Just today, I came across this document issued by Jason Wallace of Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City. The document can be read here on facebook [update: link is no longer working; click here for an alternative location]. The document is just a listing of the many common theological, scriptural, and historical issues LDS apologists have answered time and time again (would have been nice for Wallace to have interacted with LDS scholarship and apologetics which he knows is out there . . . )
Here are some brief comments on three of the theses. I have discussed these issues (e.g. the biblical basis for baptismal regeneration) elsewhere on this blog, and other issues Wallace raised (e.g. Num 23:19 and the “God is not a man” canard). Wallace’s comments will be in red. My responses will be in black.
37. You equate regeneration and the new birth with water baptism and ignore the need for a new heart and new life.
Actually, Latter-day Saints do emphasise the need for a new heart and life (see Alma 5 in the Book of Mormon). Wallace, and many within the Reformed Protestant community, are the ones in the unenviable position of having to hold to a view of baptism that is not only antithetical to the unanimous consent of the patristic authors (admitted by other Reformed apologists, such as William Webster on pp.95-96 of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History), but the explicit teaching of the biblical texts (e.g., Acts 2:38; 1 Pet 3:21; John 3:3-5; Tit 3:5). The mental gymnastics proponents of the “purely symbolic” view of baptism is one of many disproves of the Calvinist claim to believe in the perspicuity of Scripture.
38. You make salvation a matter of grace, only after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23) and ignore that even our best works are only “filthy rags.” (Isaiah 64:6)
This highlights the problem of the Protestant hermeneutic vis-à-vis justification. Isa 64:6 is not speaking of the “normative” condition of man and one’s works; instead, it is speaking of the works of a people who have fallen in idolatry when one reads the context of Isaiah! If one bothers to read the previous verse (talk about Scripture-wrenching! [emphasis added]):
Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth: for we have sinned: in those is continuance and we shall be saved.
Isa 64:5 speaks of people being able to do righteous works that is pleasing before God. Wallace is forced into pure deception in this “argument.”
One of the most potent examples of a person doing righteous deeds with is pleasing in the eyes of God can be seen in Num 25 and Phinehas and his reaction to seeing an Israelite take a Midianite woman into his text (probably to engage in idolatrous sexual activity):
And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses , and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand. And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel . . . And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy: Wherefore say, Behold, I have unto him my covenant of peace. And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God and made and atonement for the children of Israel. (Num 25:5-8, 10-14)
This rather potent pericope should be read in light of Psa 106:30-31, where the psalmist, recounting this event, says that God credited righteousness to Phinehas, making him only the second person in the entirety of the Old Testament that this is said of. The first was Abraham in Gen 15:6 on account of his faith, while this is said of Phinehas due to his meritorious good works, showing the synergy of faith and works in soteriology as understood by biblical authors.
On 2 Nephi 25:23, I would suggest reading James Stutz's cogent analysis of this text found here.
40. You ignore that we are not merely sick, but dead in our sins. The things of God are foolishness to us and cannot be understood. The gospel is not about God helping good people save themselves, but raising the spiritually dead to life and justifying the ungodly.
Wallace and other Reformed apologists only show their inabilities at biblical exegesis. The term “dead” in Eph 2 and parallel texts is a metaphor. Trying to forge a doctrine from metaphors is precarious at best; eisegesis at worse. The term “dead” in Eph 2:1-5 is to be understood as a metaphor signifying one is outside the salvation of God and under judgement; it does not mean the Reformed doctrine of “Total Depravity” (the “T” in TULIP). The prodigal son is also called “dead” in Luke 15:24, 32 but we know from the parable that the prodigal son willed that he would return to his father (again, showing the synergism of the biblical authors—here, the working together of the will of the prodigal and his father—see vv. 18-23; it also shows that the son had some "natural" ability, contrary to Total Depravity). However, if I were to attempt to “prove” a doctrinal point from a parable as Wallace et al. are forced to from a metaphor, one would be engaging in very questionable biblical interpretation.
That the biblical authors did not believe in “total depravity” can be seen in many places. One potent example is the case of Cornelius, a Roman Centurion and “God-fearer” (a Gentile who associated with the synagogue). Listen to the descriptions of him before his conversion and entrance into the New Covenant:
A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave alms to the people and prayed to God always. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was fraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. (Acts 10:2-4)
In the above pericope, Cornelius’ devotion, alms, and prayers were received by God, not as dirty rags (or “menstrual garments” per the underlying Hebrew of Isa 64:6), but as a “memorial.” The Greek term used is μνημόσυνον. This is a technical term in the LXX, often used in the sense of a memorial sacrifice or a placard used to perpetuate memory of a person or an event (in the Torah alone, see Exo 3:15; 12:14; 13:9; 17;14; 28:12, 29; 30:16; Lev 2:2, 9, 16; 5:12; 6:8; 23:24; Num 5:26; 17:5; 31:54; Deut 32:26). If any group can hold claim to being “biblical Christianity,” at least on this particular issue, it is the LDS Church, not the Reformed/Presbyterian theology expounded by Jason Wallace et al.