I have soberly learned by real life experience several things in 2007.
There are three biblical doctrines that make any earnest LDS friend shudder (especially when it is delivered from a Baptist preacher):
1. The Triune God
2. Creation ex nihilo
3. Divine sovereignty in man’s salvation
Moving beyond the general teachings of Christ which almost everyone universally would accept, some narrow and exclusive teachings by Jesus are scandalous to some of his professing disciples. The stumbling can be so great that many disciples leave the Christ of the Bible, abandoning forever these sound, biblical truths which define God’s nature and work. Having just finished as a church family, a line upon line study of this thick theological chapter, I related this past Sunday how the unforeseen response by the disciples at the end of John 6 is awful. It is just plain awful.
But Jesus explains to Jews and disciples one of the reasons for the scandal. Interwoven with the Bread of Life discourse, Jesus says some jolting truths to them about the Father’s necessary work of drawing people to the Son (John 6: 44, 65). If God isn’t at work in hearts, people are not going to respond. Period.
Joseph Smith saw these rough sayings by Jesus and clearly rejected them both. I assume he concluded that they must have been corruptions to the text.
In the Joseph Smith Translation, he puts in print for all: his disbelief.
John 6:44
“No man can come to me, except the he doeth the will of my Father which who hath sent me. draw him And this is the will of him who hath sent me, that ye receive the Son; for the Father beareth record of him; and he who receiveth the testimony, and doeth the will of him who sent me, and I will raise him up at the last day in the resurrection of the just.
John 6:65
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me.
A lot of people in the I-15 corridor are banking upon the thoughts that Joseph Smith is correct in despising the three biblical doctrines listed at the beginning of this post. Hopefully, you can understand why I become so angry when Joseph Smith rips right into the fabric of the biblical text like this. In John 6, he simply hated what Jesus had to say on topic #3.
[As a sidenote, why did Joseph Smith remove John 6: 49 from the text? Another bad, bad, bad move. Jesus is delivering a very powerful contrast in verses 49 and 50. Do you see this?]
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
“A lot of people in the I-15 corridor are banking upon the thoughts that Joseph Smith is correct in despising the three biblical doctrines listed at the beginning of this post. ”
Todd,
Where does creatio ex nihilo appear in the text? Where does the biblical text define the metaphysical/ontological relationship(s) of the three divine persons? Which texts are you claiming are predestinarian (if that is what you mean by “Divine sovereignty in man’s salvation”)?
I don’t need to just “bank” on Joseph Smith’s quite correct understanding that creatio ex nihilo isn’t to be found in the bible–because I happen to be able to read also and have yet found *no evidence whatsoever*. Maybe this issue should be engaged more in depth so we can really see what the text says.
Further, Joseph Smith was/is quite correct in rejecting many of the long-developed doctrines espoused in the much later creeds–the fact that such specific language defining the metaphysical/ontological relationship(s) of the divine persons as found in many of the creeds is missing from the bible is painfully glaring. Further, your language concerning this point (“Triune” vs. “Trinity”) is conspicuously cloudy–LDS Christians believe in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, etc. and that they are all fully divine. They simply reject the man-made creeds which appear to be authoritative interpretations of the bible (seemingly at the expense of the words and language the bible actually uses) for some Christians.
Further, the common proof-texts espoused for what you call the “Divine sovereignty in man’s salvation” (am I right to assume here you are following a Calvinist perspective on predestination, etc.?) such as Romans 9-11, etc. have long been shown to have nothing to do at all with individuals being elected to salvation. Further, your wording/language is again conspicuously cloudy–LDS Christians believe justification/salvation comes through the grace and initiative of God–are you claiming that we don’t have genuine free will to choose to enter into relationship with God? I find that many biblical writers would strongly disagree with you if you said otherwise.
Thanks for the post Todd. I will comment on number three.
First, as a general reminder, the version of the Bible that the LDS use in their devotional services is not the Inspired Version but the KJV Version (for English speaking countries). So, verses such as John 6:44, 65 do appear in the LDS Standard Works. They have no been eliminated and LDS can read them along with all other verses in the KJV or another version if they so desire. My point in bringing this up is not to deny Joseph Smith produced an Inspired Version, but rather as a reminder of the role such a version played historically and currently in LDS devotional readings today.
Now, supposing we limit the discussion to Joseph Smith’s view on the New Testament, if I understand your post, you are arguing that Joseph Smith rejected the doctrine of the “Father’s necessary work of drawing people to the Son.” You based this argument on the changes that Joseph Smith made in the Inspired Version. I would like to draw your attention to a few other items for your consideration to be included in your analysis.
