8. Francis Beckwith returns to Catholicism
No doubt many Protestants convert to the Roman Catholic Church every day. But most aren't serving as president of the Evangelical Theological Society, as Beckwith was when he returned to the faith in which he was raised.

I think what frustrates a lot of people regarding these issues is that too many critics of the Mormon Church get hung up on the language Mormons use to speak of the Trinity, and analyze that entirely in isolation from the actual devotional patterns of Mormon worship. Any open-minded observation of Mormon worship practices, as seen in their hymns, their scriptures (especially the Book of Mormon), and their speech patterns in prayer and praise, make it clear that they ascribe to Jesus Christ the very sort of reverence which the Bible calls for with respect to adoration of the one true God. What sympathetic critics like McDermott and Blomberg are trying to do is, through dialogue, to encourage LDS thinkers and intellectual trend setters to bring their theological language more into conformity to their actual devotional practices.

Elijah came near to all the people and said, "How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people did not answer him a word. (1 Kings 18:21)

As I’ve reflected on the tension with traditional apologetic approaches and more dialogue-centered approaches between Evangelicals and Mormons, I’ve been struck with the text-centered nature of traditional apologetic methodologies.

They pretend that he taught sola Scriptura, or at any rate, something more closely akin to it than the Catholic "three-legged stool" rule of faith (Bible-Tradition-Church). But Athanasius was a good Catholic. I shall now list ten different areas where St. Athanasius thought very much like a Catholic and very unlike how Protestants approach things. The excerpts are from my book, The Church Fathers Were Catholic: Patristic Evidences for Catholicism (excepting the Deuterocanonical section):

Apostolic Succession

. . . inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power. (Festal Letter 2:6)

4. Now those who do not observe the feast, continue such as these even to the present day, feigning indeed and devising names of feasts, but rather introducing days of mourning than of gladness; `For there is no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord.' And as Wisdom saith, `Gladness and joy are taken from their mouth.' Such are the feasts of the wicked. But the wise servants of the Lord, who have truly put on the man which is created in God, have received gospel words, and reckon as a general commandment that given to Timothy, which saith, `Be thou an example to the believers in word, in conversation, in love, in faith, in purity.' So well do they keep the Feast, that even the unbelievers, seeing their order, may say, `God is with them of a truth.' For as he who receives an apostle receives Him who sent him, so he who is a follower of the saints, makes the Lord in every respect his end and aim, even as Paul, being a follower of Him, goes on to say, `As I also of Christ.' For there were first our Saviour's own words, who from the height of His divinity, when conversing with His disciples, said, `Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls.' Then too when He poured water into a basin, and girded Himself with a towel, and washed His disciples' feet, He said to them, `Know what I have done. Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye say well, for so I am. If therefore I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet: for I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, ye also should do.'
   5. Oh! my brethren, how shall we admire the loving-kindness of the Saviour? With what power, and with what a trumpet should a man cry out, exalting these His benefits! That not only should we bear His image, but should receive from Him an example and pattern of heavenly conversation; that as He hath begun, we should go on, that suffering, we should not threaten, being reviled, we should not revile again, but should bless them that curse, and in everything commit ourselves to God who judgeth righteously. For those who are thus disposed, and fashion themselves according to the Gospel, will be partakers of Christ, and imitators of apostolic conversation, on account of which they shall be deemed worthy of that praise from him, with which he praised the Corinthians, when he said, `I praise you that in everything ye are mindful of me.' Afterwards, because there were men who used his words, but chose to hear them as suited their lusts, and dare to pervert them, as the followers of Hymenaeus and Alexander, and before them the Sadducees, who as he said, `having made shipwreck of faith,' scoffed at the mystery of the resurrection, he immediately proceeded to say, `And as I have delivered to you traditions, hold them fast.' That means, indeed, that we should think not otherwise than as the teacher has delivered.

“[Seripando was] Impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus, and St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the Old Testament must be accorded those which Christ Himself and the apostles quoted in the New Testament, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the New Testament does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain Old Testament books not quoted in the New Testament are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are "libri canonici et authentici"; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.”
   Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.

   “For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.”
   Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278.

“In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon and the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary and represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all the evangelical truths were contained in the Bible, and he subscribed to the canon of St. Jerome, as did also Madruzzo and Fonseca on April 1. While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.”
Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282.

9. According to verses 37-39, what did Jesus come to do? What is the will of God? How did John previously introduce his readers to the Resurrection (Jn. 2:18-22, Jn 11, and Jn 20; cf. notes on Jn 5, pp. 131-32)? Look ahead at verses 44, 54. How are "heavenly food" and resurrection related?

Q: If so, does the Church believe that God lives on a planet named Kolob?
Q: Where is the planet Kolob? What significance does the planet have to Mormons?
A: 'Kolob' is a term found in ancient records translated by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith did not provide a full description or explanation of Kolob nor did he assign the idea particular significance in relation to the Church’s core doctrines.

If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; therefore Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokaubeam that thou hast seen, because it is nearest unto me. (3:16)

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.
Fig. 2. Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that God and Mary had physical sex to conceive Jesus?
A: The Church does not claim to know how Jesus was conceived but believes the Bible and Book of Mormon references to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary.

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe Jesus appeared in North America after his crucifixion and resurrection?
Q: If so, when did this happen? And under what circumstances?
A: The appearance of Jesus in the Western Hemisphere shortly after his resurrection is described in the Book of Mormon. Mormons believe that when Christ told his disciples in the Bible He had other 'sheep' who should receive his message he was referring to those people in the Western Hemisphere.

1. Say: He is Allah the One and Only;
2. Allah the Eternal Absolute;
3. He begetteth not nor is He begotten;
4. And there is none like unto Him.
(Al-Ikhlaas, 112:1-4)

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. (Al-Maida, 5:46)

لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ

Isaiah 9:6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

WALLACE: And what about Mitt Romney? And I've got to ask you the question, because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a Mormon a true Christian?

OSTEEN: Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that's what I believe, so, you know, I'm not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are.

And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don't think he would - anything would stop me from voting for him if that's what I felt like.

WALLACE: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?

OSTEEN: I probably don't get hung up in them because I haven't really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don't know.

I certainly can't say that I agree with everything that I've heard about it, but from what I've heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that's a common bond.

Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all he brings,
risen with healing in his wings.
Mild he lays his glory by,
born that man no more may die,
born to raise the sons of earth,
born to give us second birth.
Hark! the herald angels sing,
"Glory to the new born King!"

"For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze," says the Lord of hosts, "so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing," says the Lord of hosts.

Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. (2 Cor. 5:9)
Walk as children of light, trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. (Eph 5:8, 10).

Another passage in Scripture provides a window into heaven were we see a Queen Mother giving birth to a royal son. In Revelation 12 we see Mary revealed as Queen of Heaven. Fundamentalists dismiss this passage in various ways (which we will discuss later), but even if one wants to deny it is actually Mary, it is still obvious that the idea of a Queen Mother giving birth to a royal son was not abhorred or condemned in the first century of Christianity—even by the Apostles. This is, for heaven’s sake (no pun intended) part of the Bible. In fact, the book of Revelation was included in the canon of Scripture even though it graphically portrayed a Queen Mother in Heaven.

a woman: Most of the ancient commentators identified her with the Church; in the Middle Ages it was widely held that she represented Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Modern exegetes have generally adopted the older interpretation, with certain modifications.
   In recent years several Catholics have championed the Marian interpretation. Numerous contextual details, however, are ill-suited to such an explanation. For example, we are scarcely to think that Mary endured the worst of the pains of childbirth (v. 2), that she was pursued into the desert after the birth of her child (6, 13ff.), or, finally, that she was persecuted through her other children (v. 17). The emphasis on the persecution of the woman is really appropriate only if she represents the Church, which is presented throughout the book as oppressed by the forces of evil, yet protected by God. Furthermore, the image of a woman is common in ancient Oriental secular literature as well as in the Bible (e.g., Is 50:1; Jer 50:12) as a symbol for a people, a nation, or a city. It is fitting, then, to see in this woman the People of God, the true Israel of the OT and NT.

Read a synopsis in one year by reading one pericope [a gospel passage] every day! By coincidence, the synopsis has 367 pericopes (That is, all four gospels combined contain 367 units.) And next year is a leap year so if you read one pericope a day for next year, plus one additional day, you will have read all 367 units of all four gospels in a full year. The edition that I recommend for English is the Synopsis of the Four Gospels Edited by Kurt Aland.

Q: Why do some call the Church a cult?
New Mormonism: For the most part, this seems to stem from a lack of understanding about the Church and its core doctrines and beliefs. Under those circumstances it is too easy to label a religion or other organization that is not well-known with an inflammatory term like 'cult.' Famed scholar of religion Martin Marty has said a cult means a church you don't personally happen to like. We don't believe any organization should be subjected to a label that has come to be as pejorative as that one.

"And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act." (Orson Pratt, OP-WA, "The Kingdom of God," no.2, p.6)
"...all other churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who recieves baptism or the Lord's supper from their hands will highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt people." (Orson Pratt, The Seer, pg. 255)
"...the great apostate church as the anti-christ...This great antichrist...is the church of the devil." (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine p.40)
"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the "whore of Babylon" whom the lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness." (Pratt, The Seer, p.255)
"Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth." (Brigham Young, JD 6:176)
"Evil spirits control much of the so-called religious worship in the world; for instance, the great creeds of Christendom were formulated so as to conform to their whispered promptings." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.246)
"After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christiandom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common orgin. They belong to Babylon." (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, p.324)

Q: Does the Mormon Church believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God?
A: Mormons believe Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer, who died for the sins of humankind and rose from the dead on the third day with an immortal body. God, the Father, also has an immortal body.

Are these Marian dogmas explicitly spelled out in the Bible? No. But ask yourself this: are all Protestant dogmas clearly spelled out in the Bible? No. There is often a double standard thrown in our faces. You Catholics cannot prove your doctrines from the Bible alone! You made them up!

But good grief, where do they find their favorite doctrine of sola Scriptura explicitly stated in Scripture? We certainly have more warrant for trusting the authority of the Church and the need for Tradition (2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, etc.), than they have to prove their unbiblical doctrine of sola Scriptura. Where do we find their intricate Rapture theologies clearly stated? It is obvious they are not clearly stated because there are as many permutations on that Fundamentalist doctrine as there are heads. Where is the word trinity in the Bible, or where do we see it explicitly stated and explained.

"Swan struck me as a real lightweight, and the above seems to verify my suspicion. He is a 'wanna-be' and it seems like he tries to puff out his chest to look bigger than he actually is."
   
"It seems he is a James White wanna-be, though he’s no where near as clever."

"If the world lasts for a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of faith." Epis. ad. Zwingli (ap. Balmes, p. 423)" - Martin Luther

In Mormonism, God the Father, Elohim, begets children in the spiritual pre-existence.
In Mormonism, God, men, and angels, are of the same "species."
In Mormonism, Jesus is the first begotten spirit child of Elohim.
In Mormonism, angels "are chosen from among his (Elohim's) offspring and are themselves pressing forward along the course of progression and salvation, all in their respective spheres" (Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 35).
In Mormonism, Satan is a fallen angel.
Therefore, Jesus and Satan are both offspring of Elohim, and therefore....?

SALT LAKE CITY 12 December 2007 Like other Christians, we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel.
   As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

Huck asks in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
   No word yet on whether the former Arkansas governor asked if the Jews killed Jesus or if Catholics pray to Mary as a god.

