Cyrus Wardly

For the most part, the writers of Walking Christian hold to the same beliefs on a wide variety of theological, philosophical and political topics. This being said there is always a fun and interesting 5% that we do disagree on and the fun comes in when we feel really passionately about the topics we differ on. This exchange highlights one such topic we have a difference of opinion about. Mr. Gil Sanders, our resident philosopher takes the classical or ‘evidentialist’ approach to apologetics and evangelism whereas I myself find the presuppositionalist or covenantal school of thought to be more useful. This ultimately comes down to a difference in emphasis and you can see this in the topics we write about here on the site. Gil is a top-notch professional level philosopher whereas I focus my efforts on understanding the Bible and its wider context. The following is a friendly, but heated social media exchange we had several months prior to this editing.

My fear is that this writing will be too introductory-level for the apologists and too deep for a regular person. Nevertheless, I thought this highlighted the different perspectives on apologetics and I really want to urge the reader to pay special attention to what we both emphasize in this conversation.

Passing comment I am a true non-conformist. It is true that I favor the presuppositionalist approach to apologetics I ought for the sake of honesty to make this confession right now; I am an Armenian, not a Calvinist. Usually, Calvinism and presuppositionalism have a kind of “smoke and fire” thing going on. It’s an odd combination I know but I am comfortable with the tension. Anyway on to the exchange.

One day Gil posted:

Quick thoughts on presuppositionalism: It’s great as a negative critique of other views, but it’s terrible at offering a *positive* justification for a specifically Trinitarian worldview. In some ways, yes, by critiquing other views you make the Trinitarian view far more plausible, but it does not become de facto true because you refute a naturalist. Why a Trinitarian view rather than a Unitarian or Platonic view? Why the God of the Bible as opposed to the God of the philosophers? Why Christianity as opposed to other monotheistic religions? I just don’t find the presuppositonalist response persuasive. Like I said, it works great against atheists, but if you’re a monotheist (or maybe a deist), it’s almost completely ineffective because unlike atheists they can account for knowledge, contingency, and necessary principles without a specifically Trinitarian worldview. I have heard it said that the Trinitarian view best accounts for multiplicity or even love, but that requires extensive metaphysical argumentation. You can’t just presuppose that it is the best account. But if that’s the case, Scholastics have been making these kinds of metaphysical arguments for centuries already.

Many of Gil’s friends replied in the comments and some did a good job of answering his thoughts and misunderstandings. But being his close friend who holds to the Presup view I saw this post as the personal challenge it was and rather than writing a novel in the comments section I responded at length with these words.

Some not so quick thoughts on evidentialism since Gil Sanders woke up wanting to lose a friend. You messed with the bull now here come the horns buddy and I’m gonna treat you with as much intensity and sarcasm as I gave McCraney. You don’t get off easy because we were once friends.

Evidentialism puts the unbeliever in the place of God. Your position is essential, “I’m gonna make the case for God using this evidence and you get to be the judge and make up your mind if He exists.” This is not, and never will be the approach of the Apostles and Prophets. Rather, these holy ones rested their case on the firm assurance that God had spoken and it is a brute fact that he created the universe and mankind in His image. Romans 1-2 says that we are all aware that there is a creator and we know that we know this and those who deny are suppressing the truth, such people are without an excuse (literally, without an apologetic “anapologētous“). So the evidentialist places the unbeliever in God’s position as judge of the universe and the one who decides the truth, and you really trust someone who is suppressing the truth. They who, a la Plantinga have a cognitive misfiring due to the imago Dei being corroded, you trust those people to make a rational decision? Do you think they can do the right thing?

What even is “reason”? What even is “right”? Gil, you grant them too much. As our (in person) conversation yesterday you’re allowing the unbeliever to assume things that CANNOT exist in the world they believe in. You’re letting them steal from God with this evidentalist junk.

OK now to the point of your main objection, friend. You claim that “why specifically is the trinitarian God necessitated by pressuppostionalism.” OK and Gil you know this so it is insane that you’re even making this objection. William Lane Craig and the other evidentalists are the ones who actually commit this sin. You need to pull that plank out of your eye before you can critique the approach the Apostles used. The case from the cosmological, teleological and ontological argument leads one to the lowest common denominator theism, not to the risen Lord. Go back to William Craig Lane’s first public debate with Frank Zindler, what was the thesis of his opening statement? “I hope to show you that the greater preponderance of the evidences points to the POSSIBILITY THAT a god (lowercase g) exists.” Now that I’ve committed the “you-too” fallacy let me answer your objection.

Look at the very title of the debates that presuppositionalism have as opposed Evidentalists “Does [a] God exist?” Phil Fernandez vs. Eddie Tabash 2009. “Is there a God” Denish D’Souza vs. Christopher Hitchens 2010. Whereas the presuppers, “The Triune God of Scripture Lives.” White vs. Dan Barker 2008 and the one we went to in person, “Does the Triune God of the Bible Exist?” White and Durbin vs. Clark and Ellis. Notice how the folks in my camp are the only ones interested in including the triune nature of God whereas your guys are arguing for a minimalist “kinda abrahamic god” your arguments could and have been used by Jews (Ben Shapiro, Maimonides) and Muslims (Shabir Ali, and the word Kalam is Arabic for a reason. William Lane Craig’s signature argument is ISLAMIC [genetic fallacy]) to prove the existence of Allah and a unitarian god.

The reason we are the only ones who are worried about making the Trinity a key issue and put it right in the title of the challenge is that the Trinity is the ONLY worldview that makes sense of morality and rationality. If we are concerned with grounding objective morality in a “maximally great being” I think we can agree that loving someone and sharing are both objectively good. Well, as Richard Swinburne has demonstrated the only way for God to be love, the only way for him to share His glory is on the trinitarian view. The trinity is necessary for morality. Likewise and admittedly this argument will be underdeveloped but I believe we can agree that to some extent discourse is necessary for rationality. Well if God is “one” in the unitarian sense, then who does God have rational discourse with? To Whom does he reason? The Trinity might be necessary for rationality. (Maybe the proper road to have taken here would have been to say that because in the presupp camp are the only ones that assert the authority of Scripture from the onset of dialogue and since Scripture says “the logos (logic, reason) was with God and the Logos (reason, logic) was God.” in other words the passage that gives us the grounding of rationality also gives us the second person of the Trinity and therefore the Bible itself inextricably links reason to the trinity. I’m open to correction and dialogue on this point.)

Now please let me go a step further than we do in typical debates with unbelievers. I want to make a basic sketch for the case that the trinitarian view is not only necessary for the knowledge of morality, not only necessary for rational knowledge but the trinity is necessary for knowledge itself. This little venture into epistemology will be brief because you know that I’m not the best philosopher among us, my area is ancient history and Biblical studies but let me make this point as eloquently and summarized as I possibly can. As we discussed the other day there is the age-old problem of “the one and the many” this has been a question that has plagued philosophers since the time of the Greeks Parmenides of Elea and Heraclitus of Ephesus. Parmenides was a fan of the many, saying the universe is nothing but diversity separate disconnected elements that have no unifying trait. Heraclitus, on the other hand, believed the universe was fundamentally one and unified by some abstract, ethereal “thing” that gave reason and purpose to all the things (he famously calls this unifying aspect, the logos which along with the Old Testament use of the term ‘Word of God’ form the background for John’s use of the term). The problem of the one and the many describes situations where we have to compare two things that seemingly have nothing in common, example let’s compare the Atlantic Ocean and a sack of potatoes. We most likely find ourselves short on words when thinking this question over. One is a vast body of water and one is a bag of tubers dug up out of the ground what exactly is the unifying element here? Well, that is exactly the problem, because these two things, as different as they are, must have something in common otherwise it would be completely impossible to compare them. At the very least they have limited essence and existence in common. OK so in order for human knowledge to be possible at all we encounter a similar problem when pondering an object like say a tree, we must have knowledge of what a tree is (what unifies them, the oneness) but we have to know exactly what it is about the particular tree in question that separates it from the concept of trees in general (the unique aspects, the manyness). Many have pondered over these odd features of the universe for centuries, the question is, fundamentally, what is the primary in the universe? Is it oneness or manyness and why is it that it seems both are primary at the same time and in the same way. The Christian Trinity solves the problem pretty nicely by saying that oneness and manyness are part of the Universe’s fundamental ontology. God is one being in the many (3) persons and therefore oneness and manyness are both equally primary in reality and this is how we can have knowledge of anything at all. Here is the thing though Gil, there is no evidentialist argument that could make a person come to see this because you have to have the triune God as a brute fact of the universe in order to explain oneness and manyness at all. Do you see what I am trying to say? Knowledge itself is impossible without starting from the trinity so epistemology itself is presupposationalistic.

