With respect to the proposal of there being a “Wisdom Christology” in the Synoptic Gospels, Sigurd Grindheim wrote the following about wisdom concepts found in Matt 11:
The saying in Mt. 11.25-30 is not the only one where Matthew’s Jesus makes use of wisdom ideas. In Mt. 11.19, he refers to God’s wisdom directly. Jesus first notes the opposition with which he and the Baptist are met, but counters that “wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” The Lukan parallel reads: “wisdom is vindicated by all her children” (7.35). Most scholars believe that the Lukan version is the original and that Matthew has changed “children” to “works” in order to forge a more direct identification between Jesus and wisdom. Luke’s version may be ambiguous as to whether “children” refers to Jesus and the Baptist or to their followers. If Jesus and the Baptist are understood as wisdom’s children, they cannot be identified with wisdom. In Matthew’s version, however, wisdom’s “works” can only refer to Jesus’ and the Baptist’s works. The conclusion that Matthew identifies Jesus with wisdom thus lies close at hand. But the implication would then be that John the Baptist is also so identified, as Jesus’ works in Mt. 11.7-19 concern the Baptist more than they concern himself. It is unlikely, however, that the Baptist could be identified with God’s wisdom. Therefore, the “works” through which wisdom is justified must be the works that God’s wisdom does through Jesus and the Baptist.
Such a loose association between Jesus and wisdom accounts for the saying in Mt. 12.42 as well. Jesus maintains that “something greater than Solomon is here!” The implication is that Jesus exceeds Solomon’s wisdom. In other words, the climatic revelation of God’s wisdom is found in him. (Sigurd Grindheim, Christology in the Synoptic Gospels: God or God’s Son? [London: T&T Clark, 2012], 111-12, emphasis added)
Further Reading
Simon J. Gathercole, "Chapter 8: A Critique of the Wisdom Christology Hypothesis," in The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006)
Thus, in referring to the Trinity, one may find it helpful to utilize faulty grammar, such as "He are three," and "They is one." (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology)
It may also be necessary, in order to convey the unusual meaning involved in the doctrine [of the Trinity], to utilize what analytical philosophers would term 'logically odd language'. This means using language in such a way as intentionally to commit grammatical errors. [The Trinitarian God] can perhaps only be adequately expressed by using language that calls attention to the almost paradoxical character of the concepts. (Millard Erickson, God in Three Person, p. 270, comments in square brackets added for clarification)
Recently, a self-professed Mormon Studies Scholar wrote an article entitled:
I do wish to deal with his reference to the following from James R. White’s 1998 The Forgotten Trinitywhich I will use as a “spring board” for some additional comments:
Application:
CHRISTIAN TRINITY = POSSIBLE
“Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
(White, James R. “The Forgotten Trinity” (p. 26). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition)
That is One Being, three Persons = One God. Monotheism.
While the argument from White above, as well as the article from Anson are, well, stupid, it does afford me the opportunity to plug the following article from someone actually trained in logic:
It is a pretty "airtight" refutation of the (Latin/Creedal) Trinity (see also Blake Ostler's short paper, The Logical Incoherence of Traditional Christianity; moreover, while Bauckham's nonsensical "divine identity" argument was not referenced, it is very popular in many Trinitarian circles these days; see this article for a sound refutation thereof))
It should be noted that White really fudges things in his book from 1998 (e.g., calling the "one God" a "what"):
Note immediately we are not saying there are three Beings that are one Being, or three persons that are one person. Such would be self-contradictory. When speaking of the Trinity, we need to realize that we are talking about one what and three who's. We dare not mix up the what's and the who's regarding the Trinity. (p. 27, emphasis added; cf. p. 132 where White identifies the Father as being YHWH, the Son being YHWH, and the Spirit being YHWH individually/personally)
With respect to the “Trinity shield” which was reproduced in the article, here is an actual application of logic:
A. There are at least three divine persons.
B. Every divine person is God
C. If every a = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's
D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.
I am aware of the "three persons/one being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea as enunciated in the article (rather poorly)--however, Trinitarianism also states:
Jesus = God
Father = God
Spirit = God
Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son
Numerically, there is only one God
God = Father, Son, and Spirit
To put it the above in another way, to help people understand the illogical nature of creedal Trinitarianism (with "x" representing "God"):
Jesus = x
Father = x
Spirit = x
Numerically, there is only one x
God (x) = Father (x) plus Son (x), plus Spirit (x)
Fortunately, more intellectually honest Trinitarians will admit that there are logical problems with the Latin/Creedal formulations of the Trinity:
John H. Fish III, a Trinitarian, in an article entitled, “God the Son," wrote the following as an admission of the illogical nature of the Trinity:
Theologically it is correct to say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But these statements cannot be reversed. We cannot say God is the Father, because that would omit the Son and the Holy Spirit. Nor can we say God is the Son, or God is the Holy Spirit. (John H. Fish III, "God the Son", Emmaus Journal Volume 12, 2003 (1) (34), Dubuque, IA: Emmaus Bible College).