   I have documented over the past week the attempts of LDS scholars to hide the common teachings of the leaders of the Latter-day Saints, specifically, the consistent teaching of the General Authorities on the physical parentage of Jesus by the Father, Elohim. These are not even arguable points, to be honest. No one can seriously argue that this has not been the consistent teaching of the LDS Church leadership. But given that our culture does not value the concept of truth, what someone "feels" is the teaching of a group is sufficient, and the consistent teaching over time of a group can be dismissed as a relic of history.
   There is likewise little question about this topic, either. Jesus is the first begotten spirit child of the exalted Elohim, a man who lived on another planet and became a god. Lucifer was likewise one of the spirit offspring of Elohim, as are you and I. This makes us all spirit brothers of Jesus, including Lucifer. Hence, it is a true statement that Jesus and Lucifer are spirit brothers. I have not found any statements from the General Authorities "clarifying" this teaching. But I would like to offer the following as evidence of the doctrine in the teachings of the LDS Church, taken again from my book Letters to a Mormon Elder p. 207:

   With that understood, let's get to the topic at hand. As we discussed earlier, in current Mormon theology the Father is identified as "Elohim" and the Son, Jesus Christ, is Jehovah. We have already seen that this distinction is anti-Biblical in that it is directly contradictory to what the Bible reveals about God. But it is important to keep this distinction in mind to understand the LDS concept of Christ. [I keep saying "current Mormon theology," Steve, because originally Joseph Smith taught a different concept, and Brigham Young yet another---the "current" belief about Elohim and Jehovah did not develop until early in this century.]
   The "Mormon Jesus" is Elohim's first-born spirit-child in the pre-existence. I have here the pamphlet you gave me when we first met entitled What the Mormons Think of Christ. On pages 6 and 7 we read:

   In this conversation our Lord boldly directed the Pharisees to consider the very heart and core of Christianity. Is he really the Son of God, as we are the sons of mortal fathers? Or was he just another religious teacher, of whom there were many among the Jews in that day? Or was he the greatest moral and spiritual teacher of all ages, though not the literal, personal offspring in the flesh of that exalted, personal being who is God our Father?...

Verse Two

Christ, by highest heaven adored;
Christ, the everlasting Lord;
late in time behold him come,
offspring of a virgin's womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
hail th' incarnate Deity,
pleased as man with man to dwell,
Jesus, our Emmanuel.
Hark! the herald angels sing,
"Glory to the new born King!"

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Late in Time Behold Him Come
   I don't know that I can say with complete certainty what Wesley had in mind with this phrase. I think he is referring to the fact that the Jewish people were in a state of watchfulness and eager anticipation for the Messiah, especially since they had been oppressed and dominated for over 500 years. "How long, O Lord?" was a cry that often went up as the Old Covenant people of God looked forward to their physical redemption. It is also possible, and poetically satisfying, to see this phrase in contrast to the preceding line: the Everlasting Lord comes late in time. In other words, despite Christ being eternal and dwelling in eternity, he condescends to enter into time, to take on the flesh of humanity, to be born flesh-and-blood, and while being totally human, that flesh only obscuring His true deity, never diminishing it. I like this reading of the phrase because it ties neatly back in to Philippians 2:5-11. If you have wondered at the humiliation Christ suffered on the cross, consider where that humiliation began. It was not with the scourging and the crown of thorns, nor with the desertion of His disciples, nor the Garden of Gethsemane, and not even with the washing of His disciples' feet. It was at Bethlehem, where He who was very God "became nothing," taking on the flesh of humanity with all the physical limitations and pains that comes with it. It was walking this earth as a humble servant, in obedience to the will of the Father, knowing that He could call upon angels to exalt Him and to silence His enemies, but instead being obedient to the horrendous death He knew He must undergo for the sake of His people.

Pleased As Man with Man to Dwell
   Again, the humiliation Christ suffered He did willingly. His love for fallen humanity was such that He was willing to become a man, to dwell as a man among men, to live a perfect, sinless life; teaching, healing, comforting, and calling His people to Himself. And then, finally, to demonstrate the love of God by giving His own life for the salvation of His people, being both the High Priest offering the perfect sacrifice of propitiation, and also being that very sacrifice Himself.

   The Incarnation and the cross are very closely associated. Though He was only a child in a manger in Bethlehem, He knew the divine plan. Philippians 2:5-11 clearly indicates that Christ knew prior to being born exactly what He was doing. The Gospel accounts show that He was fully aware that His mission did not end with healing the sick, gathering His disciples, and planting a church. Jesus Christ was not crucified because He was misunderstood, or wrongly perceived as a threat, though these might have been true in the minds of His accusers. As Peter said in his prayer recorded in Acts 4:27-28, the Jewish and Roman rulers were merely doing what God had preordained should happen. They were instruments in the hands of God to bring about the salvation of His people.

   As we consider Christ in the manger this Christmas, let us not forget who He is. The living God took human form. Jesus Christ is not just fully divine, He is fully human, and willingly accepted all that humanity brings with it. As a result, He completely understands our weaknesses, our trials, and our sufferings (Hebrews 4:15). He knows what it is like to be us, and while He lived a sinless life, He can still relate to us. And this was something He did not have to do. God, according to His perfect justice, could have left us to die in our sin. He was not obliged to save us; in fact, He was obliged to condemn us all for our sin. However, He satisfied the demands of His perfect justice and displayed His incomprehensible love for His people, by sending His Son from the realms of glory to the dust of the Middle East.

Stayed tuned for the final installment! :-)

00:01:00 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Romney and Mormonism, Dan Barker's Fundamentalist Atheism, on the DL Today

12/11/2007 - James White

14:52:32 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

Islam's Self-Identification as a Denial of Christian Truths Part 2

12/11/2007 - James White

00:01:00 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

Carla Strikes Again

12/10/2007 - James White

   Just in time for that hard-to-please person on your gift list...I mean, hard to please Calvinist on your gift list! I first heard this phrase from my fellow elder at PRBC, but Google tells me he didn't invent it. I have no idea who did, but I sure use it enough, and the Scripture reference, at least, is mine. Any quick review of the landscape of post-evangelicalism will prove the truth of these words, so why not get a few conversations started in the process? Don't forget the other designs in Carla's AOMIN store, including "Theology Matters." You can click here or use the Shop TeamApologian button to the right to visit!

20:01:33 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Back At It!

12/10/2007 - James White

11:19:28 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

Hark! the Herald Angels Sing: Part One

12/10/2007 - Colin Smith

   As December 25th draws ever closer, I would like to begin a brief series of meditations that will, hopefully, conclude on or near Christmas Day. While I would normally advocate very strongly that Scripture alone should be the basis of our meditations, I would like to deviate from that principle and make use of a hymn as the springboard for this series. The hymn I will use, Hark! the Herald Angels Sing is excellently suited to this task. It is packed full of very meaningful theology, and brings to the fore subjects that should be close to our hearts and minds this time of year (and, arguably, all year). (If you are interested in the history of the hymn, a brief Wikipedia entry exists to jumpstart your studies.)

