Friday, September 3, 2021

John of Damascus (675/76-749) and Christians being Charged with Being “Associators” Guilty of "Shirk" by Muslims

We read the following in John of Damascus’ “Heresy of the Ishmaelites” against the claim that Christians “associating partners with God (e.g., Jesus), and are therefore guilty of shirk:

 

Moreover, they call us “εταιριαστας” (Associators) because, they say, we introduce in addition to God a partner when we declare that Christ is the son of God and God. We say to them in response: “This is what the prophets and the Scriptures have delivered to us. You insist that you also accept the prophets. If, therefore, we are wrong in saying Christ is the son of God, then so too are those who have taught this and handed it down to us.” Some of them say that we have allegorized the prophets and added these things to what they have said, while others say that the Hebrews, out of hated, have deceived us by writing those things as if they had been written by the prophets, so that we might be misled.

 

Again, we say to them, “Since you also say that Christ is Word and Spirit of God, why do you accuse us of being “εταιριαστας” (Associators)? For the Word and the Spirit are inseparable from the one in whom they exist by nature. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is evident that he is God as well. If, however, the Word is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without Word and Spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the association of a partner with God, you have mutilated him. It would be far better for you to say that he had a partner, rather than mutilate him and treat him like a stone, a piece of wood or some inanimate objects. Thus, since you falsely call us “εταιριαστας” (Associators), we will, in turn, call you “κοπτας” (Mutilators) of God. (Daniel J. Janoski, John of Damascus First Apologist to the Muslims: The Trinity and Christian Apologetics in the Early Islamic Period [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2016], 263-64)

 

Anthony P. Andrews and Fernando Robles Castellanos on Horses Surviving into Post-Pleistocene Times in Mesoamerica

  

The critical levels that may show an association between humans and extinct fauna occur in Levels VI, VII, and VIII of El Toro, which may have disturbed stratigraphy. Levels VI and VII have Preclassic ceramics, stone tools, and the remains of extinct horse (the only extinct species associated with human materials). A few pieces of charcoal at the juncture of levels VII and VIII yielded a radiocarbon date of 1840 B.C.[ The original date reported by Velásquez (1805 B.C. ± 150; 1980:54) is erroneous. The actual date, uncalibrated, is 3790± 105 B.P., or 1840 ± 105 B.C. Calibrated 1-sigma ranges are: 2434–2421 B.C.; 2403–2379 B.C.; 2349–2123 B.C.; 2093–2042 B.C. Calibrated 2-sigma ranges are: 2549–2538 B.C.; 2490–1936 B.C. (Andrews V 1990:19, note 14).] Level VIII is the only level without ceramics, but with stone tools and horse remains. The lower levels are rich in faunal remains, but have no human artifacts. Horse remains were the most common species in the cave and were found as high as level II in El Toro. The stone artifacts from level VIII consist of 21 crude flaked tools and two core fragments. The tools, all of local and imported chert, include used and retouched flakes, scrapers, gravers, knife-gravers, denticulated tools, and one point.[Preliminary reports on the excavations at Loltun Cave were published by Velásquez (1980, 1981). The analysis of the materials was carried out by Ernesto González Licón (1986). Most of the artifacts and ecofacts have been analyzed and reported, including the lithics (Konieczna 1981), mammalian fauna (Alvarez 1983), molluscs (Polaco 1983), and pollen (Xelhuantzi-López 1986). The faunal analysis conducted by Alvarez is the most extensive ever published on early Yucatecan paleontology. Schmidt (1988) has written an extensive summary of the Loltun excavations, along with a cogent critical discussion of the problems involved with the interpretations of the finds.]

 

While seeming to present a plausible association between human artifacts and extinct Pleistocene fauna, several researchers have commented that the above association may be problematic in several respects. Peter Schmidt (1988) has outlined three of the major problems, and has expanded upon them in personal conversations with the authors, who also visited the excavations on several occasions: (1) there are no clear breaks between the levels in question, and there is a high probability of disturbance, and even of mixing; the presence of extinct horse bones into the upper ceramic-bearing layers is particularly disturbing; (2) the single radiocarbon date is late for preceramic materials, and may also be the result of mixing; and (3) the only animal associated with the preceramic artifacts is the extinct horse, suggesting that this animal survived into the Late Archaic or even Early Preclassic. To conclude, it is quite possible that Loltun may show evidence of Late Archaic human activities, but the current evidence does not endorse a Paleo-American presence, as proposed in several recent texts and surveys of the Mesoamerican Paleo-American and Archaic periods. Verification and clarification of the situation at Loltun will require further excavations and more radiometric dates.