To transpose this admission from theological to mathematical language, it is the equivalent of saying while 3=1+1+1, 1+1+1 does not equal 3, which is utterly absurd. Also, Fish's claim means one cannot say that any singular person of the Tri-une being is God (e.g., "God is the Father"), notwithstanding passages such as 1 Tim 2:5 and 1 Cor 8:4-6 that predicate "God" upon the person of the Father.
This is echoed by John V. Dahms in his article, "How Reliable is Logic?" (Journal of Evangelical Theology 21/4 [December 1978] 369-80); on p.373, Dahms (another Trinitarian) makes this startling confession (comment in square brackets mine for clarification):
The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation [read: Hypostatic Union] also provides a problem for those who insist that logic is universally applicable. how can there be two natures but only one person, especially if it be remembered that the debate over monothelitism led to the conclusion that the two-natures doctrine implies that Jesus Christ had two wills? That one person can have two wills would seem to be contrary to the law of contradiction. Of course there are "conservatives" who declare that in Christ "there are not two wills, one Divine and one human." One suspects that the law of contradiction has inspired such a judgment, though one wonders whether they are not violating the same law when they continue to affirm that "each nature is complete in itself." Be that as it may, by what logic is it possible for a nature that cannot be tempted to be united with a nature that can be tempted, or for a nature that can grow in favor with God? The Monophysites and the Nestorians had more respect for logic than the orthodox, as did the Docetists and the Ebionites before them, as do those liberals who deny the incarnation today. It is not without some justification that Paul Tillich speaks of the "inescapable contradictions and absurdities into which all attempts to solve the Christological problem in terms of the two-nature theory were driven."
A more honest reworking of the Trinity shield would be:
As Newman once wrote:
The truth is, every illustration [of the Trinity], as being incomplete on one or other side of it [i.e. the human or divine natures or “sides” of Jesus], taken by itself, tends to heresy. The title Son by itself suggests a second God, as the title Word a mere attribute, and the title Instrument a creature. All heresies are partial views of the truth, and are wrong, not so much in what they say, as in what they deny. (Athanasius, “Four Discourses Against the Arians,” trans. John Henry Newman, in Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, vol. 4, p. 322 n. 2; square brackets my own, added for clarification)
This admission by Cardinal Newman reminds me of a video I have posted elsewhere on this blog, but is worth reposting, as (1) it is hilarious and (2) hits the nail on the head:
Finally, with respect to there being more than one God, I will focus on Gen 20:13. Firstly, a short Hebrew lesson. The term אֱלֹהִיםis irregular in that, while its form is plural, it can denote either a singular or plural Elohim (“G/god[s]”—not “human judges”) depending on the verb it is coupled with. For instance, in Gen 1:1, it is coupled with a verb in the second person singular, so Elohim is singular; however, there are many instances where it is coupled with a verb in the plural, denoting plural “G/gods” (e.g., Psa 82:6).
In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):
And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...
Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."
Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether Unitarian or creedal Trinitarian) out of the water. If one wants to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse. As one such example, note the following from the NET Bible:
The Hebrew verb is plural. This may be a case of grammatical agreement with the name for God, which is plural in form. However, when this plural name refers to the one true God, accompanying predicates are usually singular in form. Perhaps Abraham is accommodating his speech to Abimelech's polytheistic perspective. (See GKC 463 §145.i.) If so, one should translate, "when the gods made me wander."
Such words echoe that of Gordon Wenham in vol. 2 p. 73 of the Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis. Evangelicals and others who hold to similar views on the "number" of God are in a precarious position--either claim Abraham endorsed something that would be idolatrous and blasphemous in their theological perspective, wherein Abraham accommodated his language and theology to fit that of a pagan non-believer's theology (and this was *after* Gen 15:6, where, according to most Protestant commentators, Abraham was justified by God[!]; also note that is never condemned by God in the Genesis text, too) or that Abraham and the author of Genesis believed in a "plurality of Gods." A much weaker "response" can be seen in this article by J.P. Holding. In discussing this verse, Holding writes:
This is hardly proof of polytheism in a real sense. Of course, we may say "Allah is the God of the Muslims" without affirming the objective reality of Allah. There is no indication that Abraham at this point considered these gods to have an objective existence.
