Thus it is shown that prior to the placing of man upon the earth, how long before we do not know, Christ and Satan, together with the hosts of the spirit-children of God, existed as intelligent individuals, possessing power and opportunity to choose the course they would pursue and the leaders whom they would follow and obey (James Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 8)

The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this spirit-brother of Jesus desparately tried to become the Savior of mankind (Milton R. Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15---this book was "written and published under the direction of the General Priesthood Committee of the Council of the Twelve of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints").

The devil...is a spirit son of God who was born in the morning of pre-existence (p. 192)....Christ is the Firstborn, meaning that he was the first Spirit Child born to God the Father in pre-existence (p. 281)....Christ, the Firstborn, was the mightiest of all the spirit children of the Father (p. 590).

On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some---especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers....But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer's older brother.

...their perception of results determines allegiance. Questions of method rarely surface. All that matters is that the traditional text is affirmed. On the other hand, their perception of results is not based on an examination of a given scholar's writings. Typically, little more is known about a scholar's views than that he or she is theologically conservative, makes positive references to the TR, and criticizes Hort's favored MSS. Because of such shibboleths, Majority text proponents [as well as TR proponents] have been repeatedly misled into soliciting unwitting support from the dead voices of the past. This practice is not only intellectually dishonest but also raises questions as to what drives this need for champions (emphasis his). p. 300, "The Majority text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique." Studies & Documents: The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research.

The late Dr. Bruce Metzger, in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1975 ed. [sic 1971] UBS) says regarding the CT reading, "Although the evidence for [to theo] is slight (A eth), this reading best accounts for the origin of the others." The CT’s reading is given a {C} rating which indicates that in “the mind of the Committee….there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading” (p. xxviii).

"First, the TR [Textus Receptus] is a text-type - just as the CT [Critical Text] is as well"

"Alan Kurschner theology seems a bit shaky. The "four and twenty elders" that sit before the throne in vs. 8 are singing. These elders are the Federal representatives of the Elect in all ages. (I think they are the 12 sons of Jacob, and the 12 apostles but that is speculation on my part.) Nevertheless, they do represent the Elect."

"Third, the CT [Critical Text] relies on many "minority" readings in its text."

"that to cite the handful of differences between the TR and majority readings is rather silly."

When he was a young man, Lorenzo Snow was promised by the Lord through the Patriarch to the Church that through obedience to the gospel he could become as great as God, and you cannot wish to be greater (Eliza R. Snow Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, pp.9-10).
   President Lorenzo Snow recorded this experience that occurred when he was still a young elder: "The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon methe eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noon-day, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man." Elder Snow expressed this new found understanding in these words: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Later the Prophet Joseph Smith assured him: "Brother Snow, that is true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you" (quoted by LeRoi C. Snow, in Devotion to Divine Inspiration, Improvement Era, June 1919, pp. 651-56).

The Prophet Joseph Smith said:

It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth" (Teachings, pp. 345-46; italics in original).

President Brigham Young elaborated on this concept: "It must be that God knows something about temporal things, and has had a body and been on an earth; were it not so He would not know how to judge men righteously, according to the temptations and sins they have had to contend with" (as cited by Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Apr. 1969, p.130; or Improvement Era, June 1969, p.104).

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: Our Father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a Father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47).

President Joseph F. Smith taught: I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions. . . . Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman (Church News, 19 Sept.1936, p.2).

President Wilford Woodruff explained: [God] has had his endowments a great many years ago. He has ascended to his thrones, principalities and powers in the eternities. We are his children. . . . We are here to fill a probation and receive an education (Deseret News Weekly, 28 Sept. 1881, p.546).

How does it help us to know that the basic elements of God's life in a mortal world were the same as ours? President Brigham Young explained:
He is our Father--the Father of our spirits--and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are.
. . . There never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. . . .
It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being (Deseret News, 16 Nov. 1859, p.290).

My children all: You see in me
Exalted man, of flesh and bone
And spirit pure. One time, long
Long ago, I was as you, a spirit son
Of an exalted Father. [see HC 6:302-17]
You may become as now I have become
But you must do as I have done.

President Joseph F. Smith said: We are precisely in the same condition and under the same circumstances that God our heavenly Father was when he was passing through this, or a similar ordeal (Gospel Doctrine, p.64).

Deuteronomy 18:10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

[T]he prohibition of contact with the dead is specifically in the context of people living on earth seeking to have contact with those who have "passed from this world"! This kind of argumentation leaves the prohibition of contact with the dead meaningless and undefined.

This can be annihilated with one biblical example, from St. Peter, who contacted the dead when He raised Tabitha, saying, "Tabitha, rise" (Acts 9:36-41). Who was he talking to? Well, Tabitha, of course: a dead person! You can't get much more straightforward and plain than that. Therefore, the Bible offers explicit proof that we can have contact with the dead in a certain sense....

Brethren and sisters, as you sit here, you will hear the voices of three persons who represent Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. Elohim will command Jehovah and Michael to go down and organize a world. The work of the six creative periods will be represented. They will also organize man in their own likeness and image, male and female.

Elohim: Jehovah, Michael, see: yonder is matter unorganized. Go ye down and organize it into a world like unto the other worlds we have heretofore formed. Call your labors the First Day, and bring me word.

Jehovah: It shall be done Elohim. Come Michael, let us go down.

Michael: We will go down, Jehovah.

Jehovah: Michael, see: here is matter unorganized. We will organize it into a world like unto the other worlds we have heretofore formed. We will call our labors the First Day, and return and report.

Michael: We will return and report our labors of the First Day, Jehovah.

Jehovah: Elohim, we have done as thou hast commanded, and have called our labors the First Day.

Elohim: It is well.[2]

Lucifer: Good morning sir!

Sectarian Minister: Good morning!

(The Preacher turns and looks into the camera.)

Sectarian Minister: A fine congregation!

Lucifer: Yes, they are very good people. They are concerned about religion. Are you a preacher?

Sectarian Minister: I am.

Lucifer: Have you been to college and received training for the ministry?

Sectarian Minister: Certainly! A man cannot preach unless he has been trained for the ministry.

Lucifer: Do you preach the orthodox religion?

Sectarian Minister: Yes, that is what I preach.

Lucifer: If you will preach your orthodox religion to these people, and convert them, I will pay you well.

Sectarian Minister: I will do my best.

At this point Lucifer leads the minister to Adam and Eve, and a conversation ensues:

Sectarian Minister: I understand you are inquiring after religion.

Adam: I was calling upon Father.