Gil I’m sorry but your complaining demonstrates that you haven’t done the most basic level of reading in presuppositionalism. If the totality of your study into this topic is just the one debate we went to, a clip or two from the Dividing Line, and maybe a debate with your pastor and myself, then you simply need to do some further reading! Some great scholars have written works on this topic. I suggest starting with the fathers of the movement; the Apostle Paul then Cornelius Van Til and then moving on to some of Van Til’s students such as Greg Bansen to get a better, full-orbed view of this topic.

GIL’S REBUTTAL

Wow, you definitely didn’t withhold any punches here 

First, I think it’s just not true that classical apologetics puts man on a pedestal as if it puts God at the mercy of man’s judgment. Rather, it is man that must subject their thoughts to His thoughts. We do that by destroying every high minded argument that raises itself against the knowledge of God using natural revelation. Your objection to natural theology is like objecting to science, “You are making man the judge and arbiter of truth!” when this isn’t the case. The function of science is to *discover* truth, not to determine it. Water is H20 regardless of what anyone says. The same holds true for all the arguments given by classical apologists. It is man that must submit to God’s truth that is already known by them in some way… That is the function of classical arguments. I’ll respond more later after I workout.

Part 2: I don’t let them steal anything. They can’t make sense of existence, causation, teleology, contingency, or even reason itself without God (c.f. Victor Reppert’s argument from reason). Many classical apologists have made use of these arguments to challenge atheists. We don’t need to assume Christianity’s true, we can prove that it is true from the very fact that things exist at all. Now we don’t start with a Trinitarian view right away, but we conclude with it. Once we prove monotheism, that eradicates thousands of religions as being *the* true religion. After this, we investigate the moral law and find ourselves to be universally corrupt. Any religion that denies this is false. We know this from the law that was placed in our hearts. We also discover that God is Being Itself (I AM) via philosophy, so any religion that is true is going to not only be consistent with natural revelation, it is going to go beyond it at times given our limited knowledge. We see that Christianity is exactly consistent with this, and we see that God has thereby proven Himself over and over by His works and prophecies throughout Scripture. We know the resurrection and the empty tomb are true beyond a reasonable doubt, so we can know that the Trinity is true beyond a reasonable doubt as well because the resurrection vindicates the claims of Jesus. We’re not happy just leaving it at a generic God. We are aiming at proving a Trinitarian God. That’s always the goal. I do like the “One and the Many” argument. I also find arguments on the basis of reason or love that there must be a Triune being rather appealing. But when you do that, you’re engaging in metaphysics. You’re not just presupposing your view, you are proving it from reason and that’s exactly what classical apologists have been doing. You appeal to Richard Swinburne and he himself is an evidentialist, thus showing that evidentialism is not opposed to critiquing other views from the ground up like presuppositionists do. So really, I think we agree more than you think.

MY OWN REBUTTAL
We do agree more than i think. Here Is the thing, your starting point is, what have the scholars said and my starting point is what did God say? Do you think Jesus would quote Plato or Philo? Not so bro he quoted God and I quote God. I follow the God of Abraham, God of Issac, and God of Jesus Christ. Not of the philosophers and scholars.

The first third of your response is a waste of words. Why are you explaining the evidentialist approach to me? Gil I was one of you. I know your approach is to narrow down “there is no god” to “there might be a little g god” and then finally to “there is a big G God”. The very problem is this gap is way too large to jump without a lot of supplemental material. What God do your arguments prove? You dishonor God when you accidentally lead people to faith in Allah.

We live in a busy and distracted world, you have little time with any given person in an exchange and starting from a place of authority seems far better to me. Starting with, “God exists and you have sinned and you know it” cuts out the fat and gets to the core with the precious moments that anyone is willing to give to you. Do you think the Apostles met Pagans and the Jews half-way? No, they honored God by setting apart Christ as Lord in their heart and putting his authority and revelation at the center of their proclamation. You can’t meet them half-way because there is no middle ground. Gil, I know that God is the I am (elf-existent) from the Scripture. What do you mean we find this in philosophy? See again the problem is your worldview and your theology is shaped primarily by what the philosophers say. Not the Scripture. Go read James again, you dishonor God when you cast your lot with earthly wisdom. I don’t care that you think the Ressurection and trinity are true beyond a reasonable doubt. I know they are true because God has said so. And I know the Scripture is true because it knows me, my heart and this human condition better than I ever could. I don’t need your supplemental beyond reasonable doubt arguments because I don’t have doubts. I believe what God said in revelation and I know His revelation because I cannot know (anything) without Christianity. I don’t care if your goal is proving the trinitarian God because I know most people you evangelize to are not attending weekly theology lectures and will most likely not be going along the ride to get to your final goal. You likely have one chance to dialogue with most strangers. I don’t care what your defense of God is because God doesn’t need us to defend Him. His existence is obvious by the world he has created and the law in our hearts and all I need to do is talk to an unbeliever for 10 minutes before they start contradicting naturalism and subjectivism. There is no such thing as a consistent Naturalistic Atheist or Moral Subjectivist. They all inadvertently steal from the Bible to make their beliefs make sense.

“You appealed to Swinburn, therefore, evidentialism” is akin to me saying, you quote the Bible therefore presuppositionalism.

We will have to agree to disagree that I’m doing metaphysics because I think I’m just doing Biblical exegesis

Gil Had no further responses after this.

So what do you all think? Who carried this debate better? Did you learn anything about either the Evidantalist or Presuppositionalist perspectives?

My grandparents raised me. They gave me everything in life, took me in literally off the streets and gave me every opportunity at a decent life. A few months before her death Grandma asked me, look after my Grandpa if anything happened to her.

The first day after Grandpa sold all his possessions, berried his wife of 64 years and moved out of his home of 40 years I was with him at the new care home. It was time for me to leave at the end of the night and he said “I’ve lost everything, even you.”

The next day after work I went by his room again. I told him “now don’t expect me every day but I’ll come by as often as I can to make the change easier. But again when I get busy it can’t be everyday.” So naturally I wasn’t there every single ‘ day thereafter.

I started helping him pay bills. Going to the bank for him. Shopping. Redecorating the room every so often. I took over driving him to appointments. I learned his medical issues inside out and was answering all the doctors questions for him by his final emergency room visit. On his worst days I helped dress him, on his best days I took him out to eat. I viewed my job as not to save his life or replace his saintly wife but rather to help him die comfortable and with some his dignity still intact.

In complete honesty I should have and could have done more for my Grandma. Because she was in a care facility I came to neglect her assuming the facility would do better for her than her family. With Grandpa though I know to my core I did everything I could for him. He was in the hospital because I took him. I convinced him to stay. I called and visited every day this week.

Exactly a year ago when his heart first started having problems I took him to the ER where he was admitted. That night I got a call from the hospital at 1 AM. Grandpa was having problems with his lungs and they wanted me to know he might not make it through the night. I put my shoes on and went to spend the night at the hospital.

I walked into his room and he was awake. He loomed up at me from the bed and through is fluid filled lungs he gapsed and wheezed at me and said “they…. Say….. I’m dying….. bull.” That’s the kind of man he was. Stubborn to fault and he wouldn’t believe any one on anything no matter if they were an expert or not.

He survived that night. They assured me he’d die by the end of the weekend so I called all the relatives to come out and see him. He went home Monday. But they said he would be gone by 6 months. For weeks I babied him and insisted he be extra careful and forced him to follow the doctors advice to a t.

Finally he got sick of arguing with me be bought an oxygen meter and proved to everyone that his O2 levels were good enough to not need his oxygen tank. Within a week he was back to walking on his own (with a cain) and a week after that they took him off of hospice.

Grandpa faced the grim reaper and won many times in his life. This was the same man who years before even my father was born was berried alive in an accident and told he’d never walk again or regain use of both arms. He did. That’s the kind of man he was.