 

An issue that has not been resolved is the possible association of Archaic populations with Pleistocene fauna. Several hints raise the possibility that the extinct horse may have survived into Holocene times. The most suggestive evidence of this is the association of extinct horse with preceramic lithics and ceramics at Loltun. However, this may be due to mixing. In the three caves (Sayab, Lara, and Chektaleh) where he found horse remains, Mercer assumed that because of their stratigraphic association with pottery, and the lack of fossilization, they were the remains of modern horse. On the other hand, E. D. Cope, a paleontologist who commented on the remains, raised the possibility that they might belong to an extinct species, Equus occidentalis (Mercer 1896:172n). Hatt’s horse remains were from Actun Lara, one of the caves where Mercer had also uncovered horse remains. These were partially fossilized, and have been identified as extinct horse—either E. conversidens or E. tau, which may be the same species. These were also associated with pottery, and two foot bones were associated with the bones of modern cattle (Hatt et al. 1953: 71–72; see also Ray 1957). Once again, this may have been a disturbed deposit. Contrary to widely held views, at least two species of large mammals thought to have become extinct at the end of the Pleistocene survived into the Holocene in the Old World (Stuart et al. 2004). Since the horse also survived into post-Pleistocene times in the Old World, the possibility of its survival into Archaic times in the American tropics may also need to be considered. (Anthony P. Andrews and Fernando Robles Castellanos, "The Paleo-American and Archaic Periods in Yucatan," in M. Kathryn Brown and George J. Bey III, eds., Pathways to Complexity: A View of the Maya Lowlands [Gainesville, Fla.: University Press of Florida, 2018], 16-34, here, pp. 25-26)

 

Thursday, September 2, 2021

Nathan Tanner Jr. (1845-1919) on People Seeing God Before Ordination to the Priesthood

  




 

"it is said that without 'holding' the Melchizedek Priesthood no man can see the face of God and live.—Era, Vol. II, No. 3. How can this statement be reconciled with the historical fact that Adam, Abraham, Aaron, and Joseph Smith each saw His face before they held the priesthood? Joseph Smith's first vision was of the Father and Son. Abraham was promised the priesthood while at Hur and again at Haran, where he saw God's face, and was subsequently ordained by Melchizedek. The revelations inform us without the 'authority' of the Priesthood we cannot see the face of God and live. But when authorized by the proper authority, undoubtedly we may. The sight would probably not be granted a sinner, nor to gratify mere curiosity." (Nathan Tanner Jr., “Some Facts and Sayings,” insert between pages 1 and 2 of Nathan A. Tanner to Nathan A. Tanner, February 17, 1909 [MS 23785, Church History Library])

George Reynolds on the Thief on the Cross and Water Baptism


 

"Well, what about the thief on the cross? he wasn't baptized, and he went to heaven." How often have our brethren been confronted with this assertion when emphasizing the doctrine that without baptism no man or woman can be saved in the kingdom of God. The elder thus assailed generally answers the objection by proving from the words of the risen Redeemer to Mary that he did not go to heaven, therefore the thief did not. But suppose the objector could prove that the penitent thief did go to heaven, what proofs has he that the thief had not been baptized? Most certainly the scripture does not say so.

 

Now it is not our purpose to affirm that the thief was baptized, our argument is simply that taking the scriptures alone, the weight of testimony is in favor of that proposition. Let us first examine the writings of the evangelists.

 

Matthew, Mark and Luke give more than the customary details when they narrate the ministry of John, the forerunner of the Messiah. Matthew says:

 

In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. * * * Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come in his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance. (Matt. 3:1, 2, 5-8)

 

Mark confirms Matthew's testimony in the following words:

 

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. (Mark 1:4-5).

 

Luke also testifies with regard to John's reproof to many of those who sought baptism at his hands:

 

Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance. (Luke 3:7, 8).

 

From these passages we learn that "all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem," to use the language of Mark, or, to quote the words of Matthew, "Jerusalem, and all Judea and all the region round about Jordan" went out to John and "were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." That all sorts of conditions of men went out is evident from the fact that members of the two great contending religious factions of the Jews—the Pharisees and Sadducees—are particularly mentioned, and they and their following would embrace by far the greater part of the Jewish people. Now, allowing that all can be asked for oriental exaggeration or hyperbole (if the writers of the Gospels need any such allowance), when the inhabitants of all Jerusalem, Judea, and the regions round about are said to have been baptized, we must reasonably admit that the great majority of the people received this ordinance. And if this be the case why should we assert that the thief was one of the few that were not baptized, when there is not the least warrant in other parts of the scriptures for that assertion? To the contrary, we esteem the testimony of Luke with regard to his conduct on the cross as strong presumptive evidence that, though a malefactor and a sinner, the thief was or had been a member of the church. Let us read and consider Luke's statement:

 

And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise. And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. (Luke 23: 38-44).