Sectarian Minister: I am glad to know you were calling upon Father. Do you believe in a God who is without body, parts, and passions; who sits on the top of a topless throne; whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere; who fills the universe, and yet is so small that he can dwell in your heart; who is surrounded by myriads of beings who have been saved by grace, not for any act of theirs, but by His good pleasure? Do you believe in this great Being?

Adam: I do not. I cannot comprehend such a being.

Sectarian Minister: That is the beauty of it. Perhaps you do not believe in the devil, and in that great hell, the bottomless pit, where there is a lake of fire and brimstone into which the wicked are cast, and where they are continually burning, but arenever consumed?

Adam: I do not believe in any such place.

Sectarian Minister: My dear friend, I am sorry for you.[4]

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments; hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.[5]

"Jonathan Edwards would wholeheartedly agree with me on this general point of awareness of saints in heaven, of the earth, and disagree with James White."
   
"White can dismiss, if he likes, my exegetical and theological arguments as the raving of an unregenerate, ignorant Catholic apostate (that's what he thinks of me), but surely he can't dismiss Jonathan Edwards so easily."

If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power -- with plenty of supporting biblical evidence: 1) the "cloud of witnesses" that Hebrews 12:1 describes; 2) in Revelation 6:9-10, prayers are given for us in heaven from "saints"; 3) elsewhere in Revelation an angel possesses "prayers of the saints" and in turn presents them to God; 4) Jeremiah is described as one who "prays much for the people" after his death in 2 Maccabees 15:13-14. The saints in heaven are clearly aware of earthly happenings. If they have such awareness, it isn't that much of a leap to deduce that they can hear our requests for prayer, especially since the Bible itself shows that they are indeed praying. (p. 121)

When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

So what do we know about the martyrs in heaven, based on this brief passage? We know that they communicate with God: They call out to Him, and He responds. We know that they are aware of events on earth, and that they plead the cause of the just against the unjust, the Church against its persecutors. We know, too, that they have some foreknowledge of the future, by the grace of God. They know how events will play out for "their fellows servants and their brethren." What we see in Revelation confirms what we have read in Hebrews: the martyrs in heaven are a "cloud of witnesses" around their fellow Christians on earth. Furthermore, they are intercessors in heaven for the cause of Christ on earth. (97)

19 Have ye seen Lat an Uzza 20 And another the third (goddess) Manat? Have you thought of al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third ... these are the exalted Gharaniq (a high flying bird) whose intercession is approved.

21 What! for you the male sex and for Him the female? 22 Behold such would be indeed a division most unfair! 23 These are nothing but names which ye have devised ye and your fathers for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire! Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord!

52 Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee but when he framed a desire Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom: 53 That He may make the suggestions thrown in by Satan but a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrongdoers are in a schism far (from the Truth):

   "Secondly, when the Apostles says the Jews were entrusted with oracles of God he uses the aorist passive; he indicates, in other words, that the authority of the synagogue is a thing of the past. Any right to reject a given prophecy or prophetic book had now passed from the rulers of the Jews to the Christian Church (if it were not so, the authority of Paul himself would be null and void)" (p.12).

   "It should be remembered that Paul did not literally say that the Jews were entrusted with the inspired books (though that is certainly included in what he meant): what the Apostle actually said was entrusted with the oracles of God- and this category included much more than just the Old Testament writings. The Hebrews, recall, were also entrusted with the Urrim and Thummim (Nm 27:21), and other prophetical devices; and not all the consultations received by these methods were written down. The scope of Romans 3:2 then, cannot be restricted to inspired books alone and cannot, therefore, be a direct reference to a fixed canon" (p. 12-13).

   Can I speak to you from my heart for a moment? I realize that, theologically, I’m not worthy to wash your socks. But imagine this scenario with me, if you will: Imagine I’m a “seeker”- I’m a non-Christian, sitting in your church week after week after week listening to you. Am I ever going to hear the message that will save my soul from Hell? Will you ever tell me the truth clearly enough so that I realize that my sin has made me an enemy of God: that I am currently on the path that leads to destruction, with the wrath of God dwelling upon me, and that unless I repent and put my faith in the Savior, I will perish? Or have you decided that it’s better to simply entertain me, and on Sundays I can come to have my “felt needs” met with good music and good advice? Pastor, while I would appreciate that, it’s the ultimate betrayal of my trust in you if you don’t tell me the truth. Will I ever hear the words “repent,” “surrender,” “turn to the Savior,” “be born again”? If you don’t tell me those things, how will I ever know to do it?Please don’t leave it up to the Wednesday night small-group leader. They’re taking their cues from you. You’re leading the flock.
   And now I speak to you as a Christian. If you and I fail to teach the whole counsel of God, and we don’t warn sinners to flee from the wrath to come, and run to the love of Christ on the Cross to save their soul, we make a terrible mistake. It doesn’t matter how happy a person is- how much a sinner is enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season- without the righteousness of Christ, he’ll perish on the Day of Judgment. The Bible says, “Riches profit not on the Day of Wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.” You see, that’s how Kirk Cameron realized he needed a Savior. I had riches, but I knew that it was the righteousness of God that I needed in order to be saved from my sin.

If, then, the Blessed Virgin Mary were indeed sinless, it would follow (right from Scripture) that her prayers would have the greatest power, and not only because of her sinlessness but because of her status as Mother of God. So we ask for her prayers and also ask other saints, because they have more power than we do, having been made perfectly righteous (according to James 5:16-18).

O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou are more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.

If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power -- with plenty of supporting biblical evidence: 1) the "cloud of witnesses" that Hebrews 12:1 describes; 2) in Revelation 6:9-10, prayers are given for us in heaven from "saints"; 3) elsewhere in Revelation an angel possesses "prayers of the saints" and in turn presents them to God; 4) Jeremiah is described as one who "prays much for the people" after his death in 2 Maccabees 15:13-14. The saints in heaven are clearly aware of earthly happenings. If they have such awareness, it isn't that much of a leap to deduce that they can hear our requests for prayer, especially since the Bible itself shows that they are indeed praying. (p. 121)

   "It follows (by White's peculiar "reasoning") that Martin Luther was either: 1) exceptionally ignorant, as White claims I am, 2) a wacko on the fringe of Protestantism, leading a tiny sect, or 3) not a Protestant. 4) not a theologian (etc.,etc.). Take your pick (or throw out White's ludicrous argument) . ."