First, if you going to consider verses Joseph Smith modified, I would encourage you to also notice verses that Joseph Smith did not modify. Notice that Joseph Smith does not modify John 12:32 “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” If Joseph Smith rejected the doctrine of Christ drawing people unto him, then he should have also modified this verse to say that Christ doesn’t draw people unto him, but he doesn’t do so.
You may, however, object by saying the doctrine Joseph Smith is rejecting isn’t that Christ draws men unto him, but that the Father draws men unto Christ. However, if this is the case, then why would Joseph Smith allow a verse like 3 Nephi 27:14-15 in the Book of Mormon?
“And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.”
Especially note verse 15: “according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me.”
We might then conclude that Joseph Smith did not reject the doctrine that Christ would draw men unto him, nor does he reject the doctrine that the Father’s work is to draw men unto the Son. At the verse least, such verses should give you pause.
Further in your analysis of the theological thought of Joseph Smith, you might consider his personal history. In the First Vision, Joseph Smith states that the Father and the Son appeared to him and the Father was the one who spoke first, pointing to the other and saying, “This is my beloved Son, Hear Him!” It would be Joseph’s personal experience that the Father draws men unto the Son.
Dart, I don’t see unconditional election to salvation and Christ dying for all as antithetical truths.
Human side – to every human living on this grand, green earth filled with God’s blessings: you have got to fully trust in Jesus Christ and his sufficient work for your full salvation. If one ends in hell, it is because they willfully did not want to believe these narrow truths. It is not fatalism that strips the sinner of individual responsibility before God.
Divine side – you can flip the coin a hundred times . . . a thousand times . . . and everytime it will come up tails. Every human heart responds in their own free will against Christ until the Father steps in and draws.
I see both truths clearly taught in John 6. But people have a tendency to shave the cutting teeth of either side in the text.
Also, I do not accept how the current scholars in the NPP cut out individual salvation in Romans 9-11. Dart, I see both: individual and corporate.
Aquinas, why do you think Joseph crossed out those words in John 6? Do you think he is being consistent?
Todd,
Maybe you should read evangelical scholar Ben Witherington III’s treatment of Romans 9-11 in his commentary “Paul’s Letter to the Romans”–he is not strictly an NPP scholar and he is an evangelical–and a fairly conservative one at that. It is clearly corporate election/salvation Paul addresses in these chapters; there is *nothing at all* (just as there is *no such thing as creatio ex nihilo in the bible* as I mentioned in the last post) about individuals being “predestined” to salvation or damnation by God’s inscrutable will. Which verses exactly are the verses that you think specifically say individual humans are predestined to salvation or damnation by God’s will?
Further, LDS Christians (as I pointed out earlier) believe it is through God’s grace and initiative that we are saved. This means that we do indeed believe that God “draws” us to him, but we are free to accept or reject his call and efforts. It is part of a real genuine relationship of love where God has lovingly given us the opportunity to *freely* enter loving, saving relationship with him–and not just some of us but *all* of us are ultimately given the chance. No one is “predestined” by God’s foreknowledge to be damned while others are “predestined” to be saved. Such a view makes God an unloving, whimsical, monster of monsters. You should check out Blake’s second volume where he discusses prevenient grace, loving relationships, human free will, etc. I remember you saying once you were intending to get his series–have you done that yet? I think they would be quite helpful in your efforts to grip Mormon Thought.
Further, I think Aquinas has helped clarify points that have been made to you by Blake, myself, and others regarding the nature of the JST here:
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2007/10/scripture-worship/450/
You said in the post:
“I assume he concluded that they must have been corruptions to the text.”
It seems that the problems in your readings of the JST often come from this methodological problem: you “assume” using a false paradigm. JS also made modifications to the BofM, the D&C, etc. Does that mean he thought they had become textually corrupted? Is there any other possible explanation at all for the changes? What about when the BofM and Bible agree in wording but the JST makes an additional reading?
Todd
The statement “those he draws” suggests that he doesn’t want everybody, but just a select group. This denies God’s claim that he is no respector of persons.
Dear oh dear, wasn’t Joseph Smith such a bad character for suggesting that God loves everyone equally? What a terrible man he must have been.
What else will we accuse him of, do you think?
You pose yourself as being sincere. Try a bit harder, eh.
Dart, I think those verses in John 6 speak of human inability. I think it is a myth that people can just decide to come to Jesus anytime they want on their own initiative and then pat themselves on the back for making such good choices. Secondly, I don’t follow double predestination clearly in scripture. So there is no need to try to double check me on this. Thirdly, I do intend to read Blake Ostler. But Dart, I don’t know how you can make the bold claim that by understanding Blake, I will “grip Mormon Thought.” There is a lot of variety in Mormon Thought. I am not just imagining this. Fourth, JS makes different claims about the accuracy of the Book of Mormon compared to the Bible. Right?
Your last question is an excellent one. And I will check out Ben W. Any good links?