Verse One

Hark! the herald angels sing,
"Glory to the new-born King;
Peace on earth and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled!"
Joyful, all ye nations, rise.
Join the triumph of the skies.
With th' angelic hosts proclaim
"Christ is born in Bethlehem!"
Hark! the herald angels sing,
Glory to the new-born King!

   We begin with a consideration of the message of the angels proclaimed to the shepherds in Luke 2:10-15, along with the message of the angel to Joseph in Matthew 1:20-23. Historically, the nation of Israel had gone through a period of revelatory darkness. For a period of about 500 years, the voices of the prophets had fallen silent. Within that time, the Jews had been scattered, exposed to (and in some cases been consumed by) foreign culture, and were now an occupied nation under Roman rule. While some happily accepted the limited privileges and protection offered by their Gentile overlords, many took exception to the presence of foreigners in the Promised Land. They would look to a coming Messiah, prophesied about in the Scriptures, that would come and overthrow their oppressors, and lead the scattered nation in a victorious uprising against the Romans to claim back their land and their culture.
   It is with this in mind that we approach the text of Scripture (Luke 2:10-15 and Matthew 1:20-23). It should be plain from the text that the message of the angels was not precisely what many had in mind. It was indeed a message of great joy to all the people, and the announcement that a "Saviour" had been born, one who is "Christ [i.e., Messiah], the Lord" would have stirred their hearts enormously. Could this be the one who has come to conquer the barbarians and re-establish David's throne in Jerusalem? Perhaps, in the midst of the excitement, they missed the heart of the message--the very message that Charles Wesley highlights in the first verse of our hymn:

Peace on earth and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled!

   "Peace on Earth" is a popular theme at Christmas, and is normally associated with the idea of the cessation of conflict, brotherly love, Germans and English soldiers playing soccer on Christmas Day during World War I. However, the idea of peace between people was not at all what the angels meant when they proclaimed that a time of peace had come to the earth. What did the angel say to Joseph? That his child's name was to be Jesus ("God Saves"), because "He will save His people from their sins." As Wesley phrased it, "God and sinners reconciled." It is important to note that this is not a mere statement that, because Jesus has come into the world, there is no longer enmity between God and man. Rather, the statement is proclaiming the role of the Saviour: He is the One who will bring peace between sinful men, and God. Note also, the scope of the Saviour's saving activity: "He will save his people from their sins" or, as the NASB translates the Greek of Luke 2:14, "And on earth peace among men with whom He [God] is pleased." This is not a proclamation of amnesty with those who have managed to earn God's favor. No, rather, it is a just and holy God providing a means by which He will save those He has called to eternal life (Acts 13:48).
   For the sinner whose heart has been convicted of sin, who is anxious over his standing before God, and who is moved to repentance, this is truly good news. Here is a reason for joining with the angelic triumph and proclaiming "Christ is born in Bethlehem!" Indeed, the Messiah has come; the Saviour--not from oppression, or from poverty, or war, or debt, or sickness, or whatever evils may come upon us in this world--but from sin and its devastating effects. The One has come who alone can pay the only acceptable price to satisfy God's holy justice against sin, and thus make peace between God and man.
   And if your heart is broken over your sin, and you have been moved to repentance, then this glorious proclamation is for you!

Stay tuned for Part Two... :-)

09:45:11 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism's Embarrassing Theology (Final)

12/09/2007 - James White

THUS SAYETH THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
   If we assume that a publication copyrighted by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be logically called "official," we find a number of statements concerning the literal paternity of Christ in "official" documents written over the last thirty years. For example, from the Family Home Evenings booklet of 1972 we read:

We must come down to the simple fact that God Almighty was the Father of His Son Jesus Christ. Mary, the virgin girl, who had never known mortal man, was his mother. God by her begot his Son Jesus Christ, and he was born into the world with power and intelligence like that of His Father. . . . Now, my little friends, I will repeat again in words as simple as I can, and you talk to your parents about it, that God, the Eternal Father, is literally the father of Jesus Christ. (Joseph F. Smith, Box Elder Stake Conference Dec. 20, 1914 as quoted in Brigham City Box Elder News, 28 Jan. 1915, pp. 1-2).

   Following this statement the booklet shows an almost stick-figure male identified as "Daddy," and another figure, female, identified as "Mommy." There is a plus between them, with lines leading down to a child figure, marked "You." Right below this we have the following diagram that has "Our Heavenly Father" where "Daddy" was, "Mary" where "Mommy" was, and "Jesus" where "You" was. If such a graphic, meant to be used to explain LDS doctrine to children, is not enough to convince a person of the meaning of this teaching, nothing will be. Remember, this is in an "official" publication. But this is certainly not the only place we can find it. The work, Messages for Exaltation: Eternal Insights from the Book of Mormon, said:

Christ has power over death. Since the Fall of Adam, every person born on earth has had within him the seeds of death. Christ was no exception. He inherited the ability to die from mortal mother, Mary. But he also inherited the ability to live forever from his immortal Father. This power over death was entirely dependent upon Christ's being the literal Son of God. From his immortal, glorified Father he inherited power over death. Thus with a mortal mother and an immortal Father, the sinless Christ could decide for himself whether to live or die. The choice was his. Milton R. Hunter expressed this power in these words: He, Jesus Christ, being literally the Only Begotten Son of God, was endowed with a double portion of divine attributes. He received a comparable proportion of divinity in the spirit world that we received through being spirit children of God, and He was also the offspring of the Eternal Father in mortality-thus He possessed a double portion of God's power.

   This is exactly in line with the Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Religion 231 and 232 (Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), 1986, p. 22, which states:

C. Only Jesus Christ possessed the qualifications and attributes necessary to perform an infinite atonement. 1. As the Only Begotten Son of God, the Savior inherited the capacity to suffer for the sins of all the children of God.

   The above referenced Messages for Exaltation also said:

He was willing to make payment because of his great love for mankind, and he was able to make payment because he lived a sinless life and because he was actually, literally, biologically the Son of God in the flesh. Thus he had the power to atone for the spiritual and physical deaths introduced by the Fall of Adam and Eve.

