Bellarmine cannot deny this when he says that Christ can rightly be said to be made righteousness meritoriously "because he satisfied the Father for us, and gives and communicates that satisfaction to us, when he justifies us, so that he can be called our sanctification and righteousness, as if we ourselves had satisfied God" ("De Justificatione," 2.10 Opera [1858], 4:523). This he confirms on 2 Cor. 5:21: "The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as to the satisfaction, which he made for us" (ibid., p. 524). Nor can that which our opponent adds in the same place help his cause when he says: "But not on this account can we be reckoned righteous, if the stains and corruption of sins truly inhere in us" (ibid.). For if the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us (as he had already confessed), then certainly we are considered righteous in him; for no one imputes righteousness to him whom he does not count righteous. And if the satisfaction of Christ is imputed to us, then our debts for which he satisfied are not imputed [to us], but are remitted. Falsely also he holds "that the righteousness inhering in us is here called the righteousness of God because it is given to us of God; or also because it is the image and effect of the righteousness of God" (ibid.). For the little clause "in him" stands in the way; for how could it be said to be in Christ, if it was in us? [Cardinal] Contarini acknowledges this: "The righteousness of God in him, since his righteousness is made ours, is given and imputed to us" (cf. "De Justificatione," Casparis Contareni Cardinalis Opera [1571], p. 592). 

It is good to be with you this evening on a rather chilly evening outside. You need to remember that in Phoenix it has not been this cold in probably about 3,000 years. But I enjoy it, the air is clean and it is good to be with you here in Omaha.

After we'd examined the biblical evidence for the doctrine, the anti-Marianism he'd shown became muted, but it was clear that, at least emotionally if not biblically, Mary was a stumbling block for him. Like most Christians (Catholic and Protestant) the minister was unaware of the biblical support for the Church's teaching on the Immaculate Conception. But sometimes even knowledge of these passages isn't enough. Many former Evangelicals who have converted to the Catholic Church relate how hard it was for them to put aside prejudices and embrace Marian doctrines even after they'd thoroughly satisfied themselves through prayer and Scripture study that such teachings were indeed biblical.

Attached to this sheet is a copy of what can be called a ‘representative sample’ of a letter that requests that a person’s name be removed from the rolls of the Mormon Church. Some introductory comments are necessary.

First, there are some folks who leave Mormonism, come to Christ, and have no desire whatsoever to have their names removed from the rolls of the Mormon Church. We know of some folks like that. However, most of the time a person who finds out the great deception they have been under in the Mormon Church have a great desire to have their names removed from the Church’s membership rolls. They can’t handle the idea of still being counted as one of the “Saints.’ However, it has been proven more than once in the past that the Mormon Church does not like to remove anyone’s name from their roll. In the past people have spent great amounts of time, even money, in trying to get their names removed. Others have found that the LDS Church has “excommunicated’ them, even though it was they who requested that their names be removed. Some have suffered loss of friends and loved ones because of the stigma associated with “excommunication.”

In recent years, certain lawsuits have demonstrated that the attached letter should make removal of one’s name a simple, easy process, if done correctly. Certainly there will be some who encounter more resistance than others - however, generally, we have found that following the outline here given will result in action being taken within a month’s time, or even less. The Mormon Church has no right to maintain your membership in an organization that you do not want to be a part of.It is important to include each of the following elements to assure a smooth procedure:

2. Make your intentions clear. This means that they must understand exactly what it is you are saying - you want your name removed from the rolls. Let them know that you do understand what this means in their eyes (see second paragraph of the letter).

3. Give a positive testimony of your salvation in Christ. This letter can be an opportunity of witness, and even if you are confused at this time and have feelings like ‘I’d just like to get this over with,’  you won’t regret having taken the time to share with these men later.

6. Sign your name! May sound simple, and it is, but it is important. If you are a parent, and are including the name(s) of your children, make sure they sign as well. The signed names must correspond to the name(s) listed at the beginning of the letter.

If the above procedures are followed, there should be no problem in having your name removed, and that quickly. If there should be a problem, we would like to hear about it. You may wish to contact a Christian lawyer as well, if need be. Be assured of our prayers and support at this time, and if you should need any information, counsel, whatever, just let us know. We would be happy to help.

Bishop Jones

Phoenix 20th Ward

Address

City, State, Zip

Dear Bishop Jones:

This letter is being sent in triplicate to Bishop Jones, State President Robinson, and to the Office of the First Presidency in Salt Lake City. These letters are being sent by certified mail, return receipt requested.

I am writing to ask you to remove my name, <give full name as it appears in the signature at close of letter>, from the roles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do this with full understanding of the consequences as taught by the LDS Church. I ask this due to my having found the real Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. I have found that Jesus is not the spirit-brother of Lucifer, and just one of many gods, but that He is the eternal God of creation who died on the cross for me. By simple faith He has become my personal Savior, and all my sins have been washed away. I now know that my salvation comes as a free gift of God (Romans 6:23), and that there is absolutely no way that I can earn it, and that even to attempt to do so is to insult the One who offers salvation to me. I have been born again, saved by grace, which is totally inconsistent with the teaching of the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 25:23.

I have also found that the LDS Church has not been honest and open with its people. Joseph Smith was not a true prophet of God, as he violated the Biblical standards of a true prophet as laid down in Deuteronomy 13:1-3 and 18:20-22. He violated the first passage by proclaiming, “...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...” (The King Follett Funeral Discourse as recorded in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 345-348). This is in direct violation of what God has said in Isaiah 43:10: “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” This teaching is causing people to follow after ‘another god’ as Deuteronomy 13:2 said would happen. This alone makes Joseph Smith a false prophet. However, it is quite easy to list a number of false prophecies of Joseph Smith that allow him to qualify under the teaching of Deuteronomy 18:20-22. Some of these would include Doctrine and Covenants section 111, 114, and 124:59-60. The most amazing, however, is the entire Book of Abraham, which is, in reality, the Egyptian Book of Breathings taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, all of which is totally pagan material.

I am taking this action of my own initiative. This is my right as a citizen of the United States. I am not to be excommunicated. No communication from the LDS Church is to contain the word “excommunication," - as I am the one initiating the action. Should the word appear in any of the letters from the LDS Church concerning this matter, legal action would definitely be in order. Also, I am hereby requesting that no elders, home teachers, or any other representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints visit my home to attempt to persuade me against this action. I trust my request will be honored.

It is my hope that you, too, Bishop Jones, will come to know Jesus Christ in a personal way. He is the ‘way, the truth and the life.’ He is not an organization. Accept Him by faith, and the gift of eternal life can be yours.

I sign my name in witness of this request that my name be removed from the rolls of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

(Signature of full name)

Name and Address

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints teaches that there are three levels of heaven: the celestial (the highest), the terrestial (the middle), and the telestial (the lowest). The clearest teaching concerning this is found in section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Mormons refer to 1 Corinthians 15:40-41 as Biblical support for this teaching. But did Paul believe in three levels of heaven? Lets examine that.

“There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.” 

“There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.”

Paul is here discussing the connection between our physical body, and the spiritual body we will have at the resurrection. He maintains that there is definitely a connection between the two, but the future, glorified body will far transcend our current physical body in so many ways. To make his point, he brings in a number of illustrations. One is the seed and the plant (vs. 36-38), another that of the flesh of the animal kingdom (v.39). When we come to the verses under discussion here, we see that he is continuing with the same train of thought here comparing the glory of heavenly bodies with the glory of earthly bodies. This verse simply continues his comparison - there is no reason to believe that all of a sudden he decides to talk about different levels of heaven! The very next verse substantiates this quite well:

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” 

Notice the continued parallelism - perishable, imperishable; dishonor, glory. Since it is therefore obvious that Paul is describing the nature of the resurrection body, and not different levels of heaven, what about the passage at 2 Corinthians 12:2?