   Elders:
   "He must be above reproach. This is the first quality he must have. The man who wants to investigate, correct, and teach others should be above reproach." [LW 28:283]
   
"An apt teacher. Does this mean he should be trained at the university? He should be eager to teach and qualified to teach. Better yet, he should teach carefully." [LW 28:285]
   
"He teaches what they must learn. At the same time he instructs them in doctrine. Then he refutes those who contradict." (Titus 1:9). [LW 28: 285]
   
"We have heard that a bishop ought to have this gift, that he teach well and cheerfully. This is the chief responsibility and duty of the bishop: the ministry of the Word, even though our people regard religion most cheaply."[LW 28:285].

   Deacons:
   "Deacons were men who also preached occasionally. We read in Acts 6:16 that they chose seven men in the church to be in charge of providing for the poor and the widows. Those deacons also at times preached, as did Stephen, and they were admitted to other duties of the church, although their principal responsibility was to care for the poor and the widows." [LW 28:295]
   
"There ought to be deacons for the church men who should be of service to the bishop and at his recommendations have control in the church in external matters." [LW 28:295]
   
"You see, the deacon takes care of the people and is the bishop's steward." [LW 28: 297]
   
"Then let them serve as deacons. He imposes neither the office of teaching nor the qualifications of the bishop on deacons. Instead he gives them the responsibilities for supplies or financing. They should be serious, not double-tongued. They should not sow disharmony within the church. They should have a talent for bringing harmony, for increasing concord, peace, and the reputation of the bishop. They should not be drinkers but be attentive to their business." [LW 28:298]
   
"You have heard what sort of men Paul wants set up in the church. The rest is the promise which he connects to this: For those who serve well, etc.This promise which the deacons have can be taken generally to refer to bishops as well as to deacons. Paul strengthens them in this way that each is established in his own service. Yet he seems to be speaking especially about deacons, and he seems to be encouraging them. To be sure, the sense is: deacons belong to a lower order; inequality generally causes discord; and, since the lesser envy the greater, they become double-tongued. Paul now wants to interject this promise and make them content with their lot. He says in substance: Even if you do not have duties as solemn as bishops, yet you should be content with your rank. Before God you will not be lower than bishops, as if bishops were better people." [LW 28:299]
   
"The deacon wants to be the bishop: 'I know as much as he does, and I can preach as well as he.' That's the way they act today too. That rivalry Paul forbids everywhere. Let us have no self-conceit,Gal. 5:26. Let us not rival each other except in good. In this way, then, he now comforts deacons and wants to make them content, etc. Let each serve faithfully in his own vocation. If someone else has a loftier situation, let him not be jealous or despise his own lot. You should be careful that you serve well. [LW 28:300].
   
"If deacons do not seem to have so important a position, they nonetheless have the highest position in reliance on and faith in Christ. It is enough that they remain in faith toward Christ. That deacon can be free if he knows that his work pleases Christ and that his diaconate is as pleasing to Christ as is a bishop in his bishopric. Therefore he should comfort them that they may minister willingly and well and not be jealous. If some who are jealous do this because they consider that they have a gift of eloquence and good appearance, they have no confidence in pastors who do not have the same blessings. This is to ask for an official position from the world and the flesh. Give thanks! You can be as rich in Christ as a bishop.What is it to me that I do not have the same function?" [LW 28:301].

   "When you have so prayed, have no doubt that he to whom you have prayed is faithful and will give what you ask, opening to him who knocks and granting to him who seeks [Matt. 7:8]. Thus you may be assured that you are not pushing this matter, but being pushed in it. Then call and come together freely, as many as have been touched in heart by God to think and judge as you do. Proceed in the name of the Lord to elect one or more whom you desire, and who appear to be worthy and able. Then let those who are leaders among you lay hands upon them, and certify and commend them to the people and the church or community. In this way let them become your bishops, ministers, or pastors. Amen. The qualifications of those to be elected are fully described by Paul, in Tit. 1[:6ff.], and I Tim. 3[:2ff.]" [LW 40:40].

It is altogether correct in the translation. Now, you know that of late some malicious and corrupt men have sprung up and apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and they declare that the Prophet believes in a plurality of Gods, and, lo and behold! we have discovered a very great secret, they cry--"The Prophet says there are many Gods, and this proves that he has fallen."

   I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.
   I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?[3]

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation, Hence (sic) the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.

   Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him! Crucify him! Crucify him!"
   Mankind verily say that the Scriptures are with them. Search the Scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer, you are. I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. Hath he beheld the eternal world, and is he authorized to say that there is only one God? He makes himself a fool if he thinks or says so, and there is an end of his career or progress in knowledge. He cannot obtain all knowledge, for he has sealed up the gate to it.
   Some say I do not interpret the Scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathens gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods.[4] I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text.[5]

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou has given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster.[6]

   The Father of Jesus is our Father also. Jesus Himself taught this truth, when He instructed His disciples how to pray: Our Father which art in heaven, etc. Jesus, however, is the firstborn among all the sons of God--the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like Him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity. . . . What more is needed to convince us that man, both in spirit and in body, is the image and likeness of God, and that God Himself is in the form of man?
   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme. By His almighty power He organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with Himself.
   Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.[7]

Those who have been born unto God through obedience to the Gospel may by valiant devotion to righteousness obtain exaltation and even reach the status of godhood. Of such we read: Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God (D&C 76:58; compare 132:20, and contrast paragraph 17 in same section; see also paragraph 37). Yet, though they be gods they are still subject to Jesus Christ as their Father in this exalted relationship; and so we read in the paragraph following the above quotation: and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's (76:59).

“And hast made us [hemas] unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” (Revelation 5:10 KJV)

“You have made them [autous] to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.” (Revelation 5:10 NASB)

"we shall reign" (basileusomen)

"they will reign" (basileusousin)

“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” (Revelation 5:9 KJV)

“And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” (Revelation 5:9 NASB)

This is a case of a poor choice of one word (minor point) in the midst of a perfectly valid overall argument (major point); in other words, "majoring on the minors" (something White is extremely good at doing, as a first-rate sophist and obscurantist). It is true that this was an unwise use of "deacon". If I had left out that word, the argument, coming from the hypothetical Protestant, would have been virtually identical to White's own ecclesiology, since we see above that he equates elder and bishop...

Of course, the far greater burden lies on White, to establish his novel ecclesiology of bishops in the New Testament having no higher status than a mere elder or pastor of a local church (i.e., what he himself is). Hierarchical episcopacy is most apparent in the New Testament in the Council of Jerusalem.

