Examination of "Christ Presbyterian Church Issues 95 Theses Against Mormonism"

Just today, I came across this document issued by Jason Wallace of Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City. The document can be read here on facebook [update: link is no longer working; click here for an alternative location]. The document is just a listing of the many common theological, scriptural, and historical issues LDS apologists have answered time and time again (would have been nice for Wallace to have interacted with LDS scholarship and apologetics which he knows is out there . . . )

Here are some brief comments on three of the theses. I have discussed these issues (e.g. the biblical basis for baptismal regeneration) elsewhere on this blog, and other issues Wallace raised (e.g. Num 23:19 and the “God is not a man” canard). Wallace’s comments will be in red. My responses will be in black.

37. You equate regeneration and the new birth with water baptism and ignore the need for a new heart and new life.

Actually, Latter-day Saints do emphasise the need for a new heart and life (see Alma 5 in the Book of Mormon). Wallace, and many within the Reformed Protestant community, are the ones in the unenviable position of having to hold to a view of baptism that is not only antithetical to the unanimous consent of the patristic authors (admitted by other Reformed apologists, such as William Webster on pp.95-96 of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History), but the explicit teaching of the biblical texts (e.g., Acts 2:38; 1 Pet 3:21; John 3:3-5; Tit 3:5). The mental gymnastics proponents of the “purely symbolic” view of baptism is one of many disproves of the Calvinist claim to believe in the perspicuity of Scripture.

38. You make salvation a matter of grace, only after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23) and ignore that even our best works are only “filthy rags.” (Isaiah 64:6)

This highlights the problem of the Protestant hermeneutic vis-à-vis justification. Isa 64:6 is not speaking of the “normative” condition of man and one’s works; instead, it is speaking of the works of a people who have fallen in idolatry when one reads the context of Isaiah! If one bothers to read the previous verse (talk about Scripture-wrenching! [emphasis added]):

Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth: for we have sinned: in those is continuance and we shall be saved.

Isa 64:5 speaks of people being able to do righteous works that is pleasing before God. Wallace is forced into pure deception in this “argument.”

One of the most potent examples of a person doing righteous deeds with is pleasing in the eyes of God can be seen in Num 25 and Phinehas and his reaction to seeing an Israelite take a Midianite woman into his text (probably to engage in idolatrous sexual activity):

And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses , and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand. And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel . . . And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy: Wherefore say, Behold, I have unto him my covenant of peace. And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God and made and atonement for the children of Israel. (Num 25:5-8, 10-14)

This rather potent pericope should be read in light of Psa 106:30-31, where the psalmist, recounting this event, says that God credited righteousness to Phinehas, making him only the second person in the entirety of the Old Testament that this is said of. The first was Abraham in Gen 15:6 on account of his faith, while this is said of Phinehas due to his meritorious good works, showing the synergy of faith and works in soteriology as understood by biblical authors.

On 2 Nephi 25:23, I would suggest reading James Stutz's cogent analysis of this text found here.

40. You ignore that we are not merely sick, but dead in our sins. The things of God are foolishness to us and cannot be understood. The gospel is not about God helping good people save themselves, but raising the spiritually dead to life and justifying the ungodly.

Wallace and other Reformed apologists only show their inabilities at biblical exegesis. The term “dead” in Eph 2 and parallel texts is a metaphor. Trying to forge a doctrine from metaphors is precarious at best; eisegesis at worse. The term “dead” in Eph 2:1-5 is to be understood as a metaphor signifying one is outside the salvation of God and under judgement; it does not mean the Reformed doctrine of “Total Depravity” (the “T” in TULIP). The prodigal son is also called “dead” in Luke 15:24, 32 but we know from the parable that the prodigal son willed that he would return to his father (again, showing the synergism of the biblical authors—here, the working together of the will of the prodigal and his father—see vv. 18-23; it also shows that the son had some "natural" ability, contrary to Total Depravity). However, if I were to attempt to “prove” a doctrinal point from a parable as Wallace et al. are forced to from a metaphor, one would be engaging in very questionable biblical interpretation.