So I knew it was for sure his time when I walked into his hospital room on last Thursday and he looked at me and said, ” I’m waiting to die. I’m sick of sitting here being useless.” To him his personhood came from his independence. When I took him to the hospital last week he refused to use a wheelchair and hobbled along at a glacial pace to get to the doctor. That’s the kind of man he was.

So when he told me he was waiting to die I knew it was ending soon. He had proved his point by surviving a year longer to the day than they gave him and he had set his stubborn dial to the task of dying. Part of me also likes to think that he held on so long for my sake too. I never told him how bad my struggle got, even when it came to me living out of my car. I refused to put my burdens on him because that’s the kind of man I want to be. I hope he knows that having him in my life is the only reason I kept going for so long.

Sitting with him Thursday night he said the same thing to me three separate times about wanting to die because he’d become useless. I assured him over and over he was valuable to me for who he was not what he could do or his “usefulness”

I asked him if he had seen anyone. I thought he might see, his dad, his brother, or my Grandma. These spectral visits are a sure sign that someone is about to pass away. He hadn’t seen anyone at all yet. Then the most incredible thing that could have happened did.

He asked me “why won’t Jesus take me.” I knew clear as day what God was doing here. I teared up a little and said “well let me ask you this, Do you trust him? Do you trust that what he did on the cross was enough? You can’t be good enough, you know?” Followed a quick summation of the gospel message which Grandpa followed along with. I had been working on this for the better part of a year. For God to open up Grandpa’s very stubborn heart at the end is the greatest of all gifts in this situation.

I asked him if he wanted me to go or stay and he said a few minutes longer. We sat in silence for another hour. At the end I took his hand and told him I needed to go and then he said the words that broke me…
“OK goodbye.” We both knew.

I started sobbing. Put my head on his and said, “If you see Grandma soon will you tell her I love her and I miss her and its not the same without her?” I told him I loved him and to fight as long as he could. He told me not to cry.

I went home. Saturday morning he died in his sleep.

Thank you Jesus.

A well respected pastor named John Macarthur recently set the internet on fire with two words directed at Beth Moore: “Go home.” Outside of the church, we see the rise of radical feminism (see our writing on this) advocating for pro-death and anti-male ideologies. Any other notion of womanhood is immediately taken to be sexist. It seems then that in today’s world more than ever, a proper biblical view of feminism is necessary to correct errors that come within and without the Christian community. The goal of this article is to provide an exegetical examination of key biblical texts and hopefully provide a balanced perspective on the issue.

If I was asked to state my view in a few words I would summarize the stance of Dr. Michael Heiser with, “there is a case to be made either way and to be honest I don’t see why I should care.” I do think it is important to note that people who are against women pastors should not be painted as sexist, nor should those who support women pastors be painted as liberalizing Scripture. That’s uncharitable because both sides wish to stay true to what the Scripture teaches. It is God who decides what the proper role of His creation should be. Just as men cannot give birth, so too it may be the case that woman cannot preach. It is a fact that men and women are different in important and meaningful ways and it could be the case that this is just one of those differences. So if woman aren’t allowed to preach, or the Bible does not rule it out, then we should follow the evidence where it leads.

The Issue
The question is usually phrased as, “Can women do ministry?” but in reality, the question is actually “Can women be pastors?” No reasonable person thinks women cannot be involved in ministry of any kind. Childcare, women’s Bible studies, or other supportive roles in the church are obviously kinds of ministries. The question then is, what does the Bible teach? Part 1 of this series will consider 1 Timothy 2:8-15, with special attention paid to 2:12. Fair warning: this will get technical. Afterwards, in Part 2 we will take a look at what I have often called “The Feminism Chapter”or Romans 16. Then finally in the last (planned) part of this series, we will examine the Biblical view of women in general from equality with men to the role in family and more. So without further ado, let’s get to it.

1 Timothy and its Context
1 Timothy is a letter the Apostle Paul writes to his disciple Timothy, who he thinks of as a son. Timothy was on a mission to the church in Ephesus. Ephesus had been infiltrated by people teaching false ideas that were so bad, Paul described them as “doctrine of demons” [1], which were advanced by people like Hymenaeus and Alexander [2]. Their false teachings included myths, endless genealogies [3] and forbidding certain foods [4]. We know specifically that part of their false teaching had to do with the relationship between men and women because Paul mentions they were forbidding marriage in 1 Timothy 4:3.

As Paul is instructing Timothy, he gives these words:

8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (ESV)

Now many scholars who are against women in pastoral and teaching roles find this verse to be pretty clear (at least it seems so in English). Women are not supposed to teach or have authority over men. Many use context to say that Paul is talking specifically about Church life, that means there can still be women school teachers and government leaders. More scholars would say specifically that women are not to teach Christian doctrine to men but could still be women’s or children’s ministers. This opposition would also say that Paul is not citing his personal opinion or a cultural limitation caused by the situation going on in Ephesus. They, who include Dr. James White [5] (my favorite Calvinist), argue that because Paul cites the creation story of Genesis 1 he is, therefore, making the case that this teaching is to have a universal application – this is how God wanted it from the beginning and forever after. This argument is similar to when we argue against plural marriage by pointing to Genesis and the pattern of marriage God established which we know to be the prototype for the rest of humanity. We will revisit this point about Paul citing the created order later on. 

For a long time, I must admit that I didn’t think too critically about my view of women being ministers. I honestly just thought of the positive examples of women ministers in Scripture (more on this in Part 2) and I was comfortable with the “cultural” explanation for 1 Timothy 2:12. Later on after hearing the argument about the created order, I still didn’t find reason to doubt my prior view (again because of the positive examples) but I placed a question mark over the whole passage and said I would look deeper into it one day. When preparing to write this article I’ve given myself a headache by finally taking that closer look at this passage. I’m comfortable to say that this passage has a lot of questions that hang over it and the real meaning is not as clear as it appears in English Bible translations. Andrew Wilson, teaching pastor at Kings Church London, offers 12 possible readings of the 12 words in this one verse [6].

Subjectivity Or Ad Hoc-ness
The first issue when trying to understand the meaning of this verse is the possibility that Paul could be citing a personal opinion and not God’s command. Paul on occasion would give his personal take on a topic that is not meant to be seen as universal. An example of this is 1 Corinthians 7 verses 10 and 12 where Paul is careful to separate his own thoughts from the command of God with the phrases “give this command (not I, but the Lord)” and “To the rest, I say this (I, not the Lord)”

Such a situation is a result of the confluent inspiration of Scripture. Scripture is the product of God through man. But the Holy Spirit did not take over the authors’ hands as Scripture was being written, rather it can be thought of more as a partnership of God and human. The authors’ life experiences and unique vocabulary are still present in the final product and this necessarily means that on occasion a degree of personal opinion comes into the text as well. 

But what are the clues that in this particular instance Paul is speaking in his own opinion? Well just on the surface of it, without looking at the Greek, Paul uses the words “I desire” to frame this whole section. At least to me reading as a native English speaker in the 21st century, Paul is saying what he wants to see happen in the community at Ephesus. This then carries on with the first person phrase “I do not permit” it is of course still possible that Paul is citing his preference but also intends it to be common practice for all time. 

A second clue about the limited nature of this verse is to be found in the particular word used at the beginning epitrepō (permit).  Epitrepō is consistently used in the New Testament in an ad hoc sense of asking for permission or allowing. This point is made pretty well by Jeff Niehaus of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary [7] in a debate on this topic.  Niehaus brings up the scene where Jesus epitrepō (permits) a legion of demons to leave a possessed man and enter a group of pigs. “Jesus is not commanding all demons to enter all pigs in this case.” If Paul meant 1 Timothy 2:12 to be a directive for all time the more appropriate word to use here would have been paraggelia, which is used elsewhere in this very same writing (1 Timothy 1:3, 5, 18; 4:11; 5:7; 6:13, 17). 

A Particular Man and Woman
Another awkward feature of this passage is the switch from men/women in general (plural) in 1 Timothy 8-10 to man and woman (singular, maybe particular) it almost appears Paul has in mind a specific man and woman who he’s directing his statement towards. There is the possibility that there is a particular married couple behind Paul’s writing in 1 Timothy 2:11-12, 15. Marg Mowczko (who is a major source that I utilized for this writing) says this. [8]

…perhaps verses 11 and 12 and 15 are speaking about an anonymous woman, like “Jezebel” who was teaching and leading astray Christians in the church at Thyatira (Rev. 2:20). Whether a wife or not, Paul’s remedy is that a woman must learn . . . quietly (1 Tim. 2:11).

