Does God Decree All Evil—Part I

 

I found the above interesting video in which Pastor Doug Wilson (Calvinist) debates with Dr Kurt Jaros (Arminian) the question of whether God “decrees all evil,” which is the Calvinist theological position that Doug Wilson supports. It is a 2½ hours long video, so I will confine my comments in this post to the 15 minute opening statement by Doug Wilson. At around 10:23 minutes into the video Doug begins his opening statement as follows:

“All right, thank you. Thanks for the invitation to participate in this most important debate, it is a crucial topic. My thanks to Marlon, the organizers, and to Dr Kurt Jaros for agreeing to debate this question; and as has already been mentioned, the topic before us today is, Does God decree evil acts? My reply to this question is in the affirmative; and I would like to put forward two basic reasons for my embrace of the affirmative: The first is that scripture explicitly says that God does this; and it does so in multiple places. So there are many places in scripture where we are told that God does in fact determine, decree, plan, send, evil.”

That is obviously something that requires prooftexts to be answered, which he provides later on in his statement; so I will wait to respond to it when he gives his quotes. He then continues:

“The second reason is that the scripture explicitly teaches that God created and sustains the world, together with all its evil. So the first is, what the Bible says explicitly, addressing the question before us; and the second is, one step back; the question before us has to do with all the evil things that happen in the world. Well, who made the world? Who put the world here? Now while there was no evil at the point of creation: Genesis tells us very clearly that God looked on everything that he had created, and behold it was very good, it was very good; it was good, it was good, it was very good; God certainly knew at the point of creation the evil that would come; and he created the world anyhow. So there was no evil in the world at the moment of creation; but God knew that there would be a Fall, God knew that there would be a rebellion, God knew that there would be sin, and he created the world regardless. So I would then like to conclude my opening statement with an illustration that makes it plain that this was all done purposefully; and that it was not a botched attempt at a universe. So it wasn’t like God was making the world, and he slipped and dropped it, or anything like that. This is all according to a divine purpose and plan.”

There is a hidden premise there that he does not explicitly state. The hidden assumption is that God agrees with, or approves of, or concedes to (and indirectly even causes) all the evil that exists in the world—committed by the wickedness and evil intentions of men—which fails to take into account an important consideration. The Bible makes it clear that the purpose of this present (temporary) world order is to test mankind to see if they would choose good or evil; to obey or disobey God; and then to be judged for their actions; and be rewarded or punished accordingly:

Acts 17:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

John 5:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

That is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. The purpose of this (brief) mortal existence is to test mankind to see if they would choose good or evil, and then to be judged, and be rewarded or punished as the case may be, depending on how they have acted in this life. How could God judge mankind for the good or evil that they have done in this world, if they were not free to choose good or evil? That is a question that Doug does not attempt to answer. Another important consideration that Doug Wilson does not take into account is that this present state of the world order that we now live in, with all the evil that is in it, is temporary, and lasts but a small moment, compared to the rest of eternity. It is not something that is going to continue forever. Once this (brief) testing period is over, we will enter into an eternal state where we will each receive the just consequences of our actions in this life (good or bad); and where the present state of affairs no longer exists. Doug then continues his reasoning as follows:

“So let us begin with the plain statements of scripture; and I would like to ask you to allow me to begin with something that is a little bit autobiographical; and in doing that I would like to quote from a book that I contributed to, a book called “Back to Basics”. I contributed the section on basic Calvinism, which is what we are talking about here; and this is what I said, when I was first struggling with this issue: ‘Does God decree evil?’ Acts 4:27-28 was my undoing. There it says, ‘for truly against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together, to do whatever your hand and your purpose determined before to be done.’ So the most heinous crime ever committed was the crucifixion of Christ; and no matter how hard some try to get around this important truth; the Bible declares that God decreed that Christ would be executed. Acts 2:23 declares both that the Christ was delivered up in accordance with God’s sovereign plan, and, that those who put him to death were responsible for their crime; so this man Christ, this man referring to Christ, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men, and put him to death.”

The problem with using that example to support his theology is that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ was a volitional act. They didn’t put him to death against his will. He laid down his life willingly and voluntarily; and he had the power to prevent it from happening if he had wanted to:

John 10:

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

And those who put him to death were not all equally evil either. Pontius Pilate recognised his innocence, and tried to rescue him from it, but the people wouldn’t have it. Interestingly, Jesus himself does not attempt to defend himself before Pilate, to save himself from execution. Pilate recognizes his innocence even though Jesus was not trying to defend himself. Jesus had to die in order to rescue the rest of us from our sins. If Jesus hadn’t been put to death, none of us could have been saved. So the execution of Jesus Christ is not exactly the best example to use to explain the existence of evil in the world. If he hadn’t been executed, we would still be remaining in our sins. Doug Wilson then continues his explanation as follows:

“In the same breath, Acts 2:23 declares, both that the Christ was delivered up in accordance with God’s sovereign plan; and that those who put him to death were responsible for their godlessness. To be true to the plain meaning of scripture, I had to admit that divine sovereignty and human responsibility live together comfortably in scripture. Scripture presents no tension between sovereignty and responsibility. It is not either divine sovereignty or human responsibility; it is both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, close quote. …”

That again is somewhat a misleading and deceptive argument. The deceptiveness of it lies in the fact that he uses the term “sovereignty” with a specialized, Calvinistic meaning that requires clarification and explanation. What he means by it is meticulous predestination and predetermination of all things by God from the beginning, including all the choices, desires, decisions, and actions (good or evil) of man. If that be the case, then “human responsibility” is meaningless; there is no such thing. It is either one or the other. The fact that scripture does indeed teach human responsibility, suggests he needs to revise his definition of “sovereignty,” because the two are not compatible. The sovereignty of God is not the issue here. No one who believes in one supreme Deity of heaven would deny his sovereignty. Jews don’t; Muslims don’t. It is how you define that sovereignty that makes all the difference. The truth is that Calvinism’s definition of sovereignty of God is not the only one in existence. It is possible for God to be fully sovereign over his creation, without meticulously predestining and predetermining all the thoughts, feelings, desires, and actions (good or evil) of man.

From the Calvinist point of view, this of course raises the question of how God was able to arrange for the crucifixion of Jesus by the hand of wicked men, if he does not control, and is not in charge of all of their evil desires and actions? The answer is that foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. The fact that God can foresee and foreknow how men will react in a given situation (and make use of it to accomplish his purpose), does not mean that he must have caused it to be such. How did God know that if David took refuge in the city of Keilah, that the inhabitants would hand him over to Saul (1 Sam. 23:12)? Was it because he had “predestined” it? Obviously not, because it didn’t happen. So how did God know? The answer is, Because he is God. Just because we can’t fathom how God can do something, it doesn’t logically follow that therefore he can’t. He then continues his argument as follows:

“Before I admitted that God determines the course of all things; this was back in the late 80s, when I was working through all this, before I admitted that God determines the course of all things, including every evil act; I needed to know that God knew how to handle our evil deeds in a way that did not impugn his holiness. God is holy; God is holiness itself; nothing, no view of the world, no view of scripture, is tolerable that would violate that holiness. So God is absolutely good, absolutely righteous, absolutely holy; and so I needed to know that God knew how to touch evil things, and use them, without impugning his holiness. And so this passage, acts 4, this passage knocked me down on that point. I saw that the crucifixion was the worst thing that our sinful race ever did; it was the worst crime ever committed. And I saw that God was the one who had determined beforehand that it would happen.”

First of all, the death of Christ was a sacrificial offering, it was not something that happened against his will. Jesus needed to die; that was his mission and purpose; therefore his death was foreordained and prearranged in the will of God from the beginning. He was the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (1 Peter 1:19-20, Revelation 13:8). It does not logically follow therefore that everybody else who is killed, murdered, assassinated etc., it was because God had foreordained and predestined it to happen. God knows in his foreknowledge that such things will happen, and allows it to happen so that those who commit the crime can be held accountable for their actions on judgment day—because that is the purpose of this (brief) mortal experience. But that does not mean that God had approved, predestined, and predetermined the evil deeds to happen. Therefore comparing all acts of murder to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is not a valid comparison. He continues:

“When Jesus was submitting to his destiny in the garden, he was submitting to the will of his Father; and the will of his Father was accomplished through the hands of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Sanhedrin, and Judas; and the flaking of the disciples that you know, the collapsing of Peter, and so on. And so my question was answered. A holy God knows how to pick up and use an unholy instrument.”

Not quite. God knows how to utilize the evil desires and intentions of evil men to accomplish his purposes; but that does not mean that he has predestined, predetermined, and caused them to have the evil desires and intentions that they have. For example in the Old Testament we read that God made use of the evil designs, arrogance, conceit, and pride of the Assyrians to punish and deport the northern kingdom of Israel; as well as to chasten and punish the southern kingdom of Judah. But after God’s purpose had been accomplished by Assyria, Assyria itself was punished for its arrogance, haughtiness, pride, and evil designs. He continues:

“I did not yet know at that time, I did not yet know that God does this all the time, in every instance. I didn’t know that God decreed every evil act; but I now knew that he could do so if he wanted; and would be no less holy for it. If God can do it one time, God can do it two times; and if God can do it two times, he can do it three times, and so on.”

Like I said, if he is now comparing the evil act of the crucifixion of Jesus with every other evil act, that is not a valid comparison. Just because the crucifixion of Jesus needed to happen, and God had foreordained and predetermined it to happen, and it was necessary for it to happen; it does not logically follow that every other crime, murder, and evil act that is committed, was likewise predestined and predetermined to happen. The two situations are not the comparable. God knows in his foreknowledge that such things will happen; which is not the same as having caused, predestined, and predetermined it to happen. He continues:

“I no longer said, It is impossible for God to decree an evil act, because that would violate his holiness; because we know from Acts 4:27, that he did it at least once.”

Not quite. That is not a valid interpretation of Acts 4:27. See above. He continues:

“Now it turns out, however, that it is not just acts 4:27-28. It turns out that there are many passages that describe God exercising his sovereignty through evil deeds, the evil deeds of men; so what about sinful actions? A false inference lies behind our objection to God’s control of sin. We think that this makes God sinful in himself, or somehow the author of sin, which I think is false. But first the statements of scripture: Joseph, speaking in Genesis: ‘But as for you, you meant evil against me’ (he is speaking to his brothers, who had sold him into slavery in Egypt), ‘But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring about as it is this day to save many people alive.’ That is Genesis 50 verse 20.”

That is a scripture that is commonly used (misquoted) by Calvinists in support of their theology. Joseph’s brothers had evil intentions. They sold their brother Joseph into slavery in Egypt because of their evil intentions. The fact that God knew and was aware of their evil intent, and permitted it to happen, and made use of it to accomplish what he wanted to accomplish by it, rather than what the brothers thought they were accomplishing by it, does not mean that the brothers therefore had been predestined and predetermined by God to have those evil desires and intentions, and to commit the evil act that they did. That is not a valid conclusion, or a logical requirement. He continues:

“You can also see Isaiah 45:7; and Amos 3:6. In Amos 3:6 ‘Can disaster befall a city—if disaster befalls a city, or if evil befalls the city, have not I the Lord done it?”

The word used in the KJV in those contexts is “evil,” which he has correctly interpreted to mean “disaster,” or the judgment that God brings about on cities or nations collectively as punishment for their sins; it should not be confused with the word “evil” in the normal sense of the term, in the context that we have been discussing above. He continues:

“And then Jesus says in Mark 14:30, Jesus said to him, ‘Assuredly I say to you, that today, even this night before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ So Jesus predicted beforehand, Jesus called the shot, that Peter was going to do something. Peter denied that he was going to do it; and Jesus said, ‘No, you are going to do it.’ That means that the behavior of Peter was in some sense scripted. In fact, the behavior of everybody was scripted, down to the behavior of chickens.”

Not correct. Foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. That is the logical fallacy of both Calvinism and open theism. It is not true. He continues:

“And then Luke 22:22, ‘And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed.’ So it is determined for the Son of Man to go, to be handed over, to be betrayed; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed. So we see two things: We see that Jesus is going, just as it has been determined; and we also see the moral responsibility of the man who betrayed him.”

Sure, which proves that wickedness of the person who betrayed him was not predestined or predetermined. He continues:

“So when we Christians, as is common practice, when we ask the Lord for traveling mercies when we are about to do a road trip, where we ask for traveling mercies on the road, he doesn’t reply to us, ‘Yes, I will protect you as best I can; but drunkenness is a sin, and I don’t do drunks, good luck with them.’”

I am not sure what his point is with that one. He continues:

“The Bible teaches that God hardens hearts: Joshua 11:20; Deuteronomy 2:30: Exodus 4:21. And hardening your heart is an evil act; … it is not an evil act for God to do it. But when God does it, you do it, and it is an evil act for you. So when Pharaoh hardened his heart, he was sinning; and God is the one who determined that that is what was going to happen. Scripture teaches that God absolutely controls wicked men. A chain of verses here: Job 1:13-15; Job 1:17; Job 1:21; Isaiah 10:5-6; Judges 9:22-23; 1 Samuel 2:25; 2 Samuel 12:11-12; Psalm 105:24-25; Proverbs 16:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12; and this is the point at issue in our debate. So we see in multiple passages of scripture, God determining, or decreeing, or settling, or sending men to do something; and for those men who are doing it, it is a sin, it is an evil thing; and yet God is in control of it.”

We Latter-day Saints have reasons to believe, through modern revelation, that those biblical passages that talk about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, are scribal errors, and should read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. As for the other biblical passages that he has quoted, the answer is the same as given above. God is able, through his foreknowledge, to make use of the evil desires and intentions of men to accomplish his purposes, without having caused, decreed, predestined, or predetermined their evil desires and intentions. He continues:

“But what about with regard to salvation? The Bible is no less clear here. Consider what it says in 1 peter, this is 1 peter 2:7-9, ‘Therefore to you who believe, he is precious; but to those who are disobedient, the stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.’ They stumble, this is the key place, they stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. They stumble, being disobedient to the word to which they also were appointed; but ‘you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, his own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.’ So that is my first point. There are multiple passages of scripture that describe God doing precisely those things that we are debating whether or not he does; so that is the first point.”

What he is saying here is that God predetermined who will do good and will be saved, just as he predetermined who will do evil and will be damned, both of which are equally incorrect. God has perfect foreknowledge of who will do evil and who will do good, which is not the same as saying that he has predetermined it to be such. He continues:

“The second point is that God created the world, and the world is a messed up place. This world is crammed full of evil; and so the question naturally arises: who put it here, why do such things happen? Chesterton once said this, quote: ‘If it be true, as it certainly is, that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat; then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions: He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat. What does it mean to deny the cat? Denying the cat means skimming over the surface of the fact of evil. Evil is a terrible reality in our world. Even during the time of this debate, countless evil deeds are perpetrated all over the world. There are billions of us running around, and we are all sinners, and we do awful things to each other. So, a glib response to this observation, about denying the cat, don’t deny the cat—a glib response goes on at length to tell victims of these and other evils, that they don’t deserve to have these things happen to them; but it does so while serenely neglecting the follow-up responsibility to explain why they are happening? Then you cannot just say to victims everywhere, You do not deserve to be abused. Isn’t the next question obvious: why then am I abused? Is God just or not? Is God in control or not? Say a horrific murder takes place; and remember, when we talk about this to avoid denying the cat, these murders occur.”

The correct answer was given above. The answer is that this present world, that we are now experiencing, is a testing ground, to see who will do good and who will do evil, who will obey or disobey God, and be rewarded or punished accordingly. Men must be free in this life to choose evil as well as good, so that they can be held accountable for their actions on judgment day. If God intervened to stop people from doing evil every time somebody was going to try, that would defeat the objective of the present creation. The good news is that the present world order is not going to last very long. This temporary period of testing will soon come to an end, and we will all enter into an eternal state in which the present condition no longer applies. He continues:

“It is glib, and very easy to charge the God of Calvinism, with the sin of commission, who ordained this? Did God ordain this before the foundation of the world? I would say yes, he did; and then the response is often: Well, I could never worship a God like that. But may we cross-examine the God of Arminianism also, or the God of open theism also? Why can we not charge God with sins of omission as well, together with the Apostle Paul. I am out of my mind to talk like this of course! When the murder is happening, was your God in the room? Who was keeping the criminal’s heart beating? Who held the atoms of the knife together? And incidentally, every free will defense concedes the point of our debate—and that is not so incidentally actually. Every free will defense concedes the point of our debate. We are debating whether God decrees evil acts; and the free will defense explains that God had good reasons for doing so; which means he did so.”

Well he is not making a lot of sense as far as I am concerned. I am neither Arminian nor open theist, and my aim is not to defend their theological positions. They will have to defend themselves. But I certainly adhere to the absolute freewill of man, and will defend that position without hesitation or reservation; and what he is saying doesn’t make a lot of sense. My “freewill” theological position, from my point of view, can be summarized as follows: God created mankind possessing 100% libertarian freewill—no predestination or predetermination of man’s choices, decisions, or desires—good or evil. God created this world as a testing ground, to see who would choose good and who would choose evil, so they could be judged, and be rewarded or punished accordingly. The reason why evil exists (necessarily) in our present world condition is because mankind must be free to commit evil acts as well as good, so that they can be judged according to their actions, and the judgment that God will bring upon them on judgment day will be just. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. The good news is that it won’t last very long; and soon we will all enter into an eternal state where the present condition no longer applies. Does Doug Wilson have a valid response to all of that? I doubt it! We will have to wait and see. And Arminianism and open theism are not the only possible alternatives to Calvinism, better alternatives exist.

Jonathan Neville on BOM Translation–Part VIII

 

Another one of Jonathan Neville’s catchphrases, that he likes to repeat often, is that “evidence of composition is also evidence of translation”. That is in the title of the above video, which is why I have chosen it for comment in this blog post — although he talks about it more in other videos that I have seen from him. But it would be too tedious to go back and rewatch all of his other videos, in order to extract everything that he has said on the subject to comment on it here. But what he is getting at (without explicitly saying so, if everything he has said on the subject is carefully examined), is that internal evidence suggests that Joseph Smith actually composed the Book of Mormon, rather than translating it — but then he is now being generous and kind to LDS, by providing them with an escape route, by suggesting that “evidence of composition is also evidence of translation” — which is a nonsensical statement. “Translation” is one thing, “composition” is another. Everybody knows what a “translation” is, and everybody knows a “composition” is; you don’t mix them up. The Book of Mormon is either a composition or a translation; it can’t be both, or neither, or half-and-half, or somewhere in between. In the above video Rick Bennett commences his conversation with Jonathan Neville as follows:

“Is the Book of Mormon a literal history or complete fiction? We are going to tackle that issue with Jonathan Neville; and he says that ‘evidence of composition is also evidence of translation’. What does that mean exactly? Jonathan is going to explain, check out our conversation.”

To that then Jonathan Neville gives the following reply:

“What you are leading into though is a really important point … and that is, any evidence of Joseph as having composed the Book of Mormon, is also evidence that he translated it, and this is such a basic point. Any evidence of composition is evidence of translation. The reason I say that is, a translator can only use his own lexicon …”

Which is a nonsensical statement. Joseph Smith either composed the Book of Mormon or translated it. He couldn’t have done both, or neither, or a mixture of the two. After that he goes into his “stone in a hat” narrative which is a digression. But taking into account everything that he has said, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that his ultimate aim is to undermine faith in the divine origin and inspired nature of the translation of the Book of Mormon. Further down into the video he makes one more comment that requires a further discussion. At around 6 minutes into the video he says the following:

“And then he’s got into the Isaiah chapters; and there is a very interesting distinction in the Isaiah chapters, if you look at the 1830 Book of Mormon and the King James — and Royal Skousen did an awesome analysis of this — and you can see that the first few chapters have a lot of changes, like added verses and stuff, and then there is four or five chapters that have just kind of random little changes, like a drop line, or a phrase inverted, stuff like that; and then there is some more substantive changes after that. And it is those little four or five chapters I talked about in my book, that I think Joseph dictated from memory during this demonstration; …”

He is referring to the lengthy Isaiah quotes (Isaiah chapters 2-14) which occur in 2 Nephi chapters 12-24, comprising 13 consecutive chapters in that book. He is saying that the middle 4 or 5 chapters of Isaiah given in that lengthy quote, which do not have substantive changes, are not “translations” as such, but are merely stuff that Joseph Smith “memorized,” and had quoted from a faulty memory as a “demo,” and then they somehow found their way into the Book of Mormon — which undermines the integrity of the translation of the Book of Mormon completely. (Actually his initial claim had been that the whole of the lengthy Isaiah quotes in 2 Nephi had been “memorized” quotations from the KJV given by Joseph Smith as a “demo;” and the variations found in them had been the result of a “faulty memory!” But later on when it dawned on him that some of those chapters contained significant variations which could not be dismissed or accounted for as “memory errors,” he changed his stance, and now claims that only the middle 4 or 5 chapters, which do not contain significant variations, are quotations from “memory” given by Joseph Smith as a “demo” — which is an even more absurd claim.) He then continues:

“… and the reason is, I looked at, I did the side by side comparison; and I looked at the changes he made; it is like, that is the kind of changes you make when you memorize something; you recite it from memory, and maybe you invert this little paragraph, or you drop this word or whatever. It was not like a re-translation of an original text by any means.”

The answer to that is that biblical quotes are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon; and many of them have this characteristic or feature, that they appear to contain superficial variations compared to the KJV, but not substantive changes; and if his theory was correct, we would have to conclude that they are all memorized passages from the KJV by Joseph Smith, and quoted from a faulty memory — which would undermine the integrity of the Book of Mormon translation completely. As an example, consider Isaiah chapter 53, which is quoted in its entirety in chapter 14 of the Book of Mosiah. I did a file comparison between the Book of Mormon version and the KJV, using Google Docs, a PDF copy of which can be seen or downloaded from here. If the file is downloaded and viewed in a browser, or in a PDF viewer, it can be enlarged to be seen clearly. The texts that appear in red are the Book of Mormon variants; and the texts that are crossed out are the KJV originals, replaced in the Book of Mormon by the red alternatives. The rest of the text is identical in both. As can be seen, most of these are minor changes that do not significantly alter or add to the meaning of the text. If Jonathan Neville’s theories are correct, that is due to a faulty memorization by Joseph Smith! But there is a better explanation. The correct explanation is that both the KJV as well as Book of Mormon are literal translations, and that explains both the minor variations; and more importantly; the close identity of the unchanged portions. I have already discussed that in some detail in an earlier blog post which I wrote some 3½ years ago, which can be seen here. Neville then continues:

“And it has always been kind of a mystery in Book of Mormon analysis, why these random weird changes are in these chapters; whereas the ones in 1 Nephi, and the first ones in 2 Nephi, have substantive changes that you can see would be translated.”

No “mystery” involved at all, see above. The earlier blog post which I had linked to provides the needed explanation. To summarize: the KJV is an extremely literal (word for word) translation, as explained in that post; and the same is true of the Book of Mormon; and that explains both the close identity of the unchanged portions of the text with the KJV; as well as the variations — great and small. 

For the rest of the conversation Jonathan Neville digresses once again into his “stone in a hat” obsession, which I personally don’t have a serious problem with. I haven’t studied in detail all the historical data for the “seer stone” vs. the Urim and Thummim issue, to be able to express a definitive opinion on the subject; but if the historical data suggests that Joseph Smith used either or both instruments interchangeably to do the translation, I would have no problems with that. The reason why Jonathan Neville is so opposed to the idea of using the seer stone for the translation of the plates, is because he sees that instrument as a means of “dictation” of the text to Joseph Smith, instead of Joseph himself being intellectually involved in the translation process — which again is badly misconstrued. The truth of the matter is that the Urim and Thummim was a far more powerful means of receiving revelation than the seer stone had been; and if God wanted to simply dictate the text of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, he could have done so by means of the Urim and Thummim far more efficiently, effectively, and conveniently than by means of the seer stone. We simply do not know the precise mechanism or process by which the Book of Mormon was translated — regardless of which instrument was used. Joseph Smith never told anyone. And all of Jonathan Neville’s relentless obsession with the “seer stone” vs. the Urim and Thummim is nothing more than a pointless digression. The only thing that really matters is that the Book of Mormon is a book of ancient scripture revealed from heaven, miraculously translated into superb, eloquent English by the gift and power of God; and every word of it is sacred and divine, and originates from God; and a man will get “closer to God” by abiding by its precepts than that of any other book, as Joseph Smith has said.

Hopefully this is my last blog post on this subject, unless something controversial comes up, or unless I discover something important in his arguments that I have missed, that requires a further reply.

Jonathan Neville on BOM Translation–Part VII

 

As stated earlier, one of Jonathan Neville’s main themes is the supposed influence of the writings of the Christian theologian Jonathan Edwards on the text of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon. He has written a book about it, and given several interviews on the subject, of which the above video is one more example. At 2:10 minutes into the video he begins with the following statement in support of his claims:

“And the examples I give is, if you read the Book of Mormon, it talks about the Book of Moses, right? But it never explains the Book of Moses; you have to have the Bible to understand what the Book of Mormon is talking about. In the Book of Mormon it talks about ‘natural man is an enemy to God’. That is not a biblical phrase. There is a place in the Bible that talks about a ‘natural man,’ another one talks about ‘enemy of God,’ but nowhere it says, ‘natural man is an enemy to God’. But Edwards did an entire sermon on specifically that, ‘natural men are God’s enemies’. And if you read Edwards’ sermon, then King Benjamin’s address makes perfect sense.”

Not quite. I searched online, and was able to find the complete text of Jonathan Edwards’ sermon that he is referring to, which can be seen here. In the heading to the sermon, it makes it clear that it is an exposition on Romans 5:10: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” So the idea of the fallen man being at enmity with God is inherently a biblical concept, which is what Paul was alluding to, and which Jonathan Edwards uses as proof text to base his sermon on. And modern LDS scripture has more to add to it:

Moses 5:

13 And Satan came among them, saying: I am also a son of God; and he commanded them, saying: Believe it not; and they believed it not, and they loved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish.

Moses 6:

49 Behold Satan hath come among the children of men, and tempteth them to worship him; and men have become carnal, sensual, and devilish, and are shut out from the presence of God.

Mosiah 3:

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Mosiah 16:

1 And now, it came to pass that after Abinadi had spoken these words he stretched forth his hand and said: The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just.

2 And then shall the wicked be cast out, and they shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord; therefore the Lord redeemeth them not.

3 For they are carnal and devilish, and the devil has power over them; yea, even that old serpent that did beguile our first parents, which was the cause of their fall; which was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish, knowing evil from good, subjecting themselves to the devil.

4 Thus all mankind were lost; and behold, they would have been endlessly lost were it not that God redeemed his people from their lost and fallen state.

5 But remember that he that persists in his own carnal nature, and goes on in the ways of sin and rebellion against God, remaineth in his fallen state and the devil hath all power over him. Therefore he is as though there was no redemption made, being an enemy to God; and also is the devil an enemy to God.

Alma 42:

9 Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

10 Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish by nature, this probationary state became a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:

18 And that he created man male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness created he them;

19 And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

20 But by the transgression of these holy laws man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man.

The Nephites had a more complete text of the Old Testament, which would have included the Book of Moses that we have in the Pearl of Great Price today, in which these concepts are fully developed; therefore they had no need of any external sources from which these concepts could be developed. Jonathan Neville then continues as follows:

“But because we didn’t look at Jonathan Edwards—this phrase of from Mosiah, ‘natural man an enemy to God,’ is in the top 10 all-time quoted Book of Mormon phrases in General Conference; there has been books and articles written, trying to speculate about what it means; and it is all—I won’t say it is nonsense—it is all profound, inspirational; but it is not accurate; because they don’t know what Joseph Smith was alluding to when he wrote that—when he translated whatever Mosiah or King Benjamin said—but when he translated it, he put it … into Jonathan Edwards’ terminology.”

Which of course is an entirely incorrect and unjustified conclusion, for two reasons: Firstly, as the above quotes demonstrate, the concept is entirely scriptural, and there was no need of any external sources from which it could be developed. Secondly, the way Jonathan Edwards develops the doctrine, he does so from the point of view of the Protestant, Reformed, Calvinistic doctrines of “faith alone,” “predestination,” “limited atonement” etc, which are heretical and false, and find no place in scripture, ancient or modern. For example commenting on Romans 5:10, Jonathan Edwards begins his sermon as follows (emphasis added):

“The apostle [Paul], from the beginning of the epistle, to the beginning of this chapter, had insisted on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In this chapter he goes on to consider the benefits that are consequent on justification [by faith alone], viz. Peace with God, present happiness, and hope of glory. Peace with God is mentioned in the first verse, ‘Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ In the following verses he speaks of present blessedness, and hope of glory, ‘By whom also we have access by faith into this grace, wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’ — And concerning this benefit, the hope of glory, the apostle particularly takes notice of two things, viz. the blessed nature of this hope, and the sure ground of it.”

That is the theology that runs throughout his sermon, which is a theology that Latter-day Saints completely reject, and which has no support in the Book of Mormon—or in the Bible for that matter. Further down in Section VIII of his sermon, Edwards then says the following:

“God may justly withhold mercy

“IF natural men are God’s enemies, hence we may learn, how justly God may refuse to show you mercy. For is God obliged to show mercy to his enemies? Is God bound to set his love on them that have no love to him; but hate him with perfect hatred? Is he bound to come and dwell with them that have an aversion to him, and choose to keep at a distance from him, and fly from him as one that is hateful to them? Even should you desire the salvation of your soul, is God bound to comply with your desires, when you always resist and oppose his will? Is God bound to put honor upon you, and to advance you to such dignity as to be a child of the King of kings, and the heir of glory, while at the same time you set him too low to have even the lowest place in your heart?