   Is there not an obvious consistency through all these citations, going all the way back through Talmage to Brigham Young? There certainly is. And this consistency follows through to the modern Encyclopedia of Mormonism as well. For example,

For Latter-day Saints, the paternity of Jesus is not obscure. He was the literal, biological son of an immortal, tangible Father and Mary, a mortal woman (see Virgin Birth). Jesus is the only person born who deserves the title "the Only Begotten Son of God" (John 3:16; Benson, p. 3; see Jesus Christ: Only Begotten in the Flesh). He was not the son of the Holy Ghost; it was only through the Holy Ghost that the power of the Highest overshadowed Mary.

   Likewise, we also read:

Ancient and modern scriptures use the title Only Begotten to emphasize the divine nature of Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints recognize Jesus as literally the Only Begotten Son of God the Father in the flesh. . . . This title signifies that Jesus' physical body was the offspring of a mortal mother and of the eternal Father. . . . It is LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ is the child of Mary and God the Father, "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof" (JC, p. 81).

   Note the line, "It is LDS doctrine that Jesus Christ is the child of Mary and God the Father." Is this LDS writer trying to "misrepresent" Mormonism? Is he an "eccentric"? And are Chrisitans to be accused of attacking a straw man when they object to this teaching? No, not at all. This is LDS doctrine, pure and simple, as one last citation shows:

The fact of Jesus' being the literal Son of God in the flesh is crucial to the Atonement, which could not have been accomplished by an ordinary man. . . . To complete the Atonement by physical death and resurrection, it was necessary that Jesus be able to lay down his physical body and also be able to take it up again. He could do this only because he had life in himself, which he inherited from God his Father. . . .Christ inherited the ability to die from his mortal mother and the power to resurrect himself from his immortal Father. Dying was for him a voluntary, deliberate act for mankind, made possible only because he was the Only Begotten of the Father.

CONCLUSION
   It is not always easy to determine the teachings of the LDS faith. However, if one uses the resources that are available, the task is quite possible. And when it comes to the physical, literal parentage of Jesus Christ, the consistent teaching of the General Authorities of the LDS faith is without question. If LDS apologists like Daniel Peterson, Stephen Ricks, and Stephen Robinson, wish to identify this teaching as merely a matter of speculation, they are certainly free to do so (though at the cost of consistency). I certainly would not wish to be pressed into defending a doctrine such as this one! To call it "blasphemous" is to understate the issue. We should not forget, however, the words of Bruce R. McConkie, written to BYU professor Eugene England:

It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. . . . This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact still remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church.

   But it strikes me that it would be rather easy for these men to disprove the doctrine: cite a consistent denial of the alleged "misrepresentation" on the part of critics of the LDS faith from the very same sources I have used. The simple fact is, they can't, since no such denial exists.
   The moral of the story is just this: there are good and bad apologetic works in the Christian community, and there are good and bad apologetic works in the LDS community, too. Normally, the bad Christian books come from those who simply don't do their homework. In the case of Mormonism, however, it is hard to say that leading LDS scholars didn't do their homework. Some other force seems to be in operation here.

00:01:00 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

Some More Video from our Recording Work This Week

12/08/2007 - James White

   We have wrapped up recording a total of thirty two segments of video, twenty one of which are specifically for Iran, eleven others for other venues (all on the topic of Islam). The folks at the studio were kind enough to convert one of the first specifically Islam-related programs to a video format I can post on YouTube, and so I will post it in three segments, beginning below.
   By the way, I discovered recently that GodTube completely deleted all of my videos and my entire account without notification. When I wrote and asked why they did this, I received little meaningful response, other than, "Sorry!" I had not been using them of late anyway, as their process time for an uploaded video was often over twelve hours, sometimes more than a full day. But, that also means that the blog archives are now filled with dead video links. I really do not have time to recreate those videos, if I did not keep the original files, but if I can find a spare moment I will try to repost at least some of the videos I had posted on GodTube. I wish the folks at GodTube well, but it is quite clear to me that their technology/hardware elements are far, far below standard.

12:57:18 - Category: Islam - Link to this article -

The Lord's Blessings

12/07/2007 - James White

   When I came to Nashville a few days ago to record these programs, I expected to do a grand total of twenty programs. That, at least, was our plan. When we finish shooting tomorrow, Lord willing, I will have done thirty two. After the first four I went "solo," and my translator will be coming back in January to record the translation of the material I am recording now (this works better for both of us and allows for a much better end product too). We also recorded a whole series for translation into Arabic (or other languages) on the subject of Islam. The folks here have been fantastic, and the quality of the production is very, very high. I hope to be able to post some more video tomorrow. We thought we had transferred the clips to my jump drive, but for some reason the transfer did not work.
   These videos are intended to be satellite broadcast in Iran, and the Arabic videos in many other countries. I can only say I am deeply thankful for the opportunity to provide this teaching in this context, and surely hope and pray that the Lord will use these videos to the benefit of God's people for years to come. I am truly humbled to have this opportunity, and only pray that should more opportunities arise, I will be able to share my meagre knowledge and abilities.
   I am very thankful for the prayers of God's people during this week. As the week has gone on I have felt better each day. In fact, I have developed a rapport with the crew, and I have enjoyed noting that my presentations have sparked theological discussions, even in the control room! I have now delivered lectures on a wide range of topics, including inspiration, canonization, all sorts of textual issues, allegations of corruption, the gnostic gospels, the Epistle of Barnabas, Trinitarian topics, and a wide range of Islamic subjects. We have truly covered a vast amount of information!
   Meanwhile, back at the offices, a pretty wild night! Our cameras recorded a lightning strike that knocked out power near our offices. Note that in the first image it is dark outside, and then in the very next second, the lightning is seen reflecting off of the wet sidewalks. My daughter works nearby and she reported hearing it, and how a customer reported seeing a bright blue bolt nearby. Power was knocked out throughout the area. Rich and Rob (a new member of our fellowship who has been helping us greatly with electrical work at the offices) had to go down to do some repairs in the rain. It is wonderful to have faithful brethren back there in Phoenix taking care of things while I am so far away! I surely could not do any of the things I do if it were not for Rich and all the others that assist us in keeping the ministry going! Please continue to pray for us!