DougT, let me make one thing clear. I pose myself as a struggling sinner that finds full sincerity in the scripture. But it is when I find fault with what Joseph is doing with scripture, you charge me with being a poser? I suppose I could just say everything is fine and ignore it all.
I hunger to be honestly sincere with LDS friends. Yet I constantly struggle with sin. But I remember one time you told me that you don’t sin anymore. (But let’s save that for the other thread when we talk on soteriology.)
One more thing . . .
“but we are free to accept or reject his call and efforts.”
Guys, my testimony is that God broke through the wall of my insincere rejection of Him.
Todd,
I certainly know the variety of interpretations within LDS thought on different issues, and certainly did not mean to imply that Blake is somehow always right on every issue or that there is only one take in LDS thought on every issue (and that that take always happens to correspond to Blake’s views). However, Blake is a very articulate and well researched voice within LDS thought, and without seriously engaging positions such as his (especially when he has written extensively on many of the very issues you continually raise) and others who fall broadly within the same field of thinking–well, I think it would be foolish and nonsensical, and a failure to engage the breadth and depth of LDS thought as you seem to want to do, and especially as it relates to traditional Christianity. Moreover, I actually said reading Blake’s volumes would be “helpful in your efforts to grip Mormon Thought.” I think that statement is still correct, even if what I meant was unclear to you.
Further, Todd, it really doesn’t seem that your battle on this issue (predestination, free will, etc.) is with Mormonism or Joseph Smith, but between the debates that have historically raged *within evangelical traditions*–namely, Calvinist and Armenian debates on free will, predestination, concepts of grace, etc.
You said:
“I think it is a myth that people can just decide to come to Jesus anytime they want on their own initiative and then pat themselves on the back for making such good choices.”
I think it is simply a misrepresentation to say of the other side that coming to accept of one’s own free will (which has been graciously given by God in the first place) the free gift of saving relationship with God is somehow “earning” one’s salvation and then gives them the right to pat themselves on the back for having therefore “merited” it. I think you aren’t really representing the other side very well in such a statement. As I said above, no one comes to God solely on their own “initiative.” God first loved us, and through God’s grace and initiative we are allowed the chance to freely choose to enter into saving relationship with Him.
Lastly, I don’t know of any good links for copies of Ben Witherington III’s books; I own a copy of his socio-rhetorical commentary on Romans. It is fairly cheap (under 20 dollars) at amazon. The link is here:
Blake’s books (around 20 dollars also) are here:
And here:
And I still suggest that you need to seriously re-think your JST paradigm based on the suggestions of myself, Aquinas, and others as has been articulated above and in other posts/threads linked to. But it’s your free choice. 😛
Todd, as has been noted above, Latter-day Saints use the KJV not Joseph Smith’s Translation, although the KJV as printed by the Church provides the JST in the footnote for comparison.
Latter-day Saints believe that God is reaching out to all people. So that should lay to rest the concern that motivates point # 3 in your post on the LDS side. On the Evangelical side, the concern stems from a gloss laid on John 6 by yourself and other Evangelicals and not from what actually appears either in the bibles of today, or in the earliest post-Nicene bibles that exist for comparison today.
In other words, the Bible itself absolutely does not say “Every human heart responds in their own free will against Christ until the Father steps in and draws” (as you stated in comment # 3) or any derivative of it, as you claim. That sentence is the gloss of your faith tradition on what appears in the Bible; it is extra-biblical and thus curious for someone who believes in Biblical sufficiency to hold out as fundamental doctrine.
The Bible says that God draws people to him. It does not say that God elects people to salvation or damnation except to the extent that it teaches that Christ’s Atonement was for all people that ever lived. In other words, the Bible teaches that God draws all people to him and not just those predestined before they were even born to be Calvinists. You have never yet addressed how, in the view of your Evangelical creedalist gloss on the Bible, God is not responsible that a single soul is in hell based on the doctine of election to damnation. It is the only conclusion that follows from your gloss on John 6.
Latter-day Saints believe that God extends salvation to all of his children whom he truly loves and that he weeps when they reject it through their free agency and choose not to accept Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints believe that we love God because he first loved us but this is a far cry from reading election to salvation into the biblical text. Luckily, Latter-day Saints do not read this heretical doctrine into the Bible as Calvin and others did.
Teaching Calvin’s theory on the meaning of Biblical verses is a curious approach to take for someone who claims Biblical inerrancy and sufficiency. It seems to imply that you are claiming that you would believe in the election to salvation solely based on your own reading of the Bible itself even if Calvin and other past interpreters of the Bible had never lived or voiced their opinions on the meaning of the biblical text.
Re # 3, you asked “why do you think Joseph crossed out those words in John 6? Do you think he is being consistent?”
