Ephesians 2:8-9: Quick Tips

This one goes into the “quick-and-easy-bible-bash tips” bin. While it may not be the most exhaustive or thorough way to understand the issues, this is a quick, honest, and effective way of dealing with a common anti-Mormon criticism. Part 1 is about Eph. 2:8, and Part 2 is about Eph. 2:9.

Alma 7:10, Here we go again

Three FARMS scholars, Daniel Peterson, Matthew Roper, and William J. Hamblin (PRH for the remainder of this paper), co-authored a paper entitled “On Alma 7:10 and the Birthplace of Christ.” This paper addresses a common anti-Mormon criticism of the Book of Mormon, that Alma 7:10 incorrectly places Jesus birth in Jerusalem, and not in Bethlehem. That essay is of scholarly caliber, being well researched, well written, and they document their findings through generous footnotes. It can be accessed here: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=37

Rocky Hulse of Mormon Missions Midwest Outreach, at my invitation, reviewed PRH’s paper. Hulse’s review is very informal, not including any footnotes or demonstrating the scholarly tone that PRH does. Hulse’s review can be accessed here: http://mormonhomeevening.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-alma-710-and-birthplace-of-jesus_01.html

I have reviewed Hulse’s review of PRH. In keeping with Hulse’s original review, the words of PRH are in black, and Hulse’s words are in red. I have placed my words in blue. Also in keeping with Hulse’s review, I have kept my review informal, free of footnotes. But, though it wasn’t a primary goal of mine, I hope that I have kept a more scholarly tone than Hulse did. This review is very long, and the average reader probably will not find it worth reading. Nonetheless, for those interested, my review is found in its entirety here. I include here at the outset the final paragraph of my review:

PRH’s arguments are based on careful study of the text of the Book of Mormon, the text of the Bible, the text of other Ancient Near Eastern documents, and the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their arguments are grounded in sound logic and scholarly methods. Hulse’s rebuttal on the other hand specializes in quibbles over word choice and egregious logical fallacies, and is driven by a fundamental need to dismiss LDS evidences, no matter the intellectual cost. Hulse demonstrates an unfortunately typical characteristic of Evangelical anti-Mormons, a lack of academic rigor and an inability to grapple with the sophisticated arguments of LDS scholars. Because of this, Hulse relieves his cognitive dissonance through silly arguments that not only are easily overturned, but come nowhere near addressing the arguments of LDS scholars.

You can find my review in PDF form by clicking on the link below.

Response to Hulse, Alma 7-10

New Books for Christmas!

These are the new books I got for Christmas this year. I’m looking forward to reading them even though I know it will take forever since I’m always reading multiple books at once. Let me know if you have any comments about these books, be they good or bad!

Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament

The Story of Christian Theology

Exploring Mormon Thought Vol. 2

MesoAmerica and the Book of Mormon: Is This the Place?

By the Hand of Mormon

The Short History of Inerrancy

Charles Hodge was born in New England in 1797. He spent 27 years (1851-1878) as the principal of Princeton Theological Seminary. This post is dedicated to Hodge because he was a influential theologian who laid the groundwork for today’s fundamentalist Christian view of scriptural inerrancy and infallibility. That’s right, inerrancy and infallibility can only be traced back to the mid-1800’s. Wikipedia notes:

According to an article in Theology Today published in 1975, “There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy.”

Coleman (1975). “Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?”. Theology Today Volume 31, No. 4.

Some Christians distinguish between inerrancy and infallibility, though most probably use the terms interchangeably. Regardless of how one understands those terms, the following comments about Hodge make it clear what his position was. I’ve bolded some portions.

Although he denied that the human authors of Scripture were mere “machines” who wrote mechanically under divine inspiration, Hodge insisted that inspiration and infallibility extend to the very words and not merely to the ideas of the Bible. He elevated the divine aspects of Scripture and denigrated the human when he wrote that “it is enough to impress any mind with awe, when it contemplates the Sacred Scriptures filled with the highest truths, speaking with authority in the name of God, and so miraculously free from the soiling touch of human fingers.”1 … Without any doubt, then, Hodge presented one of the highest and most absolute views of the sole authority of Scripture in the history of Christian theology. Against what he perceived to be liberal Protestant theology’s diminution of that authority in favor of experience and reason, Hodge inflated the doctrine of scripture to a role of prominence unparalleled before his time.

Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform, Intervarsity Press 1999, pp. 559

1. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Eerdmans, 1973), 1:10.

What is the point of all this? It is simply to point out that the doctrines of inerrancy/infallibility are newcomers to the scene. They do not represent ancient Christian traditions. I recognize that Latter-day Saint theology has various elements that are also not found in ancient Christianity, but we believe that modern prophets have and are revealing new things. This is not so for mainstream Christians. They have to deal with the fact that a very important doctrine was “discovered” in the Bible many many centuries after it was written.

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)

Merry Christmas from Lehi’s Library!

http://www.lds.org/topic/christmas/

“Praise to the Man” = Worship?

In commemoration of the birthday of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Dec 23, 1805) I thought I’d write a short post addressing a common claim made by Evangelical critics (mostly CARM types). It is sometimes said that Mormons worship Joseph Smith because we “praise” him in the song “Praise to the Man” (hymn #27). The opening verse of this song goes like this:

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!

Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer.

Blessed to open the last dispensation,

Kings shall extol him and nations revere.

If praising someone or something is equivalent to worshipping it, than Bible-believing Evangelicals have got a problem on their hands. There are many passages in the Bible that refer approvingly to “praise” that is directed at someone or something that is not God. I suggest that in light of this we reconsider the strange conclusion that “praise” = “worship”. The following list of passages is not meant to be exhaustive, and represent only a cursory search that I’ve done.

Genesis 49:8 ¶ Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee.

Proverbs 27:1-2

1 Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.

2 Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.

Proverbs 31:30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

Song of Solomon 6:9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

Ecclesiasted 4:2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.

Isaiah 62:7  And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem an object of praise in the earth. (see NET Bible footnote)

Zephaniah 3: 19-20 (speaking of Israel)

19 Behold, at that time I will undo all that afflict thee: and I will save her that halteth, and gather her that was driven out; and I will get them praise and fame in every land where they have been put to shame.

20 At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you: for I will make you a name and a praise among all people of the earth, when I turn back your captivity before your eyes, saith the Lord.

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

1 Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

At this time when we are remembering the birth and life of Jesus Christ, let us take a small moment to thank God for restoring his gospel to the Earth once again. Let us be thankful that he chose a man as praiseworthy and faithful as Joseph Smith to do it.

The Philosophical Roots of the Trinity: Alexander and Arius

Here is an interesting quote from Evangelical scholar Roger Olson. Feel free to comment.

In the deep background of the clash between Arius and Alexander over the nature of the Logos lay Greek philosophy. It is something both had in common, even if they applied it differently. Both sides of the conflict simply assumed that divinity is ontologically perfect in such a way that any change at all is impossible for it and improper to attribute to it. Thus God, being divine and therefore absolutely perfect, cannot experience change because to change is always to change either for the better or the worse, and in either case God would not be God if he could change. 

Absolute static perfection–including apatheia, or impassibility (passionlessness)–is the nature of God according to Greek thought, and nearly all Christian theologians came to agree with this. Of course, they could find in the scriptures several supporting passages that denied change and variability in God. God’s immutability and impassibility, then, became chief attributes of God in Christian theology…

Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform“ InterVarsity Press; First Edition edition (April 1999) pg 143

1 Peter 2:9; The “Royal Priesthood” and Evangelicals

1 Peter 2:7-9

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

This passage is so often used by Evangelicals to argue that the LDS view of priesthood contradicts the bible. They say that it teaches that all believers are part of the “royal priesthood”, as opposed to the LDS practice of having only worthy males belong to the priesthood.

