The State of Theology Survey and Trouble with the Trinity

As I noted in my previous post on the 2025 Ligonier/Lifeway State of Theology Survey, the statement to which most evangelical church members strongly agreed was the one affirming the doctrine of the Trinity:

  1. There is one true God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that responses to two other statements of relevance to the Trinity were not as affirmative.

  1. Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.
  2. The Holy Spirit is a force but is not a personal being.

According to the Survey, 22 percent of evangelical church members strongly agreed, and an additional 12 percent somewhat agreed, with #7, while 31 percent strongly agreed and 21 percent somewhat agreed with #9. Taking into consideration those who said they were unsure, only 62 percent disagreed with #7 and 38 percent with #9. Previous versions of the Survey produced similar results.

The “correct” responses would be to disagree with both statements. Jesus was a great teacher, but he was much more than that—he was God the Son incarnate. It appears to be quite contradictory for 95 percent of evangelical church members to affirm “God the Son” as one of the three divine persons (#2) and for 34 percent of those same respondents to agree that Jesus was not God (#7). Likewise, affirming that God the Holy Spirit is one of “three persons” (#2) seems to be contradicted by agreeing that the Holy Spirit is a force rather than a “personal being,” as a slim majority (52 percent) did.

All of the comments I have seen about these results have attributed the discrepancies to theological confusion on the part of the respondents. Admittedly, this may be a factor or even the main factor. However, I don’t think we should exclude the possibility that the statements were worded in ambiguous or accidentally misleading ways. Continue reading

Posted in Trinity | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Modern Worldviews and the Deity of Christ: A New Series

Worldview Bulletin is an evangelical Christian newsletter available on Substack and by email with over 6,000 subscribers produced by Chris Reese covering philosophy, theology, biblical studies, and apologetics. I have been subscribing for several years. Basic subscriptions are free, but paid subscribers receive exclusive content along with access to the full archive of past articles. The newsletter is endorsed by John Lennox, Michael Licona, Sean McDowell, J. P. Moreland, and Lee Strobel. Recent authors include Paul Copan, Douglas Groothuis, Craig S. Keener, Kenneth Richard Samples, Melissa Cain Travis, and Donald T. Williams. (Have I convinced you to subscribe yet?)

In a few days, the Worldview Bulletin will begin publishing my new six-part series on “Modern Worldviews and the Deity of Christ.” (Maybe you can see what I did there.) Each article can be read in about five to eight minutes. This is largely new material not found in The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, which I co-authored with Ed Komoszewski, although the series discusses six of the approaches to Christology we critique in that book. Here are the titles of my six articles:

  • Part 1: The Materialism of Skeptics and the Supernatural Deity of Christ
  • Part 2: The Mysticism of Progressive Christians and the Unique Deity of Christ
  • Part 3: The Polytheism of Mormonism and the Monotheistic Deity of Christ
  • Part 4: The Finite Theism of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Uncreated Deity of Christ
  • Part 5: The Secondhand Theism of Islam and the Misunderstood Deity of Christ
  • Part 6: The Rationalist Theism of Unitarianism and the Paradoxical Deity of Christ

Here is an excerpt from Part 3:

The difference between LDS theology and traditional Christian theology is not merely that Mormons view the three divine persons as three beings whereas the doctrine of the Trinity views them as one being. LDS theology is situated within an entirely different worldview in which God is not the absolute being to whom everything owes its very existence. Rather, “God” is a status that the three members of the Godhead attained (at different times and in different ways), that others (may have) attained before them, that at least one other being (heavenly Mother) and perhaps others have also attained, and that others—including us!—may attain after them. It is the world of space, time, and matter that is uncreated and truly eternal in its intrinsic nature; the Gods are simply the ultimate advanced beings in the world.

Posted in apologetics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus and Christology, Mormonism, Trinity, Unitarianism | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The State of Theology Survey: What Most American Evangelical Church Members Believe

What do most members of evangelical churches in America believe? As I mentioned in my previous blog post, the Ligonier/Lifeway State of Theology Survey for 2025 defined evangelicals by beliefs as those who strongly agreed with all four of the following statements (using the Survey’s numbering):

  1. The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.
  2. It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.
  3. Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.
  4. Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.