19:57:49 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism's Embarrassing Theology (#5)

12/07/2007 - James White

MORE AUTHORITIES TESTIFY
   One of the strongest sources we can turn to regarding this doctrine is the official pronouncement titled, "The Father and The Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve." Under the subtitle, "Father as Literal Parent," we find these words:

Scriptures embodying the ordinary signification-literally that of Parent-are too numerous and specific to require citation. The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title "Elohim," is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race.

   Please take notice of the fact that this doctrinal exposition by the leadership of the LDS Church says that the Eternal Father, Elohim, is the "literal parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," as well as the parent of the spirits of the human race. How did God beget our spirits? With our "heavenly Mother," as we have seen earlier. So how, then, did Elohim become the literal parent of Jesus Christ? The answer is obvious. Later the same exposition states:

Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior. No extended explanation of the title "Son of God" as applied to Jesus Christ appears necessary.

   In light of all that has come before, we can understand why this document says that "no extended explanation" of the title Son of God "appears necessary." It wasn't, until modern LDS concluded that such a doctrine is simply indefensible, and began backpedaling very quickly from it.
   Another LDS Apostle, contemporary with Talmage, was Melvin Ballard. He is another witness as to how widely this teaching was disseminated:

   One of the great questions that I have referred to that the world is concerned about, and is in confusion over, is as to whether or not his was a virgin birth, a birth wherein divine power interceded. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear that Jesus Christ told the absolute truth, as did those who testify concerning him, the Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, wherein he is declared to be the very Son of God. And if God the Eternal Father is not the real Father of Jesus Christ, then are we in confusion; then is he not in reality the Son of God. But we declare that he is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh.
   Mary told the story most beautifully when she said that an angel of the Lord came to her and told her that she had found favor in the sight of God, and had come to be worthy of the fulfilment of the promises heretofore made, to become the virgin mother of the Redeemer of the world. She afterwards, referring to the event, said: "God hath done wonderful things unto me." "And the Holy Ghost came upon her," is the story, "and she came into the presence of the highest." No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God.
   Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men-the power of creation. Even though that power may be abused and may become a mere harp of pleasure to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and divine function with which God has endowed man. Made holy, it is retained by the Father of us all, and in his exercise of that great and marvelous creative power and function, he did not debase himself, degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter. Thus Christ became the literal Son of a divine Father, and no one else was worthy to be his father.

   How much plainer can it be expressed? Ballard speaks of the necessity of the Spirit being involved, so that Mary could stand the presence of the "Highest." Ballard knows that some would say this degrades the Father. How does he respond to this charge? By saying that sexual activity, the power of creation itself, this "holy and divine function," is a good thing, and is "retained by the Father of us all." Ballard says God "exercised" that function, but in the process, did not "degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter." If this doctrine is all metaphorical, why the constant reference to sexual activity? The answer is obvious: it is plainly the intention of this LDS leader to assert that God the Father physically begat the body of Jesus Christ. There is no other possibility.
   Apostle Marion G. Romney is yet another who taught this doctrine plainly, and that in the General Conference of the LDS Church:

Now who is Jesus Christ, and how could he bring about the resurrection when no other man nor all men put together could do so? The Scriptures respond to these questions. They make it clear that the spirit person Jesus Christ-as are the spirits of all men-is the Son of God, our Eternal Father. In this respect he is like all other men. He differs from all other men, however, by reason of the fact that men's bodies are begotten of mortal men and are, therefore, subject to death, being descendants and inheritors from Adam, while Christ's physical body was begotten of God, our Heavenly Father-an immortal being not subject to death. Christ, therefore, inherited from his Father the faculty to live on indefinitely. CR1975Apr:123-24

   In an earlier Conference (1967), Henry D. Taylor had spoken to the same, seemingly very common, belief:

Having been begotten of an immortal sire, Jesus possessed as a heritage the power to withstand death indefinitely. He literally and really gave up his life. It was not taken from him.

   Another Conference address example is provided by Hugh B. Brown in 1962:

The answer is found in the fact that of all the sons of God, only Christ could qualify, because he was the only sinless man who ever walked the earth. Furthermore, he was the First Begotten, the eldest of the sons of God in the spirit, and the Only Begotten in the flesh, and therefore the only one who possessed the full powers of Godhood and manhood.

   Mormon Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith provided one of the more common passages cited concerning the paternity of Christ:

CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF HOLY GHOST. I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. He taught this doctrine to his disciples. He did not teach them that He was the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of the Father. . . . Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!

   As President of the Quorum of the Twelve, Ezra Taft Benson made the following statement:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost. He is the son of the Eternal Father!

   Robert A. Rees served as bishop of the Los Angeles First Ward. He gave a sacrament meeting talk on April 29th, 1990, and provided an article to Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought that is found in the Winter, 1991 issue. It is titled, "Bearing Our Crosses Gracefully: Sex and the Single Mormon." His words demonstrate how widespread is this belief. In it we find the following:

Mormons differ from other Christians in our literal belief that we are begotten of God spiritually and that Christ was begotten of him physically. Paul says in Acts that we are God's offspring (17:28-29). We believe that our spiritual conception was sexual just as we believe that Christ's mortal conception was. Elucidating the latter, James E. Talmage says, "That child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law, but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof" (1986, 81).

   We have seen that the idea that this doctrine is a mere speculation on the part of a few LDS leaders of the last century is about as accurate as saying the Chicago Bulls have won a couple of basketball games over the past few years or that Michael Jordan is a so-so player. But remember Robinson's assertion that this doctrine has not "appeared in official church publications" during his lifetime. Is this the case? Let's find out.
(continued---though we have surely already provided more than sufficient documentation to refute Millet's statements already!)

00:01:00 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

Book Review: Williams' Hebrew Syntax, 3rd ed.

12/06/2007 - Alan Kurschner

   John Beckman, who is a graduate of Gordon-Conwell and a PhD student at Harvard has recently revised and expanded Ronald Williams' Hebrew grammar into a 3rd edition previously titled, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. This is the grammar that I used when I studied Hebrew syntax with Douglas Stuart who requires his students to learn all 598 Hebrew syntactical categories during the course of a semester!

   Beckman expanded the definitions of the grammatical terms as well as expanding the Biblical examples (now there are at least two examples for every category). Further,in the footnotes he directs the reader to additional literature of five Hebrew grammars: Joüon, Gesenius, Waltke, Arnold, Merwe et al.

