Baptism, the Reformed Tradition, and Theological Inconsistency

It is not unusual for those who oppose baptismal regeneration to often slip into language and concepts that are utterly inconsistent with their purely symbolic understanding of baptism; John Calvin and other figures who opposed the doctrine displayed such an inconsistency, as do many modern Reformed authors. Notice the following, which is classical “speaking from both sides of one’s (theological) mouth":

The benefits communicated to us in baptism, as [the Belgic and Heidelberg catechisms] describe them, come to us only because of Christ, but they do not come from a Christ “who remains outside of us,” as Calvin argued. Both the new status and the new birth signified and sealed in baptism belong to the Reformed emphasis on the “double grace” of justification and sanctification enjoyed in union with Christ . . . At the same time, the Reformed tradition has emphasised the clear role that baptism plays as a sacrament of initiation into the Abrahamic covenant of grace under its new covenant administration (the church, inclusive of Gentiles as well as Jews). In baptism the many are incorporated into one body (Eph 4:4) and begin to participate in the life of the age to come as those who have put on the resurrected and glorified Jesus and are being conformed to the same image (Rom 4:11; 1 Cor 12:12-13). Entrance into new life in Christ the head of his body is entrance into the life of the members that receive life from and in their head (Eph 1:22-23; 2:21; Col 1:18). Though experiencing baptism does not of itself save--and though the Spirit’s effective working through the sacrament is not limited to the time of its administration (so Westminster Confession of Faith 28.6)--Christian baptism if never something merely nominal nor is it legitimately administered beyond the manifest realm of Christ’s saving work and kingly rule.

Brannon Ellis, “Union with Christ as the Covenant of Grace,” in Sanctification: Explorations in Theology and Practice, ed. Kelly M. Kapic (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2014), 79-102, here, pp. 84. 85; comment in square bracket my own.

William Hamblin on the "chariots" in Ezekiel 1

As an aside, a very good book on Ezekiel that I recently read, and highly recommend, is Ezekiel in Context: Ezekiel's Message Understood in its Historical Setting of Covenant Curses and Ancient Near Eastern Mythological Motifs by Brian Neil Peterson (Wipf and Stock, 2012).

How I became a Latter-day Saint

A friend asked about my "conversion story" on facebook yesterday; in the hopes it may inspire others to study the Restored Gospel, here I reproduce my message to her:

Well, here is a short version of my “conversion story”; hope it won’t bore you to tears . . . 8-)

I was born and raised in Ireland in a Irish Catholic family, which basically meant, theology-wise, I knew nothing about everything, as I like to joke these days. I would rarely, if ever, have a theological thought, and even if I did, it would be superficial (I remember, as a six-year old, wondering why God hated Satan if God loved everyone).

When I was 14, my best friend in secondary school, Khalid, was a gung-ho Muslim--he was born in Sudan and, prior to moving to Ireland, lived in Saudi Arabia for 8 years, and performed the Haj six times. In about late-2001, he started to discuss Islam and the differences between Christian and Islamic Christology (as you probably know, they don’t believe Jesus was the divine Son of God; pre-existed his conception; died for our sins, etc). Looking back, his arguments against things like the historicity of the crucifixion accounts in the Gospels or the textual reliability of the Bible or evidences for the Qur’an were utterly unimpressive, but being clueless, I had no good response.

Not having enjoyed my theological ignorance being shown (with great perspicuity, I will add), I decided to roll up my sleeves and take religion seriously. It was around this time that my family entered joined the modern world and got the Internet, so I decided to research various faiths and groups, as well as read anything and everything I could get my hands on. Out of sheer curiosity, I decided to see what “Mormons” believed in (I grew up with the [false] idea that Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses believed the same thing--boy, was I wrong about that!). While I thought the idea of angels coming to bring gold plates and restore priesthoods were utter nonsense (I kid you not, I audibly laughed when I read such things on mormon.org), I did find the idea of an apostasy and a need for a restoration of Christ’s gospel to be correct, as well as various elements of LDS theology (e.g., rejection of the traditional Augustinian/Calvinistic understandings of original sin; the nature of God, especially the person of Christ and the issue of “how many” God is [cf. the Trinity and related issues]; the difficult question of those who never heard about Jesus Christ in their lifetime, etc]). I also found the Book of Mormon to be interesting, so I decided to study “Mormonism” in more depth. I even purchased a 1920 printing of the Book of Mormon for €10 from a classmate who owned a copy.