If, as aquinas has pointed out, the principle that God draws all people (not just those He has predestined to salvation) to Christ appears in other selections from the KJV that do not have alterations in the JST and feature prominently in the Book of Mormon and in the Joseph Smith History (which is canonized scripture for Latter-day Saints in the Pearl of Great Price), then doesn’t it seem more logical to conclude not that Joseph is being inconsistent by altering those words in John 6 but that he made the change for other reasons? Since the principle that God draws all men (people) to Him/Christ appears in numerous other areas of LDS scripture, it doesn’t seem that the purpose of this change was to erase the idea that God draws all men to Him.
But God drawing all men to Him isn’t really the issue here, is it Todd? As pointed out, Latter-day Saints believe this. By contrast, it seems that Evangelical creedalists such as yourself are the ones who reject this principle of God’s love. Why have you rejected a Biblical principle in favor of a post-biblical gloss that posits that God chooses some people to be saved and not others?
The Bible illustrates the idea that God has provided a way for all people to return to Him by sending His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to perform the Atonement and thus take all people’s sins upon Him to fulfil the requirements of eternal justice. The Bible also teaches that God draws all people to Him through the Atonement but that people must humble themselves and become as little children by choosing to accept the Atonement in order for it to have effect in their lives. That’s fundamental LDS doctrine. It speaks to God’s love for His children much more fully than Evangelical creedalists’ anemic election to salvation/damnation.
Dart, thanks. Also, the JST really opens up a window to me of Joseph’s interaction with scripture.
Ah, John f., once again the continual crier of creedalism sniffs me out for my Calvinism. In contrast, have you ever seen pictures of John Gill in England? He had an extra fine “sniffer” for those heretical, hard-core Arminians. I don’t think he would consider you even Arminian in your anthropology, harmatialogy, and soteriology, but I wonder if you two have tangled somewhere?
Ok, I finally give in to the charge of being an evangelical creedalist. I really do relish those creedal statements in Scripture. (But how did those creeds get into the scripture, eh?)
John writes, it doesn’t seem that the purpose of this change was to erase the idea that God draws all men to Him.
No, it doesn’t. The purpose of this change is to erase something else that appears sinister to the mind . . . exclusivity. I don’t see how John 6 is promoting the idea that the Father is drawing all people to Jesus. But I suppose that is a good question I can ask my LDS neighbors to see if they confirm your interp on this chapter.
God draws all people to Him. You will have a hard time convincing any LDS neighbors that God does not want some of his children to return to Him. He invites all to come unto Christ through the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is all very biblical. On the other hand, the idea that God chooses some people to be saved and not others is not biblical.
The idea that God draws all of His children unto Christ through the Holy Spirit does not mean that all people will be saved. Those who choose not to come unto Christ will exclude themselves from the efficacy of the Atonement that has been performed for them.
Many Latter-day Saints believe that our will is the only thing that is truly ours. (Neal A. Maxwell expressed this nicely in the April 2004 General Conference when he said “Brethren, as you submit your wills to God, you are giving Him the only thing you can actually give Him that is really yours to give.”)
I have been looking at these words in John 6 for the last couple of months.
God draws all people to Him? This is your main interp of John 6?
Todd, thanks for offering an venue for this interesting discussion. There are several things going on in John 6. You have focused on “scandal” as the theme of your post. By “scandal” I take it you are referring to verse 66-71 and specifically that many of the disciples of Jesus parted ways with him. My reading of this event is that many disciplines left Jesus because of his claims and teachings which were “hard.” What exactly was a hard saying of Jesus? Generally speaking I think many teachings of Jesus, if not all of them, are difficult not only to understand but more so to perform. It was a hard saying when Jesus said he could rebuild the temple if they tore it down (John 2). It was a hard saying that men are to be born again (John 3). It was hard to understand how Jesus could say those who see are blind and have sin, but those who are blind are those who can see (John 9). The thread of “hard” sayings of Jesus runs throughout the Gospel of John. Specifically, in John 6, Jesus is telling people to eat his flesh. Jesus is saying that he is the living bread come down from heaven, and if men eat his flesh and drink his blood they will not die, and if they don’t do this they have no life in them and will not be resurrected. In my view, this is this “hard saying” which causes many of his disciples to leave (v. 42, v. 52, v. 60).
The thread of “hard” sayings of Jesus runs throughout the Gospel of John.
This statement is rock solid truth about John’s Gospel. And sadly, most big name evangelical preachers are not preaching the hard sayings. Why? They will lose the crowds.
John 2 – yes. John 3 – yes.
In chapter 6, there are a lot of things that are difficult. Jesus’ question to Philip. Jesus sending his disciples out on the Sea of Galilee knowing full well there would be a storm. Jesus’ correction for what people are laboring over. Jesus stating that he, not anyone else, is the bread of life. And his supremacy over Moses. And chiefly, that Jesus Christ pre-existed. This was huge.