The Survey also provides a second classification of “evangelicals” in which respondents who identified as members or participants in such churches as Assemblies of God, Church of God (Cleveland, TN), Churches of Christ, Evangelical Free Church, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) were classified as evangelicals by affiliation. These are the seven largest evangelical denominations in the United States. I was unable to find a list of the denominations that the Survey actually counted as evangelical, but I would presume the above seven were included. (Since the statisticians who do this sort of thing generally treat the Seventh-day Adventist Church as an evangelical body, the Survey may have done so as well, despite the legitimate concerns that many evangelicals have about classifying them as evangelical.[1] If one counts the SDA Church as evangelical it would be the eighth-largest US evangelical denomination.) There are, of course, some evangelicals in mainline Protestant denominations, but we are looking here at people categorized as evangelical based on their church affiliation. I also count not find any information about how people affiliated with nondenominational churches (most but not all of which are predominantly evangelical) were counted. There are now approaching twice as many people in nondenominational churches as in the Southern Baptist Convention, which is still the largest Protestant denomination in the US. I have written a short book that surveys Christian denominations with information also about nondenominational churches.[2]

With all these qualifications and uncertainties acknowledged, what can we learn from the Survey as to the beliefs commonly held by those affiliates with evangelical churches in America? Below I list the ten statements from the Survey (using its numbering) to which the largest percentages of respondents in evangelical churches strongly agreed, in the order of percentage agreeing. Continue reading

Posted in Trinity | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The State of Theology Survey and the Definition of Evangelicalism

“The trouble with this way of defining evangelical is that it creates both false positives and false negatives.”

 

The most recent State of Theology Survey, produced by Ligonier Ministries (founded by the late R. C. Sproul) and Lifeway Research (a division of Lifeway Christian Resources, an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention), was released in late September 2025. The first of these surveys, which have been done roughly every two years, was released in 2014. There is much to discuss about this survey. In this article I will focus on the issues it raises concerning how we define evangelicalism.

As in past surveys, evangelicals were defined by Lifeway Research as people who strongly agreed with all of the following four statements:

  • The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.
  • It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.
  • Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.
  • Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.

Anyone who disagreed, was unsure, or even only “somewhat agreed” with any of these four statements is classified as not an evangelical by belief, according to this definition. The trouble with this way of defining evangelical is that it creates both false positives and false negatives. Continue reading

Posted in Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Oneness, Trinity, Unitarianism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Christian Reflections on the Passing of Jane Goodall

Jane Goodall (1934-2025), famed for her decades-long study of chimpanzees and for her advocacy of animal rights and environmentalism, passed away on October 1, 2025, at the age of 91. Christians should have no trouble appreciating her legitimate and significant contributions to our knowledge about chimpanzees and other primates. Goodall observed that chimps made and used rudimentary tools (e.g., stripping a twig of leaves and using it to extract insects from a nest) and that they exhibited emotions and sociality. Gaining fuller and more accurate knowledge about the animal kingdom helps us to clarify what we have in common with animals and what makes us truly unique. At the same time, we may be saddened by the fact that Goodall promoted a mystical, more or less pantheistic conception of the world in which the divine is in all things, excluding the reality of a transcendent Creator with whom we need above all to have a loving relationship.

While Goodall made a genuine contribution to our understanding of primates, she interpreted her experiences among the chimpanzees in a way that minimized the uniqueness of human beings in relation to the rest of creation. What makes humans unique is not the use of tools, but the ability to conceptualize tools and to think about the significance of tool-making. We are unique not in having emotions or feelings but in having the capacity to view our feelings from a standpoint outside our experience. Ultimately, these differences arise from our unique status as biological creatures with the capacity to transcend the biological—a capacity that is integral to what the Bible calls the image of God. Our failures to reflect God’s goodness in the world, in our relationships with each other and with other living things, cannot be overcome by getting closer to nature but by getting reconciled to God, which is precisely what Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, came into our world to do for us.