To put a long story short, after studying the Church, especially its theology and Scriptures for about 18 months, I told the Lord in prayer that I wanted to know if the Book of Mormon was true and if Joseph Smith were a prophet of God--if so, I would dedicate my life to studying and defending the Church, as well as to become a member of the Church; if not, I would do all I could to dissuade others from joining. I remember to this day the power of the Holy Spirit that overwhelmed me that night (23 October 2003), wherein I knew, both intellectually and spiritually, that the Book of Mormon was the word of God and that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God (to keep the peace at home, however, I had to wait until I was 18 when I got baptised [10 years ago this month]).

Since that time, I have studied theology in a Catholic institute and have learned many things. While my faith is perhaps more nuanced that the “typical” Church member’s, my appreciation of Joseph Smith, Latter-day Saint theology and its history, and the Scriptures, has grown over the past number of years. I can honestly say that the Gospel has transformed me as a person (I shudder to think of the person I was when I was a teenager [God does save sinners, fortunately!]), and I am glad that the Lord has used me, in various ways, to help teacher others, and defend, the Gospel using the intellect He has given me, and I do hope and pray that such will continue until I pass from this mortal existence into the hereafter.

CARM vs. Historical Facts

In their error-laden article, “Mormonism and the Corruption of the Bible,” CARM (headed by Matt Slick), speaking of the use of the New Testament by early Christian authors, states that, “We could reconstruct the entire New Testament, minus about 11 verses, from their writings alone.”

This is a popular claim, but as this blog post shows, it is utterly false.

David Allen on how to translate Hebrews 7:24

[Heb 7:24] is straightforward in its meaning, asserting Jesus has a permanent, perpetual, unchanging priesthood because he “lives for ever.” When the adjective aparabaton, “permanent,” is translated attributively, as in the NIV, KJV, and a few other translations, it is a violation of Greek grammar. The adverbial rendering as in the NASB is also problematic. It is better to take the adjective in a predicate relationship to the noun, as “Jesus has the priesthood (and it is) permanent,” or as a relative clause, “a priesthood which is permanent.”

David L. Allen, Hebrews (vol. 35 The New American Commentary; Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), p. 428. (the author tries to argue that aparabatos means only Christ holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, but this is refuted by the meaning of the term itself).

10 Years a Baptised Latter-day Saint

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. (1 Cor 2:9)

Picture taken 26 March 2005 in the Clonsilla chapel of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Today marks the 10th anniversary of my baptism into the Restored Gospel.

Tim Staples, Mormonism, and Questions for Catholics

Tim Staples, a popular (though unscholarly) Catholic apologist recently republished an article against LDS claims to authority here (it has appeared elsewhere, including his book, Nuts and Bolts). Much of his understanding of, and arguments against the Latter-day Saint understanding of apostasy and restoration is grossly misunderstood (see this post offering a bibliography of the best books on the Apostasy/Restoration by LDS scholars). This post will not be a direct refutation of Staples’ article, but instead, will ask questions for Roman apologists, like Staples, who assume (falsely) a priori that Rome teaches the same doctrines and dogmas as the New Testament Church--

1. Why did the earliest Church Fathers (e.g., Irenaeus) accuse Mary of personal sin in texts such as John 2:4, when Rome teaches that the Immaculate Conception has been a doctrine that has always been a belief in the Church (being part of “apostolic tradition”)? The idea of Mary being "sinless" is a much later development, and even later is her being exempt from original sin. Indeed, her exemption from original sin was a belief the majority of Medieval theologians rejected, as even Ludwig Ott, John Salza, and other Catholic theologians and apologists admit (it would not be dogmatised until 1854 by Pope Pius IX).

2. Why is there no evidence whatsoever, even among patristic authors who held to a strong “corporeal” understanding of “this is my body/blood” in the Last Supper narratives (e.g., Cyprian of Carthage), that  Christians worshipped the consecrated Eucharistic host and wine until the second millennium? According to the Council of Trent, it is proper to give “latria” (same veneration/worship reserved for God only) to them.

3. Why is there no evidence whatsoever for the Bodily Assumption of Mary in the opening centuries of Christian history, let alone it being held up as a doctrine of the faith, until several centuries after this (fictional) event? For a full-blown study of the origins of this belief, see Stephen Shoemaker’s Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption (Oxford: 2003).