Then Jesus breaks forth to all the “sincere” (?) seekers about the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. What? This is highly offensive, especially in regards to Levitical instruction on bloody food. And cannibalism? This is preposterous to the Jewish audience! In their ears, this messiah has morphed into a crazy, pagan, disgusting heathen.
The mega crowd of John 6 is asking of Jesus. But Jesus is not giving. And what Jesus is freely giving. The crowd doesn’t want.
And so he asks, “Are you offended”? Look at the Greek word for offend. The stumbling is so huge that these “disciples” will never again turn to this Jesus as he defines himself.
Huge heart issues!
1. John 6 is a big, big scandal to the idea of mega church evangelicalism where it is all about me.
2. John 6 is a good scandal to the idea of a Eucharistic Christ divorced from sound doctrine, the life-giving words of Jesus. The emergents don’t care as much for the focus on the biblical words. Did you read the front cover article, “A Return to Ritual: Why many modern worshipers, including Catholics, Jews, and evangelicals, are embracing tradition” in U.S. News & World Report (December 24, 2007)? They want the religious experience divorced from the “glorified Bible class.” But what about the words? they are spirit, they are life.
3. And I think John 6 is a pointed scandal to LDS. Look at the energy expressed in this thread.
Honestly, what Jesus says in this book often takes me back. Studying John’s Gospel is the most wild and yet relevant thing that people can do in 2008 in America.
Todd, as you can see, at least as I see, we see a lot of agreement as to the meaning of John 6. I think the offense that was taken is, as you put it, that people are asking Jesus for a sign and he says he is the sign and cannibalistic overtones are extremely offensive to them. That to me is the historical meaning. In other words, I think that is an important historical understanding within the context of Jesus and his disciples and the very cause of offense. That is where we start.
Now, from this starting point everyone can take from the scriptures things that are meaningful to them and they can draw analogies that are meaningful to them in their lives.
1. You have chosen to draw an analogy between Jesus losing disciples for preaching hard sayings and mega church evangelism gaining disciples for failing to teach hard sayings. I personally don’t draw this analogy for my own life, but I can understand why you do.
2. Fascinating point that you may want to put as a separate post.
3. You’ve made it clear that you feel the LDS Church is scandal. I’m sure that doesn’t come as a shock to anyone here. Naturally, I don’t see the connection at all between John 6 and the discussion on this thread because the interest in previous comments was not based on what Jesus said in John 6. It is clear to me, and I think you agree, that what offended the disciples of Jesus was him telling people to eat his flesh and drink his blood, not that the Father draws only some men to him (again which Jesus didn’t say). You are free to feel that the LDS Church is scandal, but John 6 has nothing to do with it.
Which is more likely? Scenario One: The prevailing Jewish doctrine is that the Father does not draw men to the Son, and so when Jesus teaches that the Father does draw men to the Son, that many of his disciples rebel against this teaching to the point that they decide no longer to follow Jesus. Scenario Two: Nothing in Jewish doctrine teaches that men are to eat and drink of the flesh and blood of Jewish rabbi in order to gain immortality, so when Jesus comes along and teaches that he is the bread come down from heaven, superior to the heavenly manna because it gives life, and that men and women must eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be resurrected (and many Jews didn’t accept the resurrection), that this was simply too radical a teaching and many disciples could no longer accept Jesus. I think scenario two is much more likely and much more faithful to the narrative of John.
In fact, one is much more likely to draw the analogy to Joseph Smith teaching things that people wanted to kill him for, and for many early saints leaving Joseph Smith due to his teachings which were highly offensive, which historically did in fact happen, he surely didn’t teach things to be popular since it went against many of the beliefs of the day. That analogy seems much closer to the reaction of the people in John 6 than what is going on with mega churches.
Todd, John 6 is not a scandal to Latter-day Saints. Rather, your (Calvin’s) reading of election to salvation into Jesus’ statement that God draws all people unto him is scandalous. Your interpretation is merely a gloss required by other tenets of the theology that you have constructed and hold to but it, like many other aspects of that theology, is not required by the face of the text, even in Greek.
Aquinas, yes I would say that Joseph’s taking off from John 5 is a scandal to me. (Actually, my frustration began in John 1.)And then he doesn’t see the uniqueness of the preeminent One’s preexistence.
Oh I forgot . . .
4. The last two verses of John 6 would be another scandal to the prominent biblical scholars entrenched in the gnostic gospels.
“And then he doesn’t see the uniqueness of the preeminent One’s preexistence.”
Because it is not a part of God’s revealed doctrine, but a mere product of human philosophy.
Hey, I just read this comment, Seth.
