Why Mormonism shouldn't be tolerated in Utah

When people think of Utah they typically associate this with Mormonism (Latter Day Saints). This is because Mormons set up their headquarters in Salt Lake City, where they have been for about 150 years, shortly after Joseph Smith died in 1844 in Illinois. However, what most people don't realize is that Mormonism was never meant to be in Utah. This realization I came upon accidentally, which I have never heard anyone else share, but I think is extremely valuable in witnessing to Mormons and refuting Mormonism. 

The standard apologetic that Catholics have used against Mormons is that their cornerstone (Protestant) doctrine, the Great Apostasy (which demands the Church needed restoration in later times), is simply untenable since it: (1) goes against the promise of Jesus to never abandon His Church; including (2) prophecies such as Daniel 2 talked about HERE; also (3) there is no Biblical evidence for the Great Apostasy; and (4) it doesn't fit within the historical record, hence why Great Apostasy advocates cannot even give the century when it occurred. This is all well and good, but the Catholic fixation on the Great Apostasy doesn't do well against the principally emotionally driven Mormon (and Protestant) mindset. So here is where my new apologetics argument has a lot of potential, which I'll now discuss. 

Mormons are very aware that Joseph Smith never came to Utah, though many non-Mormons don't know  this. For most of us non-Mormons, we aren't even sure how the Mormons ended up in Utah, though many people know Brigham Young played a role in getting the Mormons there. Official Mormon history teaches that Joseph Smith began the Mormon Church in New York in around 1830, and after traveling nearly 1,000 miles, Smith had moved the congregation to settle down in the city of Independence, Missouri (just outside Kansas City) around 1836. Why did Smith settle down officially in Independence, Missouri? Because Smith had some visions of divine revelation how Independence was actually the official location of the Garden of Eden! Not only that, Smith received further divine revelation this same city was to be the official site of the Second Coming of Jesus! And further divine revelation revealed that this was to be the true City of Zion (since in the Bible Jerusalem was located on Mt Zion). See what the Mormon Scriptures say (all are divinely revealed to Joseph Smith):

Doctrine & Covenants ch57: 1 Hearken, O ye elders of my church, saith the Lord your God, who have assembled yourselves together, according to my commandments, in this land, which is the land of Missouri, which is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints. 2 Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion. 3 Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse. 4 Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile; 5 And also every tract bordering by the prairies, inasmuch as my disciples are enabled to buy lands. Behold, this is wisdom, that they may obtain it for an everlasting inheritance.

Was Abraham wicked in Genesis 15:6? (Another look at Rom 4:5)

Continuing on the same Romans 4:5 "justifies the ungodly" theme, since this verse is seen as a Protestant stronghold for Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, I want to present multiple reasons why the Protestant reading is untenable. Just as a reminder, the Protestant side insists that "justifies the ungodly" means that Abraham was a wicked ungodly unregenerate vile man at the time of Genesis 15:6, and thus had no good works of any kind to justify himself, and thus the only way God was able to justify Abraham is by imputing the Righteousness of Christ to Abraham. But if Romans 4:5 is not actually saying Abraham was wicked (such that he had no righteousness within or righteous behavior), then the Reformed reading of Genesis 15:6 fails, and thus so does Romans 4:3-5, their chief proof text for Justification by Faith Alone and Imputation. 

To prove that I'm not making this Protestant 'interpretation' up, consider the words of some respected Protestant scholars:

• Dr R. Scott Clark (12/2018 on his blog):
  

  There have been times when the church has given the impression to her members and to others that only the perfect are welcome. She did that in the Middle Ages when many of their theologians concluded that we are right with God (justified) only to the degree we are holy (sanctified). In the Protestant Reformation the story was clarified to a great degree. Martin Luther (1483–1546) helped us see that Scripture teaches that all believers are at the same time sinful and declared righteous (simul iustus et peccator) by God, that, as Paul says, Christ justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5).”
  