[A]t Matt. 16:18, Jesus says to Peter that He "will" give Peter the keys of the kingdom. Is he trying to say that Jesus is not a person that keeps His word because the Scriptures don't record the actual conveyance of keys later? If one reduces Mr. White's argument to its logical conclusion, it would suggest that Jesus is not "the Man of His Word (pun intended).

Yes, I thought this was rather bizarre and striking also. What does it matter what tense the statement was? Obviously Peter was singled out for an extraordinary position and we can assume from common sense that Jesus intended for this to be during his earthly lifetime.

So who cares whether it was a reference to the future? The fact remains that only Peter was promised the "keys of the kingdom." What God says will happen inevitably does happen. Another fallacy of White is to assume that "binding and loosing" represents the sum total of the responsibilities and prerogatives of the "keyholder." This is untrue. It involves much more than that.

Since Bishop White was apparently unable to locate this paper on my blog: the very one that already has the answers to his current arguments, I will cite a few of the things in it, all written by Protestant Bible scholars.

The Bible teaches that bishops, elders, and deacons are all synonymous terms for the same office: roughly that of a pastor today. It doesn't indicate that bishops are higher than these other offices.

[20] Here White does it again! He completely misrepresents the text by saying that “it’s very clear” that in John 12:41 John is “quoting from the Septuagint there”! “Quoting from the Septuagint”? These claims are simply outrageous and go far beyond what is “very clear.” Again, White can argue, as can I, that there is a context in Isaiah which uses the terms forming the expression used by John, though he does not use the exact same expression, but this is then, for either side, not a case where John is “quoting from” the text of either Isaiah 6 or Isaiah 52/53, that is, when John says Isaiah “saw his glory and spoke about him.” White would have his followers and everyone else believe that John is actually, “very clearly,” “quoting from the Septuagint there”! He is not. In John 12:41 John may be borrowing language or using terms from Isaiah 6 or from Isaiah 52/53, but John is not “quoting from the Septuagint there.”

   Let's remember that the Greek speaking audience of this Gospel would have possessed and read the Greek Septuagint, the LXX. I have asserted that John is plainly making reference to Isaiah 6:1 when he says Isaiah "said these things" because Isaiah saw His glory and spoke of Him. Stafford cannot allow this because, of course, he's one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and he cannot allow anything that would violate the central, definitional doctrine of the Watchtower. Let's compare. Here is Stafford's proposed reading:

Isaiah Source	John's Reading
kai. doxasqh,setai sfo,dra	ei=den th.n do,xan auvtou/

Now compare mine:

Isaiah Source	John's Reading
ei=don to.n ku,rion ... plh,rhj o` oi=koj th/j do,xhj auvtou/	ei=den th.n do,xan auvtou/

The linguistic parallels are overwhelmingly clear. Finding a verbal form (doxasqh,setai) in 52:13, while ignoring the direct parallel found in 6:1, using the same verb (ei=don is the first person singular aorist form, "I saw," while John uses the third person singular, ei=den, "he saw," since he is referring to Isaiah) and the same noun (th/j do,xhj auvtou/, genitive form, vs. John's th.n do,xan auvtou/, accusative as the direct object of the verb) is a classic example of eisegesis created by external authorities. It is also important to note that the LXX differs from the Massoretic text at this point, so, John's focus upon the glory is all the more important and significant. There is only one reference to what Isaiah "saw" in these texts, and one reference to "his glory" as well, and it is in the introduction to Isaiah's temple vision. Given that John makes the direct connection of the one whose glory Isaiah saw with Jesus, you can see why Stafford cannot, presuppositionally, "see" the direct linguistic parallel.

Then I read the Council of Trent, which some Protestant friends had suggested I do. What I found was shocking. I found a document that had been nearly universally misrepresented by many Protestants, including some friends.

I do not believe, however, that the misrepresentation is the result of purposeful deception. But rather, it is the result of reading Trent with Protestant assumptions and without a charitable disposition.

For example, Trent talks about the four causes of justification, which correspond somewhat to Aristotle's four causes. None of these causes is the work of the individual Christian. For, according to Trent, Gods grace does all the work. However, Trent does condemn faith alone, but what it means is mere intellectual assent without allowing Gods grace to be manifested in ones actions and communion with the Church. This is why Trent also condemns justification by works.

I am convinced that the typical Council of Trent rant found on anti-Catholic websites is the Protestant equivalent of the secular urban legend that everyone prior to Columbus believed in a flat earth.

But what was shocking to me is that one never finds in the Fathers claims that these doctrines are unbiblical or apostate or not Christian, as one finds in contemporary anti-Catholic fundamentalist literature. So, at worst, I thought, the Catholic doctrines were considered legitimate options early on in Church history by the men who were discipled by the apostles and/or the apostles disciples.

At best, the Catholic doctrines are part of the deposit of faith passed on to the successors of the apostles and preserved by the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

At this point, I thought, if I reject the Catholic Church, there is good reason for one to believe I am rejecting the Church that Christ himself established.

Thats not a risk I was willing to take.

After all, if I return to the Church and participate in the sacraments, I lose nothing, since I would still be a follower of Jesus and believe everything that the catholic creeds teach, as I have always believed. But if the Church is right about itself and the sacraments, I acquire graces I would have not otherwise received.

Galatians 5:1-4 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Evangelicals can learn from Catholics that Christianity is a historical faith that did not vanish from the earth between the second and 16th centuries.

Much of what evangelicals think of as the odd beliefs of Catholics have their roots deep in Christian history.

Dear Dr. White, I would like to thank you for taking a bold, truthful stand in opposition to the ungospel of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am especially grateful that you rely of TRUTH to denounce what, in light of the truth, is so clearly wrong. You see, when I was 18, I was "saved into" a KJV-only Baptist Church. One of the first Christian books I read was "The God Makers" by Ed Decker and Dave Hunt. I lived in Boise, ID which had not shortage of Mormons, and I thought it would be good to know what they believed. Shortly afterwards, I was enlisted in the Navy and left to fend for myself amidst a new world of temptations. When I was 19 when I found myself debating the 30-something-year-old Mormon elder who bunked next to me. Armed with "The God Makers," I found myself fully unable to refute what this Mormon elder was so clearly able to prove were miss characterizations within that book. Before long, I found myself listening to this Mormon elder and believing his false gospel. I became a Mormon myself and was quickly baptized, ordained into the Aaronic Priesthood and later the Melchizedek Priesthood over the course of a year-and-a-half. When the Navy sent me to the Defense Information School to become a military journalist, I was taught some very good critical thinking skills. So, when I found another book on Mormonism while passing a Family Bookstore at a mall, I thought it would be fun to apply some of those critical thinking skills in proving that book's premise to be false. When I left the Defense Information School, I was no longer a Mormon. I would like to thank you for your books, "Debating Calvinism" and "Scripture Alone." I finished the former last winter and am about half way through the latter. Thanks for standing for the Truth and never lying for the Truth.

