The difficulty with Molinism is that
it does not explain the origin of the conditionally free action which God
foreknows. It is difficult to contend that God does not coerce human free action
if this conditional action does not derive from Him, and if it does not derive
from God, one must ask how God knows it. (“Molinism,” in Our Sunday Visitor’s
Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Peter M. J. Stravinskas [rev ed.; Huntington,
Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1998], 680)
In spite of some ignorant claims of James White (see below) Martin Luther (1483-1546) always held to the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. I just recently found a PhD dissertation on Luther's theology of baptism published by the University of Durham:
Jonathan
D. Trigg, Baptism in the theology of Martin Luther simper ES in Motu Et Initio (1991)
The
book, Baptism
in the Theology of Martin Luther, was based on this doctoral
dissertation, although it costs an arm and a leg, so I have not read it (though
if anyone wants to gift me a copy, I will not complain . . . )
As
an aside, a great video refuting James White on Luther's theology of baptism,
particularly baptismal regeneration, can be seen in the following video with
Christian Wagner (RC) and Jack Lin (Lutheran):
A Lutheran and I Take Down James White on Baptismal Regeneration
Persian Loan Words. Driver argues that the number of Persian
words in the book indicates a late date. (Driver, Literature, 501; S. R.
Driver, The Book of Daniel, CBSC [Cambridge University Press, 1922],
lvi-lviii) Yet, according to the book, Daniel wrote after the Persian conquest
of Babylon and even served in the new administration. He would naturally have
utilized the new language when appropriate. In fact, about half of the
(approximately twenty) Persian expressions found in the book are in the class
of governmental terminology, names of officials and so forth, (cf. H.C.
Leupold, Exposition of Daniel [1949; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker,
1969], 23; Montgomery, Daniel, 21) just the kinds of words one would
expect to find updated to avoid confusion for persons living under the new
regime.
Actually, the Persian expressions in
the book would seem to be rather strong evidence for an early time of
composition. Kitchen points out that “the Persian words in Daniel as
specifically, Old Persian words.” (K. A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic Daniel,” Notes
on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel [London: Tyndale, 1970], 43) Old
Persian gave way to Middle Persian ca. 300 B.C., so these terms must have come
from an era before Persia fell to the Greeks since the Middle Persian period
began at that time and there are no Middle Persian expressions in the book.
(Ibid.) According to the majority of critical scholars, the Old Greek
(Septuagint) translation was made only thirty years (ca. 130 B.C.) after the
time Daniel allegedly was written (164 B.C.). Kitchen points out that
renderings of four Persian loan words in the Greek version of Daniel “are
hopelessly inexact—mere guesswork,” which suggests that the terms were so
ancient that “their meaning was already lost and forgotten (or, at the least,
drastically changed) long before he [the translator] set to work.” (Kitchen, Notes,
43) Thus Kitchen concludes that “the fact suggest an origin for the Persian
words in the Aramaic of Daniel before ca. 300 B.C.” (Ibid., 77) (Stephen R.
Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture [The
New American Commentary 18; Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1994], 28)
The Tanner's 1977 book, Did Spalding Write the Book of Mormon? is not available for free online. Also, Dan Vogel, back in 2007, interacted with proponents of the various Spalding theories of Book of Mormon origins on a thread entitled
DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY
While Dan cannot exegete scripture (ancient or modern) to save his life, he does a great job at refuting the common evidences Dale Broadhurst et al., provide to support the Spalding theory.
I make this post to show that the Spalding theory can be easily refuted by simply referencing works from critics (Vogel) and anti-Mormons (Tanners), although there have been other excellent refutations by Latter-day Saints, such as my friend Matt Roper.
5:4 Having elaborated on the first characteristic
of the high priest, that he is one of the people, the author now turns to
the second: he is appointed (cf. v. 1). The term that is translated “honor” (timē)
is commonly used for public office (LSJ), and it is not necessarily objectionable
to assume such honor for oneself (cf. Luke 19:12). With respect to the high-priestly
office, however, an appointment by God is necessary, as in the case of Aaron
(Exod 28:1).
The audience may have had occasion not
reflect on the contrast between the biblical qualifications for the high priest
and the high priests in Jerusalem. In 174 BCE, Jaso bribed the Seleucid ruler
Antiochus IV Epiphanes to appoint him to the high priesthood (2 Macc 4:7-10).
Subsequent high priests also relied on foreign political rulers in order to
ascend to the office. The author, however, does not hint any criticism of the
high priests that served in the Second Temple. His concern is not with the
corruption of the office but with how Jesus’s high priesthood relates to the
scriptural portrait of the earthly high priest. To him, the physical temple
structure in Jerusalem and the ministry performed there were irrelevant. On the
assumption of a late date for the letter, the reason may be that the temple had
already been destroyed. The irrelevance of the temple may also have something
to do with the author’s understanding of his own and his audience’s sense of
identity. While they maintained relations with the Jewish community, they did
not understand themselves as a part of the community whose worship had centered
around the Jerusalem temple. (Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews [The
Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2023], 279)
. . . the author of Daniel exhibited a
more extensive knowledge of sixth-century events than would seem possible for a
second-century writer. R. H. Pfeiffer (who argued that the work contains
errors) acknowledged that Daniel reports some amazing historical details: “We
shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the
creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30 [Heb 4:27]), as the excavations have proved .
. . and that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel and in
Bar. 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took
Babylon in 538 (chap. 5).” (Pfeiffer, Introduction, 758-59) . . .
Regarding the historical setting, it is commonly claimed by those who accept
the late date that the Book of Daniel was composed (in final form at least)
exclusively to address the problem of the Maccabean revolt, and all agree that
the prophecy speaks of Antiochus IV and his persecutions of the Jewish people.
Yet, as A. Ferch points out concerning Dan 11, one would expect more precise
allusions to the Maccabean crisis than actually occur, especially since this
material supposedly was written a matter of months after the events transpired.
(A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis,’” AUSS 21
[1983]: 134-36) Ferch also comments, “Even if the author was a member of the Hasidim
or was a pacifist, it is unlikely that he would not warm up more to the
successes of his countrymen and that he would leave unnamed such heroes as
Matthias and Judas Maccabeus.” (Ibid., 136) An examination of the book also
reveals that many of the supposed references to the Maccabean crisis (including
those thought to be present in all of the narratives in chaps. 1-6) are
unconvincing.
Another argument against the Maccabean
view is that the pagan governments in the historical accounts in Daniel do not
exhibit a hostile attitude toward the Jews, contrary to conditions under
Antiochus IV. Even Montgomery asserts: “It must be positively denied, as
earlier conservative comm., and now Mein., Holscher, have rightly insisted,
that Neb, and Darius are types of the infamous Antiochus, or at the trials of
the confessors in the bk. represent the Macc. martyrdoms.” (Montgomery, Daniel,
89) Neither was Daniel an antagonist of Nebuchadnezzar but even seems to have
admired him. In almost every instance, Daniel was a friend of the monarch, and
the king exhibited great respect and even affection for him. Such a scenario
certainly does not correspond to the time of Antiochus, when the godly Jews
were being persecuted and murdered by that pagan despot. These Jews did not
admire Antiochus but despised his evil ways. Even if the stories were written
earlier than the second century B.C., and adapted by a Maccabean author, it
seems logical to expect that he would have changed elements of the stories to
fit his present situation. (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological
Exposition of Holy Scripture [The New American Commentary 18; Broadman and
Holman Publishers, 1994], 26, 27)