• Dr Sam Waldron (Spring 2021 in a Reformed academic journal):
  

  The word “ungodly” implies that Abraham himself was not justified because he was the paradigm of obedience. Instead, he was the ungodly person justified by faith. . . . It is a significant mistake for Hays, who follows Sanders and others, to bring the concept of the merits of the patriarchs to the discussion of Abraham in Romans 4. He says, “Abraham’s faithfulness was reckoned by God to the benefit not only of Israel (as in the rabbinic exegetical tradition) but also of the Gentiles.” To speak of “the vicarious effects of Abraham’s faithfulness” is to obscure or miss the whole point. Abraham is the ungodly man - not the faithful man - in Romans 4. He is not a Christ-figure with a treasury of merit, but a sinner with no merit in need of justification. His faith is not admirable faithfulness, but empty-handed reliance on the promise of God. . . . The tension between Abraham the obedient (James 2:21–23) and Abraham the ungodly (Rom 4:3–5) must be considered. . . . But what of the assertion that Paul in Romans 4:5 refers to Abraham as ungodly in Genesis 15:6? The plain record of Abraham’s grievous failures after his calling are relevant to the question at hand. These grievous manifestations of remaining sin are a reminder of what Abraham had been, what he was by nature, and that his standing before God was not grounded on the very imperfect obedience which grew out of his faith in God’s promises. Thus, for the purposes of being justified by God, Abraham was (from the standpoint of the stringent requirements of God’s law) ungodly not only before his call, but afterwards.

• Dr John Fesko (Essay on Imputation):
  

  Abraham’s righteousness was not native to him; in fact, Paul says he was “ungodly.” So how did God consider him righteous? Because Abraham laid hold of Christ’s righteousness by faith. God therefore imputed Christ’s righteousness to Abraham. . . . This scriptural teaching stands in stark contrast to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, which teaches that God justifies sinners on the basis of inherent, rather than imputed, righteousness. In other words, a person must actually be holy in order to receive the verdict of righteous before the divine bar. Yet, such an opinion conflicts with Paul’s testimony that God justifies the “ungodly” (Rom. 4:5).
  

• Dr DA Carson (The Vindication of Imputation pdf):
  

  More importantly, it does not bear in mind Paul’s own powerful conclusion: it is the wicked person to whom the Lord imputes righteousness. In the context, that label is applied to Abraham no less than to anyone else. In Paul’s understanding, then, God’s imputation of Abraham’s faith to Abraham as righteousness cannot be grounded in the assumption that that faith is itself intrinsically righteous. If God is counting faith to Abraham as righteousness, he is counting him righteous — not because Abraham is righteous in some inherent way (How can he be? He is asebes / ungodly), but simply because Abraham trusts God and his gracious promise.

• Dr Charles Hodge (Essay on Justification):
  

  As this righteousness is not our own, as we are sinners, ungodly, without works, it must be the righteousness of another, even of Him who is our righteousness.

• Dr Joel Beeke (The relation of Faith to Justification):
  

  In the final analysis, if we base our justification on our faith, our works, or anything else of our own, the very foundations of justification must crumble. Inevitably the agonizing, perplexing, and hopeless questions of having "enough" would surface; Is my faith strong enough? Are the fruits of grace in my life fruitful enough? Are my experiences deep enough, clear enough, persistent enough? Every detected inadequacy in my faith is going to shake the very foundations of my spiritual life. My best believing is always defective. I am always too ungodly even in my faith.
  

These quotes are representative of mainstream conservative Protestant scholarship. These Protestant scholars are well aware of challenges to their interpretation of Romans 4:5, but the Protestant side is so stuck and has bet everything on Romans 4:5 in order to uphold Imputation that they cannot afford to budge. I can confidently say that the highest academic levels of conservative Protestant scholarship has no other hope than their desperate reading of Romans 4:5.