   For the intermediate Hebrew student, (1) this work provides all known Hebrew categories and (2) should serve to help the student be aware of the syntactical possibilities that a single (or combination) of a nominal, verbal, or particle can function as, including the syntax of clauses which is the last section of the book. In short, this grammar is a good place to begin before referencing your more dense Hebrew grammars.

00:01:00 - Category: Exegesis - Link to this article -

Seeking to Provide Teaching to our Brothers and Sisters in Iran

12/05/2007 - James White

   I mentioned a few days ago that I am working this week on recording many hours of apologetics videos for satellite broadcasting in Iran. I asked this morning if I might get a brief clip from what we had done on the first day, and the folks were very kind to provide me with just that! I have to confess, this is some of the hardest work I have ever done. I am not used to moving from camera to camera, trying to avoid using colloquialisms and idiomatic phrases, etc. Very challenging indeed! So please continue to pray for me as I seek to take full advantage of this opportunity to bless God's people in other lands. I may even get to record some specific programs on Islam for the Arabic folks at the recording studios, we will see. Pray for my health, as I have not felt well this week, and am very fatigued.

15:45:40 - Category: Reformed Apologetics - Link to this article -

The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism's Embarrassing Theology (#4)

12/05/2007 - James White

   But of all LDS authorities, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie provides the clearest, most pointed affirmations of this doctrine. In his book, Mormon Doctrine, in defining the phrase, "Only Begotten Son," he wrote,

These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.

   What does "the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" mean? McConkie has no hesitation:

God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage. And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says.

   "There is nothing figurative about his paternity" we are told. McConkie is no nineteenth century leader-he passed away in 1985! But these are just the beginning of the passages in which this Mormon leader taught-with the force of doctrine itself-this concept. I quote from The Promised Messiah:

   The great God, the Eternal Elohim, the Father of us all, . . . in his love, mercy, and grace condescended to step down from his Almighty throne, to step down to a lesser and benighted state, as it were, and become the Father of a Son "after the manner of the flesh." . . . This then is the condescension of God-that a God should beget a man; that an Immortal Parent should father a mortal Son; that the Creator of all things from the beginning should step down from his high state of exaltation and be, for a moment, like one of the creatures of his creating. . . .We have spoken plainly of our Lord's conception in the womb of Mary; in reality the plain assertions are found in the revealed word, and we have but certified that the words mean what they say and cannot be spiritualized away. And as it is with reference to our Lord's mother, so it is as pertaining to his Father. The scriptures say that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son. The problem is that the intellectually led ministry and laity of the day assume, as Satan leads them to do, that a name-title of this sort is simply figurative and does not have the same literal meaning as when the words are spoken in ordinary conversation. Perhaps again the best service we can render, on the issue here involved, is somehow to get the message across that words mean what they say, and that if Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father, it means just that.
   Some words scarcely need definition. They are on every tongue and are spoken by every voice. The very existence of intelligent beings presupposes and requires their constant use. Two such words are father and son. Their meaning is known to all, and to define them is but to repeat them. Thus: A son is a son is a son, and a father is a father is a father. I am the son of my father and the father of my sons. They are my sons because they were begotten by me, were conceived by their mother, and came forth from her womb to breathe the breath of mortal life, to dwell for a time and a season among other mortal men.
   And so it is with the Eternal Father and the mortal birth of the Eternal Son. The Father is a Father is a Father; he is not a spirit essence or nothingness to which the name Father is figuratively applied. And the Son is a Son is a Son; he is not some transient emanation from a divine essence, but a literal, living offspring of an actual Father. God is the Father; Christ is the Son. The one begat the other. Mary provided the womb from which the Spirit Jehovah came forth, tabernacles in clay, as all men are, to dwell among his fellow spirits whose births were brought to pass in like manner. There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple. Christ was born of Mary. He is the Son of God-the Only begotten of the Father.

   It seems impossible to me that anyone could miss McConkie's point. How else could he possibly state it? If he is not teaching this doctrine, he is doing everything in his power to confuse and mislead the reader, that's for certain! The reader should note: nowhere do any of these General Authorities say, "Now, this is merely my speculation on the topic-it's just an opinion which you can take or leave." As much as some professors at BYU might wish otherwise, these men meant what they said. Listen to how McConkie put it:

And so, in the final analysis, it is the faithful saints, those who have testimonies of the truth and divinity of this great latter-day work, who declare our Lord's generation to the world. Their testimony is that Mary's son is God's son; that he was conceived and begotten in the normal way...This is their testimony as to his generation.

   This doctrine is not just found in one or two of McConkie's works. No, it is a doctrine that is found throughout the considerable literature he produced.

Again the answer is perfect. There is a power beyond man's. When God is involved, he uses his minister, the Holy Ghost, to overshadow the future mother and to carry her away in the Spirit. She shall conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and God himself shall be the sire. It is his Son of whom Gabriel is speaking. A son is begotten by a father: whether on earth or in heaven it is the same.

   I will not multiply examples, but instead draw from McConkie's Doctrinal New Testament Commentary for my last citations. One does not normally fill doctrinal commentaries with mere speculations or opinions. Hence, these words should carry much weight:

The express image of his person] What more need be said? God the Eternal Father is the Father; the Son of God is the Son. A father is a father, and a son is a son. The Father begets; the Son is begotten; they are Parent and Child; Sire and Son look alike, so much so that they are the express image of each other's persons. The substance composing the body of one is identical in appearance to that composing the body of the other. What could be plainer? . . . Begotten means begotten; it means Christ's mortal body was procreated by an Eternal Sire; it means God is the Father of Christ, "after the manner of the flesh."

   The phrase "Eternal Sire" does not lend itself very well to metaphorical interpretation, especially in the way McConkie consistently uses it. One thing is for certain: this General Authority believed this doctrine, taught it, and never once identified it as a "speculation."

