Jesus' Knowledge, Trinitarianism, and Christological Heresies

There are so many “problem texts” for Trinitarian Christology that result in apologists for the doctrine having to engage in their own Christological heresies which run directly counter to defined orthodoxy. One such example would be Jesus’ own ignorance of the parousia in Matt 24:36 (cf. Mark 13:32). Trinitarian apologists, holding to the hypostatic union, which states that, even during mortality, Jesus was omnipotent, have to argue that Jesus was ignorant of the time of his final coming with respect to his humanity but knew the date of his parousia with respect to his divine nature. Apart from the fact the texts add no such qualification, ultimately, they have to “split” Jesus into two persons, a Christological heresy called Nestorianism.

On the issue of Jesus’ knowledge and his incarnation, the following offers a rather insightful look at how much Trinitarian formulations of Christology fall into Christological heresies such as docetism, a denial of the humanity of the Christ:

Most contemporary defenders of Chalcedon recognize to defend the omniscience of Jesus’ human mind is undesirable.

There are obvious difficulties in supposing that, in the plain and obvious sense of the words, the human mind of the Babe of Bethlehem was thinking, as he lay in the manger, of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, the theorems of hydrodynamics, the novels of Jane Austen and the Battle of Hastings. (E.L. Mascall, Christ, the Christian and the Church, p. 53)

But alongside the human ignorance they assert the simultaneous divine omniscience. Both of these are, on the Chalcedonian model, attributed to the historical Jesus Christ. It does not make sense to speak of the same one person being simultaneously ignorant and omniscient. This is not a biblical paradox but a docetic undermining of the biblical teaching on the true humanity of Christ . . . Christ’s ignorance presents a problem to those who start by thinking of the eternal Son as omniscient God. How could this divine person lose his omniscience? But if we start with the incarnate Son we see that his special knowledge arises out of his relation of dependence on the Father. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that in the eternal relationship between Father and Son the Son’s knowledge is derived from the Father. The same relationship would continue in the incarnation, but with a different outworking adjusted to the conditions of Christ’s manhood.

Source: A.N.S. Lane, “Christology Beyond Chalcedon,” in Christ the Lord: Studies presented to Donald Guthrie, ed. Harold H. Rowdon (Leicester: Inter-varsity Press, 1982),  pp. 272, 276.

Proverbs 28:14 vs. “No-Lordship” Theology

So much of what labels itself as modern Evangelicalism these days is so utterly removed, not just from the biblical texts, but even the theologies and practices of the “magisterial reformers” and their followers (Luther; Calvin; Zwingli; Beza; Turretin; etc) that is another glaring proof of how novel their central beliefs are. One such topic is the soteriology of many that preaches a “cheap grace” called “No-Lordship Salvation,” wherein one can give mere intellectual assent to Christ, but such “faith” is void of repentance, good works, and other “fruits” of true salvation, to borrow, somewhat, the jargon of those who hold to the more biblical Lordship salvation concept.

There are many texts in Scripture that refutes such a heretical concept of soteriology, but one such text is Prov 28:14, which teaches that repentance and confession of sins, not as mere “options” for a believer, but actions that are absolutely essential; I will quote the NIV, a popular Evangelical translation:

Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.

The text shows that one finding “mercy” (the Hebrew can also be translated as “compassion”) from God is contingent upon their repentance and confession of sins. This, and a host of other texts from both the Old and New Testament (e.g., see here), blows so much of the heretical modern theologies out of the water.

Reviews of "The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon"

Living Hope Ministires (now “Sourceflix”) produced a poorly-researched “documentary” entitled “The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon” (at least they are consistent about the quality of their research; got to give them that . . . [cf. their inane "The Bible vs. Joseph Smith").

There has been a couple scholarly LDS responses to this “documentary,” including reviews by Brant Gardner (an anthropologist specialising in Mesoamerica) and Dr. David Bokovoy (expert in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible). The reviews can be found online here:

Brant Gardner, "Behind the Mask, Behind the Curtain: Uncovering the Illusion."

David E Bokovoy, “The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon: Still Losing the Battle.”

FAIRLDS (now FairMormon) produced a DVD responding to the “documentary,” too, featuring leading LDS scholars (e.g., Daniel Peterson; John Tvedtnes; John Sorenson). An online version can be found here:

Recent Debate with a Fundamentalist

I recently engaged a Fundamentalist Protestant, Desmond Smyth, who is associated with a minitry, "Jeremiah Cry"; on a friend’s facebook page. For those who live in Dublin, he is the fellow one often finds engaging in “street preaching” in O’Connor Street (one example of his preaching on youtube).

With permission of my friend, I am reproducing the exchange in a .htm format; for those who wish to read it en toto, click on this link. It does show the exegetical and intellectual bankruptcy of the more Fundamentalist flavour of Protestantism and the anti-Mormonism it produces (cf. the works of Ed Decker; the late Dave Hunt and others).

Hebrews 1:1-2--does it preclude modern revelation?

Heb 1:1-2 reads:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days, spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the worlds [Greek: the ages]

It is not uncommon to have this passage cited against there being modern revelation and additional scriptures being revealed after the cessation of the Bible (although the obvious fact that Hebrews, probably written in the mid AD 60s, was not the last book of the New Testament to have been written and the implications of this fact are usually glossed over; odd that . . .)

A couple of years ago on an LDS discussion forum, I offered the following interpretation of the text against such a charge, which I think still holds up today:

The problem is that, by taking the absolutist view that many critics (e.g., Kurt Van Gorden in his booklet, Mormonism) is that it would preclude the letters of Paul, the Catholic epistles, the Revelation of St. John, etc., being divinely inspired Scripture, because for it to be "God-breathed" revelation, God would have to inspire the authors of such texts. Indeed, it would mean that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not inspired when he wrote it, as it would preclude post-ascension revelation!

In reality, all that these verses state is that God spoke in the past through the prophets and during the time of Christ, through His Son, Jesus Christ. It does not touch upon the question of post-ascension revelation, apostles, and prophets, so in reality, critics who bring up this passage against LDS teachings are, essentially, begging the question.

How many Protestant Denominations are there?

Many critics of sola scriptura, such as Latter-day Saint and Roman Catholic apologists, often claim that there are 28,000 denominations, though that figure differs on occasion (for instance, I recently heard a Latter-day Saint throw out the [false] claim that there are 43,000[!] denominations).

To be sure, there are many problems, especially exegetical, with sola scriptura, the formal doctrine of the Reformation (search for “sola scriptura” to see many of the key proof-texts refuted). However, this line of argument should be abandoned by critics of this false and rather pernicious doctrine, as it is just wrong.

Protestant apologist, Eric D. Svendsen, wrote a book entitled, Upon this Slippery Rock (2003), and one of the chapters contained therein examines this claim, as presented by Tim Staples (Catholic) and others who employ this lousy apologetic--the chapter can be found online via archive.org here.

I hope that Latter-day Saints, wishing to uphold intellectual integrity, will retire this argument, or, at the very least, modify the argument and use the proper figure of Protestant denominations, too--in reality, the issue of denominationalism is due to poor ecclesiology, not epistemology per se, within the broad spectrum of Protestantism.

Geology of the Book of Mormon

One recent book on the Book of Mormon is that of Jerry D. Grover, Geology of the Book of Mormon (2015). It serves as a pretty solid contribution to a study of the text in its ancient Mesoamerican context, and is a good supplement to works such as John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book.