After I posted today’s HI4LDS entry.
You commentary on the JST is interesting. I think you’ll find these passages from the Book of Mormon also insightful on John 6.
“[Christ] doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation. Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price. Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance. Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden… and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” (2 Nephi 26:24-28, 33)
“And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me…And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me.” (3 Nephi 27:14-15)
Todd,
I think Yellow Dart has nailed it in pointing out your incorrect paradigm for understanding the JST (despite all of our many attempts to correct it). Your obvious anger toward the JST is clouding your ability to understand Joseph Smith and Mormon thought in a charitable way. You are ascribing the worst possible motives which will always leave everyone looking nefarious.
Jacob, Dart doesn’t have me convinced. But we will be working back and forth on each other this whole year.
Actually, not one general authority has given me any shred of benefit that anything is wrong with the JST.
And this bothers me as you can tell.
I think you’re wrong about Joseph Smith removing verse 49. He didn’t, in fact:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. But I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (JST John 6:47-51)
Verse 49 and 50 are simply reversed in the JST.
Todd: With the exception of (2), your list just seems to ignore some fairly obvious facts. With respect to (1), I believe that LDS comfortably adopt a form of social trinitarianism that is no less radical than views adopted by others accepted as certainly within the tradition such as Swinburne and Plantinga.
Number (3) simply disenfrachises the very many Christians int he Arminian tradition such as Anglicans, Methodists, free will Baptists, Orthodox of all persuasions and a good many Catholics. So your list just seems short-sighted to me.
I’ll grant that (2) is true of all those in the tradition since about the time Augustine — but I believe I have demonstrated that it was not the Christian view before about 200 A.D. Could I point out that Jesus didn’t teach any of your 1, 2 or 3 and suggest that any dividing line drawn that excludes Jesus is just wrong-headed?
Blake,
You say…
I’ll grant that (2) is true of all those in the tradition since about the time Augustine — but I believe I have demonstrated that it
was not the Christian view before about 200 A.D.
What are your sources for coming to this conclusion? Are you saying that early Christians taught the Platonic idea of the coeternity of God and matter? I would be extremely interested in your documentation.
Chris,
I have cited and linked to Blake’s articles here:
http://ldskaitabiblia.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/creatio-ex-nihilo-of-creation-out-of-nothing/
Todd: check this out as well — it should be pretty darn thorough: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=590
So the answer is Yes, you do believe that early Christians taught the Platonic idea of the coeternity of God and matter. Would it be fair to say that the LDS views on the coeternity of God and matter are also similar to Greek Platonic thinking? I’m sorry, I can’t help but wallow in the irony of all this. 🙂
Seriously though,
I find it extremely difficult to believe that within one generation after the death of men like Polycarp and Ignatius, all these different Christian writers would simultaneously do a complete about-face and adamantly teach something directly contrary to what had been taught for thousands of years. All of these early Christian writers (Tertullian, Irenaeus, Thephilus of Antioch Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, etc.) understood the grave implications of this important teaching and clearly believed what they were teaching was in agreement with their predecessors in the faith.
As one studies historical theology, you can see how some doctrines change, develop and even come to be denied over time. A complete and radical change in such a short amount of time, such as is being proposed, would be without precedent.
“that early Christians taught the Platonic idea of the coeternity of God and matter.”
Actually, early christians simply adopted and maintained the Jewish doctrine of creation from pre-existing matter, which had been taught for thousands of years. There’s nothing platonic about it at that point.
Andrew, you are dead right. Thanks. As I work through the JST, feel free to correct me anytime where I am too quick on the draw. Aquinas, I see it now. Thanks, too.
#27 – whoa, Blake! I would grant that American evangelicalism is loosing more and more of its distinctiveness with the encroachment of emergents pushing either liberal protestantism or Roman Catholicism, etc. and etc. So I have plenty of concerns. It is those within historic evangelicalism that seem to be agreeing and affirming the very things that I am discovering.
For instance, I was absolutely floored by the mind-boggling words of Jesus in John 5 that build my thinking on #1. So I dug up today what the historical Arminian, John Wesley, had to say on John 5 . . . very interesting. . . . Did he read my mind on some issues?
“18. His own father – the Greek word means his own Father in such a sense as no creature can speak. Making himself equal with god – It is evident all the hearers so understood him, and that our Lord never contradicted, but confirmed it.
“19. The Son can do nothing of himself – This is not imperfection, but his glory, resulting from his eternal, intimate, indissoluble unity with the Father. Hence it is absolutely impossible, that the Son should judge, will, testify, or teach any thing with the Father, ver. 30, &c.; chap. vi, 38; chap. vii, 16; or that he should be known or believed on, separately from the Father. And he here defends his doing good every day, without intermission, by the example of his Father, from which he cannot depart: these doth the Son likewise – All these, and only these; seeing he and the Father are one.