00:01:00 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

The Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh: Mormonism's Embarrassing Theology (#3)

12/04/2007 - James White

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
   Two LDS authorities figure prominently in teaching the literal physical parentage of Jesus Christ by the Father in the twentieth century, James Talmage and Bruce R. McConkie. We will look at their statements first, and then provide other confirmatory proclamations by other LDS leaders. Finally, we will look at books published by the LDS Church that also contain and promulgate this doctrine, and we will finish by looking at the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.
   James Talmage addressed the paternity of Christ at the April General Conference in 1915. Note especially his use of the term "Sire" of God the Father:

We belong to the Church of Jesus Christ, and much has been said concerning His proprietorship, His mastership, in the Church, the Church that bears His name. I take it to be a plain and simple principle that we cannot worship intelligently, and therefore acceptably unto the Lord, unless we know something of the attributes and of the will of Him whom we profess to worship. The relationship of the Christ to the Eternal Father has been set forth in such plainness that I do not think any wayfaring man amongst us can fail to understand. We recognize in Jesus Christ the Son of the Eternal Father, both in spirit and in body. There is no other meaning to attach to that expression, as used by the Eternal Father Himself-"Mine Only Begotten Son." Christ combined within His own person and nature the attributes of His mortal mother, and just as truly the attributes of His immortal Sire. By that fixed and inexorable law of nature, that every living organism shall follow after his kind, Jesus the Christ had the power to die, for He was the offspring of a mortal woman; and He had the power to withstand death indefinitely, for He was the son of an immortal Father. This simplicity of doctrine has shocked many, but the truth is frequently shocking just because of its simplicity and consequent grandeur. We must know something of the attributes of the Eternal Father, that we may the more fully comprehend His relationship to His Only Begotten Son.

   Note well the words of this General Authority of the LDS Church, for many LDS today continue to believe as he did. Jesus Christ had the power to die, he claims, because he was the son of a mortal mother, Mary. But, he had the power to withstand death, and take up his life again, because he was the son of an "immortal Sire." Talmage admits this doctrine "shocks" many. First, Talmage, an authority of the Church, calls it "doctrine," not "speculation." He would seemingly be in a better position to know than modern LDS scholars who are not even authorities in the Church. Second, in reference to it being "shocking," why would it be, if, in fact, it is merely a "reinterpretation" of the virgin birth, and is not to be taken literally? So here have a twentieth century General Authority preaching in the General Conference-hardly a "rare" nineteenth century "opinion."
   Talmage's book, Jesus the Christ, likewise refers to this belief often. We noted in an earlier chapter that Jesus the Christ has been published by the LDS Church itself in various of its editions. It is a widely read, generally accepted work that is considered completely "orthodox." Yet, it also plainly teaches the very doctrine under discussion. For example, the same thought presented above regarding Christ possessing the attributes of both man and God is seen in this quotation:

As the Only Begotten of the Father and therefore the only Being born to earth possessing in their fulness the attributes of both Godhood and manhood; . . . What other man has lived with power to withstand death, over whom death could not prevail except through his own submission? Yet Jesus Christ could not be slain until His "hour had come," and that, the hour in which He voluntarily surrendered His life, and permitted His own decease through an act of will. Born of a mortal mother He inherited the capacity to die; begotten by an immortal Sire He possessed as a heritage the power to withstand death indefinitely. . . . Only such a One could conquer death; in none but Jesus the Christ was realized this requisite condition of a Redeemer of the world.

   Probably the most often cited passage on this topic also comes from the pen of Talmage:

That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law, but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the "Son of the Highest." In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate-after their kind. The Child Jesus was to inherit the physical, mental, and Spiritual traits, tendencies, and powers that characterized His parents - one immortal and glorified - God, the other human - woman.

   LDS apologists will forgive us if we simply believe what we are told by those with the authority to define LDS teaching. Since it is LDS leaders who use terms like "celestial Sireship" and "fundamental laws of heredity," we can hardly accept the charge of "misrepresentation" when we allow these words to have their normal meaning.
   Talmage returned to this same emphasis, and the reality of God the Father being the Son's "immortal Sire," later in Jesus the Christ:

   For this cause was Jesus the Father's Beloved Son-that He was ready to lay down His life for the sake of the sheep. . . . A natural effect of His immortal origin, as the earth-born Son of an immortal Sire, was that He was immune to death except as He surrendered thereto. The life of Jesus the Christ could not be taken save as He willed and allowed. The power to lay down His life was inherent in Himself, as was the power to take up His slain body in an immortalized state.

   I have personally had many LDS priesthood holders-individuals who are widely read in LDS materials and books-affirm this teaching, and the reason for it, that is here presented by Talmage. To identify this doctrine as "mere speculation" and "opinion" is to completely ignore mountains of clear teaching by duly appointed leaders.

10:00:00 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

Greetings from Nashville

12/03/2007 - James White

   I had about 15 hours at home between trips to and from St. Louis and now I am here in Nashville. I had a great time with Pastor Van Lee and the brothers and sisters at Covenant of Grace Church in St. Charles. This was my fifth consecutive year with them on the first weekend in December. I spoke on Islam. Did a quick flight home, repacked, and I have just arrived here in Nashville.
   I would request your prayers for the rest of this week. I will be recording many hours of video presentations that will be live translated into Farsi for satellite broadcast in Iran. The Christian church in Iran has requested apologetics information so that they can give an answer for the hope that is within them (what a challenge to the rest of us who have so much more freedom and yet so often ignore that command!), and I am honored to have been asked to speak on the issue of the inspiration, canonization, and transmission of the text of the Bible. Your prayers would be greatly appreciated, for it is my sincere desire that these videos encourage and strengthen our fellow believers in Iran, grounding them in the truth of God's Word.
   Of course, this also means that unless the other brothers of Team Apologian don't have articles to share...things will be very, very quiet here! My days will be pretty well invested in this work, to be sure. I am going to try to get the next in the LDS series posted this week, maybe even tomorrow, but I have to put first things first, and opportunities like this do not come along every day.

19:00:20 - Category: Personal - Link to this article -

Last Thursday on the Dividing Line

12/03/2007 - James White

   Since I left early Friday morning, no one put up the links to the program from last Thursday! So, as I have but a few moments before heading back to the airport to head out yet again (please pray for the ministry being done this week), let me note that I took some time to address a very long, but very error-plagued article written by a Roman Catholic attorney that was posted last week during the first half of the program, and then took calls after that. Here's the program (free/high quality).

08:25:43 - Category: The Dividing Line - Link to this article -

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives