are contrary to the Word of God. (John Martignoni, Blue Collar Apologetics: How to Explain and Defend Catholic Teaching Using Common Sense, Simple Logic, and the Bible [Irondale, Ala.: EWTN Publishing, Inc., 2021], 62-65)

 

Look at the Parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30. In this parable, we see the master entrusting his servants with differing amounts of talents before going away on a journey. When the master returns, two of his servants have done very well with the little they were entrusted with. And what does their master say to them? “Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.”

 

But what happens to the servant who was entrusted with the smallest of these little matters? Well, he blew it. He did nothing with what he had been entrusted with. So, since his master couldn’t trust him with a little thing, it only makes sense that his master could indeed trust him with much larger things, right? I don’t think so. The servant who could not be trusted with a little was not then trusted with more but was instead cast out into the outer darkness.

 

So according to all those Protestants who divide doctrine up into essential versus nonessential, even though a church may not be able to be trusted in its nonessential doctrinal teachings, you can rest assured it can be trusted when it comes to its essential doctrinal teachings. Unfortunately for them, the third servant in the Parable of the Talents would beg to differ.  (Ibid., 65)