The space between teaching and authority.
This next section is scaring me even right this moment as I form the words and scan through my outline. We are likely going to get very into the weeds talking about Greek vocab words, syntax and you will likely learn a few technical terms from New Testament studies. So get ready because we will spend a lot of time discussing the space between “teach” and “authority”

The first question to consider here is did Paul mean the words didaskein (to teach) and authentein (have authority (more on this word to come)) to have a positive or negative connotation? In linguistics, denotation means the dictionary definition of a word (a rat refers to the rodent creature) but connotation is the associations the word brings to mind but are not necessarily part of the definition (e.g, calling a person a rat – negative connotation – you’re calling them dirty and other insults). If didaskein and authentein have a negative connotation then Paul is only forbidding women from teaching FALSELY and STEALING (LORDING, CONTROLLING) authority. But if these words are positive that means he is saying that women cannot teach men or have authority over them at all. In the former case, Paul is correcting a bad set of circumstances in the latter, he is giving a universal command.

Andreas Köstenberger professor of New Testament and director of Ph.D. studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has written the definitive work on this topic [9]. Köstenberger takes a look at the Greek the word oude (or) which is the conjunction that connects didaskein and authentein. After analyzing 100 parallel uses both in the Bible and in other Ancient Greek literature Kostenberger has virtually proved that oude was always used to connect like verbs. This means that in this passage Paul either means the verbs to be both positive or both negative but not positive and negative. Despite being challenged by feminist scholars like Philip Payne, Köstenberger has rebutted and his findings stand with authority [10]. The significance is that if we can prove that either of these verbs has a certain connotation, like a math equation, this would also prove that the other verb has the same connotation. 

Kostenberger who is against women preaching and teaching goes on to argue that didaskein (to teach) usually has a positive connotation in the Pastoral Epistles and this leads him to conclude that authentein must also be positive. Therefore Paul is forbidding woman from teaching and preaching in the universal sense. But on the other hand if one could show that authentein inherently has a negative connotation then it could be shown that women teaching and preaching is only forbidden in a negative way. And thus we have to go on a complicated road trip before we come back to the space between didaskein and authentein.

What exactly does authentein mean?

Authentein is a strange word choice on the part of the Apostle. This is not the usual word for “authority,” that word would be exousia. Finding the precise meaning of this word is difficult because authentein is a New Testament hapax legomenon. If you’ve read my writing on tattoos from several years ago you will remember that a hapax legomenon is Greek for “(Something) said (only) once.” Over time the meaning of words is lost or change and at times it is necessary to compare uses of the same word to get a better idea of what the word means in different contexts. The issue is authentein is only used once in the Bible and so we have to look at other works of Ancient Greek to get a sense of this word’s full meaning and meaning at the time of Paul (since the meaning of words can change with time).

The word authentein may originally be related to the concrete noun authentēs, which in Classical Greek meant “to kill a family member” and later (in the Hellenistic Period) came to mean murder, mastermind. [11].

There are rare examples of the word authentein being used around the time of Paul. Only 9 such examples are known including 1 Timothy 2:12. And of these 9 only 6 are for sure because in three of these cases the documents are damaged (they are ancient after all) and scholars speculate that the word authentein would fit the context. I am including a useful table I found that shows the 6 examples of authentic alongside translations given by some well-known scholars. [12]

What is clear here is that there is little agreement on this word. The only unanimous translation seems to be that when Ptolemy uses it he means to dominate. What is clear also is that authentein has a number of possible meanings so the traditional reading “to have authority over” is not the single and/or most obvious use of the word.

Notice also that every instance of the word could easily be read with negative connotations. This may be a gross overstatement by me since the evidence we do have is so limited but it appears that maybe the typical use authentein is in the negative. If this case could be made stronger with additional research, it would (a la Kostenberger) go a long way to show what Paul really meant in this passage. Also, one must ask if this word is meant to be positive in the first place. Why were translations such as domineer (negative) and usurp authority (negative) ever accepted as reasonable?

There is also a very interesting feature of authentein. It appears to have an element of self-reference and this will be important later when I propose an alternative translation of this word. As noted by Jamin Hubner [12],

“When one studies the morphology of authenteō/authentein, taking notice of the initial morpheme, a striking pattern among similar NT words emerges: 

authadēs = “self-satisfied”
authairetos = “of one’s own accord” 
automatos = “by itself”
autarkeia = “self-sufficiency”
autarkēs = “self-sufficient”
autokatakritos = “self-condemned” 
autocheir = “with one’s own hand” 

So what does this all mean? Can I just make the suggestion that if Paul uses an unusual word, maybe just maybe, he was addressing an unusual circumstance? What is clear is that while we have a decent idea of what this word means, there are aspects of it that still elude us and we cannot be completely certain why Paul chose to use this term. To me, however, this word alone puts a big question mark on women being pastors and it seems foolish to build a strong doctrine off of an obscure verb.

Please don’t hear me saying that because we lack of information on one term that we should permit something that many would have a problem with. What I am saying is can we have a little bit of grace and admit there is room for nuance? I’m asking some of you to tolerate (or treat as a secondary issue) female preachers based on the ambiguity in the text. Later on, I hope to make a case for accepting women preachers and not just tolerating them but this is coming in part two. For now, let’s go back to that space between didaskein and authentein for one last exploration of this troublesome gap.

Is There a Hendiadys in 1 Timothy 2:12
Another difficult aspect of 1 Timothy 2:12 is whether or not Paul intended to include a hendiadys to link teaching to authentein. A hendiadys is Greek for “one through two” and it describes a figure of speech that is a compound concept [13]. In English, we have compound words, (remember from elementary school?) such as moonlight and classroom, one word made out of two other words. Similar to this a hendiadys is when two words are used to describe one concept. An example is Mark 11:24 where the Greek text literally says “whatever you pray and ask” but the two words (pray and ask) get joined to communicate one concept and translated as “whatever you ask in prayer.” The significance is that if teaching and authentein are connected then one word would qualify the other. That is to say it would be a specific set of conditions where women are not allowed to teach, not a universal prohibition.

So does 1 Timothy 2:12 contain a hendiadys? This question has been greatly debated. Scholars like Philip Payne have tried to make the case that when the Greek words ou(k), oude, and alla appear together in a sentence, as they do in 1 Timothy 2:12, it is always a hendiadys. But Payne’s claim has been met with a lot of skepticism [14]. The consensus is that Payne’s arguments are inconclusive at best and pretty weak.

The problem is that the typical and accepted construction of a hendiadys is when the word is connected by the Greek conjunction kia (and) the argument is that in order to be a hendiadys the sentence should be verb kia verb.  It is argued that oude (or) was never used to form hendiadyses and of course as we have already seen the conjunction that links didaskein (to teach) to authentein is oude. Notice also how the verbs that are being linked to form one larger idea are right next to one another in the typical construction. Some also argue that because didaskein (to teach) and authentein are separated by five words in Greek, it is impossible to consider this a hendiadys.

For all the debate back and forth on kia being necessary to link these two concepts, there is at least one possible example in Ancient Greek that uses oude to form a hendiadys. The Greek historian Polybius who lived 200 years before Paul and Jesus seem to create a conceptual link with the word oude instead of kia [15]. I simply bring this up as a possibility but I won’t get into the ins and outs of this passage. Just know that is accepted by some that this is a case of oude hendiadys but it’s hardly a settled issue [16]

However, there is a deeper challenge to discuss. If 1 Timothy 2:12 does not hold a hendiadys, then only authentein is grammatically linked to men but not to didaskein (to teach). We discussed subject-verb agreement in my third part in the series on Demonology called, “Origins of the Demons Revisited.” What I said there is that the Greek language has different forms verbs can take. Often times, to know what an author of Scripture is writing about, the case of a verb has to match the case of the subject. In 1 Timothy 1:12 men is linked to authentein but the case for didaskein (to teach) doesn’t match. [8]  So if there is no hendiadys, then Paul is not saying women cannot teach men. The prohibition against women teaching is not about men at all without the link. 

There is no “over”
Just a final comment on the space between didaskein (to teach) and authentein there is no word “over” [17] in Greek but it often gets included in English translations as a “helping word” to make the passage clearer to us. The inclusion of the word isn’t necessarily incorrect but also one has to question its inclusion to qualify authentein when as we have seen there is a range of meanings for the word. 