Regrettably, Goodall’s admirably persistent pursuit of nature did not lead her to a similar pursuit of nature’s Creator. While she rejected atheism, she did not consider herself a Christian (or anything else specifically) and was content to believe in an undefined spiritual power in all things. Essentially, her spirituality was akin to the animism illustrated in the 1995 Disney animated film Pocahontas, especially in the song “Colors of the Wind.” Animals and trees all have souls or spirits (apparently no different than ours) and nature itself is alive. We can and should have an attitude of respect and responsible stewardship toward living things without divinizing nature.

Below are a number of resources of relevance to understanding, appreciating, and assessing the thought of Jane Goodall. Some of these resources support her beliefs while others take issue with them. Osborne’s article in the Smithsonian Magazine might be the best place to start. It is important, as always, to understand before we criticize (Prov. 18:13). Continue reading

Posted in apologetics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Data Scientist Analyzes the Book of Mormon. What Could Go Wrong?

“Like many people (not just Mormons), the Bald Coder assumes an oversimplistic, false dichotomy in which comprehensive scientific proof and subjective opinion are the only two options.”

A YouTuber calling himself the Bald Coder (apparently Guarav Agarwal?) has made four videos on the Book of Mormon. His most recent such video, posted September 28, 2025, is entitled “I’m a Data Scientist. I analyzed the ENTIRE Book of Mormon.” He explains that he wanted to come up with objective, quantifiable numbers in regards to three questions: “(1) How much does the Book of Mormon talk about Jesus Christ? (2) How much do the teachings align with the Bible? (3) Does the Book of Mormon bring you closer to God?” Oddly, his data analysis ignores the second and third question (though he does say something about the third question at the very end). The Bald Coder also says he compares the Book of Mormon to the Bible using the same metrics to determine how “Christ-centered” each of those two scriptures are. The analysis for the first question is based on direct mentions of Jesus, references to his teachings, atonement, or resurrection, emphasis on Christian doctrines and principles, and focus on Christ’s role in salvation.

In addition to those three “religious” questions, he asks for the benefit of the “non-religious” whether the book is “ethical” or “moral” in what it says. This question is pursued based on whether the text promotes virtues (compassion, honesty, etc.), condemns vices (greed, violence, etc.), encourages ethical behavior, communicates messages about justice and mercy, and promotes treating others with respect and kindness. For both the “religious” and the “non-religious” questions his analysis will lead to a score between 1 and 10.

After running the numbers, the Bald Coder announces the result. The Book of Mormon has a mean score of 7.89 out of 10 for being Christ-centered, while the Bible’s mean score in this metric is only 5.11. The Book of Mormon’s mean “moral score” is 9.03 while the Bible’s mean moral score is 8.24. Continue reading

Posted in apologetics, Mormonism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Did Paul Merely Try to Persecute Christians? A Response to Robyn Faith Walsh’s Second Argument

In a follow-up video to her earlier video arguing that Paul did not persecute Christians, which I discussed in my previous blog post, Robyn Walsh offers another argument in defense of her claim. In this video, she reports that two classicists had told her that the two verbs used in Galatians 1:13 in reference to Paul’s pre-Christian treatment of Christians were “conative” imperfects, meaning that Paul had tried to persecute and destroy the church but hadn’t actually persecuted it. I’ll quote her at length to make sure I’m representing her claim accurately:

Right away, both of these classicists said to me, “These are conative imperfects.” The verbs, they’re imperfect, and they’re conative. C-O-N-A-T-I-V-E. And what this means is they’re sort of conditional or indicate an action that wasn’t fulfilled, that wasn’t completed. So when Paul “ravaged” it, the reason this is incorrect is that it’s a conative imperfect—that it means he tried to do it, but he didn’t. I’ve been looking into why New Testament translations and commentaries—and this is, I’m just beginning this exploration—I’m feeling an article coming on! But I think there’s such a commitment to this idea of the violent persecution on the part of Paul in something like Galatians 1:13 that people are ignoring the purpose of the conative imperfect, that they are not including that kind of unfulfilled aspect of what that verb is trying to convey, and they are just running with this idea that he’s, you know, committing all these acts, violent acts, and in an extreme way, and I’m just not sure that that’s the case. (3:36–4:46)

Since Walsh claims that New Testament translations have ignored the conative use of the imperfect in Galatians 1:13, you would assume that she actually surveyed a number of such versions. It seems that she did not. Indeed, the one—yes, just one—English version she mentioned, the NRSV, does not say what she claims it says. Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Did Paul Persecute Christians? A Response to Robyn Faith Walsh

I can’t stand it. I just can’t stand it when scholars play fast and loose with the facts.