An Examination of Joseph Smith’s “Explanation” of Facsimile #2 in the Book of Abraham

In 1835 Michael H. Chandler arrived in Kirtland, Ohio. In his horse-drawn wagon he carried four Egyptian mummies. Along with the mummies were included displays of the papyri rolls found on the mummies themselves. Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, was fascinated by Chandler’s exhibit, so much so that his fledgling Church purchased the entire display from Chandler for a large sum of money: $2,400.00. Joseph Smith said:

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus...and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc...(Documentary History of the Church, 2:236, emphasis added).

It should be remembered that at this time the study of Egyptian was, on a scholarly level, in its infancy. Smith was claiming to be able to translate what was, for all practical purposes, an unknown language. Of course, he had claimed this same ability in translating the Book of Mormon, which was said to have been written in “Reformed Egyptian.” That Smith was indeed claiming to translate in the normal sense of the term can be seen from his own words:

The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients (DHC 2:238).

Over the next nine years Smith continued to work on his translation of the Book of Abraham. The work was included in the Pearl of Great Price when it was accepted as Scripture in 1880.

The Book of Abraham is unique amongst the books of LDS Scripture: it is the only book that contains illustrations in the form of three “Facsimiles,” each with an “Explanation” provided by Joseph Smith. Since the actual papyri were thought lost (some of the original papyri were found in 1967 and turned over to the LDS Church), the “Facsimiles” provided the only means of testing Joseph Smith’s translation, and his understanding of the documents that were before him.

 In this small tract we cannot discuss all the evidence that now exists regarding the Book of Abraham, the papyri that have been found, and the various explanations put forward by defenders of Joseph Smith. Instead, we wish to look at just one aspect of the Book of Abraham, Facsimile 2 (found on the front of this tract), and even more specifically, one section of this drawing and what it really means.

Pearl of Great Price, marked and explained by Joseph Smith as figure 7:

Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.

Is this indeed a representation of the one true God sitting upon His throne revealing the grand Key-words of the priesthood? Was Joseph Smith a man ahead of his time, able to decipher Egyptian writings in a time when scholarship was just starting to get a clue on the topic?

The object that Joseph Smith included in the Book of Abraham is, in reality, a “hypocephalus,” a common item of Egyptian funeral literature (all of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are drawn from common Egyptian funerary documents). It was placed under the person’s head, and was to aid them in making the journey through the netherworld by bathing their bodies in light. Many examples of this kind of hypocephalus are to be found. One of the many pagan gods pictured in this hypocephalus is shown above as it appears in the current edition of the LDS Scriptures. Egyptologists tell us that this is the god “Min.” Min is an “ithyphallic god,” that is, a sexually aroused male deity, as the picture clearly indicates. Min is the god of the procreative forces of nature. Joseph Smith told us that the Egyptian god Min was in point of fact the one true God.

And what is Min doing? Joseph tells us that he is revealing the grand Key-words of the priesthood, with the sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove before him. In reality, he is holding up the “divine flail” in one hand and is being approached by the figure Joseph Smith identified as the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. In point of fact, Joseph’s hypocephalus was damaged at the border so that only the head of the “dove” was visible. So, Joseph had to restore the picture. Did he do so correctly? No, he did not.  The figure to the right provides us with the proper scene from another hypocephalus (Leyden AMS 62). The being that is approaching Min is not the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove; it is yet another ithyphallic figure, specifically, a serpent, probably the Egyptian God Nehebka, presenting to Min the wedjat- eye, the symbol of good gifts.

The single LDS scholar who has written the most on the Book of Abraham, Dr. Hugh Nibley, has written of Min:

As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking promiscuity, which is hardly relieved by its ritual nature...His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal...and he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family; he had the most numerous and varied religious entourage of all the gods, consisting mostly of his huge harem...The hymns, or rather chanting of his worshippers were accompanied with lewd dancing and carousing...to the exciting stimulus of a band of sistrum-shaking damsels (Abraham in Egypt, p. 210).

It must be remembered that Joseph Smith said that this figure represented God sitting on His throne!  Incredible as it may seem, intelligent, well-read LDS are fully aware of the true nature of the hypocephalus, including the presence of Min and Nehebka (the vast majority of LDS, however, are not).  How do they explain this? Mormon Egyptologist Michael Dennis Rhoades said,

Joseph Smith mentions here the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove and God ‘revealing through the heavens the grand key-words of the priesthood.’ The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined with blessing of the Priesthood in one’s posterity eternally (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273).

In other words, since the God of Mormonism is sexually active, begetting children in the spirit-world (indeed, God’s power is often described by Mormons as being made of the power of the priesthood and the power of procreation), and Min is obviously sexually active as well, this then is the “connection.”

We believe that Joseph Smith was utterly ignorant of what was represented in the Egyptian papyri that lay before him. Incapable of translating the figures, he made things up as he went along, claiming God’s direction and inspiration as his guide. In the process he demonstrated his own inability as a “prophet, seer and revelator,” for he grossly misidentified each of the items not only in this Facsimile, but in the other two as well.

Joseph Smith’s defenders today seek to find any connection whatsoever between LDS belief and Egyptian religion, even to the point of seeing in the sexually aroused Min a picture of God upon His throne. But to grasp at this straw is to ignore the Biblical testimony to the one true God. Isaiah saw God upon His throne in Isaiah 6:1-10, but instead of an incestuous god, surrounded by lewd dancing girls, the angels surrounded His throne and cried, “Holy, holy, holy.” God describes the gods of Egypt as “idols” that tremble before him (Isaiah 9:1); these false gods will literally be captured by God in His wrath (Jeremiah 43:12). God reveals the worship of these gods to be an abomination that brings His wrath (Jeremiah 44:8), and mentions one Egyptian god by name in speaking of the punishment he will bring against Egypt (Jeremiah 46:25). Those who worship such gods are “defiled” in God’s sight (Ezekiel 20:7-8). The Bible has nothing but contempt for the gods of Egypt, which would include the abominable figure of Min, identified by Joseph Smith as his God.

We will gladly admit that there is a similarity between the pagan god Min and the Mormon doctrine of God developed in the later years of Joseph Smith’s life. What is equally clear is that the God of the Bible is not similar to either Min, nor the LDS God. As God Himself said:

 “To whom will you compare me?” Isaiah 40:25

Below I deal with a few classic examples of the kind of errors made by McKinsey in BE over the years. This is by no means anywhere near an exhaustive list - just a few (to use his own words) imbroglios he has managed to get himself into in his attack upon God’s Word.

In the December 1983 issue of BE McKinsey says on page 5, ‘The word “Sanhedrin” never appears in the Bible.” The Greek term “sunedrion" - (translated ‘Sanhedrin”) is found 22 times in the New Testament (Mt. 5:22, 10:17, 26:59, Mk. 13:9, 14:55, 15:1, Lk. 22:66, Jn. 11:47, Acts 4:15, 5:21, 27, 34, 41, 6:12, 15, 22:30, 23:1, 6, 15, 20, 28, and 24:20). McKinsey’s studying methods are seen here to be based on an exhaustive concordance following the KJV, for the term is normally translated “council” by the King James, hiding its true significance. (McKinsey did say, in a later issue, that the term never appears in the King James Version - whether this was an acknowledgment on his part of the earlier mistake is unclear).

In the February 1983 issue, page 3, McKinsey alleges that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecy of Matthew 12:40 concerning the sign of Jonah. This he bases on the idea that Jonah was in the whale’s belly for three days and three nights, but Jesus was not in the tomb seventy two hours (Friday evening to Sunday morning). He bluntly says "His prophecy failed." Now, some have taken a Wednesday crucifixion position to avoid this, but that is not only unnecessary, but Biblically insupportable. Rather, the answer lies in the obvious fact that the Jews counted any portion of a day as a full day. Therefore, Friday was day one, Saturday day two, Sunday day three. The push for an absurdly literalistic interpretation of Matthew 12:40 seems just a little inconsistent for Mr. McKinsey, does it not?