To originate man
For the last section of this article, I want to offer up a proposed translation of 1 Timothy 2:12 that is given by Catherine Kroeger founder of the organization Christians for Biblical Equality. Now I am going to be honest with you dear reader. There are certain strengths to this translation but there may be more weaknesses. Grammatically speaking, it is hard to make the case that this was Paul’s intended interpretation but to its credit, this translation seems to naturally fit the context of this passage and could make much sense of the cultural challenges the Church was facing at Ephesus. 

There are examples both before the New Testament and afterward of the word authentein meaning “the originator of.” As was noted above, there is an aspect of the semantical domain of authentein that is self-referential and self-authenticating. This can also be seen in authentein‘s relationship with the English word authentic. If a baseball card is authentic, it is original. 

The famous Greek Grammarian, Aristonicus of Alexandria, [19] writing in the year 27 BC, used a form of the word authentein as an articular participle. [20] In this form the phrase can be translated “the author of the message,” “the one self-accomplishing the speech” or “the originator of the speech.”

A few hundred years after the time of Jesus and Paul some of the Church Fathers also use the word in a similar way. Eusebius of Caesarea, the first Christian Historian (not including Luke) used authentein to mean “to begin something, to take the initiative, or to be primarily responsible for it” in writing about the creative activities of God. The great theologian Athaniaus who defended the Trinity during the Arian debate says we should have grace for those Christians who defected under compulsion but had not themselves instigated (authentein) the problem. [21]

Commenting on Kroeger’s theory, Mowczk makes the point that this meaning for authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 isn’t impossible but is a grammatical stretch. 

If authentein does mean “to be the originator/author” then the statement in 1 Tim 2:12 would read, “I am not allowing a woman to teach nor to be the originator/author of a man . . .” Too many extra, helping words are needed to make the statement, “I am not allowing woman to teach nor to claim she is the originator of man . . .”  [11]

But if 1 Timothy 2:12 has a hendiadys and if authentein means “originator” the meaning could become, “I am not allowing a woman to teach that she is the originator of man.” Now take a look at what this meaning does to 1 Timothy 2:12-14

12 I am not allowing a woman to teach that she is the originator of man she should remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 

Paul was Correcting Early Gnostic Lies
Gnosticism was a heretical branch of Christianity that started cropping up as early as the New Testament. 1 John was written to correct the beginnings of Gnostic teaching. This group was a blend of Pagan, Christian and Jewish ideas and they were famous for writing fake Scripture to support their views. Gnostics twisted everything from Genesis to the Cross to support weird ideas.

Gnostic writings had very distorted views of Eve’s relationship to Adam. The Apocalypse of Adam (written between AD 50-150) claims that Eve taught Adam the “word of knowledge of the eternal God.” The Gospel of Philip (between 180 and 250 AD) says that Adam was born from two virgins one of whom was Eve. Eve gave birth to Adam. The Hypostasis of the Archos is a commentary on Genesis 1-6 (between 200-300 AD) in it Adam says that he was given life by Eve. This commentary also says that the serpent was a “teacher” who was taking orders from a kind of goddess. The Origin of the World (270 to 330) has Eve claiming to be the first virgin who without a husband gave birth to her first child. Here Adam also states that Eve is the daughter of Sophia the female “divine force” and it was Eve who created him.

Most of these works were written after 1 Timothy but as is often the case, those ideas were probably around for a long time before they got written down. There are clues in 1 Timothy itself that it is being written to correct early Gnostic ideas and the Church Fathers (who likely had more information than us because their lives were only 100-200 years after). Irenaeus (author of Against Heresies), Tertullian (an early Charismatic), and Eusebius (First Christian Historian) all said that 1 Timothy sounded like it was addressing the Gnosticism that existed in their life. [22] Ephesus was also the center of worship of the Pagan Artemis (Acts 19) that includes temple prostitution, female priestesses distorting the Word of God, worship of the divine feminism. These are all things that would have made Ephesus an incubator for Gnostic distortions of Adam and Eve.

I really favor this translation because it nicely addresses Paul’s citation of the Genesis creation order while still making sense of the limited, subjective language in 1 Timothy 2:12. It would not be a foreign interpretation to the context of the passage and cultural situation of the day. But in all fairness, more scholarship needs to be paid to this theory before it can ever become a consensus interpretation.

Conclusion

My genuine hope is that whatever view you bring to the question of females being pastors, you have found this examination of 1 Timothy 2 to be fair and honest to the text. I hope that I have spelled out many of the difficulties involved with translating and understanding this passage. I hope that we are open enough with ourselves to see that this passage is difficult to use to build a strong doctrine against women teaching men in a universal sense. I’ve at least given some a reason to consider tolerating ladies in leadership. Now that we have examined the case against women preaching or teaching, the next part of this series I will seek to take a look at the positive case for women leaders from the Scripture and from history.

---

Footnotes

[1] 1 Timothy 4:1
[2] 1 Timothy 1:20
[3] 1 Timothy 1:4
[4] 1 Timothy 4:3
[5] White, James R. Pulpit Crimes: the Criminal Mishandling of God’s Word. Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006.
[6[ “Twelve Words, Twelve Interpretations: 1 Timothy 2:12.” What You Think Matters, 1 Feb. 2012, https://thinktheology.co.uk/blog/article/twelve-words-twelve-interpretations-1-timothy-212.
[7] Egelatarian vs Supplementarian, YouTube, 18 Nov. 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chSsWbkUWrY&t=3438s.
[8] Mowczk, Marg. “6 Reasons 1 Timothy 2:12 Is Not as Clear as It Seems.” Marg Mowczko, Marg Mowczko, 17 Sept. 2019, https://margmowczko.com/1-timothy-212-not-as-clear/.
[9] Köstenberger Andreas J., and Thomas R. Schreiner. Women in the Church: an Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Crossway, 2016.
[10] A. kostenberger. “Was I Wrong on 1 Timothy 2:12?” Biblical Foundations, 14 Aug. 2017, https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/was-i-wrong-on-1-tim-212/.
[11] “The Meaning of Authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12, with a Brief History of Authent– Words.” Marg Mowczko, 2 Aug. 2019, https://margmowczko.com/authentein-1-timothy2_12/.
[12] Translating (authenteō)in 1 Timothy 2:12 Jamin Hübner https://www.cbeinternational.org/sites/default/files/pp292_4tai1t-2.pdf
[13] “Figures of Speech – Hendiadys (Two for One).” Truth Or Tradition? 5 June 2014, https://www.truthortradition.com/articles/figures-of-speech-hendiadys-two-for-one.
[14] Scott. “Hendiadys and 1 Tim 2:12.” Hendiadys and 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Jan. 1970, http://the27.blogspot.com/2008/05/hendiadys-and-1-tim-212.html.
[15] Polybius History 1.74.5.3
[16] a forum thread of Greek students discussing Polybius Oude. Some agreeing, many not
https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=63073
[18] 1 Timothy 2:12 in the original Greek language.
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/1_timothy/2-12.htm
[19] ARISTONICUS ALEXANDRINUS, ON THE SIGNS OF THE ILIAD I.694 (9.694)
[20] A participle with an article before it gives the participle “the character of a noun.” Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Harvard University Press, 1920, 1984), 454.
[21] Part FIVE: Greek Verb ‘Authentein’ Not to Be Translated ‘Have Authority over.’” Reading 1 Timothy 2:12 in Its Context, 16 July 2013, https://1timothy2.wordpress.com/greek-verb-authentein-not-to-be-translated-have-authority-over/.
[22] Mowczk, Marg The Consesus and Context of 1 Timothy 2:12 July 2, 2014
https://margmowczko.com/the-consensus-and-context-of-1-timothy-212/

Spurred on by the recent events with Shawn McCraney and his followers and in anticipation of some events around the Mormon General Conference coming up, I was inspired to finally write something related to Mormon Studies. This topic specifically is something I’ve been pondering for about two years at this point. So today, as opposed to being an essay that argues for a specific point of view or looks at some esoteric item of the Bible, I’m hoping to set up a dialogue with some of our new readers who were brought in from the recent McCraneyism article.

