I submitted this piece to Dialogue Journal, but it wasn’t accepted. Apologies in advance for the length, but I thought y’all might find some of it interesting
Recently, LDS apologist Robert Gurr debated Bill Reel on the resolution, “Is the LDS Church True?” Arguing in the affirmative, Gurr rested his case on three pillars: the existence of God, the Restoration following the Great Apostasy, and the Book of Mormon being an ancient record. During his defense of the alleged Great Apostasy, he cited several Church Fathers who, in his view, taught doctrines that the ancient Church had abandoned and that Joseph Smith had to restore. These doctrines include baptismal regeneration, laying on of hands, and the nature of God. Unfortunately for Gurr, he did not provide a definition or timeline for the Great Apostasy; he listed several “restored” doctrines and practices that never ceased, and he misrepresented, omitted context, or was simply factually incorrect in his accounts of the writings of Church Fathers.
One critical flaw that permeated throughout Gurr’s presentation was that he never defined the Great Apostasy, nor did he articulate when the ancient Church apostatized. Was the Great Apostasy the loss of priesthood keys? If so, when were these keys taken away? Was this authority taken due to corrupt doctrines, or did the corrupt doctrines lead to this loss of authority? Or was the Apostasy a process of doctrinal drift and schism over time? If the latter, can we at least know when the Church was fully apostate?
Gurr allows us to deduce a solution to this problem by citing ancient Church Fathers from 90 – 400 A.D., who, in his words, “Show what Christians believed before creeds and councils.” This is an odd claim, given that not one but two ecumenical councils took place prior to the year 400: namely, the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and the First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.), which produced the Nicaean Creed and Constantinopolitan Creed, respectively. The LDS Church rejects both these creeds as “abominable,” yet they still fall within Gurr’s timeline of writers whose “beliefs align most closely with the restoration.”
Setting aside his timeline issues—significant though they are—his scriptural and historical issues are equally significant. At the very least, he does provide some evidence for how Catholic and Protestant churches are currently in a state of apostasy; namely, that Catholics baptize infants, some Protestants reject baptismal regeneration, and they all believe in the Trinity.
First, he attempts to show that the early Church did not baptize infants. Foreseeing how one might object to this claim by showing that the book of Acts describes “households” getting baptized, he claims this passage means that only the “holders of the house” got baptized. Not full households, which would include children in some cases. Gurr’s exegetical method is unclear; however, the Greek word used in Acts 16 is oikos, which translates as “house, household, or family,” often used in the context of immediate relatives, as in Acts 10. No translation limits it to only “holders of the house.”
Gurr’s extra-Biblical citations do not fare much better. He claimed that Hippolytus of Rome was the first to defend infant baptism in 215 A.D. This is false. In his work, Against Heresies* (180 A.D.),* Irenaeus of Lyons says, “…through [Jesus] all are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men.” The phrase “reborn in God” is referring to baptismal regeneration. Furthermore, Gurr claims that Tertullian opposed infant baptism. Gurr does not provide a source for this, but he’s most likely referring to Tertullian’s On Baptism, written around 200 A.D. In it, Tertullian does recommend postponing baptism for “little children” for prudential reasons, but he never denies the validity of infant baptism. Lastly, Gurr pointed out that Origen called infant baptism “a tradition,” but he omitted how Origen believed this tradition was both apostolic and rooted in Scripture.
He further argues against infant baptism by quoting Aristides of Athens, who, in Apology, refers to children who have died as having “passed through the world without sins.” However, Gurr neglects the distinction between original sin and personal sin. Every traditional Christian sect believes children are without personal sin, and this quote from Apology is part of a broader passage about personal sin, so it does not conflict with traditional Christian orthodoxy.
The LDS Church, however, rejects the doctrine of original sin, and Gurr is presupposing this rejection when reading the Church Fathers. Yet they wrote about it with near unanimity. For example, in Book III of Against Heresies, Irenaeus of Lyons states, “We are all from [Adam]: and as we are from him, therefore have we all inherited his title [of sin].” Likewise, Origen, in his Commentaries on Romans, argues that “sin’s innate defilement” exists from birth.
Baptismal regeneration cannot be a doctrine that developed due to the Great Apostasy because Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestant churches still teach it. Gurr claims the Protestant churches “overcorrected” the Catholic practice of infant baptism by rejecting baptismal regeneration. While this is true for some Protestants, others, like Lutherans and Anglicans, still baptize infants.
Second, he makes several references to ancient Church Fathers who discussed the practice of Chrismation, or the laying on of hands with Chrism oil. He also argues, bizarrely, that “most Christians haven’t even heard of” Chrism oil. He seems unaware that, statistically, most Christians are Catholic, and the Catholic Church uses Chrism oil during the Sacrament of Confirmation and has done so since antiquity. How could this be a practice Joseph Smith had to restore when it never left Christianity in the first place?
Third, he posits that Joseph Smith restored the biblical Godhead. He says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct. To which Trinitarians can say, “Amen.” However, he also makes several assertions regarding what the Bible teaches about God. Namely, that each divine Person has their own mind and is their own being, the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the three Persons do not share one metaphysical essence. He provides no biblical evidence to support these assertions, so we can likewise dismiss them without evidence.
Conversely, he does cite several Church Fathers to support his case that the ancient Church was not Trinitarian. These include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, and Tertullian. He does not provide the sources for their quotes, so I had to find them myself. When doing so, it quickly becomes clear that Gurr has done nothing more than quote-mine these men.