“20. The Father showeth him all things that himself doth – A proof of the most intimate unity. And he will show him – by doing them. At the same time (not at different times) the Father showeth and doth, and the Son seeth and doth. Greater works – Jesus oftener terms them works, than signs or wonders, because they were not wonders in his eyes. Ye will marvel – So they did, when he raised Lazarus.
“21. For – He declares which are those greater works, raising the dead, and judging the world. The power of quickening whom he will follows from the power of judging. These two, quickening and judging, are proposed ver. 21,22. The acquittal of believers, which presupposes judgment, is treated of ver. 24; the quickening some of the dead, ver. 25; and the general resurrection, ver. 28.
“22. For neither doth the Father judge – Not without the Son: but he doth judge by that man whom he hath ordained, Acts xvii, 31.
“23. That all men may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father – Either willingly, and so escaping condemnation, by faith: or unwillingly, when feeling the wrath of the Judge. This demonstrates the EQUALITY [emphasis is Wesley’s] of the Son with the Father. If our Lord were God only by office or investiture, and not in the unity of the Divine essence, and in all respects equal in Godhead with the Father, he could not be honored even as, that is, with the same honor that they honored the Father. He that honored not the Son – With the same equal honor, greatly dishonored the Father that sent him.
This is huge in how this Arminian agrees with what I am seeing in so many ways. Now, I have to see how he might agree with what the Holy Spirit taught me in John 6. 🙂
Nitsav, is this mainstream teaching among those in Judaism? I have never heard this. Do you have some links on this to explore?
I didn’t realize Judaism believed in eternal matter existing alongside the one God.
If I remember reading one early rabbi, he did seem to favor Platonic thought (at least what I gathered.)
Israelite thought (as evidenced by the OT) and early Judaism all held to creation from pre-existent matter. Ex nihilo came post-NT, and then entered into Judaism, eventually becoming the mainstream POV. But it has not always been so.
Forgive a lengthy quote from Peter Hayman, “Monotheism- A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” (presidential address) Journal of Jewish Studies, Vol. XLII No. 1 (Spring 1991)
“God creates order out of a pre-existing chaos; he does not
create from nothing. Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism.5 The one scholar who continues to maintain that the doctrine is native to Judaism, namely Jonathan Goldstein, thinks that it first appears at the end of the first century C.E., but has recently conceded the weakness of his position in the course of debate with David Winston.6
My view is that David Winston is correct to argue that the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo came into Judaism from Christianity and Islam at the beginning of the Middle Ages and that even then it never really succeeded in establishing itself as the accepted Jewish doctrine on creation. Aristotelian views on the eternity of the world were perfectly acceptable in Judaism, as
also were neo-platonist views on its emanation out of the One, because creatio ex nihilo could not be demonstrated from the Scriptures. Maimonides (Guide, II.26) concedes that rabbinic texts teach creation out of primordial matter and most commentators, starting with Samuel Ibn Tibbon, the first translator of his work into Hebrew, believe that Maimonides himself privately thought that the world was eternal.7”
His footnotes- 5 See H. F. Weiss, Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des hellenfstischen und palästinischen
Judentums (Berlin, 1966); David Winston, ‘The Book of Wisdom’s Theory of Cosmogony’, History of Religions 11
(1971), pp. 185-202; Georg Schmuttermayr, ‘Schöpfung aus dem Nichts in 2 Makk 7,28?’, BZ 17 (1973), pp. 203-28;
Gerhard May, Schöpfung aus dem Nichts (Berlin, 1978).
6- ‘The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo’, JJS 35 (1984), pp. 127-$5; and ‘Creation Ex Nihilo:
Recantations and Restatements’, JJS 38 (1987), pp. 187-94. Winston defends himself against Goldstein in a reply
published in JJS 37 (1986), pp. 88-91.
7- See Colene Sirat, ,4 History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle ,Ages (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 188 ff., 218 ff.
I can’t tell you what the average Jew (average Joe?) knows or believes about this, but it’s widely acknowledged. The Jewish Study Bible (by the mainstream Jewish Publication Society) interprets Gen. 1:1 as creation from pre-existing matter.
You can get more of this and some other “controversial” differences in LDS thought and OT from Kevin Barney’s BYU Studies article, availble in pdf from http://byustudies.byu.edu/Products/MoreInfoPage/MoreInfo.aspx?prodid=1225&type=7
The problem is that by asserting the coeternity of God and matter, you have, at best, made matter co-equal with God. If you then say that God is also a physical being and therefore subject to the physical laws that govern the universe (rather than the source and originator of those physical laws), you have made matter the true God of the universe and the God of the Bible just a participant in something greater. This would completely fly in the face of the expressions of Monarchy in relation to God in the OT and devalue God to just a magistrate of magistrates.