We need help from folks who are a little more familiar with the topic of Mormonism than myself. Although I have lived in Utah for most of my life and I have studied the topic to an extent, I have to admit that I’m not a great apologist in this area. I lack a lot of first hand knowledge of someone who came out of the Mormon church and I also have not had a lot of in person interaction with active members of the Mormon institution. As I stated in my Church Check, most of what I know about the Mormons comes from Shawn McCraney’s old Heart of the Matter TV show. Heck, I’ve never even read the Book of Mormon (although I do own one and have skimmed it at times). This post is a request for help on this topic.

What Is the Silver Bullet?

If I were to put the goal of this project as a question I would say, “Is there a knock down, bullet proof, one-and-only argument that puts the nail in the coffin for Mormonism?” In other words if Mormonism is a monster from the old scary movies, what’s the silver bullet that has the special power to put it to rest once and for all? 

The idea for this undertaking came to me after hearing a story of a ministry in New York City. The goal of this group was to evangelize to religious Jews. After what must have been a lot of research and discussion about the best way to reach the Jewish community with the message of Jesus, they decided to let the Bible be its own messenger and speak for itself.

The prophecy of the suffering servant contained in Isaiah 53 is very well known by Christians as some of the strongest evidence from the Old Testament about Jesus’ identity as the Messiah from Judaism itself. However as well known as it is to Christians – this passage seems to be almost suppressed by Rabbis today. I’ve heard plenty of anecdotal stories of Jewish kids getting saved and taking Isaiah 53 in their own Hebrew scriptures to their parents to show them Jesus is in the Old Testament. The parents respond that the Christians changed the text to fit the Jesus story and the kids retort “but this is the Tanak YOU gave me!? How could the Christians change it?” Other stories say that when Jewish people are showed Isaiah 53 without any context, they claim it is a passage from the New Testament about Jesus but are then stunned when they discover it is actually from the Old Testament.

So this Ministry in NYC had the very clever idea to run an ad in a local Jewish newspaper and rather than putting forth an argument or a call to repent and believe, they simply put the unedited words of Isaiah 53 in the paper in an attempt to get Jewish people to simply read and consider who this prophecy could possibly be about. This ministry had so much faith that Isaiah 53 was the Jewish silver bullet that they needed no supporting details or commentary. To them the words of Isaiah were all that was needed and the case should be settled.

In the same way, I started wondering if there was maybe, possibly a similar passage, argument or historical fact that could settle the Mormon v. Christian debate for any rational, honest person. Another example: If an atheistic/skeptical person could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they had found the tomb of Jesus and that his remains were still in his tomb, this would be proof that there was no resurrection. In the words of Paul: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor 15:17). This is despite the fact that every new Easter there is some new TV special or News Week article declaring that the tomb of Jesus has been found, but no claims have ever held any water. If they did though, you’d have the Christian Silver Bullet in your gun there.

The best approach for developing this argument would be to boil the difference between Biblical faith and Mormonism down to one or two key issues. What are the main defining features that separates these two belief systems?  As an analogy, in many conversations I’ve had with Catholic family members, all our differences always comes back to one key point of contention: Sola Scriptura. If you can drop the Sola Scriptura domino, the rest of Romanism comes tumbling down with it.

Where to Begin the Quest

It seems this knock-down proof if it exists at all is to be found in the pages of the Mormons’ sacred texts. Too often the Christian technique when conversing with LDS friends is to cite passages in the Bible about their being only one God or Polygmy being bad. Proof texting is not the best approach to these conversations for the simple fact that Mormon don’t believe the Bible’s face-value reading. The LDS Church’s 8th article of faith says “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” They believe that their doctrines were originally part of the Bible but through corruption of the textual tradition and selective editing by the church, these teachings have been lost and therefore the Bible cannot be fully trusted. This is the genius of the approach implemented by the Ministry that ran Isian 53 in the Jewish publication. They used an authority that believing Jews could not possibly deny to show the truth of Jesus. In the same way, a silver bullet argument would not have to first defend the validity and textual transmission of the passage that one wants to use. Rather it would be more fruitful to use Mormon Scripture and prophets, as a source whose validity that religious Mormons cannot possibly deny without being inconsistent with their faith. 

I will devote the rest of the wordspace here to putting forward a first effort at developing the Mormon Silver Bullet by attempting to show that the most often cited LDS justification for their belief in the “one true church” cannot be true if Mormonism is true. This will likely be very rough and need some more development and more sources to document claims, so please bear in mind this is meant to be an ongoing project. 

Mormons Believe the Holy Ghost

In a conversation I once had with a pair of Mormon missionaries, they asked me if I had ever read the Book of Mormon. I told them, “No” they asked why not and I responded “I know history and I know there is no chance of the book being true so I’ve never felt the need to read it.” They told me that I could just ask God if it was true and he would answer. They both told me about their experience of the inner witness of the Holy Ghost telling them that the church is true. 

What these missionaries were referring to was a common practice in the church as initiated by a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants.:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.”

(D&C 9:8-9)

Mormon scripture promises that if someone is wondering if the LDS church is true, all they have to do is pray and they will get some sort of inner sensation, described as a “burning in the bosom.” This inner subjective sensation seems to be the number one technique employed by LDS Missionaries in order to gain new converts. Likewise, from what I have noticed, this is also the reason that most Mormon churchgoers have for believing the Mormon Gospel.

This inner sensation that is supposed to confirm the truth of Mormonism is said to be the work of the Holy Spirit. Now here is the thing, according to Mormonism I do not think the Holy Ghost exists. Let me explain.

Mormons CANNOT Believe in the Holy Ghost

Mormons are grossly materialistic. God is a man with a “spiritual body” made of “refined matter.” God did not create the world (matter) out of nothing. Rather matter already existed, He just imposed a new order on a previously incoherent state. This odd view stands in contrast with the Biblical view. If you’ve been reading the series on demonology in the second entry, What Are Demons Made of, you see that the Bible defines “spirit” as mind. In other words your soul/spirit is not some mystical energy or ethereal light that leaves when you die. Your soul is your mind, you consciousness, your self. It is the thing that you mean when you say “I”. That is what a spirit is.

By this Biblical perspective, God, angels and demons are minds who do not have bodies, they are unembodied consciousness. They are made out of the same stuff that human thoughts are composed of. On this view, when the Bible says God made man in His image and after His likeness, it means He made us conscious beings capable of love, reason and being aware of our world. But to a Mormon when they read “in his image and after his likeness” it means the Moromon god made humankind to look like his own material body by giving us two legs, two eyes, and two hands because he has two eyes, legs and hands. But what about God then? (FYI: Mormons believe the Father, Son and Spirit are all separate gods who are on the same team).

Speaking on the members of the Godhead the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants has this to say in chapter 130 and verse 22, The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

The father has a body, the son has a body but the Spirit is a “personage of spirit” which is supposed to explain how he is able to be “inside” believers. Now I’ll give it to Joseph Smith that he at least realized how crazy it would look if he believed the Holy Spirit also had a body made of flesh and blood that took up space in the universe while dwelling in the hearts of faithful Mormons. But the trouble is Mormons do not believe the Holy Spirit can exist as a personage of spirit. They are monists (the universe is one kind of “stuff”/matter is all that exists) not dualists (the universe is two kinds of “stuff”/spirit and matter both coexist). So how is it that if the Holy Spirit doesn’t have a body of flesh and blood that He can still exist? In what state does this “personage of spirit” exis?. We need a more (pun not intended) fleshed out definition of the ontological status of the Spirit according to LDS doctrine. 

Here’s the catch: If matter is all that exists and the spirit doesn’t have a body such that he is able to dwell in believers, then by definition he must some sort of physical presence. We should be able to find the Mormon holy ghost existing in Mormons by dissecting or weighing them. This is reminiscent of what’s called the 21 Grams experiment where in 1907 physician Duncan MacDougall put dying patients onto a scale and the moment they died he measured how much weight was lost from the scale. He concluded that the soul must weigh 21 grams because that was the average mass lost during the experiment. Now of course this experiment was ambitious but wrong headed. The loss in mass was due to the body losing gas (oxygen, bowl etc). The good doctor assumed that the soul had a physical extent but modern science has virtually proved tha if the soul exists, it MUST be something that is immaterial (not made of matter). 

So in an interesting turn of events, I posit that if the Holy Ghost supposedly gives an inner witness of the truth of Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine proves that the Holy Ghost cannot exist – then Mormonism has no justification. It is self-refuting.