Actually, Abraham did affirm the ontological/objective existence of these gods. It is not similar to one saying "Vishnu is one of the gods of Hinduism." How so? Because this is part of Abraham's own speech to Abimelech! Here is Gen 20:10-13 from the NRSV:
And Abimelech said to Abraham, "What were you thinking of, what you did this thing?" Abraham said, "I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife. And when God caused me to wander (Heb: the gods [they] caused me to wander) from my father's house, I said to her, 'This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, He is my brother.'"
Contra Holding, Abraham did affirm the ontological existence of the plurality of gods. This verse blows holes into various Trinitarian and Unitarian theologies today, though such is consistent with Latter-day Saint theology.
Finally, on the topic of Divine Simplicity, an essential "building block" of Latin/Creedal formulations of the Trinity, Thomas McCall, a Trinitarian, in an essay on the Trinity and Divine Simplicity, reveales how this doctrine logically refutes, not supports, Trinitarian theologies:
The doctrine of the Trinity gives us:
(10) The Father is not identical to the Son.
Meanwhile, some versions of the D[octrine of] D[ivine] S[implicity] gives us both
(11) The Father is identical to the divine essence; and
(12) The son is identical to the divine essence.
Given the fact that identity is symmetrical and transitive,
(13) the Father is identical to the Son
Is strictly entailed by the conjunction of (11) and (12). But (13) is the direct and explicit denial of (1), and as such it is in direct contradiction to orthodox Trinitarianism. This entailment is heretical, of course, but it follows inexorably from the identity of both the Father and the Son with the divine essence. If the divine persons are all identical with the divine essence, then (on the argument from (10) to (13)) the divine persons will be identical with one another. Such a doctrine seems hopeless for Trinitarian theology. (Thomas H. McCall, “Trinity Doctrine, Plain and Simple,” in Advancing Trinitarian Theology: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics, ed. Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 42-59, here pp. 57-58, emphasis and square brackets my own).
Another epic fail from the Beggars All Credibility blog.
Further Reading
Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought 3 volumes (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books)
As an aside, Dennis has translated Zion's Trumpet (1849-1857). It is a series I have greatly enjoyed as there are some interesting articles contained therein, such as a series of articles by Jones himself on the Second Coming of Christ.
The following is a clip from Dave Anders, a former Presbyterian who converted to Roman Catholicism in November 2003 wherein he interacts with a Latter-day Saint on the nature of God:
Before I begin, Anders is not the careful scholar and theologian he tries to present himself to be. For instance, he often appeals to the early Christian identification of Mary as the New/Second Eve in the writings of Irenaeus and others as evidence of the Immaculate Conception. What he doesn't tell you is that Irenaeus et al., did not believe in the personal sinless, let alone Immaculate Conception of Mary, among other things. For more see my article: Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception Onto his arguments against LDS theology:
Christologically, if one follows the New Testament, one is in the same "problem." We know from Phil 2:5-11, for instance, that Jesus emptied Himself of divine attributes (kenosis) to become truly human; that this is the case can be seen in Mark 12:32 (cf. Matt 24:36; see also Luke 2:52) where Jesus did not know when the parousia (his coming in glory/"second coming") would be. I know some Trinitarians (e.g. James White; Sam Shamoun) argue that this was the "human will/nature" of Jesus speaking or that Jesus "veiled," for a mysterious reason, his own omnipotence this one moment, but to claim such, and divorce such from the person of Jesus is actually counter to Trinitarian understandings of the hypostatic union and/or to make Jesus deceptive; furthermore, it results in Nestorianism, where the humanity and divinity of Jesus are, for all intents and purposes, two people, not one, again, antithetical to Trinitarian (as well as Latter-day Saint) Christologies. The temptation scenes in the gospels (esp. Matt 4:1-11, the fuller version of this scene in Jesus' life) portrays Jesus as truly suffering and being truly tempted by the tempter; if one holds to traditional Christologies, Jesus was not truly tempted, as there was no real chance of him sinning, which, however way one cuts it, is docetic (i.e., Christ appearing to be human; but in reality [at least with respect to being tempted] was not)--again, such runs in the claims of Heb 2:17-18, which necessitates Jesus' temptations to be real, but ones that he overcame sinlessly. Interestingly, in Phil 2:5-11 [cf. D&C 93:1-20 in the LDS canon], after the ascension, Jesus is exalted and given a name above all other names (Yahweh [Phil 2:9]). However, if Trinitarian Christology is true, this is nonsensical, as Jesus was "fully divine" a la the Trinitarian understanding of this concept, merely "veiled" his divine attributes during mortality while still retaining them, and "unveiled" them post-ascension.