On Bart Ehrman’s YouTube channel earlier today, Robyn Faith Walsh asked, “Did Paul Really Persecute Christians?” In less than seven minutes, she offered her “interpretation” on the matter, which is that Paul did not persecute Christians, but rather “pursued” them in an effort to correct their bad teaching. Ten hours later, the video had already garnered over four thousand views. Walsh gave two main arguments in support of her interpretation, both of which I will address here. I will cite the video in (approximate) minutes and seconds in parentheses.

Acts: An Unhistorical Second-Century Work?

First, Walsh dismisses the account in Acts as unhistorical. According to Walsh, Acts was probably written in the second century—perhaps late in the second century—and cannot be trusted as a source of historical information. “It is a later text, second century, scholarship tends to believe, maybe a little bit even later into the second century and definitely looking to establish Paul as a real founding figure of early Christianity many decades after his lifetime” (1:11–20).

The fact is that scholars have dated Acts anywhere from the 60s to sometime in the second century, and if we are just asking what “scholarship tends to believe” (which calls for some sort of generalization as to what view dominates the academic field) the answer is that the second-century position has by far the least advocates. Continue reading

Posted in Biblical Studies | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Is It Wrong to Say that Christ Is Fully God and Fully Man?

Posts are showing up on Facebook arguing that it is theologically incorrect to affirm that the incarnate Christ is “fully God and fully man.” Supposedly, these expressions should be avoided in favor of the creedal wording “truly God” and “truly man.” One individual claimed that “the orthodox” have rejected the description “fully” in this context. (I’ll just comment right here that there is zero support for this claim.) Another claimed that these expressions “misrepresent” orthodox Christianity, even asserting that the only correct word to use in this context is the word “truly.” A common complaint is that “fully” is at best “sloppy” and is at least potentially heretical. The basic argument against the word “fully” is that it supposedly leads to or implies the contradictory position that Jesus is only God and that he is only man, rather than both God and man.

The source for this line of criticism is an offhand comment made by the late R. C. Sproul in response to John MacArthur in a panel discussion at Ligonier’s 2017 National Conference. When MacArthur affirmed that Jesus was (and is) “fully God, fully man,” Sproul replied:

Well, I prefer “truly God and truly man,” because it can be confused. And when you say that Jesus was fully God and fully man, if you mean by that, that that one person was absolutely, totally God, and that’s all, then you’d be denying his humanity. Or if you say He was fully man, then there’s no room for his deity. That’s why we like to say vere homo, vere Deus: “Truly God, truly man.”[1]

I’d like to point out that Sproul expressed his point in far more modest language than is being used by those who are using his argument on social media to impugn the theological soundness of other Christians. Sproul began by saying “I prefer” and concluded by saying “we like to say.” He never suggested that MacArthur was sloppy, espousing a contradictory Christology, misrepresenting orthodox Christianity, or teaching something potentially heretical. Sproul merely asserted that he preferred the wording using “truly” because he thought it avoided a possible confusion. Agree or disagree with Sproul, he made his point in a fair-minded and humble fashion in a polite exchange with a friend.

That having been said, I have several points to make in response to the argument that it is in any way problematic to speak of the incarnate Christ as “fully” God and man.

It’s no less confusing to say “truly” than “fully.”

Continue reading

Posted in Jesus and Christology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

“Temple of Solomon” and Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon: A Response to Robert Boylan (re-post)

Note: This post originally appeared on October 1, 2016, on IRR’s Religious Researcher blog, which no longer exists (in that form).