4. According to the Second Council of Nicea (AD 787), the veneration of saints and images is not only proper, but part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and yet, why is it that the earliest Christians unanimously rejected the veneration of images, including the same theological presuppositions this council, and modern Catholicism, teaches (e.g., the veneration one gives ultimately goes to the heavenly prototype, not the image per se)?

5. According to Vatican I (1869-70), “Peter = the Rock” has been the unanimous understanding of Matthew 16:16-19, and yet, according to the majority of patristic exegetes of this text, the “rock” in this pericope is understood to be the faith of Peter and/or his confession that Jesus is the Christ. While some Catholics will claim that there is no real distinction between the person of Peter and his faith, a number of fathers (e.g., John Chrysostom) differentiate between the confession and person of Peter. For careful studies of this and similar issues which refute Roman claims to authority, see George Salmon, Infallibility of the Church (1888); Janus (pen name for Ignatius Von Döllinger), The Pope and the Council (1869) and Edward Denny, Papalism (1912). For a recent study, see William Webster, The Matthew 16 Controversy (1996). Such volumes also show what the dogma of papal infallibility is an utter myth (e.g., Honorius; Zosiumus; Vigilius, etc).

6. In Roman Catholic dogma, Mary is a perpetual virgin. If this is the case, how come the authors of the New Testament, when one engages in meaningful exegesis of the biblical texts, operate under the assumption that normal sexual relations took place between Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and the overwhelming linguistic and exegetical evidence against any other reading of the texts speaking of the “brothers” and “sisters” than uterine siblings? For more, see chapter 3 of Eric D. Svendsen’s 2001 book, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism; for a contrast in scholarly and exegetical methodologies, see Staples’ own book on Mary, Behold your Mother (Catholic Answers, 2014).

7. According to many Catholic apologists, without an infallible decree about the contents of the biblical canon, one cannot be sure of the Bible. If this is the case, does that mean that faithful Catholics were uncertain of the Bible and its contents until 1546 when Trent issued the decree about the canon? Furthermore, if one wishes to appeal to Carthage and other councils, realise that, in Catholic theology, such local councils were not infallible and, additionally, the Tridentine canon list does not match the earlier lists from these late fourth/early fifth century councils (see the New Catholic Encyclopaedia article's discussion of 1 and 2 Esdras in the canon list from Carthage and how it differs from Trent). Also, was Jerome and others (e.g., Cardinal Thomas Cajetan) in apostasy when they rejected the Deutero-canonical (Apocryphal) books as divinely inspired and authoritative?


8. Staples ends this article with the following:

One way to know is to ask another simple question: What if you were living in, let’s say, 1785, and you were to read this very passage from St. Matthew. You could know that Jesus would never lead you to a “church” with no one who could speak for him. In obedience to Jesus, where would you go? The LDS did not exist yet. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He would never lead us astray or command us to follow error. If the true church did not exist on this earth for 1,800 years, then Jesus misguided millions into obeying an error-filled church with no apostolic authority. That would be unthinkable.

Keep in mind that, if this person from 1785 queried a Catholic of his time about what the Gospel of Jesus Christ was, it would not include three dogmas he now must, under pain of anathema, believe to be definitional of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e., the Immaculate Conception [1854]; Papal Infallibility [1870] and the Bodily Assumption of Mary [1950]). Perhaps one could rephrase Staples' question thusly:

"If Rome is the true Church, then it misguided countless millions into obeying an incomplete Gospel in 1785. That would be unthinkable."

Ultimately, the question posed by Staples is just empty rhetoric for those familiar with Roman Catholic theology and history.

One could go on, but one should realise that, when critiquing “Mormonism,” Catholic apologists could never use the same standards, biblically and historically, to examine the LDS faith in comparison to how they defend Catholicism. Furthermore, I have only raised issues that are central, core issues about Rome’s claims to authority, not minor issues like “bad popes” and the like. There has been, sadly, an apostasy, and what Rome teaches dogmatically about Mary, the papacy, the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, and other things are proofs of her being forever separated from the Church of Jesus Christ and the authority of the apostles. No amount of sophistry from the likes of Tim Staples et al. will ever change this fact.

As an aside, Tim Staples recommended Isaiah Bennet’s book, Inside Mormonism (Catholic Answers, 1998) as “that book is loaded with great information.” I would urge anyone to read Barry Bickmore’s devastating review, which puts the lie to Staples’ outlandish claim.