In the next month’s issue (March 1983) we find the following: According to McKinsey, Matthew 8:20 (“...the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.”) is contradicted by Mark 2:15, where McKinsey claims that the Bible says Jesus owned a house! This one is truly amazing, as the passage makes it clear that the house was Matthew’s home, not Jesus’, and this is corroborated by the parallel passages in Matthew 8:10 and Luke 5:29. So much for close study!

A classic example of how to completely ignore context can be found in the August, 1987 issue, page 1 under the title “Paul the Deceptive Disciple.” I won’t even bother commenting on it, as anyone even somewhat familiar with the Bible will recognize the vast difference in the contexts of the two passages, rendering any charge of “contradiction" or duplicity on Paul’s part absolutely inane. McKinsey writes: " “For I know that in me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing....” (Rom. 7:18) versus “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me..." (Gal. 2:20). Paul said no good thing dwells within him yet he has Christ within.”

Finally (certainly not due to lack of examples - one could literally find hundreds and hundreds of examples in BE over the past four years) in the March 1983 issue, page 3, it is alleged that Deuteronomy 23:3 is a “false prophecy” due to Ruth 1:4, 22, etc. Deuteronomy 23:3 says that "no Ammonite or Moabite shall enter into the congregation of the LORD.” Since Ruth was a Moabitess, McKinsey alleges that this is a false prophecy But is it? Certainly not! First, Deuteronomy 23 is not a prophecy - it is a law! Are we to say that every time a law is broken that it was a false prophecy to have made the law? Ridiculous! One cannot make a prophecy out of a law. Second, the “assembly of the LORD” was restricted to men only, therefore Ruth could not have entered into it anyway. A little more study into the Old Testament law and Old Testament customs could have saved this anti-theist another embarrassing error.

The above supposed "contradiction" (Deuteronomy 23:3/Ruth 1:4) came up on a local talk program while debating a representative of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Mr. Dan Barker. Mr. Barker called my explanation of the case “weak" (though he did not elaborate on that). During a break the subject of what might be the most well-known alleged contradiction came up - that of Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. In October of 1986, I received a letter from Mr. Barker. He sent me a four page document entitled “Did Paul’s Men Hear A Voice?” In it he gave a great deal of information on the usage of the genitive and accusative cases relevant to the word akouo (to hear) and its direct objects, primarily phone (sound, voice) since these are the important terms in discussing Acts 9:7/22:9. Though not dealing with all of the issues involved (in my opinion), Mr. Barker did a fine job in stating his belief that the two passages are contradictory. To close our presentation of "Letters to an Anti-Theist,” we will examine this “contradiction."

9:7 - “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
22:9 - "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

Clearly the question is - did the men hear the voice or not? To answer that question, we must, obviously, deal with the text as written by Luke in its original languages. This is an excellent example of a situation where the original words must be allowed to be heard in the argument, for we could be charging Luke with a simple mistake that he did not make. Also, we need to notice that modern versions translate the passage differently. For example, the New International Version reads as follows:

9:7 - “The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.
22:9 - “My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.”

Note that in the NIV the contradiction no longer exists; in the first passage the men hear a sound; in the second they do not understand the voice of the one speaking to Saul. Mr. Barker and other critics would assert that the NIV has translated in accordance with interpretation and convenience rather than according to language and usage. But is this so? Lets examine these passages and see.

First, before going into the text itself, we must address the issue of “what is a contradiction?” The law of contradiction, stated briefly, would be that you cannot have A and non-A simultaneously. You cannot have a chair in a room and outside the room at the same time. That would be a contradiction. But, is this what we have in this case in Acts?

The answer can only be no, we do not have a contradiction here. First, let’s transliterate the passages so that their differences can be seen:

Thus in Acts 9:7, “hearing the voice,” the noun “voice’ is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in 22:9, "they heard not the voice," the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). “The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived." (Cremer). In John 5:25, 28, the genitive case is used, indicating a “sensational perception” that the Lord’s voice is sounding; in 3:8, of hearing the wind, the accusative is used, stressing “the thing perceived." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words by W.E. Vine, pages 204-205).

Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the “light” and “no one’) a distinction between the “sound’ (original sense of phone as in John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is used either with the accusative (extent of the hearing) or the genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here coincides with the two senses of phone. They heard the sound (9:7), but did not understand the words (22:9). However, this distinction in case with akouo, though possible and even probable here, is by no means a necessary one for in John 3:8 where phonen undoubtedly means “sound” the accusative occurs as Luke uses ekousa phonen about Saul in Acts 9:4. Besides in Acts 22:7 Paul uses ekousa phones about himself, but ekousa phonen about himself in 26:14, interchangeably. (Word Pictures in the New Testament by Dr. A.T. Robertson, volume III, pages 117- 118).

The fact that the maintenance of an old and well-known distinction between the acc. and the gen. with akouo saves the author of Acts 9:7 and 22:9 from a patent self-contradiction, should by itself be enough to make us recognize it for Luke, and for other writers until it is proved wrong. (A Grammar of New Testament Creek by James Hope Moulton, vol I., page 66. Robertson quotes this approvingly in A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research on pages 448-449).


 

The partitive gen. occurs in NT with verbs of perception, especially with a personal object. For akouo, the class(ical) rule is that the person whose words are heard is in the gen. ...but the thing (or person) about which one hears is in the accus., and akouo c. accus. may mean to understand...We have to ask whether the class, distinction between gen. and accus. has significance for exegesis in NT. There may be something in the difference between the gen. in Ac. 9:7 (the men with Paul heard the sound ) and the accus. in Ac 22:9 (they did not understand the voice). (A Grammar of New Testament Greek vol. III by Nigel Turner, pg. 233).

8. How can Exodus 33:20 and John 1:18 (both stating that no one can see God) be reconciled with Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:11 which say that men have seen God?

There is no indication in the Bible that any of the others who were raised from the dead lived eternally. Instead, it is clear that they lived on and then died a natural death. Jesus did not die again - he lives eternally.

This makes His resurrection unique as it is a true resurrection to life eternal.

Secondly, Jesus was God in human flesh. None of the other people who were resurrected were Deity!

Third, Jesus’ resurrection was prophesied long before. He himself foretold it (none of the others foretold their deaths and resurrections). He also said that he had authority to take hack his life again (John 10:17-18). No other person claimed to have a part in raising himself (or herself)!

Finally, Jesus’ resurrection makes possible the resurrection of all who trust in him. We as believers have the promise of our own resurrection because of the resurrection of our Lord. My resurrection is not guaranteed because of the raising of the son of the widow of Nain or of Lazarus; but, as I am united with Christ, and he was raised, so shall I be.

Just these few points are sufficient to demonstrate to anyone willing to examine the information the uniqueness and importance of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

10. How can Jesus be our perfect savior when he made many false and deceptive statements?

Answer to Question #10: Jesus’ integrity

Be that as it may, the other references hold no weight. What is deceptive about Jesus’ promise that the thief would be with him in paradise that day when it was true? The atheist must assume that Jesus was lying to prove that he was! Circular argumentation at its best. In an earlier issue of BE McKinsey expanded on his charge at this point. He states that since Jesus did not go to heaven until three days later, and paradise is heaven, then Jesus was lying. He then takes Dr. Gleason Archer to task for what he said concerning this in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (pages 367-368) charging Dr. Archer with coming up with an explanation that "abounds in suppositions, conjectures and hypotheses...’ Actually, it is McKinsey’s attack that abounds with suppositions, none of which he can prove. First, why does he say paradise is in heaven? Is he aware of the Biblical teaching concerning sheol, the realm of the dead? Has he allowed Jesus’ story concerning the rich man and Lazarus to be a factor here? Why does he assume that paradise could not have been moved from sheol to heaven after the resurrection of Jesus? Why does he consistently (and here McKinsey is always consistent!) deny the Bible the ability to explain itself? Why does he apply rules to the Scriptures that he would never apply to anything else? His consistent underlying assumption is that the Bible is contradictory, and therefore any explanation that would deal with his "proof” can be nothing but "rationalization."