Indeed, Peter refers to the Christian community as a “royal priesthood.” What Evangelical critics always fail to note, unfortunately, is that Peter is quoting God as he speaks to Israel through Moses:

Exo 19:5-6 

5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine;

6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

The obvious point is that although God referred to the believers in Israel as a “Kingdom of Priests”, only the Levites would actually become priests. Likewise, if Peter is correctly quoting God (and we must believe that he is) then the ancient Christian Church could be a “royal priesthood” without requiring that every Christian be a priest. Instead, like ancient Israel, certain worthy individuals held the priesthood and the entire Church was blessed by them.

John Tvedtnes writes more about this issue here, which I highly recommend: http://www.fairlds.org/Bible/Is_There_a_Priesthood_of_All_Believers.html

Part 2: Larry Hurtado and 2nd Temple Jewish Monotheism

It turns out that Weaver had a different essay/book in mind. The message is still the same, however. These are my notes on chapter 1 of Larry Hurtado, “Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity” 2003.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_MH-_ZQuZrgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Larry+Hurtado&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Some summary bullet points:

• Hurtado describes God’s uniqueness not in terms of ontological attributes (species uniqueness as Heiser calls it) but in terms of worship-worthiness. The Jews are “monotheistic” because they offer cultic/liturgical worship to only one individual, the God of Israel. Hurtado distances himself from Bauckham who argues that God was seen as conceptually/doctrinally unique.
• The Jews recognized other “divine” figures besides the one God, exalted humans and angels, who serve God. The Jews honor and reverence them, but do not worship them.
• Hurtado does not discuss any nuance the word “divine” carries in his usage, and he refers to lesser exalted figures as well as God as “divine”.
• Hurtado does not discuss the exact meaning of the word “god” either. However, he does not refer to any individual but God as a “god” when discussing 2^nd Temple Judaism.
• The only mention Hurtado makes of creatio ex nihilo is in criticizing another scholar (Peter Hayman) who places that limitation on the definition of “monotheism.”

When discussing 2^nd Temple Jewish monotheism and modern Mormonism I find it very easy for two individuals to talk past each other. The terms “divine” and “god” can be ambiguous if not specifically defined. We may find that we are equivocating on those terms if we are not careful. For example, D&C 132 describes exalted men as “gods”, but other scholars (such as Hurtado) might consider a “god” to be only that which is worshipped (though he doesn’t specify). LDS do not consider exalted men to be worthy of our worship. Thus, confusion and miscommunication are companions to any discussion of these issues unless terms are very carefully and specifically defined.

If “monotheism” is defined as the worship of only one god, then Mormonism definitely qualifies as monotheistic. The Book of Mormon and the D&C clearly teach that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are “one God.” One might question how the inclusion of various members of the Godhead fit into that formula, but that is a question that other Christians likewise must wrestle with. The acceptance of Jesus Christ as being worthy of worship but as being distinct from the Father was a radical development in Jewish monotheism, but was one that was not seen by its adherents as breaching monotheism. That is a subject for another post, however. The bulk of Hurtado’s book is dedicated to that topic. Here we only examine his description of 2^nd Temple Jewish Monotheism.

Below are some selected excerpts from chapter 1 of  Hurtado’s book.

Part 1: Larry Hurtado and 2nd Temple Jewish Monotheism

This post will be a bit long, as I quote extensively from an essay. The reader is invited to read all of the fantastic quotes, or to simply read the summary given in the first quote. 

A fellow I frequently run into at CARM (goes by the moniker Weaver) recently stated, in reference to an essay by Larry Hurtado about 2nd Temple Jewish monotheism (I paraphrase), “Any Mormon who reads this essay will immediately be forced to cease being a Mormon.” That is pretty strong language. Larry Hurtado is a scholar of 1st century Christianity and Judaism at Edinburgh University. Weaver apparently feels that Hurtado’s findings utterly refute the LDS view of God. I beg to differ.

Hurtado describes late 2nd Temple Jewish monotheism as a monotheism defined by the worship of only one god/divine being, while recognizing various lesser divine beings which are part of God’s retinue. Monotheism here is determined by studying how many divine beings are worshipped, not by how many divine beings are recognized.