Here we have it my first attempt at offering a knocking down silver bullet argument against Mormonism. Now one could disprove this first version of the argument by showing that Mormons are not as monistic as I claim. Maybe there is an argument which is simplier to explain and maybe a little more fundamental. I look forward to a lot of interaction on this new quest. Please comment on either another version of the Silver Bullet or this initial first stab.

Thank you so much for reading and be blessed brethren

Isaac 

This article has taken an unusually long time to write – even for me, someone who hasn’t updated his supposedly monthly demonology series in nearly 12 months. The reason for my delay being that this is a monstrous topic and I’ve found myself doing way more research than intended and I wanted to include more detail than what has made it in but several rounds of editing has put this thing on a diet.

Origin story
I was casually reading over facebook one morning before work when I came across a post in a Utah Christian group. The post warned members about a new “McCraney-ite tact” by using a website called checkMyChurch.org to cast doubt on the validity of different congregations. I started looking into the website and obviously if it was associated with Shawn McCraney it was going to be a complete mess. In one of his webcasts, McCraney made an off handed comment about how there should be a website that rates of all congregations as good or bad based on his standards. One of his followers, a woman by the name of Sarah Young took his comment to heart and has started this website that is in question. Young claims to be doing “unbiased and biblical reviews” but it doesn’t take much to find that none of this is true. The framework by which she is rating churches is McCraneyism a sub-biblical-at-best doctrinal system taught by McCraney. Moreover this women doesn’t even VISIT the congregations that she is rating. Seeing the clear problems with this tactic I had a fun idea to do a “church check” on the “church” that Young associates herself with. But first I took the egalitarian move of requesting CheckmyChruch.org review the congregation that I myself attend in Ogden, UT.

Flawed Methodology and Broken Theology
The review of my congregation went online in early May and I will not be responding to it here. Rather I will be discussing Ms. Young’s methodology as a whole and interacting with an exchange we had in the comments of her review. You can read my full comments to Ms. Young here. I will simplify it here for the sake of word count.

Me to Young: “‘I didn’t physically attend the […] service at Living Faith Discipleship Community’ Stop. This should be your whole review. How can you “review” something you know nothing about and have never experienced?

Let me review the next Avengers movie for you but I haven’t actually seen it I’m only going to quote reviews I found online. Nonsense.”

Young to Me: “What more could I possibly do besides physically attend an entire service..” Remember there is a lot of context around her comment. Please go read the whole exchange.

Knowing that I was in the process of writing this review I did not reply to Ms. Young’s comment because I didn’t need a flame war at the time. I know for a fact that she will find this post and for that reason let me share what I would have said to her then.

Me Hypothetically to Young: Ms. Young, you are propping yourself above everyone else, acting like you are the sole arbiter of truth, you presume that you know better than anyone else what makes a church biblical and not. Your ego is large and for that I’d expect you to have the common courtesy to walk in the building before you wash your hands of it. It seems to me that God always sent the prophets to places that need truth (eg Jonah and Nineveh). If I was to write a review of C.A.M.P.U.S. MY STARTING POINT would be walking up to Shawn McCraney, shaking his hand and introducing myself.

And that’s exactly what I did.

Now it’s my understanding that according to Ms. Young’s most recent newsletter to CMC subscribers that she finally has left her home for one of these reviews. Good for her, this is an improvement in methodology. If she keeps it up will remain to be seen.

The Check
To be cute I will break the rest of this writing down into subgroups in a similar way to CMC reviews.

WEBSITE REVIEW
Logging on to the C.A.M.P.U.S. website, I was able to navigate to the bottom of the page and find the address and service times. This is all I needed from the website and will not need to go into as much detail as someone who is only, essentially, reviewing church websites.

THE MEETING
It feels very strange to be writing an article criticising Shawn McCraney because I once look up to him as a pastor-type figure. Yes, I used to watch him on TV. Most of what I know about Mormonism came from the original Heart of the Matter program. In fact waaay before there was a WalkingChristian.com I was a contributor to a website known as SCAEMinistries, the first topic I wrote on for them was “A Critique of Mormon Cosmology.” which was largely based on what I learned about the topic from Shawn’s program.  I was watching when he got kicked off TV for criticising church. Then I kind of forgot about him for a time and was reminded of him when Dr. James White (my favorite Calvinist) on his webcast commented on a scandal that had been going on right under my nose. Shawn McCraney had come out publicly and denied the doctrine of the trinity. After debate with many real theologians, apologists and people who care about Shawn he kept going down the same road and found himself way out in the spiritual wilderness. Today he holds to very not Biblical teachings and is therefore a false teacher. (very detailed links provided below).

When I made it down to the C.A.M.P.U.S. meeting location Mr. McCraney was the first one to pull up and I immediately walked up to his car. I offered him my hand and said “You’re Shawn. I used to watch you on TV. I’m Isaac and I came down to check your church.” We talked for a brief moment before entering the building.

OBSERVATIONS
Upon entering and grabbing coffee and a bagel I talked with a few of the congregants for about 20 minutes. One of the members is openly bisexual and looking to practice  – other members told this person they were proud of their decision. Off in the corner Shawn was talking loudly with other members about how he had gotten drunk that Saturday night and been “drunk texting” people. Getting drunk is a sin (Proverbs 20:1; 23:20; 29–32; Isaiah 5:22, Ephesians 5:18) and pastors are called to a higher standard (James 3:1) Another member told me she loved C.A.M.P.U.S because it was an accepting place to be she said she looked at many denominations and couldn’t accept their “Patrichal bull ****” (her words) and finally closed with “I absolutely will not and could never be part of a church that doesn’t accept homosexuality.”

Everyone was very nice and easy to talk to and you could tell their (over) emphasis on love is genuine and that they intend well. When it was time for service I sat down with coffee in hand.

Worship Service

Mr. McCraney introduced the service and welcomed the first time guests, myself and my associate included. Then they launched into the worship, for which they play a pre-recorded song that is simply the words of the day’s passage set to music. So if the passage for consideration on that day was 2 Cor 13 – which it actually was – they will listen to the chapter sung to music three times and have a moment of silence to reflect on its meaning before the sermon is preached. I actually thought this was really great all things considered. It’s no secret that I am a fan of a certain Christian movement that started in China and this practice of scripture-hymns reminded me a lot of prayer-reading as observed by the Chinese believers.

Let me just say as an aside, just because a false teacher or controversial personality originates a practice doesn’t mean the practice is necessarily false, that is the genetic fallacy. So even if Mike Bickel, the LCM or Shawn McCraney teach prayer-reading or scripture-hymns doesn’t mean it’s a fruitless practice. And I thought this worship nethod was pretty cool.

Sermon

Oh boy – this, this has been one of the most complicated things I’ve ever had to write. On the way back home after our visit my associate and I attempted to untangle McCraney’s muddle mess of a sermon we just had the displeasure of sitting through. The only thought running through my head was “Shawn McCraney doesn’t understand the law of non-contradiction.” McCraney is like someone who went through brain surgery and had the two halves of his brain disconnected, one half controls one side of his mouth and the other side controls the rest of his mouth and they both try to speak at the same time. His views make no sense when you try to use them to build a house on the rock – the pieces do not fit together and I can’t understand how he and his followers cannot see this.