Solomon Dedicates the Temple at Jerusalem (Tissot, ca. 1896)

In a recent online article, I explained that the expression temple of Solomon (using the prepositional phrase of Solomon instead of the possessive form Solomon’s) is not, as LDS scholar Donald Parry had claimed, evidence of an ancient Hebraic original text underlying the Book of Mormon and in fact is evidence against that claim. In that article, I pointed out that the Book of Mormon also uses the more idiomatic English expression Solomon’s temple (in the same verse, 2 Ne. 5:16). I also argued that either expression is both chronologically and culturally anachronistic. At the time Nephi would have been speaking, the temple in Jerusalem would have been the only Jewish temple known to him, and its replacement by a second temple would not have been begun until after his death. More significant still, ancient Israelites and other people in their culture named a temple for the deity to whom it was dedicated (temple of Yahweh, temple of Dagon, temple of Diana, temple of Hercules, etc.), never for its mortal builder. I cited hundreds of texts in support of this point, mostly from the OT, but also from the NT and other ancient Jewish literature. I also discussed one apparent “exception,” where a Hellenistic Jewish author used the expression temple of Solomon in Greek (not Hebrew!) in order to manufacture a contrived etymology of the name of the city Jerusalem.[1]

A Highly Selective Critique

Earlier today Robert Boylan, who has posted a fairly large number of pieces criticizing my articles on his blog, posted an attack on IRR’s recently announced renovation of the Book of Mormon section of its website.[2] The only article that Boylan mentioned specifically was the article on the expression temple of Solomon. Only one paragraph of 188 words, out of the 955 words of Boylan’s whole article, actually discusses the subject of that expression. Boylan devoted somewhat more of his article (210 words) to another alleged Hebraism in the Book of Mormon (garb of secrecy in Helaman 9:6). For the sake of focus, in this article I will respond only to Boylan’s comments about temple of Solomon, including comments made in an update to the article. If time permits, I will respond to some of his other comments separately.

Boylan’s first assertion is unexplained: “When read carefully, the author’s “arguments” dies the death of a thousand qualifications.” He repeats this claim at the end of his article, again with no examples or specifics. Since he offers no examples of these supposed mortal qualifications, not much can be said in response. In scholarship it is always desirable to acknowledge possible or alleged counterexamples or contrary evidence that might seem to count against one’s conclusion. Somehow Boylan thinks he can claim that such carefulness disqualifies the whole argument. As noted above, in my own research on this subject I was able to find just one apparent counterexample to one of the points I made, and I addressed it. This one alleged counterexample falls 999 qualifications short of Boylan’s alleged thousand qualifications![3]

Boylan completely ignores the first part of my article, in which I explained that Parry’s argument for temple of Solomon as a literal translation of an ancient Hebraism is invalid because the very same verse uses the expression Solomon’s temple. Thus, so far as Boylan’s critique goes, this point remains completely unchallenged. Even if temple of Solomon is not un-Hebraic, as I argued in the second part of my article, it is not evidence of a Hebraic original, as Parry claimed.

Were Ancient Near Eastern Temples Named for Their Builders?

As mentioned above, my second point was that in the cultural world of ancient Israelites temples were named for the deity to whom they were dedicated (temple of Yahweh, temple of Dagon, etc.), never for their mortal builder. Boylan asserts that “this is an easy ‘argument’ to respond to.” The use of the quotation marks around the word argument (the second occurrence in the space of three sentences in Boylan’s article, with a third occurrence later in the same article) is rhetorical gamesmanship, impugning the argument before critiquing it by insinuating that it does not even rise to the level of something that could fairly be described as an argument. This show of disrespect reflects Boylan’s general disdain for evangelicals, especially evangelicals critical of Mormonism (and is plainly expressed in the rest of his article).[4]

Let us now look at Boylan’s attempt to debunk my argument. He writes:

On the use of “Temple of Solomon” vs. Temple of YHWH/Temple of <<cult deity>> would be due to the fact that there were, among the Nephites, other temples of YHWH. Temple of Solomon would be a valid locution to distinguish the Old World temple from that of the New World temples (which were distinguished from one another from their location such as the temple at Zarehemla [Mosiah 1:18] and temple at Bountiful [3 Nephi 11:1]).