 

Here we have in the expressions of this poor culprit a most sublime manifestation of faith in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Search the scriptures through, from beginning to end, and we believe no nobler example can be found of unwavering faith. Let us think of the conditions. Jesus, his companion in humiliation and suffering, was hanging on a cross by his side, condemned as a criminal, if not as a traitor; all the hopes that he had held out to his disciples crushed and vanished. Apparent failure of the completest kind was closing his life's work, and a death of torture, intensified by ignominy and insult, was the end of all the promises he had made to his followers as the King of Israel and the Savior of mankind. Yet in this the darkest of all dark hours, when himself racked with the torments of the cross, this poor offender raised his protest when the other thief reviled, and defended the character of Christ as best his circumstances permitted. His very question, "Dost not thou fear God?" shows that he himself did, even though he had fallen into transgression. His confession—"we indeed die justly: for we receive the reward of our deeds, but this man hath done nothing amiss"—proves that he had repented of his own sins, and that he was not a believer in the many charges brought against the Savior. Then turning to Jesus he said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." Here in the midst of circumstances the most untoward, the most disheartening, he recognizes Jesus, as "Lord," and asks Him for remembrance when He comes into His kingdom.

Where did this man learn to acknowledge Jesus as Lord? When and where had he received the assurance of the coming and perpetuity of his kingdom? whence did he obtain his un- quenchable faith, that shone amid the overwhelming darkness, when even the apostles were thinking of "going a fishing?" (John 21:3).

 

He had not learned these things nor acquired this faith as he hung upon the cross. It was not a sentiment of momentary growth. No, it was strong and enduring, and shows that though a backslider and a culprit, he had been a disciple, or at least a believer. Then, the answer of the Redeemer gives further strength to the idea that he was a member of the church: "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." It was an answer of recognition, of consolation and of hope. Jesus did not speak to him as a stranger, did not announce to him any principle of the gospel, or suggest faith and repentance; but he gave him the most gracious of all promises, that that very day he should be with Him, his Lord, in the world beyond the grave.

 

And where did Jesus that day go? We know from his statements to Mary three days later that he had not yet ascended to his Father. If the place where God dwells, as we all believe, is heaven, then he did not go to heaven, and if the thief went with him, he did not go there either. Therefore, when Jesus said paradise, if he did say paradise, he did not mean heaven. But we know from the testimony of Peter the apostle one place where Jesus did go. He went to a prison in the spirit world, where the antediluvians, who had rejected the preaching of the gospel by Noah, and others of a like kind were held in bondage. But was that the only place where Jesus went during the three days his body was in the tomb? On this point the scriptures are silent, but we think the inference is consistent that He visited other parts of the spirit world besides the prison in which the rebellious antediluvians were confined. Jesus said, in my father's house are many mansions; and of all those mansions, did He only enter one, and that one, we may believe, the lowest, the darkest of all? Indeed, we suggest that the prophecies regarding the work of the Savior could not be fully fulfilled without he did go elsewhere. Isaiah says: "The spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek: he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives,  and the opening of the prison to them that are bound" (Is. 61: i). "That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves" (Is. 49: 9). "To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house" (Is. 42: 7).

 

These prophecies received only a very partial fulfillment if the prison of the antediluvians was the only place in which He ministered. The deliverance promised the captives, the opening of the prison to those that were bound, was something more than the preaching the way of deliverance, through faith and repentance, to these once hardened sinners. To fulfill the prophecies in all their glorious intent, the deliverance promised must be one nigh at hand, not a conditional one, at best afar off. It must be the flinging wide open of the prison gates that those who were prepared to come out into the light of day could do so. We are told by the sacred historians that many, both on this continent and at Jerusalem, rose from their graves immediately following the resurrection of Christ and were seen by many (Matt. 27: 52; III. Nephi 23: 6-12). Are we not justified in believing from the teachings of the modern servants of God that these could not have taken their bodies from the grave without Christ had carried to them the keys of the resurrection. If this be so, when did He visit them? It could not have been before His death; it was not after His resurrection, for they arose practically at the same time; therefore He must have visited them while His body lay in the sepulchre.