Matthew 5:22 is hardly an immoral statement. As above, McKinsey elaborates on what he means by pointing out that Jesus called the religious leaders “fools" thus supposedly contradicting himself. He lists Matthew 23:17, 19 and Luke 11:40 as his examples. Here again we see the “foolishness” of attacking Scripture in the way McKinsey does without knowing the languages of the Bible. In Matthew 5:22 Jesus uses the technical term "Raca" followed by the term “More” which means "fool." In Matthew 23:17 the term is moroi which is the normal term for “foolish persons." Whether verse 19 uses moroi is questionable on textual grounds. The term in Luke 11:40 is aphrones, meaning "one without understanding.” Therefore, we must look at two things - first, Matthew 23:17 is the only reference to Jesus calling someone a "fool” (the corrupt religious leaders) and second, what is the context of the original passage in Matthew 5:22? Jesus there uses Hebrew parallelism to connect the terms “raca” and "more." What does this mean?

It is clear that the context of the two statements is completely different. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) Jesus is speaking of the true intent of the law and how this relates to each individual. In 5:21 he points to the command against murder, and then in verse 22 goes beyond this to say that to harbor hatred in one’s heart against one’s brother is to start on the path to murder. Here the Lord shows us what we know ourselves - few murder without first hating, and Jesus warns us that obedience to the law is a matter of the heart preeminently. The outer actions are determined by the inner motives. What then of Matthew 23:17? Was Jesus harboring hatred in his heart for the Jewish leadership? Was he breaking his own rules, so to speak? No indeed! In the 23rd chapter of Matthew we have hard words spoken to equally hard men. The occasion more than justifies the terminology! Here we have the men who were supposedly the stewards of God’s law twisting that law to the opposite end. Jesus uses the term “fools" precisely in the context of true "foolishness." Jesus is not using it as a pejorative term as he proscribed in 5:22; rather, he is using it as an accurate description of the "foolishness" of the religious system they had built up. The Jews were saying that if someone swore by the gold in the temple that he was hound by the oath. Jesus rightly points out that the gold is made "special" by the temple, not vice versa. Their position on oaths was “foolish” and was accurately described by the Lord. In no way is Jesus’ usage of the term "fools” here the same as what was discussed in Matthew 5:22 if for not other reason than the fact that Matthew 5 relates to relationships between believers ("he who calls his brother") while Jesus is dealing with un-believers in Matthew 23 (the Jewish leadership).

In addition to the above, it might he noted briefly that God, the one described in the Bible as “seeing the hearts of men” is in the proper position to judge whether a man is a "fool” or not. It is precisely because we as humans are not able to see the attitudes of the heart that we are told not to call anyone fool, nor even to judge the intents of another’s heart in these matters.

What is meant by a "non-existent cross” is anyone’s guess, as everyone in Judea knew what Jesus meant by the term "cross." Crucifixion was a common mode of death at the time, and to “take up one’s cross” would be filled with meaning for anyone living in that culture.

Of all the people of the world, Jesus’ integrity is the last to be questioned. This is admitted by believer and infidel alike. His moral teachings and standards have been the basis of civilization and society ever since.

Some point out that some gospels (Matthew and John) mention angels while others (Luke and Mark) mention men. This is not a contradiction, of course, but simply two ways of referring to the same beings. Angels normally appear in human form in the Old Testament, and seemingly did so here. In the same way it is wrong to limit the angels’ movements to an either/or situation - in some instances they are in the tomb speaking to the believers (Mark, Luke, John) while Matthew says the angel was outside. However, Matthew only mentions the angel being outside; he does not restrict the angel to the outside of the tomb nor does he say that the angel spoke to the women while still outside.

Another point need he made that will be vital to any Christian who is called on to face the attacks of anti -theists. Before you get defensive in a situation with an anti-theist, stop long enough to examine the claims he or she is making. Very often an anti-theist such as McKinsey will make statements that would require the maker of that statement to have all -knowledge of the surrounding events. They are in effect claiming omniscience! It is completely illogical to fault the Biblical record for not providing answers to every question that could be asked - no book ever written could do so. Simply because there are questions concerning the events that took place 2,000 years ago does not mean that we should doubt that those events took place. We don’t know what color of cloak Caesar wore the day he was murdered - should we therefore say that we don’t know that Caesar died because we can’t answer all the questions that might be asked about the events of that day? Shalt we say that a historian’s record is false simply because it is not exhaustive in what it says? No one would seriously suggest that this is true, yet this is exactly what Biblical critics have done and continue to do with the Bible. Now, before the anti-theist says “but you claim that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God so it must be open to more scrutiny than any other book” allow me to point out that in matters relating to that claim, the anti-theist is perfectly right - we must examine the Bible as closely as possible to support such a claim as we Christians make. However, this does not mean that we abandon logic and reason in some wild search for supposed errors.” When dealing with historical subjects we need to utilize our best historical knowledge and technique. We must do what we do with all other books of antiquity - we must give the book the “benefit of the doubt” for a very basic reason - we weren’t there! We don’t know all of the facts. The writer was a whole lot closer to the events than we are, so, unless there is some overriding reason to do so, the ancient writer is judged to be correct in what he or she has to say. We are optimistic to say that we have so much as 5% of the information needed for a “complete” picture of all the events taking place in Palestine in those days. Are we wise to contradict those who lived at that time from such a position that we find ourselves in? I think not. The New Testament provides us with a wealth of information - far more than we would need to make historical decisions. It does not, however, lend itself to the fancies of man. It does not describe “non-essentials." Faulting it for this is illogical.

The modern critic, however, is zeroing in on the fact that the Bible, old fashioned book that it is, naively suggests that there is a difference between men and women, and that God designed that difference for a reason. Gracious! How backwards! How out-of-date! I do hope I can get my tongue out of my cheek, but this is the very objection that is being made. Since the Bible does not conform to modern, liberal standards of “unisex" and “liberated women" then it must be archaic! Hardly! My wife is happy to be a woman and I’m happy to be a man and I sure am glad my wife is a woman and she’s glad that I’m a man! God made us differently and we don’t try to play around with God’s design. He has a purpose for it, and his purpose in my opinion is very wise.

Since we provide tapes and information on the subject of the Trinity and its basis in the Bible, I will not take too much time here to deal with this objection. However, for some reason, critics seem to enjoy taking “shots” at that which they know precious little about, and the Tri-Une nature of God seems to be a favorite target. Therefore a brief answer is in order.

1. Why are people today being punished for Adam’s sin? Why do women have to endure pain in childbirth because of Eve’s sin, especially in the light of Deuteronomy 24:16 and other references?

Answer to Question #1: Original sin.

it say that because God created them innocent that they did not have the ability to sin? On what basis can we say that if something created by God and proclaimed by him to he "good" sins, then it wasn’t perfect? As you can see, we have to assume that perfection = inability to sin, and therefore, the inability to choose! This means that the only beings God could create that were perfect are those who have no personal choice. But we are now seeing the foolishness of this line of reasoning. There is no basis for stating that perfection includes within it the inability to become imperfect. Besides all of this, where does the Bible use the term "perfect” of Adam and Eve in this context? It doesn’t. Always remember this kind of false logic when dealing with anti-theists - it will come up every single time!

3. Christians claim that in order to be saved you must accept Jesus as your savior. If so, then how are babies who die in infancy, the mentally infirm, those who lived before Jesus, and those who lived in the New World before missionaries arrived, saved, and how could God be just if he condemned people because of where or when they were born?

Answer to Question #3: The Pygmies in Africa

The first and most basic thing that must be asserted is the holiness of God. God is holy, and he is sovereign, and has the perfect right to do with his creation as he sees fit. God does not sit before the judgment bar of man’s reason or man’s sense of what is right and wrong. Instead, our senses and reasoning must be attuned to his. I say this because many Christians are afraid to state what the Bible says so clearly: "The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth..." (Psalm 135:6).