Imagine my sense of vindication when I went back and looked at the actual scholars who have interacted with and tried to correct Shawn have noted the same thing that I did. Dr. James White for example provides these comments in an episode of Radio Free Geneva from September 20, 2018 starting at 10:39 “I mean there’s a huge amount of confusion in Shawn’s teaching there’s no question about that but … To use the word ‘confused’ for Shawn McCraney is the understatement of the century.” or another comment from a former follower of Shawn known as Brother Thomas shared this insight in a series of blog articles on the topic, “The bottom line of the whole thing is that Shawn wants to be able to teach whatever he feels like at any given moment, call it ‘real’ Christianity . . . and never have to answer for it.” Brother Thomas, February 13, 2015

Before I interact his sermon I think the greatest contribution that I could possibly make on this topic, is to try and explain to Shawn and all his potential followers what exactly the law of noncontradiction is. Please know I’m not a professional philosopher unlike my colleague Gil Sanders. So I am a dummy trying to dumb this down even further. Here we go. A contradiction is a term used in the study of logic to describe hypothetical situations when two opposing things are true at the same time and in the same way. Example it is raining in Salt Lake City at 12:05 PM on July 2 and it is sunny with a high of 99 in Salt Lake City at 12:05 PM on July 2 cannot both be true at the same time. There is no possible way. In the same way the old question can God (who is all powerul) make a rock so big He can’t lift it. This is a meaningless sentence, you’re essentially asking “can God do something He cannot do?” It’s just words that can have no meaning in objective reality. Likewise Shawn, many of the things you believe contradict other things you believe and therefore you’re theology doesn’t work – you do not believe reality. Why does it matter? Well God is truth is He not? So if we worship He who is the truth then we must love truth in all ways, shapes and forms. Contradictions cannot be truth. It is literally, physically and ontologically impossible to confirm a contradiction. When John writes that “The word was with God and the Word was God.” The word — word in Greek is ‘logos’ and it means logic, reason as well as word. This means Vod by his nature is reason a d logical because hr is the Word and the Word is logic. So God’s true scripture teaches us that God Himself is logic by his nature. So the truth and the doctrines that He reveals to us MUST be logical, otherwise they are not from Him and they are not true. Now that this is out of the way. Let’s get on with it…

In the video above Shawn first begins interacting with 2 Cor 13 at 10:11. Regarding verses 1-2 he provides the following comments.
” This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
“Remember Paul was a jew of jews, he’s citing the old testament and for some reason he is citing this passage […] about witnesses. It’s obvious Paul has been to Corinth once before so he has resolved to going [TO] them a second time. He says this is the third time I’m coming to you, the third time I’m trying to get to you and he suddently cites this passage out of Deut 19:15. Now, we don’t know why he cites this passage here.”

At 13:09 into the video I must pause and say this with all respect and kindness possible… But Shawn what are you smoking, friend? How clear can it be what Paul means. He says “I’m coming to you a third time and like the Scripture says let two or three witnesses establish a truth.” You claiming that scholars don’t know what Paul means by this and spending several minutes postulating all the possible explaniations is just flat out dumb. don’t know how it could be any clearer that Paul considers his first visit and teaching at Corinth to be the first witness, his second visit to be the second witnesses and this final visit to be the last witnesses necessary to establish what he’s saying as true. He’s clearly about to repeat something he’s already said to them and so he cites the Old Testament as a way of validating his third visit and third teaching. Dear reader I hope the meaning of this passage is as clear to you as it is to me.

At 14:11 while still trying to explain verse 1 Shawn makes the off-handed remark that “That apostolic discipline was for them in that age. We don’t have apostolic discipline now except by the Word that we read and the Spirit in our hearts.” Hold this comment in your mind for later.

Shawn spends the next several minutes responding to verse 2 saying that it was the job of the apostles to discipline the church and keep it together in that day and age. He talks about how one of the ways they did this is by excommunication aka not having fellowship with people who are willful hypocrites. At 18:03 he says “we have some churches today that insist on doing this. The reason it doesn’t work today is because if I excommunicate [someone] from this church … all he’s going to do is he’s going to leave and he’s going to go to Calvary Chapel across the street and if they don’t want him he’ll go down the street to the next one.”

A few thoughts, 1) this passage is not about excommunication. 2) if excommunication is taught in the scripture as proper church practice then it is our obligation to God to follow His word regardless of our modern 21st century environment 3) I have been saying for years now that Biblically speaking there is one church in every city. The Church in our community is made out of the churches in our community. The bride of Jesus is the Community of communities and we need to be doing a better job of getting on the same page with clear issues of sin and work together more often to help councel and edify our whole city not just the 10 people in our Sunday school class. /soapbox

At 18:33 “We don’t have apostolic authority keeping the bride together anymore and so this is no longer effective in a non-apostolic church. Which is why we don’t take it just it was part of the NT church and do it now.” Yes we do still have apostolic authority Shawn, it’s called the Bible. Sure we can disagree on secondary issues but if the Bible is the true word of the Living God then if we seek to honor Him and handle his word properly then believers should agree on 98% of things.

In comment on verses 3-4 at 21:20 “Now these are apostolic words to believers at that time so to get what he’s meaning is really tough.” Shawn if the words of Paul have no relevance to us today then what in God’s green earth are you doing? Why are you standing up there “teaching”? Didn’t you yourself say that the Word is binding on us today when you called it our “apostilic authority” back at 14:11 but every time it says something you don’t want to believe you claim “it’s cultural and not for us today.” This is the height of stupidity my friend.

I’m being 100% honest with this question I’m about to ask Shawn and if you happen to read this I’d love to hear your answer in the comments or via email or whatever. Here’s the question, how do you know that Jesus died for your sins? Will you answer it’s in the Bible? Because what’s stopping someone from telling you that “That was cultural for the church in that day. We on the modern day have no hope.” This problems gets even worse when we take into account that you’re a hyper-Preterist who believes the church stopped existing around 70 AD when the second temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. In that context the case gets even stronger that Salvation and the Gospel was only for people living in the Roman Empire in the first century CE. Your view of the Bible, Shawn, cuts off the branch you’re sitting on. You’re only way out is to contradict yourself…. but as we know now contradictions cannot exist.

At 23:03 Shawn says some good stuff about how Jesus was a man – so weak he couldn’t even carry his own cross. God didn’t give us a super man. He came as an ordinary man. These are good comments.

Commenting on V4 at 24:30 Shawn says “…’we also are weak in him’ Now I’d like to apply that to you but I can’t because Paul is talking about the apostles, ‘also’ and ‘we’ he’s talking about the Apostles himself included not the general population.” OK again my friends I want to be as kind as possible but this is just more abject stupidity. What exactly about this passage gives you any indication that Paul is talking about the apostles only in verse 4? Is verse 5, literally the very next sentence not addressed to the ‘general populace?’ so I can’t understand Shawn’s thinking on this whatsoever. Again Shawn is taking a verse and saying it only applies to one group of people at one time in history. So I have to ask again, if it has no relevance to you today, why exactly are you even ‘teaching’ this passage? Here’s an even more direct question, how much of the Bible IS for us today? Can you put a percentage to it? I’m assuming you’d say all of the Old Testament is out, so there goes 85% of all of Scripture. And you keep chopping pieces out of the New Testament. So really what does have practical application for us today. Is it just the gospels? Or are you one of those that say Jesus was teaching law to people under law. In which case is just the passion story for us today? These are questions that you need to answer.

At 26:12 Shawn shows his true self with this comment, “But for this rea Shawn is a univerasalist a position which is so clearly and obviously not Biblical that it’s incredible that people try to push it. Again I have to say to you Shawn if the whole world will be saved why are you doing what you’re doing? What’s the point? Why did you devote so much of your post LDS life trying to convince Mormons of the truth of Christanity? You contradict yourself in thought, word and deed.

For several minutes Shawn goes on somewhat of a tangent and quotes Philippians 2. My only comment here is at 31:09 he says ” that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, ¹¹ and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
So we see that relationship again, in and through God the father working all this in and through Jesus his only son to accomplish for us on our behalf…”
Shawn doesn’t believe the doctrine of the Trinity. Yet he quotes this passge that clearly shows the Father being called God, and the son being called Lord (read God) and but they are not the same person because they interact. And then Shawn goes on to talk about the “relationship” between the Father and Son. Shawn, are you contradictiong yourself again?

Shawn spends some time talking about how we know what we know while commenting on verse 5. I have no comments on this section.

At 42:04 Shawn makes the passing comment “The latter day was Jesus day those were the true latter days we’re not in them now.” Shawn is a hyper-preterist. He believes the whole book of Revelation was fulfilled before the year 70 AD. You have to really wonder why Shawn even bothers with the Bible if he believes even all the future stuff was “for them in that age.” Utter stupidity.

At 42:45 Shawn affirms a version of the doctrine of Assurance. I like John Wesley and I can agree with Shawn’s comments on this.

At 43:26 Shawn says “…if hell exists…” so in the midst of talking about how we can be sure of what we know to be true he also questions a doctine clearly taught in scripture. Contradictions abound with this one.

OK enough I’m ending at 45:00 just a little before two thirds into the sermon. You folks should get the point by now. Let’s move on to my final score…..

Final Ratings
I won’t call them a cult like others have. But Shawn is without a doubt a heretic and needs to read the Bible a lot slower and try to break down some of the big words.

Final Recommendation: Never Attend unless you’re writing a church check!