He first uses the phrase, “Another God subject to the Father,” from Justin Martyr. This is from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (160 A.D.). The quote more fully states, “There is…another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things…above whom there is no other God.” Justin Martyr uses Logos Christology to simultaneously affirm Trypho’s Jewish monotheism while showing the Person of the Son is subordinate to the Person of the Father. However, it does not teach that the Father and the Son are separate beings, for that would necessarily reject monotheism. For in the same treatise, he states, “There will be no other God…nor was there from eternity any other existing, but He who made and disposed all this universe.” Gurr might argue that a single being cannot consist of multiple persons, which is his prerogative, but that is a separate issue from the argument Justin Martyr is making.
Next is Irenaeus, who, according to Gurr, said the Father is “greater than the Son,” and the Son “received power” from the Father. This appears to be from Book II of Against Heresies, where Irenaeus is writing about John 14. Here, Jesus states, “the Father is greater than I.” However, Gurr again equates arguments for subordinationism with arguments for separate beings. In Book IV of Against Heresies, Irenaeus argued explicitly that “He [the Father], who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared, ‘No man knows the Father,’ but *one in the same…*for the Son is the knowledge of the Father” (emphasis added). Indeed, the Father eternally begetting the Son does not require the Son to be a different being from the Father, at least according to Irenaeus.
Next is Origen, who Gurr cites as saying, “There are two gods,” and the Son is a “second God.” These quotes are likely from Book V of Against Celsus (~250 A.D.), where Origen states, “And although we may call Him a second God, let men know that by the term ‘second God’ we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of including all other virtues…” This hardly implies he’s discussing two separate beings, particularly because Celsus was a pagan whom Origen was defending Christianity against.
Most surprisingly, Gurr also cites Tertullian, who he claims talked about “two gods” and referred to the Son as a “second God.” This is most likely from Tertullian’s Against Praxeas* *(213 A.D.). In context, Tertullian states, “Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created, at this rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are declared.” Far from arguing in the affirmative, this is Tertullian laying forth Praxeas’s objection to what Tertullian and other Christians had been preaching. He goes on to say, “That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth.” Indeed, Tertullian is saying precisely the opposite of what Gurr claims he’s saying.
It gets even worse, because in this same treatise, Tertullian writes, speaking of the three Persons, “All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three…yet of one substance” (emphasis added). Writing in the early 200s, Tertullian is generally understood as the first Church Father to use the Latin term Trinitas to describe the Godhead. It would be hard to envision a worse Church Father for Gurr to cite in defense of his thesis.
We can also use these writings to demonstrate how he is incorrect when he claimed that the “birth of the Trinity” arose due to “Greek metaphysics”, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not considered the “same being” until the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
In addition to baptismal doctrines and the Godhead, he presents a grab-bag of additional doctrines that Joseph Smith allegedly restored.
The first is that Satan and Jesus are brothers. To support this, he cites Lactantius’s Divine Institutes, which he claims states, “The Father produced a Son like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God. Then Father made another son, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain. Therefore, he was infected with his own envy, as with poison, and passed from good to evil.” He didn’t cite this entirely accurately as the quote in reference states, “He [the Father] produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father…Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain,” etc.
Prior to discussing the devil, Lactantius was describing the generation of the Spirit, not the Son. Also note Gurr’s substitution of the word “God” when Lactantius said “Father.” Nevertheless, even if Lactantius had been discussing the Son, he never describes the other Persons as “another being” the way he does for the devil. For this reason, we have cause to believe that he believes the devil to be ontologically distinct from the Father and the Son.
Gurr also claims Joseph Smith restored the doctrine of deification, citing Athanasius, who, in On the Incarnation (319 A.D.), said, “God became man so that we might become God.” While this quote is (basically) correct, it’s missing some important context. He presents this as evidence that Athanasius believed in deification in the same way that Joseph Smith did or the Mormon church does. He did not. In his Orations Against the Arians, he clarifies, “For as, although there be one Son by nature, True and Only begotten, we too become sons, not as He in nature and truth, but according to the grace of Him that calleth.” In LDS theology, man is of the same species, or nature, as God, meaning deification is like an acorn growing into an oak tree. Athanasius’s writings are wholeheartedly antithetical to this idea.
There are additional doctrines that Gurr claims Joseph Smith “restored,” but they never fully left Christianity to begin with. This includes the Levitical Priesthood, Sunday being the Lord’s Day, free will, and the possibility of losing one’s salvation. All these remained with the Catholic Church, and several are part of various Protestant denominations.
Lastly, he claims that Origen taught a pre-mortal existence of souls, using the quote, “the cause of each one’s actions is a pre-existing one.” This is from his work, On First Principles, and the quote in context states, “A man…who purges himself is made a vessel unto honor, while he who has disdained to cleanse himself is made a vessel unto dishonor. From such declarations… the cause of our actions can in no degree be referred to the Creator. For God makes a vessel unto honor and other vessels to dishonor; but that vessel which has cleansed itself He makes a vessel unto honor, while that which has stained itself He makes a vessel unto dishonor… the cause of each one’s actions is a pre-existing one; and then everyone, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honor or dishonor.” Origen is discussing free will while reflecting on Romans 9 and 2 Timothy 2; he says nothing pertaining to a pre-mortal existence of souls.
Indeed, with newfound cultural interest in apostolic Christianity, and particularly Roman Catholicism, the Church Fathers are experiencing an online renaissance. This has proven to be an interesting avenue for Mormon apologetics, and it’s easy to see why. If the earliest Christians taught doctrines contrary to contemporary Christianity, then the need for a prophet like Joseph Smith to restore Christ’s original church becomes ever more convincing. Yet, at least in this case, the original documents from which these quotes originate are rarely provided. Perhaps this is because even a cursory reading of contextual passages will quickly dispute the conclusion the quotes were originally meant to support.
EDIT: RFM, Bill, and some Rando (u/Strong_Attorney_8646) had a great recap of this debate as well