The most basic error in thinking in this question is the idea that God somehow “owes" everyone an equal chance at salvation. This error is so common that many Christians have fallen into it. It is wrong to think that God owes us anything - salvation is a matter of grace, and grace is never “owed." God did not have to save anyone at all - he could have allowed us to go on our way, under his judgment and wrath. He did not have to devise the plan of salvation. He did because of his mercy, grace, and love. But we must remember that he did not have to provide salvation for anyone. Given this we can see the problem with the above question - it is based on the false assumption that God owes everyone salvation - he doesn’t. This brings up the question of those who have not heard the gospel. Can God possibly condemn someone who has never heard the Gospel? The Biblical answer is, yes, he can. God does not judge on the basis of whether one has or has not heard the Gospel - sin is the criterion, and all have sinned. We must remember that all are condemned regardless of the matter of having heard or not heard. Only God’s grace and mercy makes possible the proclamation of the good news of Jesus Christ. How can we complain that God shows his mercy to some and not to all? This would be like faulting the governor of a state who extends a pardon to one man on death row. Would we be right to say, "he pardoned one, but he is unfair because he did not pardon the other 65 people who are condemned to die”? Of course not, since the governor was under no compulsion to pardon the one that he did. In the same way, God is under no compulsion to save anyone, so how can we get angry with him when he saves some and not all? Every man receives either justice or mercy - none receive injustice.

The question above also asked about infants and mentally incompetent individuals. The Bible does mention an “age of accountability as we call it, where a youth knows the difference between good and evil and is responsible for that decision (Isaiah 7:15- 16). Little is said other than this. Therefore, we have little to go on in discussing the condition of the infant or the mentally incompetent. Since they have made no conscious decisions against God, it is inconceivable that they undergo any kind of punishment. Rather, it is clear that they are ushered into the presence of the Lord. Huldreich Zwingli felt that all who died in infancy or who were mentally incompetent were of the elect of God, and I feel comfortable with that idea. Now, of course, anyone who asks you this question is neither an infant, nor mentally incompetent, nor someone who has never heard the Gospel, so they cannot hide from the clear implications of the Gospel in their lives.

In our radio debate, McKinsey pushed the idea that since Jesus said that no man comes to the Father but by him, and babies can’t accept Jesus, then they must to hell. I tried to point out to Mr. McKinsey that people are punished for sin; babies have committed no sin, therefore how could they be punished? At that point Mr. McKinsey said, “I don’t know where you got the idea that you had to be a sinner in order to go to hell - you go to hell not because of your acts - you go to hell because of whether or not you accept Jesus.” I tried to get him to see that Jesus’ statement in John 14:6 is in reference to all men because all have sinned, not in reference to those who died in infancy and never committed sin. Interestingly enough, this is what McKinsey would call an “extra-biblical” topic, and he claims to avoid such topics. The Bible nowhere says "Babies go to hell" - McKinsey is making up his own ideas as he goes along on this one. Since he has created a position that is not biblical, am I not just as safe to say the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient for all infants and mental incompetents? I could say that if I wished (if someone simply would not allow for babies to be innocent - i.e., have a sin nature while not yet being guilty of individual sin).

The first and most obvious thing is the simple fact that Mark 16:9-20 is not included in the best and most ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and it is not included in the actual text of most modern editions of the Bible. (For further information on this, write and request our information sheet entitled Mark 16:9-20: Scripture or Not?) But, I have learned that it is fruitless to expect anti-theists to be willing to study such subjects as textual criticism, so it does not bother them that they are using a passage that is not original in the Bible. What is worse, many of the believers they encounter are not aware of textual criticism either, and therefore such inane, senseless, and idiotic questions as the above tend to carry more weight with the uninformed Christians. Of course, such questions as the above completely discredit the questioner in the eyes of anyone who has done more than a cursory study of the Bible.

7. How can Numbers 23:19 and I Samuel 15:29 (both stating that God does not repent) be reconciled with Exodus 32:14 and I Samuel 15:35 (which say that he does)?

Answer to Question #7: Repentance and God.

The Hebrew term nacham is used to express a range of meanings, from the idea of “relenting" or “repenting" to "grieving" and “being sorry.” It can mean a changing of the mind or simply a permissive action, all depending on the context of the passage. Now, atheists like to make fun of the fact that the Hebrews could use a word within one minute in two different ways, but this objection does not weigh much with those who have studied the subject. Indeed, if one would take the time and trouble to learn to read Hebrew writing, one would be better able to determine if the objection is right or wrong. And notice also the fact that in the last two sentences I used two sets of words with completely different meanings (ways/weigh; writing/right). I doubt anyone was confused by those words because the context was clear in each instance. We normally assume that a person who is relating a story does not desire to contradict himself - in other words, we give the writer the benefit of the doubt.

Having finished the published debate itself, I will now turn to dealing with some of the common questions and tactics utilized by anti-theists when talking with Christians about the Bible. Notice first of all that I have used the term anti-theist. Many atheists like to say that they have no beliefs, hence they have nothing to defend. But, if atheists have no beliefs, how can they write books about atheism? How can they publish monthly periodicals attacking the Bible? Are they not by doing so asserting something even if that something is negative? Of course they are. So, when dealing with people such as Mr. McKinsey using the term anti-theist is perfectly accurate. It is clearly Mr. McKinsey’s goal to destroy any trust in the Bible and, by so doing, belief in God. Therefore, he is rightly called an anti-theist.

In the final installment of Mr. McKinsey’s response to my letters he suggested I deal with the issues raised in an earlier issue of BE. Since the fourteen questions listed by Mr. McKinsey are some of the most common raised by skeptics and atheists, I will take his advice and deal with these questions. I will begin by listing the questions, taking the liberty to edit them to be the most representative possible. I will then provide some possible answers for each.

1. Why are people today being punished for Adam’s sin? Why do women have to endure pain in childbirth because of Eve’s sin, especially in the light of Deuteronomy 24:16 and other references? 

6. (I include this one only to show the insanity of some of these types of questions). Ask someone if they believe. The answer is nearly always yes. Then ask if they would be willing to drink arsenic or handle deadly snakes since Mark 16:18 says, those who believe shall take up serpents and drink any deadly thing with impunity.

7. How can Numbers 23:19 and / Samuel 15:29 (both stating that God does not repent) be reconciled with Exodus 32:14 and I Samuel 15:35 (which say that he does)?

(The following is Mr. McKinsey’s lengthy response to the first section of the above letter as it appears in the April 1987 edition of BiblicalErrancy).

Dear JW. After several months of correspondence it’s rather obvious, but unfortunate, that you have a notable array of shortcomings including a failure to listen very well, a strong propensity to belabor points that have already been answered, a tendency to uncritically parrot pat answers learned in Bible class and/or seminary, a deceptive and dishonest inclination to build strawmen for appearances sake, a poor grasp of logical processes in key areas, an attraction to glittering generalities rather than evidence, and a lamentable lack of comprehension of the overall imbroglio in which you find yourself. You hear what you want to hear, what you have been told to internalize. Your letters exude a distinct aura of deja vu and reek with examples of each failing. Apparently, you still don’t understand the problem but I’ll go through it one more time as succinctly as possible. Hopefully the audience can endure the repetition. I’m tempted to say, just re-read our correspondence and you’ll see the error of your ways, but I don’t think you’d do that any more than you’d read all of our back issues as I suggested. First, I never said, much less insisted, there was a textual variation in the Hebrew at Isaiah 7:14 nor did I say there was a textual variant between Matt. 19:18 KJ (‘Thou shalt not murder”) and Rom. 13:9 KJ (“Thou shalt not kill”). You attributed a position to me and then proceeded to dismantle your strawman. I never said the dispute was over text rather than rendering nor did I say how the contradiction arose. All I said was that a contradiction existed. Specifically, I stated the following which you chose to ignore. “You said there was no difference between Matt. 19:18 and Rom. 13:9 because both came from ‘ou phoneuseis’ in Greek... The translators of the KJV say ‘murder’ is the proper word in Matt. 19:18. while ‘kill’ is the best term to use in Rom. 13:9. Are you saying they don’t know the difference, that they don’t know how to translate? Are you saying you know Greek and Hebrew better than those who assembled the KJV? They say there is a difference, while you say there isn’t....several of the newest versions agree with the King James....8 The dispute as to whether ‘almah' in Isaiah 7:14 means a ‘virgin’ or a ‘young woman’ has never been resolved, I could become one of the world’s greatest Hebrew/Greek scholars and still find many knowledgeable people who disagree with my interpretation. So who is right? Who knows Greek and Hebrew best? 9 Many of these men have devoted decades to these languages (far more years than the 24 you have lived--Ed.) (Issue #44, p. 4). Later on page 4 of Issue 46 I provided three reasons translators may disagree with your equating of Matt. 19:18 with Rom. 13:9: (a) you picked inaccurate manuscripts, (b) you chose accurate manuscripts with identical words having different meanings, or (c) the original text is so imprecise as to be susceptible to several interpretations. As I stated months ago, your disagreement is with your colleagues as much as me. If all the manuscripts say “ou phoneuseis” as you contend and the words have identical meanings as you allege, then you have only scaled two lesser hurdles to reach an even higher barrier, namely, what does the Greek mean. If scholars can’t agree on how to translate the manuscripts, even though there are no textual differences, then what the text says is of no consequence. Locating the problem’s source is of less importance to this publication than noting the fact that it exists. If recognized experts give contradictory interpretations of the same words, then we have a problem equal in magnitude to that of contradictions between manuscripts. That’s the hurdle you either refuse to recognize or can’t surmount. If you think you have the solution then tell us what Matt. 19:18, Rom 13:9, and Isa. 7:14 say in English. 10 Whatever response you give will prove you view yourself as more knowledgeable in Greek and Hebrew than recognized experts in the field. If so, I again recommend that you write your own version of the Bible as did Wycliffe, Tyndale. Know, Lamsa, Moffatt, and Fenton. If you’re as capable as you seem to believe, then follow their lead and by all means send me a copy. You don’t seem to realize that translating or rendering is as serious a problem as disagreements among manuscripts. Contradictions in one instance are as fatal as in the other. What difference would it make if there were no contradictions among the manuscripts if authorities still couldn’t agree on what they said; the practical result would be the same.

You erroneously created a strawman when you said I accused you of picking “inaccurate manuscripts among the thousands available.” In point (b) above I repeated my original charge that your fellow apologists many (sic?) so contend. You also erred with another strawman when you said I “postulated a difference in meaning between the two instances of the same word,” i.e. “ou phoneuseis.” I postulated nothing of the sort.11 I originally said in point (c) above that your critics or fellow apologists may see a difference in meaning between two instances of the same word. On page 4 of Issue 46 1 noted that the word "pound” could have many different meanings. Your problem is with your colleagues while BE is primarily concerned with the bottom line, the contradiction that’s present. Whether its among manuscripts or interpretations of those manuscripts is of secondary importance. The result is the same. People don’t know what to believe. Even if the Greek/Hebrew manuscripts were in unison throughout, which is by no means true, the Bible would still be of no value in many areas because of contradictions within and between versions. 12

Incidentally, you built another strawman by intentionally giving a misleading impression of what I said regarding the original writings. I did not flatly state they never existed. I said there is little reason to believe they did. As in an earlier discussion of Jesus, which you apparently refuse to read, I never said he didn’t exist; I said there is practically no extrabiblical evidence that he did.

In essence, then, if you want to contend there is no contradiction in the Greek manuscripts between Matt. 19:18 and Rom. 13:9 while admitting these verses should be stricken from the Bible because reliable, non-contradictory interpretations don’t exist, I have no objection in this instance or others we could discuss. The result is the same. The verses mean nothing because nobody definitely knows what they are saying; only contradictory translations exist.

Again, if you’re sure you know their correct meaning, then, by all means, translate them into English.

I look favorably upon this discussion in general and the kill/murder example in particular because they strike at the heart of the Greek/Hebrew escapist defense and the basic fallacy contained therein. The principle underlying this discussion is also applicable to other verses of crucial importance.

In concluding, several additional observations are in order. First, you’re not really interested in objective scholarship and a comprehensive discussion of the Bible, JW, as much as forcing me to say uncle on one point. This accounts for your narrow focus and intense concentration. Your limited range of concern and failure to confront the substantive issues I’ve posed in prior issues only confirms my belief that you’re insecure in other areas and, like VT in earlier issues, are desperately trying to put me on the defensive. VT became almost obsessed with his “Sabbath Days Journey” problem to the exclusion of all else. If I followed that tactic, many an apologist could be nailed to the wall while many readers would become thoroughly bored with the repetition. One might have some respect for your scholarship if you discussed a far wider range of issues as do more capable apologists such as Gleason Archer, Josh McDowell, and Norman Geisler. They exhibit more intellectual honesty by facing a much broader spectrum. 19 On page 5 of November’s issue (#47) 1 said “I’d especially like for you to address more substantive problems such as most of those posed on pages 2 and 3 of Issue #34.” So far, your silence has been deafening. Literally hundreds of statements with respect to the Bible’s validity have been made throughout the history of this publication and the fact that your criticisms have been so narrow in scope is practically an endorsement of the 98% outside of your purview. Second, having read several issues of Alpha and Omega’s publication and witnessed the dearth of meaningful material contained therein, I’d say you’d do well to look homeward before complaining about other periodicals being intellectually wanting. 20

And finally, please don’t send critical letters while asking that they not be published. We prefer open debate so all can judge for themselves. Moreover, insufficient time is available for protracted off-camera discussions with single individuals. 21

End of Debate

[Note: On July 18th, 1987 Mr. McKinsey appeared on The Dividing Line, the radio ministry of Alpha and Omega Ministries. I brought up the main issue that we debated above - that of the supposed contradiction between Jesus and Paul. Mr. McKinsey was completely unable to defend his original charge at all - he had rather to go to a discussion of translations just as he did above. He masterfully avoided answering my question when I asked him if he was aware of the fact that Jesus and Paul had said the same thing before I had written to him. I do not believe that he did, but he would not answer that question when put to him. The best Mr. McKinsey could do was to challenge me to write my own translation and send it to him for his review, Since he admitted on the air that he could not read Greek or Hebrew. I’m not sure how he could evaluate such a project anyway. Should you wish to hear the discussion. write and ask for the tape from Alpha and Omega Ministries.]

Notes

11.  I will leave it to the individual reader to decide whether Mr. McKinsey is correct in charging me with the creation of 'strawmen’ as he puts it. The implications of Mr. McKinsey’s words in his last response were very clear.

12.  Therefore, anything not written in English is useless, for there will always be so-called "translational difficulties" present! Good logic!

13.  Again Mr. McKinsey misses the whole point (or rather, changes the point of discussion in the middle of the river) - he had stated that the "problems associated with lower (textual) criticism seem to elude” me, and I simply provided him with evidence that he was wrong. I am, very familiar with the process of textual criticism and have taught informal seminars on that subject. The papers sent to him simply proved that he was wrong in saying that I was unfamiliar with the area of textual criticism.

14.  The problem is, it was Mr. McKinsey who was attacking the Bible and the subject of textual criticism. It was he who was making completely unfounded and untrue allegations, and it was he who was showing an abysmal ignorance of the entire subject of textual criticism. Therefore, since it was he who was alleging, it is he who must provide the data. The simple fact is Mr. McKinsey is completely unable to deal with the facts as presented by the above mentioned scholars.

15.  I must admit guilt at this point. I did attempt to be as brief as possible, and I also assumed that my opponent in the debate would be aware of the scholarly material on the subject. In respect to the latter point, I was obviously wrong - Mr. McKinsey proved himself to be very unfamiliar with the scholarly arena of discussion. Relevant to the former point, I made the mistake of trying to keep my responses brief due to the fact that BE is only six type-written pages long. I could have sent McKinsey pages and pages and pages of documentation and writing - but very little of it would have been printed. So, I stayed on the issue and tried to summarize the argument as much as possible. Mr. McKinsey will spend quite some time criticizing me for this.

16.  It is amusing to note that this statement is a fantastic attempt of a “glittering generality” and a "summation” without any evidence. Mr. McKinsey does not know what I am thinking, nor why I react in certain ways, so he has no basis upon which to say this.

17.  Actually. Mr. McKinsey did not mention anything about contradictions relevant to “copyist errors” - if you wilt reference his original comment, he was talking about textual variants, not contradictions. There is a world of difference there.

18.   Here again Mr. McKinsey shows absolutely no familiarity with textual criticism. The use of ”famities" of manuscripts that contain similar variants (Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, etc.) in textual criticism is very common amongst all who have taken the time to study it. Mr. McKinsey seemingly has not taken that time.

19.   Here Mr. McKinsey is forced to throw in the proverbial “red herring’ to get the attention off of the fact that he is avoiding the issue even to the point of deleting half of my letter. I believe the reason for the deletion of that section of the letter is clear - he could not answer the clear errors he had made. Now he attacks me for not having dealt with three years worth of his publications. And just how was I supposed to do that? If Mr. McKinsey would provide me with half of his publication each month, I would gladly deal with the various points he has brought up in the past. As it is, I have been unable to see any other single person get more space in BE than I did in our debate, Mr. McKinsey, of course, would not be aware of the fact that I have dealt with the vast majority of his attacks on the Bible in the past as they we're brought up by members of various pseudo-Christian cult groups that I have been involved in evangelizing. But the point again is this - I wrote to Mr. McKinsey on three specific points. Why should I be faulted for following that topic to its conclusion? Is it my fault that Mr. McKinsey made as many substantive errors as he did in his replies?

20.   I could fault Mr. McKinsey for not having dealt with the many issues brought up in our publication of The Dividing Line to which McKinsey here alludes - but I won’t. That would be using his logic.

21.   Mr. McKinsey is here referring to the letters I had written to him asking if he was going to ever print this final letter, I also mentioned in one letter one other issue relevant to the "King James Only” controversy, to which he must be referring here.

Quickly, in reference to your material on immortality and eternal life, I would like to simply point out that you again made two very basic, factual errors. You referenced Mark 9:17 and John 10:20, indicating that my explanation of the usage of echon was in error due to the use of echon in these two passages. Unfortunately, echon is not used in either passage, as anyone familiar with the language could see. Echon at 1 Timothy 6:16 is in the present participle active nominative singular masculine form; the word at Mark 9:17 is echonta, the present participle active accusative singular masculine form (a completely different case), and the word at John 10:20 is not even a participle - it is a finite verb, echei. Hence, you completely misidentified the two examples you listed, while continuing to ignore the factual presentation I made concerning the syntax of the participle at 1 Tim. 6:16.

Notes

Posted by Mark Shea on Friday, Nov 2, 2012 5:18 PM (EST):
Luther, by the way, believed in the Immaculate Conception.
"It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" - Martin Luther's Sermon "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527.
"She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. - Martin Luther's Little Prayer Book, 1522.
Instead of ignorantly and reflexively regurgitating whatever an American Evangelical might say after 20 minutes of glancing at the New Testament, consider the possibility that the Church doesn't just make stuff up and actually has real grounds for considering this to be apostolic teaching.

Mr. McKinsey's response to the above letter as contained in the October and November issues of "Biblical Errancy."

Your comment with respect to the Jehovah's Witnesses New' World Translation exposes a distinct bias. BE quotes the most prominent versions available regardless of the source. We also quoted the Living Bible and for you to include it among the "truly scholarly editions" borders on the absurd. The NWT, with all its imperfections. is considerably more scholarly than the pathetic paraphrase known as the Living Bible.

You have several lamentable habits, JW, including inadequately explaining or proving your position, generating arbitrary distinctions to escape dilemmas, rationalizing the obvious, and patronizing your opponent. You also dwell on ad hominem comments to such an extent that if it continues you could notice a change in the tenor of my responses.

One final point. I recommend that you read all of the hack issues of BE before making additional criticisms, as some of your points have already been discussed. Since you apparently consider yourself an authority in biblical defense, I'd especially like for you to address more substantive problems such as most of those posed on pages 2 and 3 of issue #34.

Notes

1.  The material presented here terribly misrepresents what these scholars have to say on the subject. Should the reader wish to read some truly scholarly information on the subject the above referenced book is to be recommended - A General Introduction to the Bible by Drs. Geisler and Nix, published by Moody Press. See also The Text of the New Testament by Dr. Bruce Metzger (Oxford Press) and for a good introduction. see Dr. Greenlee's Scribes, Scrolls, and Scripture (Eerdman's Publishing Company). Needless to say Mr. McKinsey knows almost nothing about the subject he is here addressing.

2.  Notice what is being said here - a contradiction could exist even though Mr. McKinsey's original accusation against the Bible was that Jesus and Paul could not agree on the WORDING of this commandment. Yet, here we clearly see that Jesus and Paul said exactly the same thing. Here Mr. McKinsey begins a process that will continue in the next letter - that of changing the supposed "contradiction' we are discussing.

Letter #2 from James White, responding to Mr. McKinsey’s comments as contained in the August 1986 edition of BiblicalErrancy. As above, sections correspond to Mr. McKinsey’s response as printed in the October and November issue of his publication.

Reply by Mr. McKinsey, as contained in the August 1986 edition of “Biblical Errancy." Sections correspond to the sections placed in the above letter.

Section D:

Do you honestly expect me to believe that you “do not blindly accept anything”, JW. (sic) You condemned BE before hearing my responses, without reading prior issues, without addressing many other points that were made; without giving clear, unmuddled responses to the problems you chose to discuss, and without acknowledging your own limitations with respect to Greek and Hebrew. You have not examined my “facts” hut only examined some facts, very few, in fact. Moreover, confounding the “Word of God” is not the purpose of this publication, JW. We only ask that you examine all the evidence before accepting the Bible as the “Word of God.” But you have acted in precisely the opposite manner. You accepted it as the Word of God long ago and have been judging all evidence accordingly. That which corroborates your belief has been retained; that which doesn’t has been discarded.

(I first give the specific sections of the May 1986 edition of "Biblical Errancy" that I cite in my first letter).

The following letters were written during 1986/87. They comprise the correspondence between Mr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and Mr. Dennis McKinsey, the editor of a periodical entitled “Biblical Errancy.” As Mr. McKinsey feels free to publish letters written to him in his periodical, and as there is no copyright on "Biblical Errancy,” we have felt free to include Mr. McKinsey’s responses. Only that material relevant to the matters addressed in the debate between Mr. White and Mr. McKinsey will be reproduced here.

In the spring of 1986 a copy of the March edition of "Biblical Errancy” was sent to James White. The full title of the paper is: "Biblical Errancy: The only national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists." The periodical is six pages long. After reviewing some of the supposed "contradictions” found in the May issue of this paper, Mr. White wrote the first letter of three to Mr. McKinsey. This letter was printed in the August, 1986 edition of BE. This precipitated a rather lengthy exchange, both in the size of the letters as well as the number of issues of BE in which the debate appeared. The following gives the letters written by Mr. White, and the replies of Mr. McKinsey, just as they appeared in “Biblical Errancy.” The final section comprises Mr. Whites reply to Mr. McKinsey’s final words.

“Biblical Errancy” is obviously designed to promote the distrust and rejection of the Bible as God’s Word. Anyone who has read the periodical for any time at all is very aware of this. The uniqueness of the work is not what it has to say; indeed, much of this material can he found in Thomas Paine or in the material published by the American Atheists. “Biblical Errancy” comes out on a monthly basis with the same old tired arguments and materials that atheists have been passing around for years. But, Mr. McKinsey allows for some dialogue on the issues he brings up, and this, of course, generates interest and controversy.

Someone might well ask the question, why bother debating this kind of issue? Aside from the fact that I as a Christian believe the Bible when it claims to he the Word of God, I also wished to see for myself what kind of response would he elicited from an anti-theist like Mr. McKinsey when faced with actual facts. I knew that he had made a rather simple error in regards to his claim of a contradiction between Jesus and Paul (see letters below for all the details) - that was clear. I wished to know if his drive to attack the Bible would keep him from admitting a simple mistake. If so, then I could write off ‘Biblical Errancy” and tell anyone else that it was not worth their time to read. However, if Mr. McKinsey would admit such an error and retract the false statement, then I would go on and research more of his material, given the idea that he was indeed honestly intent on the truth as he saw it. Unfortunately, the following debate makes it clear just how that issue ended up being resolved.

Another question might he asked. This debate does not deal with all the great issues of theism versus atheism. It deals with some pretty specific issues. Why not deal with a broader range of topics? First, we have done so in the past and plan on continuing to do so in the future (contact Alpha and Omega for a materials list). But one of the best ways people learn is by example. And this debate provides repetitive examples of logical errors, misinformation, and ad hominem argumentation - all the hallmarks of the anti-theist’s trade By seeing the progress of the debate, and the subtle ways in which points were avoided and other issues brought up in attempts to cloud the issue, the reader will be better prepared to meet similar tactics at work or school.

One final observation concerning the debate. The reader will notice that Mr. McKinsey exercises his position as the editor of BE by writing responses that average at least twice as long as the original letter. Hence, you will read a great deal more by Mr. McKinsey than by I in the first section of the debate. To help “balance things out” a little, I will footnote certain parts of his responses, especially in his near epic-length response to part of my last letter.

One note must be added concerning the format of BE. The letters printed in the newsletter are divided into sections with Mr. McKinsey responding to each section with a section of his own. In this reproduction of the debate, we have indicated the divisions used by Mr. McKinsey while keeping the letters and responses in one section. By cross-referencing the sections of the letters the reader will he able to follow- the argument more closely. With this in mind, here we present “Letters to an Anti-Theist.”

"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).

"For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,..."(New American Standard Bible)

"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords),..." (New International Version)

Is the teaching of the LDS Church today consistent with that of the early 1830’s? If the Mormon Church’s claim to be the “only true church on earth today” is to be believed, one would expect consistency in teaching from the beginning until today. However, based on the earliest works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (then “The Church of Christ”), the answer to the above question is an emphatic no. Since the first version of the Book of Mormon was published (1830), an evolution of theological thought can be clearly traced.

On page 186 of the original Book of Mormon (B.of M.), in the book of Mosiah (15:4-5), we find an example of the relationship of Jesus Christ and God the Father, from the original Mormon perspective.

...thus becoming the Father and Son: and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of Heaven and of Earth; and thus the flesh becoming subject to the spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God,... (emphasis ours).

This verse teaches two fundamental concepts that were present in Joseph Smith’s original theological ideas: monotheism (the belief in one God), and the spiritual nature of God the Father. We also note that Joseph Smith attempted to emulate the doctrine of the Trinity in this passage and in the process produced a view that is not only contrary to modern LDS teaching, but to the actual Christian doctrine of the Trinity as well.

Another example is found on page 544 (Ether 3:14) of the same version quoted earlier, which states:

Behold, I am he which was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son (emphasis ours). 

A third example is found in the book of Alma, page 253 of the first version, which asks,

...Is there more than one God? And he answereth No. Now Zeezrom saith unto him again: How knowest thou these things? And he saith An angel hath made them known to me (Alma 11:28b-31). 

From these examples, it is clear that at the time the Book of Mormon was first published, Joseph Smith believed that God the Father and God the Son were different manifestations of a single God. Even the Preface to the B.of M., written by the three witnesses concludes by stating:

And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. 

When combined, these examples undeniably show a monotheistic belief on the part of Joseph Smith which differs greatly from the polytheistic (a belief in many gods) concepts he developed later in his life. For the Book of Mormon, there is only one God, not three, or many more.

A departure from the monotheistic view established with the B.of M. can be traced to the 1851 version of the Pearl of Great Price. By placing parallel passages in the books of Moses and Abraham side by side, an evolution of thought is clearly demonstrated within the Pearl of Great Price itself.

In 1835 a series of lectures was published that was contained within the same volume as the original “Doctrines and Covenants.” In the preface of the work we read the following:

The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work....There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving any thing purporting to be articles of religious faith, in consequence of there being so many now extant; but if men believe a system, and profess that it was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they can present it, the better. 

The “Theological class” spoken of in the quote referred to a class of Elders in Kirtland, Ohio. The “articles of religious faith” refers to the “Lectures on Faith.” The preface concludes with the endorsements of Joseph Smith Jr., Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and F.G. Williams. Represented in those “Lectures on Faith” are the following attributes of God the Father:

-They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: (Lecture Fifth, page 53). 

We here observe that God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; (Lecture Second, page 12) .

The “Lectures on Faith” were removed in the 1921 edition of Doctrines and Covenants. The reasoning behind the removal is not consistent with the endorsements that supported the lectures prior to that point in time such as,

...that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine;... (1835, Doctrines and Covenants, page 256)

Q. Does the foregoing account of the Godhead lay a sure foundation for the exercise of faith in him unto life and salvation?

A. It does. (1835, Doctrines and Covenants, page 58) 

It becomes quite apparent that the “founding fathers” considered the “Lectures on Faith” to be theologically true, concise in its presentation and “profitable for doctrine.”

So when did the doctrines in these important areas change to present day LDS beliefs? In the middle to late 1830’s Joseph Smith’s beliefs about God changed tremendously. He developed the concept that “God was once a man.” This great swing in belief created a ripple affect in the Mormon concept of the attributes of God. To demonstrate this, specific citations from LDS sources relevant to individual attributes of God will be quoted, even though they may not be the earliest writings of those views.

First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret. If the vail was rent to-day, and the great God, who holds this world in its orbit, and upholds all things by his power; if you were to see him to-day, you would see him in all the person, image and very form as a man;... (Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pp.613-14, 1844 

We are now, or may be, as perfect in our sphere as God and Angels are in theirs, but the greatest intelligence in existence (God) can continually ascend to greater heights of perfection (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 93,1852).

God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end (Wiltord Woodruff, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 120, 1857).

He is our Father- the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333,1859).

So where does one turn to determine the very character of God? Does one stand with the beliefs of the LDS Church in the early 1830’s, or does one stand with the attributes of God as presented by the current church doctrine? And if God were to have chosen Joseph Smith to be a prophet, why would that prophet teach such utterly contradictory concepts of God within the space of less than twenty years?

Secure in the Father and the Son

Jesus continues by stating that when one is so given to Him by the Father, and comes to Him, that one is secure in their relationship with Him He will never cast them out, The aorist subjunctive of strong denial makes it clear that rejection of one who seeks refuge in Christ is a complete and total impossibility. What words to a sinners heart! Those who come to Christ will find Him a loving Lord who will never cast out those who trust in Him!

Once we rest ourselves in God’s provision of salvation, however, we see that our position in Him is one that is based upon the sovereign act of the Father in giving us to the Son, and in the eternal obedience of the Son to the Father in effecting our salvation! Can we possibly picture a more secure situation than this? I think not! But wait, there is more...

We learn from other discussions of the role of the Spirit in the believer’s life (e.g., Romans 8) that the Spirit empowers and sanctifies the believer as well. So it is clear that each of the Divine Persons is vitally involved in the work of salvation. The Father sovereignly and unilaterally chooses us for salvation. He gives us to the Son, who, in obedience to the Father’s will, saves those who are joined to Him by the Father, and raises us up to eternal life. The Spirit of God is placed in our lives to empower and seal us as God’s own possession. Salvation, then, is of God - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Since salvation is of God, and is God’s work, its eternal character is simply the reflection of the nature of its author - God Himself. Each of the three Persons is intimately involved in bringing about the salvation of the elect, and that salvation is eternal and secure.