This led me to read the “Joint Declaration on Justification” by Lutheran and Catholic scholars. While consulting these sources, I read portions of a book by my friends Norm Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. It is a fair-minded book.
   But some of the points that Norm and Ralph made really shook me up and were instrumental in facilitating my return to the Church.

This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life... (Mathetes to Diognetius, Chapter 9).

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought....Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher. (Augustine, De bono viduitatis, 2, NPNF Series I, III:442; Migne PL 40:431. Note especially the phrase, "Scriptura nostrae doctrinae regulam figit," that is, "Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine.")

You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read" (In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2).

Let us not hear: This I say, this you say; but, thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the church, there let us discuss our case. (Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae, 3)

Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles (Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae 3).

Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us rather, if we are His sheep, hear the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the sacred canonical Scriptures (Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae 3).

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-95): "..we make the Holy Scriptures the canon and the rule of every dogma; we of necessity look upon that, and receive alone that which may be made conformable to the intention of those writings. (On the Soul and Resurrection).

   Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time.[2] . . . In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it.

   Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and He is within me, and comprehends more than all the world: and I will associate myself with Him.

   You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, Doesnt the Bible say He created the world? And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came fromthe baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaoschaotic matter, which is element, and inwhich dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.

   We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says God made man out of the earth and put into him Adams spirit, and so became a living body.
   The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal[3] with God himself. . . . I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. . . . But if I amright, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

For instance, because Protestant evangelicals accept much of the Great Tradition that Catholics take for granted such as the Catholic creeds and the inspiration of Scripture but without recourse to the Churchs authority, they have produced important and significant works in systematic theology and philosophical theology.

Some of the hostility was not surprising, for some of it came from well-meaning Protestants who simply do not have a good grounding in Christian history or the Catholic Catechism. Many of these well-meaning folks, unfortunately, have sat under the teachings of less-than-careful Bible-church preachers and pastors who approach Catholicism with a cluster of flawed categories that make even a charitable reading of the Catechism almost impossible.

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).

I actually think there are different circles of evangelicals that overlap each other. There are those who interact with Catholics, and those who dont. I have been with the group that has interacted for quite a while because of my discipline of philosophy and because the cultural issues that I write on are the ones around which evangelicals and Catholics have been aligned.

ECT was born out of the common alliance between Roman Catholics and Protestants in our land against such travesties as abortion, pornography, and the general decline in moral values that is readily seen on all sides. Until one recognizes the power that such an alliance can bring to bear upon a person, one will not be in a position to criticize the authors. Many will have nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to this document, rejecting it out of hand without learning from it a very important lesson. We do not live in vacuum; our theological beliefs are impacted by the world around us, and by our interaction with it. When we feel very strongly about an issue, we can allow that perspective to influence many other aspects of our lives.
   As an example, a few years ago I became involved in protesting the murder of unborn children. I believe to this day that abortion is murder, plain and simple, and that those who engage in this activity will answer to God, either now, or in the judgment to come. Indeed, abortion may well be one of the many aspects of God's judgment that is already coming upon one of the most wicked societies the world has ever known. Be that as it may, I became involved with Operation Rescue on a local level in the Phoenix area, even debating abortion rights advocates on local radio stations, and appearing as a representative in the media. It is vital for everyone to understand how strongly one can feel about this kind of issue, and how that strong feeling can overshadow every other consideration.
   It was not long, however, before I became aware of a real problem. It was not, in my situation, stated in writing, but it was understood by all that everyone involved in the work was to be considered a Christian if indeed they claimed to be one. On the practical level, this meant that if I were to find myself in a jail cell with a Roman Catholic it was my duty and obligation to join hands with this person as a fellow believer in Christ, no questions asked. I could not address the issues that separated us. I could not contrast the finished work of Christ, and His free grace, with the Roman concept of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, and the idea of merit. I could not, if convinced of its necessity, share the gospel of grace with this Roman Catholic, for this would amount to a "division in the ranks" so to speak, and would detract from the focus of the work. This reality quickly drove me from the organization, and helped me to see the very error that has now been enshrined in Evangelicals and Catholics Together. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

00:01:00 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Why Sound Episcopalians Hide in Shame

06/04/2007 - James White

   There are a few of them...they are just hard to find. Poor Episcopalians who stand in the tradition of Bishop Ryle are in the small minority today. In the wide realm of Episcopalianism, the wackier, the better. You have seen my encounter with Spong, and any person with biblical insight cannot help but sit back and shake their heads. But I don't think I've seen anything as wild as this.
   Today I was pointed to the June, 2007 issue of the Episcopal Voice. It contains an interview with "the Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding." The title? "On being Christian and Muslim." Yes, that's the title. Look for yourself. This woman, who likewise holds a Ph.D. in New Testament (!!!), claims to be a Christian...and a Muslim. Both.

   A little more than a year ago, the Rev. Dr. Ann Holmes Redding found herself at the doorway of a new world, Islam, and wasnt quite sure how she got there. As she reflected on her journey, she realized Jesus was her guide. Now both a practicing Muslim and an Episcopal priest, Redding shares her thoughts on how the two faiths inform each other.
   "The way I understand Jesus is compatible with Islam," Redding explains, "and although there are Christians and Muslims who think I must convert from one to the other, the more I go down this path the more excited I am about both Christianity and Islam."

   I don't know whether to laugh or cry, this is so completely absurd. But where else could something like this appear but in an Episcopalian publication? Amazing, just amazing.

18:14:04 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Porvaznik on Debates

06/04/2007 - James White

   For some reason my Google blog search pulls up items from the Catholic Answers forums. This one came up a little while ago:

On James White's web site, he is advertising's a number of debates against Tim Staples, Patrick Madrid and Mitch Pacwa.

Presumably, he believes he 'won' these debates, at one point noting that St. Joseph's Communications would not want Catholics to hear them. I did notice that the debates against Mr. White are not for sale there or on Catholic Answers (except one with Jimmy Akin).

Question: Would it be worth procuring the debates against Staples, Madrid and Pacwa from James White's web site? Or would it be a disappointment, ie, did the Catholic side not do so well?