“This doctrine affords a strong argument for the absolute sovereignty of God, with respect to the salvation of sinners. If God is pleased to show mercy to his haters, it is certainly fit that he should do it in a sovereign way, without acting as any way obliged. God will show mercy to his mortal enemies; but then he will not be bound, he will have his liberty to choose the objects of his mercy; to show mercy to what enemy he pleases, and to punish and destroy which of his haters he pleases. And certainly this is a fit and reasonable thing. It is fit that God should distribute saving blessings in this way, and in no other, viz. in a sovereign and arbitrary way. And that ever anybody thought of or devised any other way for God to show mercy, than to have mercy on whom he will have mercy, must arise from ignorance of their own hearts, whereby they were insensible what enemies they naturally are to God.”

Which again alludes to the false, Reformed, and Calvinistic doctrines of predestination, and God’s arbitrary election of who will be saved and who will be damned (and by extension, also of “limited atonement”), which are entirely heretical and false, and find no place modern LDS scripture or the Bible. What he means by “sovereignty of God” is just that—the complete predestination and predetermination of all things by God from the beginning; and the complete rejection and denial of the free agency and freewill of man—which are anathema to LDS theology and doctrine. Joseph Smith did not borrow his ideas, his theology, or his terminology from the abominable heresies of Calvinism that Jonathan Edwards is advocating. Jonathan Neville then continues as follows:

“And at that time people familiar with Jonathan Edwards knew exactly what he was talking about. If you look at it, King Benjamin doesn’t say, doesn’t explain how the ‘national man is an enemy God;’ he explains how you overcome it. And Edwards wrote a lot about how the ‘national man is an enemy to God,’ but he didn’t give a good explanation of how to overcome it. So you need Edwards, the Bible, and the Book of Mormon together, all three together. And then it is unbelievably beautiful and profound doctrine; I mean, it has just opened up the Book of Mormon like a whole new thing to me.”

Which of course is entirely incorrect. It proves that Jonathan Neville has a very shallow understanding of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon does not teach or advocate the damnable heresies of “justification by faith alone without works,” or of “unconditional election,” or of “predestination to salvation or damnation,” or of “limited atonement” etc. that Jonathan Edwards is advocating. And the Book of Mormon does explain how the “natural man” became an “enemy to God”. It came about as a result of the “fall of Adam” (Mosiah 3:19, and other quotes given above). Neville then continues:

“And even now, when I hear someone in General Conference or in church quotes a Book of Mormon phrase, I think, oh yeah, I know Edwards wrote that, and here is how it works out. I mean, it is, I am telling you, it is a total mind-blowing experience almost, just to see it this way. And I analyzed it, if you are someone in China, and you read the Book of Mormon, and you don’t know whether they are talking about king Josiah, or you know the Jews, the Law of Moses, you have no idea what it is; and then you read the Bible, and you go, ‘Oh, that is what that means, that is it’. That is how this is. When you read the Book of Mormon, and then you read Jonathan Edwards, you go, ‘Ah, that is what that refers to’.”

Wrong! That is not what it refers to! See above. He then continues:

“So that is why when I read in the Book of Mormon about chariots, or steel, or horses, or whatever—that is Joseph Smith’s interpretation of whatever the original record said; and I’m just like, I don’t believe that king Benjamin and in his Nephite language—whatever it was, because they had multiple languages—whatever his language was, I don’t think he literally said, ‘natural man is an enemy to God;’ but whatever he said, Joseph Smith transliterated into Jonathan Edwards terminology, and then it makes beautiful sense, and that is why it resonates with people.”

Sorry, that makes no sense. The Book of Mormon is not advocating the heretical doctrines of Calvinism and Reformed theology etc. that Jonathan Edwards is committed to and is promoting. Jonathan Edwards’ sermons may have historical interest; but they cannot be used to elucidate the teachings of the Book of Mormon, or to justify or explain Joseph Smith’s translation or phraseology, or in support of LDS theology and doctrine.