That the biblical authors did not believe in “total depravity” can be seen in many places. One potent example is the case of Cornelius, a Roman Centurion and “God-fearer” (a Gentile who associated with the synagogue). Listen to the descriptions of him before his conversion and entrance into the New Covenant:

A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave alms to the people and prayed to God always. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was fraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. (Acts 10:2-4)

In the above pericope, Cornelius’ devotion, alms, and prayers were received by God, not as dirty rags (or “menstrual garments” per the underlying Hebrew of Isa 64:6), but as a “memorial.” The Greek term used is μνημόσυνον. This is a technical term in the LXX, often used in the sense of a memorial sacrifice or a placard used to perpetuate memory of a person or an event (in the Torah alone, see Exo 3:15; 12:14; 13:9; 17;14; 28:12, 29; 30:16; Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:8; 23:24; Num 5:26; 17:5; 31:54; Deut 32:26). If any group can hold claim to being “biblical Christianity,” at least on this particular issue, it is the LDS Church, not the Reformed/Presbyterian theology expounded by Jason Wallace et al.

David Bercot, "What the Early Christians Believed About Baptism"

So overwhelming is the evidence for baptismal regeneration in the patristic literature that even critics of the doctrine are forced to admit it has the unanimous consent of all the patristic authors who commented on the issue. William Webster, a Reformed Protestant apologist, admits to such in his book, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Banner of Truth, 1995), 95-96.

In this lecture, David Bercot presents just some of the evidences for this doctrine in the Ante Nicene writings (those pre-dating 325 AD).

The biblical understanding of "heart"

Oftentimes, one will hear opponents of LDS theology (usually when discussing the concept of the "Mormon Testimony") that the “heart” is always used negatively in the Bible based on texts such as Jer 17:9:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

The Hebrew word for “heart” is לֵבָב. The Greek term is καρδια. As any good Greek and/or Hebrew Lexicon will show, the term often denotes, not the organ, but the entirety of the person, and if often used positively in the biblical texts. Note, for example, these verses:

And Moses called Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whose heart the Lord had put wisdom, even every one whose heart stirred him up to come unto the word to do it . . . And every wise hearted man among them that wrought the work of the tabernacle . . . (Exo 36:2, 8)

New Testament examples would include:

And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:32)

Now when they heared this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? (Acts 2:37)

For a good LDS discussion of this, see Jeff Lindsay’s page on the LDS “testimony.”

The following definition of לֵבָב comes from Holladay's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament:

לֵבָב

לֵבָב: « לֵב: cs. לְבַב, sf. לְבָֽבְךָ, לְבָבֶֽךָ, לְבַבְכֶם, ) לְבָבֵנוּ4 ×(; pl. ) לִבְבֵהֶןsf.( & לְבָבוֹת: heart; semantically like « l¢b; sg. also use for many Ex 14₅; spec.: chest Ne 2₈; h¹yâ ±im l®b¹bî am quite determined 1C 22₇; yihyeh-llî ±­lêkem l¢b l®yaµad am ready for an alliance with you 1C 12₁₈; in genl. the idioms follow l¢b.

Does Psalm 51:5 teach Original Sin?

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psa 51:5)

Psa 51:5 is perhaps the second most common “proof-text,” just behind Rom 5:12 in terms of popularity, of proving a theology of Original Sin (there are many theologies of the nature of Original Sin). Michael Saia offers some cogent and interesting approaches to this verse:

There are good reasons not to interpret this verse as teaching that people are born with an inherited sinful nature.

First, the actual words of the verse do not teach such a doctrine. If we take the words in their proper chronological order, David said, “My Mother conceived and brought me forth in sin.” The words themselves tell us something about the conception and birth of David, but nothing about David’s essential nature as a person. This verse teaches that the circumstances surrounding David’s birth were sinful, but not that David was sinful by nature.