   I wonder, does some "presume" that if you make the tapes of a debate available it automatically follows that you are claiming to have won? I would say if you do not make the tapes available, that might indicate you realize you lost, unless the debate is very old and you have debated the topic since that time, possibly. Also, do you think this fellow got a few quick e-mails warning him away from aomin.org? Hey, at least he was able to post the URL to our website. More than you can say for Envoy! Anyway, Phil Porvaznik always comments on this topic whenever anyone raises it. He has a "scorecard" of which debates I have won and which ones I have lost. I suppose I should be thankful that I'm batting about .384 (that would make me millions in MLB) according to ol' Phil who, of course, would never step into the ring himself. He says Sungenis won the Papal infallibility debate in Tampa, but sorta forgets to mention that Sungenis not only contradicted Staples in defending the papacy in that debate, but likewise had to assert that Roman popes can themselves be heretics (you should have heard the gasps from the Roman Catholics in the audience). But it was this comment that caught my eye:

And of course Akin won his two debates with White: eternal security and BAM (1995) radio debates so those are safe.

   Now, what makes me chuckle here is just this: the key argument Akin presented in 1995 had to do with John 6 and his assertion that Jesus used an "inceptive aorist" here. Since then Akin has admitted the argument was silly, but, despite this, Porvaznik still thinks he won, even though Akin has abandoned one of his most important arguments stated in the debate! You gotta love ol' Phil. Refuted repeatedly, but nothing---even obvious facts---can keep the boy down. That's the kind of defender Rome needs, one that is never rattled, even by the truth! Way to go, Phil! You deserve the "True Crusader" Award.

14:39:15 - Category: Roman Catholicism - Link to this article -

Spong on the Apostle Paul

06/04/2007 - James White

   I have often said that seeing folks saying these things has a different impact on us than just hearing it. So I am so thankful that the DVD of the debate with John Shelby Spong on homosexuality is now available. I posted a clip a few days ago, and here is a second. You can see how frustrating it was to try to get Spong to engage in meaningful cross-examination on the topic at hand, but I kept trying. Here Spong opines on the topic of the Apostle Paul. You could tell he did not want to go here, but since I was quoting his own writings, he did not have any choice. Of course, he hadn't read anything I had written on the topic, so he had no recourse.

00:01:00 - Category: General Apologetics - Link to this article -

A Call To All Procrastinators

06/03/2007 - James White

   Some folks are just constructed in such a fashion that they love to wait till that last minute to get things done. Those of us who are at the doctor's appointment twenty minutes early just don't understand you, but that's the way things are. Procrastination is a common human behavior.
   And so, those of us who don't procrastinate have to remind those of you who do that deadlines approach, time becomes short. While October 15th might seem like a long ways away, in the world of cruise lines and hotels, it isn't. It is right around the corner. And there are some of you who have decided to wait till the last minute to sign up for the cruise and the class and the debate. Well, time's a wastin'! Your window of opportunity will soon close, and there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth. So now's the time, folks. The links are over on the right hand side of the page. You will never get a chance to get this level of instruction, in this context, for this cost, again. So those of you who have been waiting, or have been sitting on the fence, consider for a moment just how much it costs to take a single class in college or seminary, throw in the gorgeous surroundings, fellow believers, and the greatest food possible. It's a "no-brainer."
   What's more, it will be a great encouragement for me to have an entire group of believers at the Shabir Ally debate who have spent the past few days in class with me, together plumbing the great depths of Christ's atoning work on our behalf! I am sure the debate experience itself will be greatly enhanced for those who take the class, that's for certain.
   Once again, for those taking the class, here is the reading list. I posted it earlier, but due to the nature of blogs, such things get lost.
Required Texts
Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans Third Revised Edition, found here.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen Vol. 10 (Banner of Truth ed.), found here. This work is available in e-text format as well (Ages Library CD Rom, as I recall). It contains The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, the primary text, but it likewise contains two other important works, Of the Death of Christ and, especially relevant to the Islamic position, A Dissertation on Divine Justice.
Long, Gary D. Definite Atonement (New Covenant Media, 3rd Ed., 2006), found here.
Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion (Fortress Press, 1977), found here.
Ally, Shabir, "Did Jesus Die for the Sins of the World" in .wmv format here.

These are the "textbooks" so to speak for the class. Aside from these, the student will need to obtain his or her own copy of the Qur'an. I would recommend either the many versions of the Yusuf Ali translation available in your local bookstores, or, one I have found particularly useful and handy, that Tafsir edition of Mawdudi's work, found here. Portable, not overly expensive, very useful.
   Now, in addition to these published works, I will be providing a PDF document of six articles as soon as I can. When I finish it, I will post it here.
   Next, I will provide a few "recommended reading" resources, in order of usefulness. These are not required. This is so guys can ask to buy these and put them in their library and say, "But James said it would be good." Hey, I had to build my library once, too! The first book would be an excellent textbook, so I highly recommend it, but it will not be out in the US until July, and even then, you never know with publishing houses, so I will leave it at the top of this list. But if you get any of the following books, get that one.

Recommended Reading
Jeffery, Steve, Mike Ovey, Andrew Sach. Pierced for our Transgression: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (IVP, 2007).
Brown, Raymond. The Death of the Messiah (2 vols.) Doubleday, 1994.
Hill, Charles (ed), Frank James (ed), Roger Nicole (ed). The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Roger R. Nicole (IVP, 2004), found here.
McKnight, Scott. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Baylor University, 2005), found here.
Bauckham, Richard. God Crucified (Eerdmans, 1998). Probably need to use a library for this one!
Beilby, James, Paul Reddy (eds). The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (IVP, 2006), found here.

07:54:50 - Category: Misc - Link to this article -

Evangelical Apostasy (Part 2)

06/02/2007 - James White

   The spin only moves faster as the article continues:

Besides, Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For Latter-Day Saints, Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists agreed that Jesus was "without sin," Mormons were among the "most likely" to say that Jesus was sinless.

