Athanasius the Heretic

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 293 – 2 May 373) is considered by many to be a champion or orthodox Trinitarianism. Indeed, he was the leader of the fight agains Arianism during the heyday of that controversy.  A Trinitarian creed (composed much later) was even named after him. However, it is less known that Athanasius held some views that are now considered heretical. Athanasius was, in fact, a heretic. He believed something very similar to Apollinarianism, a heresy condemned in 381.

I’m adding this to the blog because it is an interesting footnote of history, and one that I think could be useful. The hero of many Trinitarians turns out to be a bit of heretic himself.

This is from Evangelical scholar Roger Olson in his book “The Story of Christian Theology.” I’ve kept the same footnote numbers he used, and I added my note own at the end:

The James Strang Plates: Notes from Dr. Peterson

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Daniel Peterson’s 2006 FAIR Conference address. DCP has posted this excerpt several times on MADB. Everything after this sentence are his words.

Peterson/Hamblin Debate With James White

FAIR has posted a Youtube audio recording of a debate held between Dan Peterson, William Hamblin and James White. This debate took place on Martin Tanner’s old radio program. I posted the transcript to a small portion of this debate in another post. This is sure to be an interesting and exciting discussion.

Here is a link to a playlist with each video of the debate (12 total): http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3803C443E45BB6E

Here is the first video:

An Alternative to Inerrancy: Blake Ostler

The following is a brief description of the nature of scripture by Blake Ostler. It proposes an alternative view to inerrancy, a view that is more in line with LDS thought. Ostler wrote this for the FARMS Review in a review of “How Wide The Divide?”

I thought it was interesting and useful and so I put it here on the blog. Everything after this sentence is Ostler’s words.

Sexual Nature of Deity in the OT: David Bokovoy

This is a short but interesting essay by LDS scholar David Bokovoy that discusses the sexuality of gods in the ANE, and in the OT. This is of interest to LDS because we envision our God as an exalted man and, in my opinion, sexuality is part of what man is. 

Thanks to Ron Beron for publishing Bokovoy’s essay on his blog. It can be read here: http://archaiologia.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/68/

Tommy on Mormonism: Blog Post Review

Tommy on Mormonism is the name of a blog by a critic of Mormonism. Tommy takes up the ambitious task of reading the Book of Mormon and blogging about his thoughts, particularly about his criticism of what he reads. This post is dedicated to reviewing the first installment of Tommy’s series (a series which is still in progress). In this post I attempt to defend against Tommy’s attacks on the Title Page, Introduction, and Testimony of the Three Witnesses. It is my belief that Tommy’s demonstrated lack of knowledge on these issues does not bode well for the rest of his review of the Book of Mormon.

Tommy raises three basic issues, which I will address in order. 

Matt 22 & Eternal Marriage: Some Ideas

Matthew 22:23-33

23 ¶ The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27 And last of all the woman died also.
28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Here I’ve gathered some ideas from various individuals on how to understand this verse from an LDS perspective. If you know of any others, please let me know. I’m a bit conflicted about how to best interpret this passage, so any comments would be appreciated.

Death Cannot Conquer the Hero Again…

Today marks the 165th anniversary of the martrydom of the Prophet Joseph Smith. This is a small tribute to that wonderful prophet of God.

Peterson & Hamblin On the Word “Cult”:

The following was written by Daniel Peterson and William Hamblin in the FARMS Review, 1999, in a review of How Wide the Divide? entitled “The Evangelical is Our Brother.” It addresses the issue of anti-Mormons using the term “cult” when referring to Mormonism.

In this light, we cheer the joint call by Professors Robinson and Blomberg to retire the term cult from discussions about Mormonism (p. 193). That word is deeply offensive and insulting to Latter-day Saints, and, while we can certainly understand its utility in stigmatizing and thus marginalizing us, it is hardly conducive to respectful conversation or good community relations. What if, for example, certain groups of people found themselves labeled jerks, idiots, and imbeciles, and discovered that they were being discussed in books bearing titles like Confronting the Jerks at Your Door, Chaos of the Cretins, and When Idiots Ask? It would not help much for some self-proclaimed “Ministry to Morons” to explain—as many have attempted to do with the word cult—that no offense was intended, that they were using the term imbecile in a technical and very precise way to refer, say, to pretribulationists or to those who deny the gift of tongues. Why choose such a demeaning word? Few evangelicals would acknowledge themselves to be “cretins” even if a self-anointed expert on cretinism pointed out that the term derives originally from the late Latin christianus, meaning “Christian,” via the early French chrétien, and that she was using it in a clinical and dispassionate way as a theological term. And it would hardly soften the insult of the title When Idiots Ask were the author of that book to explain that he intended the original sense of the Greek idiotes (“a private person,” “an individual”), as a scientifically neutral way of describing those who hold to their own opinions instead of to the classical creeds. The insulting character of words like idiot, imbecile, and cult renders them useless for serious interfaith discussion.⁹

The Nature of LDS Doctrines: Kevin Christensen

Kevin Christensen recently wrote the following at MADB, and I thought it was worthy of storing here on the blog. It is in an answer the question, “Can Mormonism be falsified?”:

One problem is that Mormonism is not set of static doctrines and immutable, “Official” teachings and unchanging practices. Rather it is a network of interconnected assertions, notions, and interpretations, and practices which is itself, subject to growth and re-evaluation. Ongoing revelation and the openly declared fallibility of the leadership is built in. Critics prefer knocking over houses of cards, and then congratulating themselves for their penetrating skepticism. But in my view, they have not really penetrated those basic LDS premises.

We can, on the other hand, assess, and periodically reassess various claims, in light of new insights and information. Brodie, for instance, thought that she’d falsified the first vision by claiming that no one had heard of it before 1838. That particular claim has not done well in light of new knowledge., including earlier accounts being discovered in the archives. That doesn’t prove the first vision. Just that many claims to have falsified this or that may be under-minded either by new information, or by reexamining the assumptions that frame other queries.