 

Now we do not assert that the penitent thief was resurrected. Of that we are in entire ignorance, but we do not think that he went with Christ to the region where the ante- diluvians were imprisoned. We hold this opinion for two reasons. In the first place, the thief did not need to have faith and repentance preached to him. He already had the strongest faith in Christ and his mission and he had repented and confessed his wrong-doing. In the second place this prison does not agree with our conceptions of paradise nor with the description given of it in Holy Writ. Alma (who, we must remember, lived before the advent of the Savior, and consequently his description directly applies to the righteous then dead) says:

 

The spirits of those who are righteous, are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise; a state of rest; a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow, &c. (Alma 40: 12).

 

Nephi also speaks in the same strain, (II. Nephi 9: 13).

 

In neither of these passages can we draw the slightest inference that any but the righteous inhabited paradise, or that it in the least degree resembled a prison where the spirits of the wicked were confined. But it is possible we have a strained translation of the original Greek word, given us as paradise, and that to be absolutely correct all the Savior's promise to the thief amounted to was that that day he should be with Him in the spirit world. Let this be so and we are still justified in believing that the Savior took the penitent malefactor to that part of the world beyond mortality for which, according to the condition of his mind and heart, he was, at the time of his death, most fitted. (George Reynolds, "The Thief on the Cross," Improvement Era 1, no 4. [February, 1898]: 225-30)

 

Further Reading

 

"Does the Thief on the Cross Refute Baptismal Regeneration," in my book, "Born of Water and of the Spirit": The Biblical Evidence for Baptismal Regeneration, pp. 18-23 (for those who want a PDF for free, drop me an email at ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom)

Wednesday, September 1, 2021

Mary L. Coloe on John 8:58

  

In the discussion of the phrase εγω ειμι in verses 8:18, 24 and 28, I followed the work of a number of scholars who look to Deutero-Isaiah as the most likely background for the Johannine expression. The context of the final εγω ειμι in verse 54 may also be best elucidated through Isaiah, particularly the targumic version:

 

MT Isa 43:10-12

Tg Isa 43:10-12

10. You are my witnesses, says the
LORD
and my servant whom I have chosen

That you may know and believe me
and understand that I am He.

 

 

 

11. I, I am the LORD
and beside me there is no savior.
12. I declared and saved and proclaimed




when there was no strange god among
us.

You are witnesses before me, says the Lord
and my servant the Messiah with
whom I am well pleased,
that you might know and believe before me
and understand that I am he.
I am he that was from the beginning,
even the ages of the ages are mine and there is no God beside me.
I, I am the Lord,
and beside me there is no savior.
I declared to Abraham your father
what was about to come
, I saved you
from Egypt, just as I swore to him
between the pieces, I proclaimed to you
the teaching of my Law from Sinai,
when you were present
and there was no stranger among you.

 

Abraham has been inserted into the text of the Targum in connection with the deliverance from Egypt. Abraham is added to Isaiah in other places expressing a similar theme of Abraham as savior. In some cases he replaces the original reference to Cyrus who was considered a savior figure (41:2; 48:15-16). The reference above to 43:10-12 is particularly striking as the Gospel picks up the theme of “knowing” and “believing” (8:24, 28). The Gospel (v. 56) and Targum (v. 12) follow the Jewish tradition found already in Jubilees (16:26) that future events were revealed to Abraham:

 

Targum—I declared to Abraham your father what was about to come
Jubilees—He knew and perceived that from him there would be a righteous planting for eternal generations
Gospel—Abraham rejoiced to see my day

 

Both Targum and gospel speak of the pre-existence of the “I Am.”
Targum—“I am he that was from the beginning” (Is. Tg. V. 10).
Gospel—“Before Abraham was I am” (8:58).

 

The similarities between the Gospel and Targum suggest that both draw upon a common source of traditional material concerning Abraham available to a first-century author. (Mary L. Coloe, God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel [Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 2001], 141-42)

 