Here are some reasons I have gathered as to why “ungodly” in the case of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 refers merely to Gentile (i.e. uncircumcised) status and does not likely refer to something more severe or “morally corrupt” in Romans 4:5. These reasons are not mutually exclusive, but can overlap:

Justification of the Ungodly - a Reformed admission

I came across a wonderful admission from a Reformed article online [1] of something I've been saying for a while regarding the problematic situation of the Reformed reading of "justifies the ungodly" (Rom 4:5) that I'd like to share. The article is short, but I trimmed it down at spots to capture the most important points:

One of the most striking and comforting expressions in the Scriptures is that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). Nonetheless, this statement creates a theological conundrum of sorts and has led in part some Reformed theologians, including puritans, to at least suggest if not advocate a subtle form of justification before faith. So what then is the problem?

Placing regeneration and faith before justification, as the Reformed do, appears to be incompatible with the fact that God justifies the ungodly. For how can a regenerated, holy sinner who exercises sincere faith and repentance be viewed as ungodly? Yet, placing regeneration after justification has its own problems, chiefly, how can a sinner dead in sins turn to Christ in true faith and repentance?

The Reformed officially teach that before a person can even believe, the Holy Spirit must first come and cause a radical transformation inside that person, taking them from spiritual death to spiritual life (Eph 2:5), born again (Jn 3:5), giving them a new heart (Rom 2:29), making them a new creation (2 Cor 5:17), and enabling them to exercise the gift of faith. This is called "Regeneration" or "Effectual Calling" in classical Reformed language. Only after Regeneration can they then believe in the Gospel and then get Justified. But this raises the question, how can someone so powerfully transformed inside by the Holy Spirit still remain "ungodly" in any reasonable sense? To remain "ungodly" would suggest that sin is more powerful than grace, which cannot be. So the Reformed must now explain how there can be an "ungodly" in the first place when it comes to the believer getting Justified.

Did God reckon Abraham's heart as faithful? (Nehemiah 9:8 and 13:13)

As you probably know, Protestants claim that since Abraham was "ungodly" he couldn't be justified before God by his sinful actions, and instead had to use his faith to receive the "imputed Righteousness of Christ" in order to appear righteous before God. While there are numerous proofs against Protestantism's perverted reading of Genesis 15:6 (Rom 4:3), I want to present two 'new' Biblical proofs that Protestant scholars and apologists quietly ignore. Both texts are from the book of Nehemiah, which is a fascinating new use for this book in apologetics.

The first text is:

Neh 9: 7 You are the Lord, the God who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him the name Abraham. 8 You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous.

The term "faithful" here is the same term used in Genesis 15:6 - and in fact is the only time the term is used of Abraham in Genesis. The Hebrew term often means "faithful" and not merely believing. The connection to Abraham's "heart" being good further suggests that Abraham was not "ungodly" in the Protestant claim of being morally depraved, but rather being merely a Gentile (cf Rom 4:9-12). Also, the verse ends with God keeping his Promise (cf Rom 4:13), because God is "righteous". The connection with Promise Keeping and Righteousness suggests that the Righteousness in question here is more of a "faithfulness," rather than the Protetant error that claims Biblical "righteousness" means a lifetime of perfectly keeping the commandments (which doesn't even make sense when speaking of the Father's righteousness).

Why could Moses not enter the Promise Land?

We all know that Moses was one of God's most beloved and important servants of all Salvation History, yet there is something unsettling about God excluding Moses from entering the Promise Land. We know from Numbers 20 and Deuteronomy 32 that God's reasoning for not allowing Moses to enter was because Moses lost his temper at the Israelites and in frustration struck the rock from which water flowed. 

Deut 32:48-52 & 34:1-12. The Lord spoke to Moses, “Go up this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, and view the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the people of Israel for a possession. And die on the mountain which you go up, because you broke faith with me in the midst of the people of Israel at the waters of Meribah and because you did not treat me as holy in the midst of the people of Israel. For you shall see the land before you, but you shall not go there.” Then Moses went up to Mount Nebo. And the Lord showed him all the land of Judah as far as the western sea. And the Lord said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.” So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab. And the people of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him. So the people of Israel obeyed Joshua.

This seems unfair to us that Moses had to put up with so much sin, complaining, and drama from the Israelites for 40 long years, and that he devoted his heart and soul to serving God, that this one time that Moses slips up he loses everything. It just doesn't sit well with us. Many people over the years try to rationalize it, explaining why God was justified in punishing Moses. But I think there's a more satisfying explanation that the Catholic tradition has long been aware of.

As a rule of thumb, when something strange, outrageous, or even troubling happens in the Old Testament, this is often a sign that there is a New Testament lesson hidden therein (this is called Typology). A good example is when God told Abraham to sacrifice his only-begotten son Isaac, which is an outrageous command for God to tell someone to do. Yet, we see from this outrageous event that it was preparing us for an even more outrageous event, namely God giving His Son die on the Cross. In this case of Moses not being able to enter the Promise Land, there's a wonderful Catholic Youtube / blog called Reason & Theology (subscribe to it!) wherein the host Michael Lofton explains:

It was fitting that God prevented Moses from entering the Promised Land, so that we would know the Law of Moses could not bring us to the eternal Promised Land, but merely pointed us to it. It was, in fact, Joshua who brought the people to the Promised Land, so that we would know another Joshua (Yehoshua) would bring us to our eternal reward.

The second-in-command for Moses was Joshua, which in Hebrew is the same name for Jesus. He was ordained by Moses to become the new leader of Israel, who will mightily lead them into the Promise Land. So hidden within this apparently unfair narrative of excluding Moses is the bigger lesson that the Law of Moses only gets us to a certain point in Salvation (e.g. recognition of our sinfulness), and it is up to Jesus to take us the rest of the way (i.e. Heaven). If you don't see this New Testament lesson as the primary point of Moses being excluded, then I don't think you can ever come to a satisfying answer.

 

As a funny but very relevant side note, today the Times of Israel published a story of some "controversial remarks" from Pope Francis! It turns out some Rabbis were upset with what Francis had said in a homily! Here's the relevant portion: 

Francis said: “The Law does not give life, it does not offer the fulfillment of the promise because it is not capable of being able to fulfill it. The Law is a journey, a journey that leads toward an encounter… Those who seek life need to look to the promise and to its fulfillment in Christ.”

Rabbi Arusi sent a letter on behalf of the Chief Rabbinate to Cardinal Kurt Koch, whose Vatican department includes a commission for religious relations with Jews. “In his homily, the pope presents the Christian faith as not just superseding the Torah; but asserts that the latter no longer gives life, implying that Jewish religious practice in the present era is rendered obsolete,” Arusi reportedly wrote in the letter. “This is in effect part and parcel of the ‘teaching of contempt’ towards Jews and Judaism that we had thought had been fully repudiated by the Church.”

In a humorous twist of events, this is a time when Pope Francis says something controversial that all Christians and Protestants can agree upon!

 

Moses ordaining Joshua as his successor

 

 

King David and the Sacraments - a beautiful example of typology in the OT

I came across a passage which I believe testifies to the Catholic approach to reading the OT, namely seeing New Testament signs hidden therein. This is known as OT 'typology', which some Protestants might cringe at but I think is perfectly legitimate:

2 Sam 12: 19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David understood that the child was dead. 20 Then David arose from the earth and washed and anointed himself and changed his clothes. And he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. He then went to his own house. And when he asked, they set food before him, and he ate.

David was being punished for his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah, and had been fasting while his infant son was sick. When the fasting/penance period was over, David got up, washed, anointed, changed, worshiped, ate. This to me sounds like the traditional Christian practice of conversion, namely fasting as you desire to leave your old life behind, then baptism, anointing with oil (Confirmation), and putting on clean robe (Baptismal Garment), then gathering for the Mass to receive the Eucharist. I'm sure that I'm not the first to notice this, but strangely enough I've never seen anyone mention it. I just 'accidentally' came across it recently while reading the narrative. This is all I have to share for now, but I think this passage fits within my "reconsidered" understanding of the Justification narrative of Romans 4:6-8, which I've discussed (here).

Nathan telling David, "You're the man!" (not a compliment)

A quickie apologetic on Papal Infallibility

I was in a discussion with a Protestant who was arguing that Catholic converts have a mental disorder because they seek a level of certainty that only God is capable of. His goal was to show that seeking after a Infallible Magisterium is nonsense because nobody can know the Bible the way God knows the Bible. Admittedly, that's a bizarre way of objecting to the idea of Infallibility, but it led me to show him how his claim was bogus. I asked him if Peter was infallible when he interpreted various OT passages in his epistles 1 & 2 Peter. He was forced to admit Yes, Peter was infallible when interpreting the OT. I then explained that he just refuted his main thesis, because Peter was able to infallibly interpret the OT on behalf of others.

This Protestant got very embarrassed and to save face kept bringing up that Peter acted sinfully and followed false authority (Judaizers) in the incident at Antioch when Paul rebuked Peter (recorded in Galatians 2). I merely had to reaffirm that Peter acting sinfully in one circumstance doesn't mean he couldn't be infallible in other circumstances, as was already proven. I then pointed out that the Peter example actually supports the Catholic claim on infallibility, whereby we see in the example of Peter that acting sinfully in certain circumstances does not preclude a person from being infallible in other circumstances. The Catholic claim has always been the Pope is only infallible under certain circumstances, never under all circumstances! 

I'll hopefully have another post this month in a week or two.

Is Peace (Shalom) unconditional in the Bible? (Romans 5:1)

Protestant apologist James White has a few claims he regularly brings up against Catholicism, and which many Protestants blindly repeat. The two most common claims I've seen him make are asking Catholics "who is the Blessed Man of Romans 4:8?" and "Roman Catholicism cannot provide the true peace which the Gospel provides us". White says in his book and website (see here):

There can be no doubt what lies behind Paul’s use of the term peace in this [Romans 5:1] passage. The Hebrew steeped in Scripture knew full well the meaning of shalom. It does not refer merely to a cessation of hostilities. It is not a temporary cease-fire. The term shalom would not refer to a situation where two armed forces face each other across a border, ready for conflict, but not yet at war. Shalom refers to a fullness of peace, a wellness of relationship. Those systems [e.g. Roman Catholicism] that proclaim a man-centered scheme of justification cannot explain the richness of this word. They cannot provide peace because a relationship that finds its source and origin in the actions of imperfect sinners will always be imperfect itself. The phrase "we have peace" [Rom 5:1] in regard to God, properly means, God is at peace with us, his wrath towards us is removed.

This all sounds well and good, but all too often it turns out that things that sound good to human ears are often not actually what the Bible teaches (cf 2 Tim 4:3). White's lack of Biblical analysis in his presentation of how the Bible uses the term "peace" was suspicious to me, so I decided to see for myself how the Bible uses the Greek/Hebrew terms Peace/Shalom (here). Does the Bible speak of Peace/Shalom as something that is permanent and unconditional the way White makes it out to be? Here are some texts I've found that use the same Greek/Hebrew term "peace" as in Romans 5:1 that I think cast serious doubt on White's bold assertions: 

Did Jesus forbid "vain repetitions"?

There are plenty of Catholic articles that address the issue of "vain repetition" which Jesus forbade in Matthew 6:7, so rather than repeat them I want to share some unique findings that most of those articles don't tell you. 

 

First of all, it is shocking how everyone automatically assumes "vain repetition" is even an accurate  translation in the first place! The Greek word that Matthew uses for "vain repetitions" is a single term, battalogeo (see here). This Greek word is found nowhere else in the Bible, and apparently nowhere else in Greek literature (see here). This detail alone means we cannot be too dogmatic about the meaning. The Greek term is a compound of "batta" and "words". You can look to see that scholars admit they aren't sure what "batta" means, so they can only propose various theories based on the rest of the verse! So not only does the Greek term not clearly suggest "repetition," much less "vain," there's actually plenty of room to propose other meanings. Scholars seem divided on whether "batta" refers to an ancient pagan king who "stuttered" (which could mean various things), or whether "batta" refers to a pagan poet who wrote long drawn out poems, or whether "batta" is a made up word and equivalent to our term "blah blah blah" (i.e. babbling). The last option seems the most reasonable if the word appears nowhere else, and thus Jesus was saying something along the lines of: "When you pray, do not pray blah blah blah like the pagans".

From this first point onward, we should stop giving the so-called translation "vain repetition" any credibility at all. The origin of "vain repetitions" seems to actually be a Protestant agenda to "translate" the Bible into English with an anti-Catholic spin. This is one reason Catholics were always suspicious of Protestant Bibles. Think about it, how often "vain repetition" is turned into an instant attack on the Rosary, when this one Greek term doesn't actually clearly say anything about "vain repetition"? This Protestant bias is confirmed in the fact the King James Version is what translated "vain repetitions," whereas some honest mainstream Protestant translations use other phrases (see here), such as "do not keep on babbling like pagans" (NIV), or "do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do" (ESV). The Catholic Bibles that I consulted say "speak not much, as the heathens" (Douay-Rheims and Latin Vulgate), and "do not babble like the pagans" (NAB), and "empty phrases" (RSVCE). Again, using the word "repetition" in one's translation is disingenuous per the limited data we have, and can really only signify anti-Catholic bias.

Augustine's insights on Genesis 15 - Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness - Part 5

Since my radical reevaluation of Genesis 15 last year, which I have in my "Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness" series (Here), I have recently come across a fabulous commentary by St Augustine on this situation which I feel further vindicates my position. I truly believe this will change the way most informed folks read and comment upon Genesis 15 and Romans 4. Let's jump right into it, with this passage from St Augustine's masterpiece, City of God (Book 16; Section 26):

After these things in Gen 16, Ishmael was born of Hagar; and Abraham might think that in Ishmael was fulfilled what God had promised him in Gen 15, after Abraham originally wished to adopt his home-born servant Eliezer (Gen 15:2), to which God said "This servant shall not be your heir; but he that shall come forth from your own loins, he shall be your heir." (Gen 15:4) Therefore, lest Abraham should think that what was promised in Genesis 15:4 was fulfilled in Ishmael the handmaid's son in Genesis 16, God appeared to Abraham in Genesis 17 to promise the birth of Isaac, and said "I am God; be well-pleasing in my sight, and be without complaint, and I will make my covenant between me and you, and will fill you exceedingly."

Here in Genesis 17 there are more distinct promises about the calling of the nations in Isaac, that is, in the son of the promise, by which grace is signified, and not nature; for the son is promised from an old man and a barren old woman [Rom 4:19]. For although God effects even the natural course of procreation, yet where the agency of God is manifest, through the decay or failure of nature, grace is more plainly discerned. And because this was to be brought about, not by generation, but by regeneration, circumcision was enjoined now, when a son was promised of Sarah. For what else does circumcision signify than a nature renewed on the putting off of the old? And what else does the eighth day mean than Christ, who rose again when the week was completed, that is, after the Sabbath? The very names of the parents are changed [Gen 17:5; Rom 4:17]: all these details proclaim newness, and the new covenant is shadowed forth in the old. For what does the term old covenant imply but the concealing of the new? And what does the term new covenant imply but the revealing of the old?

Wow, if only this passage of St Augustine was more well-known, it might have changed the course of Catholic & Protestant dialog a long time ago and completely changed the way we read Romans 4. This passage confirms a lot of what my own 'regenerated' understanding of Romans 4 seems to be about as I've explained in my Revisiting series. As a summary: I do not see Romans 4 as about Abraham converting in Genesis 15, nor about him getting justified a second time after Genesis 12. I do not necessarily even see circumcision as portrayed as a "work" (more on this in an upcoming post). Rather, I think the only feasible reading of Rom 4:2 "if Abraham was justified by works" can refer to is bringing about the Promised Heir of Gen 15:4 by natural human means, namely Abraham sleeping with Hagar in Genesis 16, right after the Covenant was established in Genesis 15. It makes little to no sense contextually or logically for "works" of Abraham in Rom 4 to be sins, good deeds, or even circumcision itself, much less the ceremonial works of Moses. If you do a simple substitution of any of those meanings of "works", the train of thought for Paul makes no sense. It is possible that Paul is saying Abraham's "work" of sleeping with Hagar was a "type" for the merely natural "works of the Mosaic Law" which lacked grace. Abraham truly Believed God's promise in Genesis 12 that his offspring would be great and bless the whole world, but his natural, earthly, human "Reason" was unable to see how this was to actually be. Perhaps it was Eliezer, Abraham's distant relative would be the heir. So God showed up go clarify in Genesis 15 that it was not Eliezer, but rather someone "from his own loins" (15:4b). Perhaps then it was Ishmael, Abraham's actual biological child. So God showed up again to clarify in Genesis 17 that it wasn't Ishmael, but rather a miraculous birth, made possible by regenerative circumcision. In all this, we see types/shadows/images of the insufficiency of the Old Covenant and the need to make way for the New Covenant. Paul is far more concerned with Divine Revelation unfolding, seeing Genesis with the Glasses of Faith, that he is with some silly, shallow Protestant debate on faith "versus" deeds. 

Is it reasonable to believe Mary & Joseph had other children besides Jesus?

In nearly every discussion about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that I've come across, the debate almost always comes down to whether the "brothers and sisters" mentioned a few times in the Gospels were biological children or if this was just an ancient way of referring to cousins (which I hold to). But what if it was neither? The past few days, I got the inspiration to realize that there is indeed another possibility that Protestants don't consider: adoption! Why not? Remember that the underlying actual goal of the Protestant side is to attack Catholicism by attacking Mary, so if the "brothers and sisters" aren't biological children then their anti-Catholic mission has failed. The adoption possibility doesn't seem to be an explanation that I've ever come across, which is strange because it easily counters the Protestant when they reject the standard Catholic cousin explanation. It was actually very common in ancient times for parents to die of diseases and such, since there wasn't modern medicine or sanitation. So it was not uncommon for children of the same region, neighborhood, relatives, tribe, etc, to adopt those orphaned children. Could this be why James, the "brother" of Jesus, speaks so highly of taking care of orphans? (James 1:27) The genealogy lists that Matthew and Luke give list different forefathers at some points, but this is easily explained by the reality that some of those sons/fathers were adopted, and thus lineages crossed, but since it was all within the same Tribe of Judah, it was ultimately the same lineage. What is a Protestant really going to do if you respond by saying "yes, but these were adopted children"? The Protestant will realize that they cannot simply presume, and thus their argument is instantly deflated. Plus, we are all truly the brothers of Jesus by adoption in the spiritual sense, and would even extend that into being adopted by Mary (and Joseph), which is how many Catholic spiritual writers have understood the "rest of her children" in reference to Mary in Revelation 12:17.

"They were not yet born, nor done anything good nor bad" - a fresh look at Romans 9:10-13

I wanted to share some further insights I've had on Romans 9, stemming from an earlier series (here). This time we will focus on the famous passage in Romans 9:10-13, which says:

10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls - 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

This passage has been the subject of considerable debate for centuries. One camp has tended to read the text as a cold, hard assertion of God's Sovereignty, where God elects us to salvation or damnation before we existed, apart from any consideration of our good/bad behavior. At first glance, it does seem to read that way. But I think this is a serious distortion of the text as well as the other themes of Scripture. Consider the following points.