Here are the two texts that Boylan cites:

  • “…and proclaimed unto all the people who were in the land of Zarahemla that thereby they might gather themselves together, to go up to the temple to hear the words which his father should speak unto them” (Mosiah 1:18).
  • “And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful…” (3 Ne. 11:1).

It is quite true that 3 Nephi 11:1 refers to a temple by its location, using the expression which was in the land Bountiful. (Mosiah 1:18 does not do this; it happens to mention “the land of Zarahemla” but not in order to distinguish one temple from another.) This would have been a perfectly acceptable way to distinguish one temple from another in the ancient Hellenistic and Middle Eastern world. (Not everything in the Book of Mormon is a mistake!) On the other hand, one searches the Book of Mormon in vain for such expressions as temple of Nephi (for example). In fact, 2 Nephi 5:16 is the only text in the Book of Mormon that uses any expression with the words temple of (Mosiah 11:10, “the walls of the temple, of fine wood, and of copper, and of brass” obviously is not an exception). Thus, it does not appear to be correct that the Book of Mormon authors referred to temples by the name of their builders in order to distinguish one Nephite temple from another. Instead, where any attempt to distinguish one Nephite temple from another is made, this is done by referring to its location, as Boylan himself says—not to its builder. Therefore, this statement in 3 Nephi 11:1 does nothing to undermine the point I made in my article.

The statement in 2 Nephi 5:16 does use the words of Solomon in order to distinguish the Jerusalem temple from the temple that Nephi and his people built. That is precisely the problem. My point was that an ancient Israelite who wished to refer to a different temple and compare or contrast it to the one that Solomon had built would not refer to the latter as “the temple of Solomon.” This point cannot be answered merely by asserting that Nephi did so. Unfortunately, Boylan’s attempt to refute my argument fails because he has misconstrued the argument. He writes:

Among other things is the claim that the Book of Mormon should have used “Temple of Yahweh” or a similar locution…. If the temples were simply designated as “temple of the Lord” or a similar locution, how could Nephi distinguish the Old World temple from those in the New World?

I did not “claim that the Book of Mormon should have used ‘Temple of Yahweh’ or a similar locution.” The Book of Mormon need not have used that specific expression at 2 Nephi 5:16. What I claimed is that an ancient Israelite text would not have used an expression such as temple of Solomon. Boylan’s criticism here proceeds from a basic misrepresentation of my argument.

Boylan’s Update: Doubling Down

In an update to his blog post, Boylan quotes the above sentence and then claims that I was “being disingenuous again.” He attempts to support this accusation by quoting from my original article. Let’s do that here as well:

In ancient speech, Israelites would not have referred to their first temple in Jerusalem as “the temple of Solomon” because a temple was named for its deity, not for its mortal builder. The point can be easily confirmed in regards to the biblical practice even from the KJV. The temple in Jerusalem is called the temple of the Lord (23 times in the OT and once in the NT) and the temple of God (10 times in the NT), but never the temple of Solomon. Similarly, a Canaanite temple was called “the temple of Dagon” (1 Chron. 10:10), because it was dedicated to the worship of Dagon. A temple in first-century Ephesus was likewise called “the temple of the great goddess Diana” (Acts 19:27). Paul refers to the human body of a Christian as “the temple of the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 6:19 KJV). No personal name or title is ever used in this construction in the Bible, in any ancient language.

Boylan gives no explanation as to why the above quoted statement conflicts with what I said above in my response to him. In the above quotation from my article, I did not say that Nephi should have used the expression temple of Yahweh (or temple of the Lord, or any equivalent). What I said is that no ancient Israelite would have referred to it as “the temple of Solomon” because temples were named for their deities, not for their mortal builders. Please note that the following two statements are not synonymous:

  • Nephi would not have used the expression temple of Solomon.
  • Nephi should have used the expression temple of Yahweh.