   This is again simply dishonest at its best. There is no excuse for this. Millet knows what he is doing; whether McDermott does I have no idea; and the editors of Post-Christianity Today show about as much insight and discernment as Eerdmans, so one can never assume any serious study of LDS theology there. What can possibly be more un-evangelical than the idea of polytheism and that God became a god by obedience to law? As I said, Muhammad is more "evangelical" than Joseph Smith, and that shows the absurdity of this abuse of language.
   It is dishonest to say "Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ." Why? Because Jehovah's Witnesses are unitarian henotheists, while Mormons are polytheists, so the comparison is invalid. And it is clearly Millet's intention here (or Millet/McDermott or however the authorship was handled) to communicate that Mormons believe in the "deity of Christ" in an evangelical sense. They do not! Christians believe in the deity of Christ, but as monotheists, that makes the deity of Christ utterly unique! The one true God, creator of all things, entered into His own creation. This is the Incarnation. But Mormonism has no Creator to begin with; "incarnations" may have taken place billions of times in the past in the endless universes that existed prior to ours; the "deity" of Christ is simply not unique (nor could it be, given their view of god, men, and angels, all being of the same species). Folks, believing Jesus is a god like billions of others is not "better" than simply denying His deity as Jehovah's Witnesses do! This is pure gamesmanship, and the idea that this is appearing in the flagship publication of post-evangelicalism is only further documentation of the utter lack of discernment to be found therein any longer.
   "For Latter-Day Saints, Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son." The first born spirit child of an exalted man from another planet, himself the offspring of an even more remote exalted man, etc., who is then brought into mortality through the natural union of Elohim, in a physical body of flesh and bone, with his spiritual daughter, Mary, hence "the only begotten of the Father in the flesh" is "God the Son"? Another gross abuse of language, for, what "Son of God" and "God the Son" means to a Christian Trinitarian is light years removed from what it means to a Mormon! Millet knows this, so to include this kind of language in this context is deceptive, plain and simple.
   Finally, the very citation of a Barna poll while intentionally hiding the plain statements of LDS leaders promoting polytheism and the idea that God was once a man who lived on another planet and that men today (sinners, aren't they?) can become gods (which would men there are gods who were once sinners, yes?) is just more of the sleight-of-hand that Millet is promoting with the willing aid of men like Mouw, McDermott, and, seemingly, the large proportion of post-evangelical media outlets like Post-Christianity Today and Eerdmans.
   But this insulting display of "lets hope no one out there has actually paid any attention to what LDS leaders have been saying since the days of Joseph Smith" is not finished. Oh no. There is more to come. Obviously assuming a level of knowledge of the great doctrines of justification by faith and the atoning work of Christ just above the level of one's shoelaces, and a complete ignorance of the contents of the Book of Mormon, our writers opine,

Most evangelicals would also be surprised to learn that the Book of Mormon contains passages that teach salvation by the merits and grace of Christ ( "There is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah" 2 Nephi 2:8) and others that require personal trust in Christ for salvation, such as 1 Nephi 10:4-6: "All mankind were in a lost and in a fallen state, and ever would be save they should rely on this Redeemer."

   Compare these with the citations already given from the BoM, as well as the definition of grace cited from the official LDS Bible Dictionary, and you will see that someone is trying to sell you a used car at a new car price. Join this with even the slightest familiarity with the writings of LDS Church leaders down through the history of the church, in which they attack the gospel with ferocity, and one cannot help but experiencing some level of anger at the level of deception found here. To try to palm the BoM's confused soteriology as "evangelical" is one thing; to ignore the fact that the BoM was written long before Smith actually developed his view of exaltation to godhood, and hence, is basically irrelevant to the full and mature theology of the later portions of the D&C is even worse. This kind of cherry-picking of the BoM is easily done. No serious scholar would give it a second thought, however, in light of the development of Smith's theology between 1830 and 1844. This kind of facile salesmanship is reprehensible and insulting. Any serious reader who picks up the D&C, the PGP, and a copy of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith will not fail to recognize the deceit. What does Millet expect to accomplish with this kind of rhetoric? I cannot tell, but, evidently, it seems to be working well. ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

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

Evangelical Apostasy (Part 1)

06/01/2007 - James White

   Folks, please read this series, even if you live out East where Mormonism is not that big an "issue." The complicit cooperation of alleged "evangelicals" in deceiving Christians about the nature of Mormonism represents a trend relevant to all sorts of apologetics issues today. Read on!
   I have been presenting the statements of LDS leaders (not current BYU academics, but the apostles and prophets of the LDS church across the century and a half of its existence) regarding the fundamental difference between Mormonism and Christianity: Christianity is unalterably monotheistic, believing in one eternal God, Creator of all things. Mormonism denies this foundational truth, knowingly and purposefully, instead teaching a rank form of polytheism (which they prefer to dub "the plurality of gods"), wherein god and man are of the same "species," just at different points along the spectrum of exaltation. This is not just a "doctrinal difference." In many ways, Islam is foundationally closer to Christianity than Mormonism is. Did you catch that? Evidently the vast majority of right-wing politicos who wish to court the "evangelical vote" have missed that statement, or reject it out of hand, but facts are facts.
   Now, I have not commented on Mitt Romney's politics. I have no interest in distracting people with getting involved in promoting or opposing Romney's candidacy. My point is simple: when discussing Mormonism, at least have the honesty to represent it truthfully. Don't spin it. Don't lie about it. Don't dodge it. Let it speak for itself. In my opinion, a very small percentage of current office holders in the United States are actually believers in the first place. In most races, you are voting for unbelievers--they are the only choices. Sadly, many claim to be "Christians" but have no concept of the faith or the demands of the Lordship of Christ. So if you are comfortable voting for a pure pagan, why not a polytheist? I do have a concern, however, over whether Romney will have the honesty to actually admit to the teachings of the LDS faith (he surely cannot claim ignorance of them). But that is another issue.
   We have documented on this site many times the apostasy of post-evangelicals regarding the abandonment of the uniqueness of the Christian gospel in reference to Roman Catholicism. Many who parade under the "evangelical" banner have no problems abandoning justification by faith and the perfection of the work of Christ so as to hold hands with Rome, and when John Paul II died, this tendency exploded before our eyes in cascades of praise and the immediate confession of the Pope's entrance into paradise itself. Likewise, Beckwith's return to Rome has revealed that the number of those professing the gospel to be definitional of the Christian faith continues to plummet in the ranks of post-evangelicalism.
   Likewise, even Trinitarian heresy is forgivable as long as you can sing (PC&D) or preach loudly while wearing Armani (Jakes). But since Oneness heresies only impact the primary area of Trinitarian theology that most post-evangelicals do not understand anyway (the relationship of the divine persons), they've generally been given a "pass." Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, up until recently, have been universally recognized as being cultic, thoroughly opposed to orthodox Christian faith, and outside Christian fellowship.
   But over the past decades, as Mormons have sought to main-stream, some in evangelicalism have been more than willing to assist in the cause. Most famous among them is Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw. Through his influence, many others have been drawn into the "dialogue" with Mormonism. Of course, I am all for dialogue: we should be calling all Mormons to repent of the idolatry of worshiping an exalted man who lives on a planet that circles a star named Kolob (Abraham 3:9-10) and embrace the living and true God through faith in the true Jesus Christ. I have engaged in that kind of dialogue for decades myself. This is a far cry from the "lets sit around and share our experiences" "dialogue" that has become popular today. Mormonism has no place at the table of Christian dialogue, anymore than the prophets of Baal had place to "discuss our similarities and differences" with Elijah. The Holy Spirit said it well, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods" (Gal. 4:8). That does not say, "at that time, you sorta knew God, but sorta didn't, and were slaves to those which by nature are not as accurately to be called gods as we would like." You do not show God's love to those trapped in idolatrous religion by nudging them a bit "closer" to the truth, hoping that in a few generations they will be "close enough."
   Today I was sent a URL by Randy Brandt to an article in the publication that should be called "What Parades as Christianity Today." And once again we find Robert Millet, the Academic Apostle of Mormonism, Eerdmans author, and general sales-person of Mormonism to a completely non-discerning post-evangelical world, writing in such a fashion as to promote his faith. The article is titled:

Mitt's Mormonism and the 'Evangelical Vote'
Can conservative Protestants vote for a member of what they consider a cult?
Robert Millet and Gerald McDermott

   The refrains are the same, but why should they not be? Obviously the chant is working. Repetition seems to be working. But what truly concerns me here is the abject dishonesty of this article. Yes, simple dishonesty. Anyone who knows the truth can see it, but, evidently, Millet (and McDermott?) are hoping those who know better are a small enough group to be avoided. Note their words,

But evangelicals are reluctant to vote for a Mormon. Historically, evangelicals and Mormons have demonized each other. Evangelicals consider the Church of Latter-day Saints to be a cult and typically think Mormons are not real Christians.

   Demonized? If you mean the Mormon leadership has proclaimed the LDS Church the one true church on earth and denounced Christian doctrine, quite true. And if you mean that some calling themselves Christians have written horribly flawed, inaccurate, despicable about Mormonism, quite true. But I am personally sick and tired of the Millets and Mouws of the world pretending to speak for me. I have bent over backwards to speak the truth about Mormonism, both in representing it, and in presenting the truths of the Christian faith in response to it. It is not to "demonize" to say "Mormonism is a false religion with a false god, false savior, and a false gospel, founded by a false prophet," if, in fact, you can demonstrate, clearly, the truthfulness of each element of such a statement!
   Is a Christian a monotheist? The answer to that question from every possible viewpoint is a resounding "yes." There is no more basic, foundational confession for the Christian faith than "there is one true, eternal God." And there is likewise nothing disputable about the fact that Mormonism denies this very truth. So no matter how strongly one may wish it were otherwise, Mormonism is, by definition, a religion other than Christianity, and unalterably opposed thereto. I personally respect the Mormon who is open about this. I do not respect the Mormon who tries to hide this fact, though he knows, sitting in the Celestial Room of the temple in his full temple regalia, that his religion is opposed to mine (and if you don't know what I am talking about, you don't know a lot about Mormonism).

Evangelicals accuse Mormons of adding new revelation (the Book of Mormon) to the Bible. They think Mormons teach that humans are saved by good works rather than by Jesus Christ, and that humans are of the same species as Jesus and can someday attain his status. In addition, evangelicals say, Mormons reject key Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and creatio ex nihilo (God creating the world out of nothing).

   This is where the dishonesty switches into high gear, and if this in any way represents the upcoming publication written by Millet and McDermott, yet another major theological and apologetic disaster is waiting to go to press. Let's correct the spin and speak the truth: ...
[Click Here to Continue Reading]

16:12:45 - Category: Mormonism - Link to this article -

Mormonism 101: Second Level Statements: The King Follett Discourse (#3)

06/01/2007 - James White

Learning to be a God
   Smith's attempts to defend this doctrine from the Bible are enlightening with reference to his claimed abilities as a Scriptural exegete, but we must pass over them lightly at this point, since we have much material yet to admit into evidence before getting to an evaluation of these claims.

The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do we believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

   This is followed by another striking proclamation:

Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming his name, is not trifling with you or me.

   It is certainly difficult to avoid getting Joseph Smith's point loud and clear. You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves . . . the same as all Gods have done before you is an amazing claim. And here we are given a glimpse into the concept of exaltation, which is defined as going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one. The promised end is to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. Again we see the driving force: the exaltation of man to the highest categories.
   I remind the reader that Smith was here preaching a funeral sermon that was combined with the Conference of the Church. He continues on to speak of how these glorious truths are helpful in consoling those who have lost a loved one, for, he goes on to say,

. . . they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much hath been said.

   The same themes are again struck here, with the emphasis upon the progression, in almost train-track fashion, whereby one persons exaltation adds to those above on the ladder, and so forth. We note the words, To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. The idea of men becoming Gods here results in the plain (and necessary) assertion of polytheism,[1] for we hear Smith speaking of those who have gone before.

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.[2]
----------
[1] Most Mormons dislike the term polytheism due to its connections with paganism and the like. However, the term is most appropriate, especially in this context, where the phrase plurality of gods hardly does justice to the concepts here enunciated. We also note the fascinating use of the phrase Christian polytheist by BYU professor Eugene England in a fairly recent issue of BYU Studies, Summer 1989, 29:3, p. 33:

He begins his discussion with a quotation from 1 Corinthians 8:5-6: There be gods many and lords many. But to us there is but one God the Father. Despite the context of this scripture--a discussion by Paul of belief in idols--Brigham Young, B. H. Roberts, Joseph Fielding Smith, and many others have used it as a brief explanation of how it is possible to be both a Christian polytheist (technically a henotheist) and a monotheist: how we can talk sometimes in an adventuresome mode about multiple orders of godhood, and how we can consider the advanced spheres that exist in the infinities, and yet at the same time, without contradiction, we can talk in a worshipful mode about our one God and his perfect knowledge and supreme redemptive power in the sphere of our world.

   Likewise, Donl Peterson and Charles Tate, The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God, (Religious Studies Center Monograph Series, Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1989), p.102, interestingly note:

Mormonism is simultaneously monotheistic, tri-theistic, and polytheistic. There is but one God, yet there is a Godhead of three, and beyond them, gods many, and lords many (1 Cor. 8:5). But regardless of the multiplicity of personages bearing divine titles, they are one in that priesthood which governs throughout the eternities.

[2] Ibid., p. 348. Italics in printed edition.

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

<< Previous Month Next Month >> Blog Archives