Second, this is more of a reference to David’s mother than to David. In his anguish, David related his act of adultery with Bathsheba to his own conception and birth, which were apparently the result of adultery on his mother’s part (and his father’s too, though David does not mention him here. There are a couple of reasons this might be so:

(A) Jesse did not present David as one of his sons when Samuel first asked Jesse to bring his sons before him (1 Sam 16:1-11). Jesse evidently had some reasons to keep Samuel from meeting David. Perhaps he was ashamed of David’s origins.

(B) David is everywhere spoken of as the “son of Jesse,” but his sister, Abigail (1 Chron 2:13-16) was the daughter of a man named Nahash (2 Sam 17:25). Abigail is also called the sister of the other sons of Jesse, whom we assume were the children of Jesse and his wife. It appears as if sexual immorality was a part of David’s family background and David’s mother was probably not the mother of the other sons of Jesse.

All these family relationships become very complex, but the main point that should not be lost here, is that David’s mother was in sin when she conceived and bore David. David is speaking of his mother’s actions—not his own nature.

(C) David’s brothers seemed embarrassed by David when he came to the battle with the Philistines. This could be an indication that David was a half brother rather than a full brother.

In any case, David’s comments about his mother are related to his own sexual sin in order to emphasise his guilt. Davis is only saying he has followed the example of his mother in his sin, but that his mother’s actions made him a sinner from birth, or that he was a sinner just because he was born.

Third, the emotional nature of David’s repentance makes it necessary not to press too literal an interpretation of his words. If we were to do that, then David would be teaching all sin against other people is only committed against God and not against the people. David said, “Against Thee, Thee only, I have sinned.” But are we to take this to mean that David did not sin against his wives, against whom he committed adultery, against Bathsheba, with whom he committed adultery, or against Uriah, against whom he committed adultery and murder? David’s outburst that he was “conceived and born in sin” was an emotional hyperbole similar to his claim that he had only sinned against God. (Michael R. Saia, Understanding the Cross [Xulon Press, 2007], 91-92, emphasis in original)

Note on the background on Ephesians

A.T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet (SNTSMS 43, Cambridge, 1981), 135-36, describes Ephesians as a “liturgical homily” intended to be read at worship services on the occasion of the baptism of new converts and functioning simultaneously to remind other believers of the meaning of their baptism. Gnilka (Der Epheserbrief [1971]), 33, describes Ephesians as a “liturgical homily,” but does not see it as written to “neophytes.” Rather, he views it as directed to baptised believers who were instructed on the theme of the church and their relationship to it by a sermon designed to remind them of the significance of their baptism.

Clinton E. Arnold, Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1997), 207 n. 33.

I think this should be kept in mind when it comes to pericopes such as Eph 2:8-10 (cf. my post on Titus 3 and baptismal regeneration which shows that baptism is not a “work” of man, but an act of God that uses instrumentality).

Insights from Clinton E. Arnold's "The Colossian Syncretism"

Today, I read a very interesting book by Clinton E. Arnold entitled The Colossian Syncretism (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1995). For those interested in knowing the background to the heresy that the author of Colossians is responding to, this would be the book I would recommend.

There were a few comments in the book that would appeal to an LDS audience (outside the discussions of the Christology of Col 1:15ff and other things), so the next couple paragraphs will be from that book:

On the Difficulties of differentiating “religion” from “magic”:

Defining Magic A generation ago, “magic” was defined in rather objective terms, viz. A technique for manipulating supernatural beings with guaranteeing the results one intends. The term “magic” sometimes also functioned as a value judgement when it was set against “religion” as a base of perverse way of approaching a deity. Thus Martin Nilsson could refer to magic as “the decay of the old religion” or as an inferior way of believing. Similarly, Sam Eitrem, a Norwegian scholar who published a number of magical texts, went so far as to refer to the magical papyri as “interesting relics of degenerate religions and of the human mind gone astray.” In more recent times, assisted by the disciplines of anthropology and sociology, many interpreters have become wary of seeing “magic” as an objective category that describes a set of beliefs and practices. They are pointing rather to the sociological function of the labels “magic,” “sorcery,” “witchcraft,” and similar terms. They suggest that “magic” is a negative value judgement placed by one person (or group) upon another “Magic” therefore becomes a vehicle of accusation, for indicting the beliefs and practices of others as less than honourable or even illegal. In the process of emphasising the sociological function of the term, many scholars have evacuated it any of any objective meaning at all. In an important article titled, “Magic in Early Christianity” David Aune has provided a more balance approach to the issue. He provides a definition of magic that is appropriately sensitive to the sociological function of the term, but also recognises that there is some objective content to the concept of magic. His two-fold definition is as follows:

(1) Magic is defined as that form of religious deviance whereby individual or social goals are sought by means alternate to those normally sanctioned by the dominant religious institution.

(2) Goals sought within the context of religious deviance are magical when attained through the management of supernatural powers in such a way that results are virtually guaranteed. (pp. 11-12)

The Extent of the Atonement in Col 1:22:

[The] reference to αποκαταλλασσω in Col 1:22 has much in common with the earlier Pauline understanding of reconciliation, which be brings to expression with the terms καταλλασσω (Rom 5:10; 1 Cor 7:11; 2 Cor 5:18, 20) and καταλλαγη (2 Cor 5:18, 19; Rom 11;15). Humanity is presented as at enmity with God, and he effects a reconciliation through the death of Christ, which restores the relationship. Rom 5:1-11 also links the term peace with reconciliation (see Rom 5:1 and 10a).
 What stand out as unique developments in Paul’s concept of reconciliation is the use of the prefixed verb αποκαταλλασσω and the universal extent of the reconciliation. The verb occurs only in Colossians and Ephesians (Col 1:20, 22; Eph 2:16) in the entire NT. In fact, this is the first time this prefixed form appears in all of Greek literature. Therefore, it is most likely that the author of the hymn has taken over the Pauline καταλλασσω and intensified it by the addition of απο, thus making it an emphatic use of the simple form. This emphatic form would be consistent, then, with the expanded scope of reconciliation and consequent condition of universal peace. (P. 266)

The “Fullness of Deity” that dwells in Christ dwells in Believers, too (Theosis)

Participating in Christ’s Fullness Christ has not only delivered his people from the domain of darkness, but he has brought them into his kingdom and bestowed on them his salvation . . . What Paul says about Christ [in Col 2:9] he immediately applies to the church by declaring, “in him you are filled” (εστς εν αυτω πεπληρωμενοι). The “in him” (εν αυτω) marks a major motif of the entire theological section of 2:9-15. Paul is hereby attempting to help these believers understand the full significance of being in Christ, especially as it relates to their concern about supernatural powers and their temptation to follow the solution offered by “the philosophy.” His solution is for them to gain a fuller- appreciation for their resources in Christ and to grasp hold of their leader and supplier (2:19) and to concentrate on the things above where Christ is at the right hand of God (3:1).
 The fullness of God—his power and his grace—are bestowed on believers by virtue of their incorporation into Christ. As Lightfoot has said, God’s πληρωμα is “transfused” into them. The perfect periphrastic construction (εστε . . .πεπληρωμενοι) emphasises their share in the divine fullness as part of their present experience. (pp. 293-95)

Are Melchizedek and Jesus the same person?

Within some (mainly Protestant) circles, there is the theory that the figure of Melchizedek in Gen 14:18 is none other than the premortal Jesus; in other words, Melchizedek represents an Old Testament “Christophany.”