Speaking of Hebrews, you might want to read Heb 1:8-9
But unto the So he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed three with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.
Why is this interesting? This is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος theos) predicated upon him (others would incude John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism [there is an internal debate to this day within Trinitarian circles with respect to "person" and its definition for the members of the Trinity, as I am sure you know]), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος ho theos]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. Furthermore, this can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text presented to the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7); both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (i.e. God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim eloheyka)].
The Christology of Hebrews poses many problems for the more "traditional" views of Jesus, as the author clearly held to a post-ascension subordination of the Son and what one would label "divine embodiment" (flying in the face of the doctrine of "divine simplicity" [God is without parts], an important building block for the Trinity). In Heb 1:3, we read:
Who being in the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.
There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.
Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle wn on indicates being, i.e., thepresent state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.
Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek apaugasma apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek kai kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek apaugasma apaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.
Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”
In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.
With respect to LDS belief in a "plurality of the Gods," consider Gen 20:13.Firstly, a short Hebrew lesson. The term אֱלֹהִיםis irregular in that, while its form is plural, it can denote either a singular or plural Elohim (“G/god[s]”—not “human judges”) depending on the verb it is coupled with. For instance, in Gen 1:1, it is coupled with a verb in the second person singular, so Elohim is singular; however, there are many instances where it is coupled with a verb in the plural, denoting plural “G/gods” (e.g., Psa 82:6).
In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):
And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...
Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."
Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether Unitarian or creedal Trinitarian) out of the water. If one wants to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse, see this post discussing the NET’s comment on Gen 20:13. With respect to Deut 32:7-9, the NRSV (1989) of this pericope reads:
Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.
One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Mastoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest text of the book of Deuteronomy, has the reading "sons of god" (the Hebrew beni-elim) or, as Ancient Near Eastern scholars understand the term, "gods."
In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:
Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.
Other texts could be discussed, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6, which sums up the LDS perspective rather well--there is, to us, One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. Deut 6:4; Eph 4:5-6), but such does not preclude other beings who can correctly be called "god" having true existence and being in the midst of God--in fact, such is required by the biblical data when one takes a pan-canonical approach to theology and the Bible (just as one example, take Psa 29:1 "A psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, o divine beings [Heb: בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים beni-elim], ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" [1985 Tanakh, Jewish Publications Society]).Both the Latter-day Saint and biblical understanding of this issue can be best summed up in the as "kingship monotheism":
Kingship MonotheismThere are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).
Interestingly, Roman Catholics, Evangelicals, and others within the Latin/Creedal Trinitarian Camp are now coming to therealisationthat their position does injustice to the biblical texts, such as the long-refuted claim that the elohim ("gods") in Pa 82:6 are human judges, not actual (plural) gods. Note the following from three Evangelicals in a conservative Protestant commentary series on the Old Testament:
Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world.[1] This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world.[2] This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites.[3] [1] A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status[4]. This ability for the Go of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. [3] See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. [4] The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nanacy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680).
With respect to God being "unchanging," authors cannot be speaking of metaphysical natures not being changed; if such were the case, this would contradict the claim that Jesus Christ emptied himself to become a man like us (cf. Heb 2:16-18 and Phil 2:5-11 where Jesus experiences a kenosis), notwithstanding Heb 13:8 stating that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. On Heb 13:8, we read the following from a conservative Evangelical commentator:
v 8 is not to be interpreted as an acclamation of Jesus' timeless ontological immutability, corresponding to the assertion that the Son remains ὁ αὐτός, "the same," in 1:10–12 (as asserted by H. Montefiore, 242; P. R. Jones, RevExp 82 [1985] 400; cf. Grässer, Glaube, 23; Buchanan, 233). The reference is rather to the immutability of the gospel message proclaimed by the deceased leaders in the recent past (see Michel, 490 and n. 2; P. E. Hughes, 570–71). Although the preachers change, the preaching must remain the same. The unchangeableness of the revelation is a consequence of the transcendent dignity of Jesus Christ, the originator of the preaching (2:3) (so Thurén, Lobopfer, 183). (William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13 [Word Biblical Commentary 47B])
Finally, with respect to Lorenzo Snow's couplet which Anders messed up, as well as the King Follett Discourse--is important to note that Joseph Smith likened the mortality of the Father to that of Jesus, not simply to any other mortal; note the following:
These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible . . . he scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again
Why is this important? In LDS (and NT) Christology, Jesus was divine prior to the incarnation when He emptied Himself to become a man, and yet, as a result of mortality, gained experiential knowledge (experiential knowledge, by definition, can only be gained by experience), as seen in Heb 2:10 (cf. vv.17-18); 5:8-9, and Luke 13:32; in the King Follett Discourse (which Lorenzo Snow based his couplet on), such can be said of the Father and his mortality (though the Church has never made any statement on it beyond that, as nothing has been revealed on such at present [viz. the Father, like the Son, emptied Himself to become human to gain a body and experience what it is to be mortal]. We also know that those who presevere are promised the same blessings Jesus has (Rev 3:21, which includes sitting on the throne of God, which in Jewish literature contemporary with the New Testament [e.g. The Testament of Job] was a divine prerogative; also see how worship [Gk: προσκυνεω] is given to the saints in Rev 3:9). Anders, while lambasting the LDS concept we will become divine in the same way Christ and God are, is way out in left field, biblically and theologically speaking. Note one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):
Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make themto comeand worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
In 3:21, believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works ofRichard Bauckhamon “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Richard Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).