Perhaps Boylan mistakenly inferred the second statement from my emphasis on the fact that biblical writers so often used the expression temple of Yahweh or temple of God. But again, this did not mean that I was claiming that Israelites always used that expression when referring to the temple in Jerusalem. That is, the following two statements are also not synonymous:

  • Israelites commonly used the expressions temple of Yahweh, temple of God, and the like.
  • Nephi should have used the expression temple of Yahweh or the like.

Now let’s get to the point. Boylan asked, “If the temples were simply designated as ‘temple of the Lord’ or a similar locution, how could Nephi distinguish the Old World temple from those in the New World?” As I have just stated and explained (at more length than should have been necessary), Nephi was under no obligation to use the expression temple of the Lord or any similar wording. If he had wanted to refer to the two temples in a way that clearly distinguished them, he had several options. He could have referred to the first temple as “the temple that was in Jerusalem” (Ezra 5:14 KJV, see also 5:15; 6:5), an example given in my article. He could have called it “the temple that Solomon built” or “the temple in Jerusalem” (cf. 1 Chron. 6:10, “the house [i.e., temple] that Solomon built in Jerusalem”), or “the temple at Jerusalem” (Ps. 68:29; cf. Dan. 5:3). He could have used wording similar to what is in 3 Nephi 11:1, such as “the temple that was in the land of Judah.” He could even have combined expressions, saying, for example, “the temple of the Lord that was in Jerusalem.” Thus, Nephi could easily have distinguished the two temples in various ways; he did not need the expression temple of Solomon to do so.

Boylan concludes his remarks on this issue as follows:

So, not only does the article often die the death of a thousand qualifications, it shows the author lacks critical thinking and intellectual honesty.

This is another example of Boylan’s unfortunate penchant for engaging in character assassination. In this instance the full extent of his attempted justification for this accusation is his claim to have identified a difficulty or objection to my argument (or “argument,” with scare quotes). Let us assume for the sake of discussion just for a moment that his objection was a good one. In that case, would he have established that his opponent lacked critical thinking or intellectual honesty? Hardly. Boylan’s comment here not only presupposes that he is correct, it also presupposes a false dichotomy: One is either correct in one’s opinion or one is intellectually dishonest. These are not the only options. Intellectually honest people with good critical thinking skills nevertheless can and do make mistakes.[5]

In this instance, I remain unconvinced by Boylan’s objections. I am satisfied that the argument I presented stands and hope that fair-minded Mormons will give it fair consideration.

 

NOTES

[1] Robert M. Bowman Jr., “‘Temple of Solomon’: Two Problems for a Hebraic Book of Mormon” (Institute for Religious Research, 2016).

[2] Robert Boylan, “‘Temple of Solomon’ and the Book of Mormon,” Scriptural Mormonism, 1 Oct. 2016.

[3] In an update to his blog post discussed here, Boylan claims to identify a second “qualification” in my original article on the subject: “When it comes to possible exceptions (e.g., the temple at Arad and other issues), Bowman has to qualify his arguments (and it is more than once). My point stands.” But the temple at Arad is not a qualification to my argument at all. My claim was that in Nephi’s time there was only one Israelite temple dedicated to Yahweh. The temple at Arad, I explained, was not an exception: “Archaeologists have discovered remains of an Israelite temple in Arad in the south part of Israel (not far from Beersheba), but this temple was destroyed sometime in the late eighth or seventh century BC, most likely before Nephi would have been born.” This statement does not undermine my argument one iota; it anticipates and refutes an objection I thought some Mormons might try to make.

[4] In his update, Boylan quotes my conclusion about his show of disrespect without quoting or mentioning what it was in his article I found disrespectful.

[5] In his update, Boylan attempts to deflect my objection to his personal attack on my honesty by saying, “Readers should pursue James McGrath’s post Trinitarians without Colons to see just one example of how Bowman has abused/misrepresented theological opponents (this time, James McGrath via Dave Burke, a Christadelphian apologist Bowman debated in 2010 on the Trinity). It is not a character assassination if the charges are true.” But McGrath does not claim anywhere in that post that I abused Burke or him, nor does he claim that I misrepresented either of them. McGrath and I strongly disagree theologically, but neither of us attacks the other in the way that Boylan has been doing.

Posted in Mormonism | Tagged , | Leave a comment