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) was not a Proto-Calvinist


In the following excerpt from On Grace and Free Choice, Bernard of Clairvaux argued that, even after the Fall, man's (genuine) free-will was not extinguished, but remains albeit, in a weakened state:

although man cannot sin, nevertheless he has not lost free choice

Free choice, consequently, still remains, even after man’s sin, tinged with sorrow but intact. And the fact that he can in no way extricate himself either from sin or sorrow signifies, not the destruction of free choice, but the privation of the other two freedoms. For it does not belong to free choice, in itself, nor did it ever belong to it, to possess either power or wisdom, but only to will; nor can it make a creature wise or able, but only willing. He cannot therefore be considered as having lost free choice, if he has ceased to be wise or able, but only if he has ceased to be willing. For where there is no will, neither is there freedom. I am not saying that once a person ceases to will the good, but once he ceases simply to will—where it is not merely a question of the good ceasing in the will, but of the will itself ceasing in its entirety—must free choice also be said unquestionably to vanish. If he finds himself unable simply to will the good, this is a sign that he lacks free counsel, not free choice. And if he finds himself powerless, not indeed to will the good, but to accomplish that good which he already wills, let him recognise that it is not free choice that is wanting to him, but free pleasure. Hence, if free choice so follows the will everywhere that unless the will ceases to function free choice will continue to operate, then the will remains present equally in evil and in good; and free choice likewise in evil and in good. And, as the will, even in a state of sorrow, does not cease for all that to be the will, but is called, and is in fact, a sorrowful will, (as it is also called, and is, a happy will), so neither can any adversity or necessity either destroy, or, in what concerns its own nature, in any way diminish, freedom of choice.

 

25. But though it always carries on unimpaired, it cannot of itself rise from evil to good as easily as it could of itself fall from good to evil. And what wonder is it if it is unable to rise of itself from its fallen condition, when in its standing it was quite powerless to advance on its own to something better? In a word, while to some extent it still enjoyed those other two freedoms, it could not ascend from these lower degrees to the higher, that is, from a state of being able not to sin and being able not to be disturbed to that of not being able to sin and not being able to be disturbed. Now, if with the help, even in some small measure, of those freedoms, it was yet unable to raise itself from the good to the better, how much less chance does it stand, now that it is deprived of them, of raising itself up by its own power from evil to that former level which was good.

 

26. And this is where Christ comes in. In him, man possesses the necessary “power of God and the wisdom of God,” who, inasmuch as he is wisdom, pours back into man true wisdom, and so restores to him his free counsel; and, inasmuch as he is power, renews his full power, and so restores to him his free pleasure. As a result, being by the former perfectly good, he may now no longer know sin; and being, by the latter, completely happy, may no longer feel its sting. Such perfection, nevertheless, must be awaited in the next life, when both these freedoms, at present lost, will be fully restored to free choice, not as it is given to any just man here on earth however perfect, and not as it was given even to the first human beings to enjoy them in paradise, but as the angels possess them now in heaven. Meanwhile, in “this body of death” and in “the present evil age,” we must be content simply with not giving way to sin from any concupiscence, and this we may do through our freedom of counsel; and with fearing no adversity for the sake of righteousness, and this we may do through our freedom of pleasure. In this sinful flesh, however, and in this evil of the day, it is no small wisdom not to consent to sin, though one cannot be rid of it altogether; and it is no inconsiderable power, manfully to despise adversity for the sake of truth, though one cannot yet, in happiness, avoid feeling it at times.

 

27. Here below, we must learn from our freedom of counsel not to abuse free choice, in order that one day we may be able fully to enjoy freedom of pleasure. Thus we are repairing the image of God in us, and the way is being paved, by grace, for the retrieving of that former honor which we forfeited by sin. Happy then will be the man who shall deserve to hear said of him: “Who is he, and we shall praise him? For he has done wonderful things in his life: who had the power to transgress, and did not transgress; to do evil and did not do it.” (Bernard of Clairvaux, On Grace and Free Choice [trans. Daniel O'Donovan; Athens, Ohio: Cistercian Publications Inc., 2008], 81-83)

 

One should compare some of Bernard’s comments above with canon 23 of Session 6 (1546) of the Council of Trent:

 

833 [DS 1573] Can. 23. If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema [cf. n. 805, 810].

 

One thing is clear: Bernard of Clairvaux, one of the leading theologians of his time, was not a proto-Calvinist in the above excerpt, or even the entirety of, On Grace and Free Choice.


Further Reading

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology


Tarik LaCour on whether Compatibilism is Compatible with "Mormonism"

My friend Tarik LaCour was recently interviewed on the Evangelical Protestant “Outer Brightness” podcast:

 

Is Compatibilism Compatible with Mormonism? Pt. 1 (w/ Tarik D. LaCour)

 

Is Compatibilism Compatible with Mormonism? Pt. 2 (w/ Tarik D. LaCour)

 

While Paul Nurnberg and Matthew Eklund are not particularly smart (not by any stretch of the imagination), Tarik is, my disagreements with him on many topics notwithstanding (e.g., his holding to determinism; his disagreeing that creation ex nihilo making God responsible for evil), one of the smartest people I know.

Blog Archive