As for Rev 3:9, believers are promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9.
To add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:
[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)
While much more could be said, it is clear that Anders has no knowledge, let alone any right to discuss, "Mormon" theology; furthermore, his arguments have no real merit.
Sadly, this is not the first nor, alas, will be the last time, a Catholic apologist has embarrassed himself on the topic of the LDS Church. To see a thorough review of Trent Horn's 20 Answers: Mormonism (Catholic Answers), see
On the 22nd September at 7 pm, I will be presenting a fireside at my home branch here in Tralee on the topic of The Biblical Foundations for an Ordained, Ministerial New Covenant Priesthood. If you are in the area, feel free to attend!
As I know most readers are outside of Ireland, I will post the power point presentation and audio shortly afterward.
It is common for Roman Catholic apologists to point to Sermon 131 of Augustine where we are told he said, “Roma locuta est, causa finita est!” (“Rome has spoken; the case is closed!”) According to such Roman apologists (e.g., Karl Keating), this is strong evidence that Augustine believed in a doctrine similar to the one dogmatized during Vatican I in 1870. To see how ahistorical such a view is, see my article, Discussion of Papal Infallibility.
Interestingly, Augustine never said/wrote such words; indeed, this is being readily admitted by more honest Roman Catholic apologists and scholars. Christopher M. Bellitto, in his work on the papacy, wrote the following:
51. But didn’t St. Augustine say something like, “Rome has spoken, so the matter is closed”?
This is not the precise phrase and the difference matters, because this quotation is often used as a proof-text. However, it is taken out of context and misunderstood as a complete statement of absolute papal authority. The passage is from a sermon Augustine preached in 417 during an extremely confusing time when he and other north African bishops were fighting a heresy called Pelagianism, named after the theologian Pelagius, who spent his career in Rome and the Holy Land. The theological issues were complex and the historical record is unclear. Boiled down, it appears Pelagius believed Adam’s sin was not passed down to all Christians, which meant that believers did not need baptism to wash away original sin; therefore, Jesus’ death and resurrection were not required for redemption. If believers wanted to get to heaven, they had to lead almost perfect lives on their own, putting God’s grace in a subordinate, even nonexistent position.
When two local synods in the Holy Land declared Pelagius was not a heretic, Augustine saw to it that another pair of local synods, this time in north Africa, condemned him. Looking to spread their important clarification of proper theology as widely as possible, the north African bishops sent public and private letters to Innocent I (401–17) in Rome, who concurred with the north African bishops’ decision against Pelagius and excommunicated him. Augustine happily announced the news in a sermon: “In this matter the decision of two councils have been sent to the apostolic see. Letters have come thence as well. The case is finished.” (Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 678)
The interpretation of this statement, however, was not settled. North Africa’s bishops, including Augustine, had probably looked to the bishop of Rome in the hope that his agreement with their condemnation of Pelagius would make their decision against the heresy apply to all of Christianity. Why? The answer is that Rome could trace its line back to the apostles, in this case Peter and Paul, while north Africa could not. Innocent, for his part, was pleased to receive the request because he took it as a sign that the north Africans were recognizing his authority over other bishops. As we have seen several times now, the north Africans cherished their independence, while deferring to a certain primacy in Rome that did not equal supremacy. Innocent may have seen the letters as implicit acknowledgments of his primacy as well as of his supremacy. One wonders what Augustine would have said had the Roman answer come back negating the actions of the north African bishops, who had sent their decision to Rome anticipating ratification and agreement, not as a formal appeal to a higher court. (Christopher M. Bellitto, 101 Questions & Answers on Popes and the Papacy [New York; Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 2008], 86-7)
Further Reading
J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine (Yale University Press, 1997)