First, Paul introduces this section by calling upon "our forefather Isaac" (9:10), which not only continues the same lesson of Abraham in the prior verses (9:7-9), but has the same phraseology as the "our forefather Abraham" in Romans 4:1. Recall that in Romans 4 the issue was also "not of works," as it is here in Romans 9:11. I believe I have convincingly shown in my Revisiting Abraham's reckoned as righteousness series, particularly part 2 (here), that Paul's real focus in Romans 4 was about how Abraham tried to bring about the promised heir of Genesis 15 by sleeping with Hagar in Genesis 16, thus producing the illegitimate heir Ishmael, who was technically Abraham's biological son. In the lesson of Abraham, Paul is saying mere biological descent isn't sufficient to determine who make up God's Chosen Children. Paul uses the language of "flesh" and "works" as closely related, with works meant to show the Israelite superior biological lineage over that of the inferior Gentiles (here). What this means is that when Paul shifts to "also our father Isaac," the same theme continues: now differentiating between Isaac's biological children, Jacob and Esau. So the lesson thus far is not about unconditionally sending people to heaven or hell apart from their deeds, but rather a more practical yet mysterious looking back at a biological/ancestry issue.

Second, we now turn to the most controversial point "though they were not yet born," which most people mistakenly interpret to mean "before they even existed". The reality is, when this situation took place, both Jacob and Esau fully existed, as babies within Rebekah's womb:

Genesis 25: 21 And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren, and Rebekah conceived. 22 The children struggled together within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” 23 And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”

Once you admit the fact that God said this while the children were alive and active within Rebekah's womb, the "before the even existed" reading is instantly discredited. What of the "before they had done anything good or bad"? They were alive and active, yet it wasn't until later in life when they did in fact do good/bad actions. So God was simply making a prophecy during Rebekah's pregnancy of how things would turn out. The "struggling within her" certainly means Jacob and Esau were in some manner fighting each other to be firstborn, with the stronger man winning the birth war, thus Esau being born first. This biological superiority plays out with their "works" showing their dominant physical features. This again ties to the firstborn-yet-not-heir theme as Abraham with Ishmael, and God prophetically saying the older Ishmael will serve the younger Isaac.

Were "those whom God foreknew" the OT saints? (Rom 8:29)

While writing my article on Romans 11:6 (here), something jumped out at me in Romans 11:2, where Paul says: "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." This statement sounds very similar to a few chapters prior, in Romans 8:29, where Paul famously says: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son". While I've already discussed Romans 8:29-30 in an older post (here), I haven't looked at it through this "foreknow" lens, so I'll do that today.

In the context of Rom 11:2, the "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew" is clearly referring to the Israelites, at least those who were faithful, as the prior verse 11:1 asks "has God therefore rejected his people?" as he then lists off marks of Israelite identity. Using the principle of "Scripture interprets Scripture," would suggest that the Israelites of Rom 11:2, "his [chosen/elect] people," at least the faithful ones, are who Paul has principally in mind in Rom 8:29 when he says "those whom He foreknew". In other words, Rom 8:29-30 is actually focused on the Old Testament saints. Others have suggested this is what 8:29 means, but now that I've come across this link to Rom 11:2, I now think the claim has better merit.

If the OT Saints are in view in 8:29, this would better explain why Paul speaks of "those" instead of "us/we" whom God foreknew. It would also better explain why God puts the "called, predestined, justified," and "glorified" all in the past tense, since it would mean the OT Saints already experienced these things. We could even say Paul's repeated use of "also" is to suggest the OT saints "also" experience these blessings along with the NT saints, thus Paul isn't so much speaking of a chain of events, but rather simply saying every blessing the Gentiles experience in Christ, the OT saints "also" experience them. Given the context of Romans 8:29 being about enduring suffering, calling upon the example of the OT saints is an excellent lesson for Paul to draw upon, since we have historical proof of OT saints having to endure trials, and see how God helped them get through it. And, finally, since Paul is concerned about Jew-Gentile tensions, it helps to show the OT saints are blessed, so that the NT saints don't feel superior to them.