Latter-day Saints sometimes encounter this applied to the figure of Melchizedek in Gen 14:18 to answer the counter-charge to LDS claims of the nature of the priesthood, that is, “if Jesus is the only holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, what about Melchizedek himself?” Some anti-Mormons who have advocated this view to respond to LDS claims would include Marian Bodine, Ron Rhodes, and James R. White.

However, as with so many arguments one finds from the above critics, when one investigates such claims, one discovers that it is based on eisegesis of the reason why Melchizedek is discussed with reference to Christ.

Interestingly, one of, if not the earliest, individuals to make this association was Ambrose of Milan (fans of The Simpsons [back when it was good] will know him as the one who converted Augustine of Hippo). However, the underlying theological reasons why Ambrose made this association would be anathema to White et al! Why? Ambrose, as all commentators on his theology of the Eucharist would agree, held that the Eucharist was a sacrifice and that Christ was substantially present in the sacrifice. The association of Jesus with the Melchizedek was tied into the sacrifice of the New Covenant (the “Mass” in Catholic circles) being prefigured by the sacrifice of Melchizedek whom offered bread and wine in Gen 14:18 (cf. Exposition of the Christian Faith Book 3 chapter XI).

Latter-day Saints have never claimed that Melchizedek and Jesus are one and the same person, and for good reason—there is not Scriptural justification for this identification. Within uniquely LDS scriptural texts, the person of Melchizedek and Jesus are differentiated from one another (Alma 13 and D&C 107 are pretty explicit in this). Furthermore, the epistle to the Hebrews itself differentiates between Melchizedek and Jesus wherein an identification of persons would violate the law of the Identity of Indiscernibles (e.g. Heb 7:3, 15). As the following quote from Jesuit scholar, Albert Vanhoye in his (excellent) commentary on Hebrews states correctly, the association of Melchizedek and Jesus in Hebrews is not an identification of persons, but one of prefiguration:

[The figure of Melchizedek in Psa 110] corresponds . . .to an image of the Son of God, for the Son of God has “neither beginning of days, nor end of life,” and only the Son of God could become “priest for ever.” With all these traits, the biblical image of Melchisedek constitutes a prefiguration of the glorified Christ, one of God and priest for ever. Only a prefiguration, because Melchisedek was not really Son of God, nor priest for ever; he was only “made like the Son of God” by the way he is represented in the text of Genesis, and not in reality. Likewise, his priesthood is not truly eternal but has only, in the text of Genesis, an appearance which has something of eternity about it. To express this important nuance, the author avoids using, concerning Melchisedek, the expression of the psalm, “for ever,” but uses an expression with a weaker sense, which can be translated as “continually” or “in perpetuity.” Of whom exactly, is Melchisedek a prefiguration? He is not a prefiguration of the Son of God before the incarnation, for the latter is not “without father,” he has God as father, and he is not a priest, for he lacks the fraternal link with mankind. Nor is Melchisedek a prefiguration of the incarnate Son of God and living his earthly life, because then he is not “without mother.,” he is the son of Mary; he is not “without genealogy,” being of the tribe of Juda. And he has not yet been proclaimed priest by God. Melchisedek is the prefiguration of the risen Christ, for the resurrection is a new creation, in which neither human father, nor human mother, nor genealogy have any part. The human nature of the risen Christ is the “the greater and more prefect tent, not made by hand of man, that is to say not of this creation” (Heb 9:11) by means of which Christ entered into intimacy with God and ran into God’s eternity. In the resurrection, the human nature of Jesus received the fullness of filial glory but that glory does not break the links of Christ with mankind, for it is through the complete fraternal solidarity with them that it was obtained (see Heb 2:9-18). It follows that the glorified Christ, Son of God and brother of mankind, is “priest for ever.” That is what the author sees prefigured in the biblical image of the perpetual priesthood of Melchisedek.

Albert Vanhoye, A Different Priest: The Epistle to the Hebrews (Miami: Convivium Press, 2011), 209-10.