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Here is a good read on the subject, written almost two thousand years ago.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.v.i.html
Also,
Tertullian, (ca. 160–235) knew nothing as to any previous Christians or Jews believing in the coeternity of God and matter.
“To be sure, Matter bestowed somewhat on itself also—even to get its own self acknowledged with God as God’s co-equal, nay more, as His helper; only there is this drawback, that Hermogenes is the only man that has found out this fact, besides the philosophers—those patriarchs of all heresy. For the prophets knew nothing about it, nor the apostles thus far, nor, I suppose, even Christ.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.v.viii.html
Christopher, your first part is a *theological* argument. Two thoughts-
First, this is a historical issue, not a theological one. You can’t argue historical issues with theological theories. You need historical arguments (the second part of your comment.)
Second, I was under the impression that theological ideas are supposed to flow *from* the facts, and note take theological arguments to argue *against* historically established facts.
Regarding your theological issue- Most Jewish scholars who accept this don’t seem to see that this poses the problem you do. Those who do have generally refit their theological ideas to those established facts (pace Hayman above.)
“Tertullian, (ca. 160–235) knew nothing as to any previous Christians or Jews believing in the coeternity of God and matter.”
I imagine there are many things Tertullian didn’t know 😉 In any case, Tertullian, in my understanding, is right in the period in which the Christians are struggling with Gnosticism. The link you have says that the tract cannot be dated earlier than 207 AD. In other words, right in the time period in which the Christians begin wielding creation ex nihilo against their theological enemies.
Besides the Jewish scholars, and LDS writers (besides Kevin Barney and Blake Ostler, referenced by Yellow_Dart above), is Keith Norman (PhD from Duke in Biblical Studies).
Norman, Keith. “Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in Early Christianity.” BYU Studies 17 (Spring 1977): 291-318.
Click to access 17.3Norman.pdf
In any case, I’m not terribly interested in arguing further. I’ve presented my viewpoint, and LDS and Jewish and early Christian references. Do what you want with them.
Nitsav,
Thanks for the spirited discussion. I have learned several new things about LDS views from the links you have provided for which I am thankful.
You said…
“Second, I was under the impression that theological ideas are supposed to flow *from* the facts, and note take theological arguments to argue *against* historically established facts.”
I wish you were here today as I had the local LDS missionaries over to my home to discuss my visit to the new LDS temple in Rexburg. We had a good time. It would be great if your statement would be consistently applied across the board.
I am disheartened at how quickly you would dismiss a firm historical statement by Tertullian who himself lived and operated in the time frame we are discussing, in favor of the opinions of people completely removed from the scene by culture, geography, language, not to mention eighteen hundred years. It is important to remember that even at this point in history, there were men like Irenaeus (who also affirmed creation ex nihilo) who were taught by men that were companions of the Apostles. I am not saying this as definitive proof, but when these men make statements like the one I quoted earlier that directly conflict with current “established facts” it should give us pause.
Again, thanks for the discussion.
And I too thank you Nitsav for the links on this thread.
Here is a thought by a spirited Jew that rings with my heart late tonight.
Adolph Saphir, D.D., (1831-1891):
“Reason cannot ascend from nature to nature’s God. The most comprehensive observation of things seen (that is phenomena), of which we can take cognizance, and the most minute analysis of things to the most remote and simple elements, leave the question of creation or the origin of things perfectly untouched and unapproached. The step from matter to mind, from things which appear to that which is the cause, spring, origin of all, is one which reason cannot take. God reveals it; we believe.
“Ancient mythologies and philosophy, as well as modern science and speculation, cannot rise to the conception of the original, free and infinite cause of all things. It cannot get beyond some primeval material substratum of elementary atoms, and by tracing developments from a lower to a higher form of existence, only removes by millions and billions of years the question which lies dormant in every child’s mind: Who made all things?
“Scripture announces in sublime simplicity: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Every house is built by some one; but He that built all things is God (Heb. 3:4). By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear; that the visible world did not arise out of phenomenal matter. God created by His Word (as we read ten times, “And God said”) all things, from the highest to the lowest. He created in the beginning, and all things which have a beginning from the world or creature. To conceive of the world as a without beginning is to deify it; for in and before the beginning is only God, the Father, the Word or the Son or the Eternal Wisdom, and the Holy Ghost. God created all things for His glory; the self-manifestation of God in the redeemed Church, of which Christ is Head, is the purpose which He purposed in Himself.
I somehow missed most of this discussion after my last post on this thread. I will comment again soon, because I don’t see any real interaction at all with what Nitsav said (or what I said in my post on my blog), and really I see general avoidance to engage the actual arguments that we are making. I will comment more on my point when I am not so busy.